EMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ^ us, 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 U IIIIII.6 
 
 6" 
 
 y} 
 
 <^ 
 
 /} 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 >m 
 
 :5> > 
 
 V 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 
 .^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 4? 
 
 \ 
 
 <v 
 
 '^\\ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^^^^ . -^ ^ 
 
 
 ^1>^ 
 
i^ MP. 
 
 w- 
 
 I 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Instituf* for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiqua* 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy avail; )le for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may altar any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Las d6tails 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g6ographiques en cculeur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 Blank leaves adds'd during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from fiiming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors dune rnstauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages r 'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 n Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 □ Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du matdriel supplementaire 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 □ This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de rdduction indiqu6 ci-dessous 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 \ 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
ails 
 
 du 
 
 difier 
 
 jne 
 
 lage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Victoria University Library Toronto 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded franie on eacK microfiche 
 shall contain thit symbol — ^ (maaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V Ime-ining "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 bagir^ning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire ii\vn6 fut ireproduit grAce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Victoria University Library Toronto 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de I'exempiaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commengant 
 par le premier plat et on terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartos, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 6tre 
 film6s d des taux de ' eduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Stre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 errata 
 to 
 
 I pelure, 
 on d 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
 6 
 
INDUCTIVE STUDIES IN 
 
 THEOLOGY 
 
 INCLUDING THE 
 
 DOCTRINES OF SIN AND THE 
 
 ATONEMENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 N. BURWASH, S.T.D., LL.D., 
 
 Victoria University, Toronto. 
 
 TORONTO: 
 
 WILLIAM BRIGGS, WESLEY r,[JILDINGS. 
 
 C. W. COATES, MONTRBAL, QuK. S. F. H JESTIS, Halifax, N.S. 
 
 1896. 
 
CUQ, 1 
 
 [MMANUa 
 
 
' PREFACE. 
 
 The following? pages were originally papers read 
 before conferences of clergymen met for theological 
 discussion. They are in part printed as originally 
 read, and in part have been enlarged and revised as 
 class lectures for my Divinity students. The method 
 which I have endeavored to follow, and which I have 
 ventured to call inductive, may require explanation. 
 I have regarded tl sology as concerned with the doc- 
 trine of Christianity as formulated intellectually by 
 the reason of the Christian Church. Such doctrine in 
 every age has arisen from the religious consciousness 
 or spiritual life of the Church. A fervid and even 
 rich spiritual life may exist without scientific formu- 
 lation of the principles it involves, just as,a tree may 
 grow, nay, must grow before the science of botany 
 can be constructed. All theology, therefore, has its 
 origin in the spiritual life or Christian consciousness, 
 and is in fact the observation, definition and logical 
 concatenation of the facts of that consciousness as it 
 stands related to God and His will as revealed to 
 man. But this spiritual life, out of which the the- 
 ology of the Church has taken shape, has itself taken 
 
II 
 
 IV 
 
 PREFAC] 
 
 both its form and content from the revelation of God 
 made in Jesus Christ, and originally manifest as spirit 
 and life in His apostles and prophets, as well as in 
 the Church from Pentecost onwards. This, the typical 
 and perfect spiritual life set before us in the New 
 Testament, and in a preparatory and more elementary 
 form in the Old Testament, is the true foundation of 
 theology, the true material which it shapes into theo- 
 logical science. We can use this material, it is true, 
 only as we apprehend it by the teaching of the Spirit 
 as a part of our own spiritual life. But the man who 
 rests in the contents of his own spiritual life, or even 
 in the contents of the spiritual life of the entire 
 Church in any one age, and who then fails to go to 
 the fountain-head, the normal type of the age of 
 inspiration, is certain to find his theology defective. 
 JNo man has embodied the whole truth of the revela- 
 jtion of God given in Jesus Christ in his single 
 Spiritual life. Even in the New Testament itself, a 
 Peter, a Paul, and a John supplement each other to 
 give us the fulness of Christian truth. We have, 
 therefore, used the Spirit within as the interpreter, 
 but always as the interpreter of the written Word. 
 Our method then has been to seek out by the light of 
 the Spirit from the Word the facts or elements of 
 truth from which to build our science. Upon these 
 materials our science has wrought, endeavoring first, 
 to define them, and then so to combine them as to 
 enable our reason to grasp something of the full-orbed 
 body of truth. 
 
 li 
 
^ 
 
 i 
 
 PREFACE. V 
 
 In no field of thought is the feebleness of human 
 intellect more manifest than here. In none has our 
 progress been so slow. In none has it been so difficult 
 for succeeding generations to retain the conquests of 
 the past. These are not treasures which can be 
 catalogued in museums, or which can even be formu- 
 lated for keeping in books and in the memory. We 
 can understand an Augustine, a Luther or a Wesley- 
 only as we live over again their spiritual life. Kant 
 lies neglected on the shelf in a materialistic age, and 
 few can follow the thoughts of such a spirit as T. H. 
 Green. In the brief span of human life we must first 
 live up to the measure of the past before we can step 
 into the new beyond. It is not surprising, therefore, 
 that the Christian world has moved so slowly. If 
 these studies will help my younger brethren to grasp 
 more of the treasures of the Divine wisdom, they will 
 have served their purpose. 
 
 N. B. 
 Victoria University, 
 
 Ma]/ 7th, 1890. 
 
I' 
 
 '4 
 
 i n 
 
MORAL RESi'ONSIBIMTY, PROBATION 
 
 AND SIN. 
 
 Moral responsibility is a fact most clearly revealed" 
 both in universal human consciousness and in the 
 Holy Scriptures. The nature of this responsibility, 
 the conditions of its development by means of pro- 
 bation, and the results of tha^> probation la man's sin 
 and its consequences are the subjects of onr present 
 inductive investigation. Tn making this induction 
 we shall confine our attention to the acknowledged 
 facts of man's moral consciousness, and to the detinite- 
 statements of Scripture. In a matter of so much 
 practical importance as man's moral responsibility,, 
 the essential facts must lie open to universal cogniz- 
 ance, either in our common conscience or in some 
 accessible form of revelation. Any matters which 
 are not subjects of well assured and general cogniz- 
 ance cannot be essential elements of a practical 
 system of moral responsibility. 
 
 RESPONSIBILITY. 
 
 Responsibility includes not only an inward or 
 subjective sense of obligation, the " ought " of con- 
 science, but also the real objective relation in eternal 
 
8 
 
 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PRORATION AND SIN. 
 
 ill 
 
 ini 
 
 righteousness corresponding thereto. This implies a 
 real person obligated, a person or persons to whom he 
 is obligated, and a person or persons by whom the 
 obligation may be enforced. It is not sufficient to 
 say that conscience enforces the obligation. Granted 
 that this is so, who made conscience to enforce the obli- 
 gation ? Has He other means and ways of enforcing 
 it ? If the sense of obligation represents an eternal 
 and immutable truth, a law of right, then conscience 
 has been fashioned according to that law, and in other 
 things, and all things, we may expect that the Crea- 
 tor of conscience works according to the same law of 
 right. Conscience thus becomes the witness for the 
 moral ruler to whom and by whom we are held to 
 obligation. Responsibility, when analyzed thus, im- 
 plies the following facts : Man is held to answer 
 for his acts, (1) to his own conscience; (2) to those 
 to whom he owes duty ; (3) to God who made him ; 
 and this obligation is incorporated by the Creator in 
 man's own nature, and in the constitution and history 
 of the world in which he lives. This obligation com- 
 pels him to accept as right the consequences of his 
 own acts imposed by the law of right, as well in 
 their form of penalty as of reward. His deepest 
 sense of truth says it is right, it ought to be. 
 
 Thus far the facts are so obvious, both in our 
 conscience and in Scripture, that detailed proof is 
 unnecessary. But given thus the fact that moral 
 responsibility truly exists on the basis of an essen- 
 
 
 I'll 
 
MOUAL IIESPONSIHILITV, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 9 
 
 I* 
 t 
 
 4 
 
 tial principle, or law of right, we must next inijuire, 
 (1) Are all men so responsible / (2) Are they re- 
 sponsible for all their acts, i.e., at all times and 
 under all circumstances / (3) Are they responsible 
 only as individuals ? or, Are they also responsible in 
 collective capacity ? The first two of these questions 
 may be answered together. The common verdict of 
 our moral judgment does not hold all men to uncon- 
 ditional responsibility. An idiot is not judged to be 
 responsible, nor is an insane person. There must be 
 as a basis of responsibility a moral nature sufficient 
 to enable a man to know the right from the wrong. 
 " There is a spirit in man : and the breath of the 
 Almighty giveth him understanding." (Job xxxii. 8.) 
 " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, 
 and a good understanding have all they that do 
 thereafter." (Psa. cxi. 10.) " Man that is in honor, 
 and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish." 
 (Psa. xlix. 20.) In all these passages^ " understand- 
 ing," i.e., the power of moral discernment, is set forth 
 as the basis of human responsibility. 
 
 But to this moral nature, or capacity for moral 
 action, there must be added a measure of light, of 
 truth, of knowledge from without of that which is 
 required by the law. The knowledge of that which 
 is required must be in a man's possession, or at least 
 within his reach. This principle of moral judgment 
 is again recognized in all those Scriptures which 
 measure increase of responsibility by increase of 
 
 ■3 
 
 ft 
 
10 MORAL RKSPONSIIilLlTY, PROJiATION AND SIN. 
 
 i 
 
 III 
 
 light. Matt. xi. 20-24, xxv. 14, etc., and especially 
 John iii. 19 : *' This is the condemnation that liirht is 
 come into tliO world." John ix. 41 : *' Jesus said unto 
 them. It* ye were blind, ye should have no sin : but 
 now ye say, We see ; therefore your sin remaineth." 
 Again, our common moral judgment limits respon- 
 sibility by ability. This limitation, like the previous 
 one, must be carefully guarded. As in the case of 
 knowledge, so in that of ability, responsibility extends 
 to that which lies within our reach as well as to that 
 in our actual possession, and to that which has been 
 lost or forfeited through our own fault as well as to 
 that which is at present enjoyed. J5ut the general 
 principle of responsibility according to abilit}^ is 
 clearly taught by our Lord himself in such passages 
 as Luke xii. 48., where it is associated with know- 
 ledge : " But he that knew not and did things worthy 
 of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And to 
 whomsoever much is given of him shall much be 
 required. And to whom they commit much of him 
 will they ask the more." The careful form of expres- 
 sion here used guarding against abuse of the principle 
 is very worthy of note. It is put in the positive 
 form. The alleged absence of knowledge or ability 
 does not prove no responsibility, but still responsibility 
 grows with knowledge and ability ; hence these are 
 of its essence, and of these it would appear that our 
 Lord did not regard any man as entirely devoid. But 
 given these three conditions of responsibility, a moral 
 
MORAL RESPONSimUTY, PIIOIJATION AND SIN. 11 
 
 I is 
 Ito 
 
 nature, knowledge, and ability, the next question is, 
 how does responsibility attach ? Does it belong to 
 the person individually, or to the body or society of 
 men collectively ? The answer seems to be to both, 
 but in a different manner in each case. There can be 
 no question that, given the foregoing conditions, each 
 man is held to individual and personal responsibility 
 for his personal acts, even though those acts be done 
 in connection with others. This again is the verdict 
 of the common moral judgment of the race, and also 
 the clear teaching of Scripture. In the Old Testa- 
 ment, such a passage as Ezek. xviii. throughout is 
 very clear and emphatic: "Tho soul that sinneth, it 
 shall die." In fact, the teaching of the passage is to 
 the effect that no form of hereditary responsibility 
 can override individual responsibility. In the first 
 and second chapters of Romans we have also a very 
 clear assertion of responsibility of all classes of men, 
 including those from the Gentile world, and this 
 extends " to every soul of man that doeth evil." (Rom. 
 ii. 9.) Their being without law does not exempt them 
 (v. 12), for (v. 15) "they shew the work of the law 
 written in their hearts." There is certainly in this 
 passage the strongest assertion of a universal indi- 
 vidual responsibility upon which eternal destiny ^'s 
 made to depend. God "will render to every man 
 according to his works." (Ch. ii. 6 ; so also Gal. vi. 5, 
 7, 8, 9.) But in addition to this supreme individual 
 responsibility, there is also clearly set before us in the 
 
12 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 moral judgment of men a responsibility which belongs 
 to men in solidarities, i.e., as families, communities, 
 and as a successive race. (Gen. xviii. 23-32 ; Ex. xx. 
 5, 6, xxxiv. 7 ; Num. xiv. 18, 33 ; Deut. iv. 40 ; Psa. 
 xxxvii. 25, 26 ; Prov. xxix. 8 ; Isa. xiv. 20 ; Jar. 
 xxxii. 39.) 
 
 This common responsibility does not lie in the 
 nature of moral obligation per se, but in the peculiar 
 form of human moral development and probational 
 relations. Hence a passage such as Ezek. xviii. is to 
 be distinctly understood as limiting the law of com- 
 mon responsibility, as set forth above by preceding 
 writers. Individual responsibility alone is final and 
 supreme. Collective responsibility is temporary and 
 subordinate. Hence when we come to study proba- 
 tion we shall find that it moves from the collective to 
 the individual form of responsibility, and the common 
 responsibility at last terminates in that individual 
 judgment where, notwithstanding our mutual moral 
 relations in which " none of us liveth to himself and 
 no man dieth to himself " (Rom. xiv. 7), " every one of 
 us shall give account of himself to God" (v. 12). 
 
 PROBATION. 
 
 This study of the general principles of moral re- 
 sponsibility leads us next to the consideration of the 
 question of probation. Probation is the term used 
 to express the historical conditions under which 
 responsibility is exercised with a view to a final 
 
 T? 
 
 M 
 
MORAL RESPONSIlilLlTY, PROBATION AND SIN. 13 
 
 x. 
 
 5a. 
 
 judprment by which the probation is terminated. 
 Probation is thus in its very nature temporary. It 
 is not the final condition of a moral bein^, but the 
 initial staije of his moral life, that in which he 
 creates desert, a record, and moral character for 
 himself. Such probation emer^^es in every form and 
 variety of human life, and is perfectly familiar as an 
 historic fact to all men. Men are continually in- 
 volved in probational relation to each other. The 
 (juestion of the inductive theologian is, does such a 
 relation exist, or has such a relation existed toward 
 God ? If so, what are, or have been, the conditions 
 of such probation ? If such a relation between God 
 and man has existed', or now exists, it is a fact of 
 history, and can be ascertained by historic evidence. 
 The Scriptures are pre-eminently the historic record 
 of the relations of God to man; and here we tind, 
 first of all, an original probation of man at the very 
 foun«lation of his moral history with certain clearly 
 stated conditions and results. Again we find a grad- 
 ually unfolding present probation under a world's 
 redeemer, with conditions revealed from time to time 
 with the .world's moral progress, and results to be 
 reached at a final day of judgment. These historical 
 statements of Scripture find ample confirmation in 
 various corroborative facts of history nnd human 
 experience, and in the convictions of our conscience, 
 and no belief has been more widely held by the race 
 than this, that human life will end with a judgment 
 
14 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 \m 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 before God. The second and third of Genesis and 
 the fifth of Romans, vv. 12-19, are our authority for 
 the fact of a primitiv^e probation of man, and the 
 general moral teaching of Scripture, together with 
 the explicit declaration of a future judgment, are 
 our authority for the present probation of men ending 
 in that judgment. *' For God will bring every work 
 into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be 
 good or whether it be evil." (Eccles. xii. 14.) From 
 tliese general considerations we may assume the 
 scriptural doctrine of a twofold probation of man 
 before God. First, an initial probation terminating 
 in the fall of man and his sentence; secondly, a pres- 
 ent probation to terminate in the sentences of the 
 final judgment. 
 
 By an examination of each of these probations we 
 must seek to ascertain more explicitly its nature or 
 conditions. We have seen already that responsibility 
 involves not only a moral nature, but also some 
 knowledge of the duty to be performed and some 
 ability to perform it. Probation, as the initial stage 
 of responsibility, involves the growth or development 
 of the moral nature, the increase of knowledge of 
 duty and of the ability to perform it. A probation 
 is thus such a condition, or conditions, of moral life 
 as gives the opportunity to create desert and charac- 
 ter for ourselves. It does not assume the Pelagian 
 position that the good is something done by us, not 
 created in us. It acknowledges the good created in 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 15 
 
 d 
 
 or 
 
 he 
 
 th 
 
 re 
 
 ng 
 
 rk 
 
 be 
 
 Dm 
 
 »he 
 
 an 
 
 ng 
 
 es- 
 
 ihe 
 
 M 
 
 US but as a basis for a good to be done by us, and 
 not as taking its place. Probation is therefore a 
 talent to be improved, not a fortune to be enjoyed. 
 (Matt. XXV. 14-30.) 
 
 The central condition of probation is the duty to be 
 performed on the basis of which judgment is to be 
 passed on the probationer. Accessory to this is, on 
 the one hand, the subjective condition, i.e., the capac- 
 ity of moral nature bestowed on the probationer. On 
 the other stands the objective condition, the environ- 
 ment of moral influences by which he is surrounded. 
 The nature of the probation must always be leter- 
 mined by these three sets of conditions, and into these 
 we must inquire, first, as to 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE PROBATION. 
 
 1. What was the test of the primitive probation, 
 the duty which it required, the norm or rule of moral 
 action on which it was founded ? 
 
 In the moral history of the race as presented in 
 Scripture, probational test or law appears in three 
 forms : 
 
 (1) Symbolic acts, prescribed as of Divine authority, 
 and representing or embodying important elements of 
 moral and religious duty. Even in the New Testa- 
 ment we have two such probational acts prescribed as 
 badges of the Christian profession. Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper. Under the Mosaic law a large use 
 was made of this form of probational moral discipline. 
 
? f 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 ' i 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 li 
 
 16 MORAL KESPONSIJULITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 (2) Definite concrete acts of moral and religious 
 obligation foumled, not simply on authority, but upon 
 moral and religious reasons clearly apprehended, e.g., 
 the Ten Commandments. 
 
 (3) General principles — the application in concrete 
 act being left to the individual moral judgment and 
 conscience, e.g., the Christian law of love. 
 
 These several forms of probational law correspond 
 to stages of moral development, and belong respec- 
 tively to the infancy y. the advancing development 
 and the moral maturity of the race. They are also 
 successively applicable to every individual. The child 
 under authority may conscientiously observe forms 
 ot* moral and religious life before it understands rea- 
 sons. The growing youth may understand the moral 
 reasonableness of particular duties before he is able 
 to apply general principles to all new circumstances 
 of life for himself. So in the world's history, pre- 
 scribed forms, or even symbolic acts, play a most 
 important part in moral life, even to-day calling out 
 and awakening conscience. The order is, first, a 
 simple prescribed act, next a definite moral command- 
 ment, finally the universal principle of " faith work- 
 ing by love.*' 
 
 The original probation of the race as stated in Gen. 
 ii. and iii., is placed in the observance of a single sym- 
 bolic ordinance. " Of every tree of the garden thou 
 mayest freely eat : But of the tree of the knowledge 
 of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; for in the 
 
 ii: 
 
 ^^^ 
 
MORAL IIESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 17 
 
 (lay that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 
 (Gen. ii. 16, 17.) There is indeed reference to another 
 tree and an eating; thereof, which seems to represent the 
 positive side of religion. The tree of life represents 
 apparently the conscious reception from God of the 
 gift of life ; but this is conditioned on the previous 
 probational law. There is thus a remarkable parallel 
 between these two ordinances of the primitive man, 
 and those first of the Mosaic and then of the Christian 
 economy. The tree of knowledf^e, circumcision, bap- 
 tism, all set forth the ethical side of relation to God — 
 st-paration from sin. The tree of life, the passover 
 and the Lord's Supper represent the religious side of 
 relation to God — the gift of life from Him. 
 
 It may be objected that we are assuming here that 
 the account in Genesis is literal history. This is not 
 necessary. Even those who take it as an allegorical 
 or tropical representation of the primitive ethical 
 relations of the race, must admit that it contains the 
 ethical principles referred to, as well as others to 
 which we shall now refer, and unless they are pre- 
 pared to discard the authority both of this passage 
 and of St. Paul, they must admit the validity of these 
 principles. 
 
 The employment of a symbolic ordinance as the 
 test of probation implies the moral infancy of the 
 race. It is the awakening of conscience as from the 
 innocence of childhood, the simplest and most ele- 
 mentary form of the consciousness of moral obligation,, 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
18 MORAL RESPOXSIIJILIXy, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 •which is here set forth. Man is permitted to build 
 i'roin the deep foundation this structure of moral 
 character. God does nothing for him which he can 
 do for himself. Definite moral laws and universal 
 mural priticiples will all come to him in due time as 
 the reward of probational fidelity and experience. 
 Any other arrangement would have deprived man of 
 something of the glory of moral being. The subjec- 
 tive conditions of the primitive probation are thus 
 conceived as those of a little child, and so our Lord 
 teaches must all probation begin. Matt, xviii. 3 : 
 " Except ye be converted, and become as little chil- 
 dren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 The account in Genesis presents also the objective 
 conditions or environment of the primitive probation 
 as embracing temptation as one of its elements. This 
 temptation includes subjectively the presence of the 
 lower and the hiofher self, to borrow the lano^uage of 
 the current philosophy, and that morality lies in the 
 assertion of the higher selfhood. It implies also that 
 the law or test of probation gave a concrete form to 
 this assertion. "Thou shalt not eat " — appetite is sub- 
 ordinated to Divine authority. But it implies still 
 further that the lower self is called up by an active 
 agent from without represented in this case by the 
 serpent. (Gen. iii. 1.) 
 
 If it be asked, Is this reasonable ? Is it consistent 
 with the love and justice of God that temptation 
 should be permitted to intervene in the primitive pro- 
 
 
 ^i 
 
 m^ 
 
MORAL UESPONSIBILITV, PIU^BATION AND SIN. 19 
 
 Uild 
 
 oral 
 can 
 Tsal 
 le as 
 nee. 
 n of 
 jec- 
 thus 
 Lord 
 3: 
 chil- 
 
 >> 
 
 
 bation of an infant race ? Paul indeed asserts that 
 in a righteous administration of probational condi- 
 tions temptation is limited. 1 Cor. x. I'i: "There 
 hath no temptation taken you but such as is common 
 to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you 
 to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with 
 the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye 
 may be able to bear it." Peter in like manner orives 
 us the Divine reason of temptation. 1 Peter i. 7 : 
 "That the trial of your faith, being much more pre- 
 cious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried 
 with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and 
 glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ." So James 
 i. 2 etc. Temptation endured is a helper to moral 
 perfection. It is therefore not inconsistent with either 
 God's justice or goodness. 
 
 The account of the primitive probation given in 
 Genesis is thus a perfectly rational one, and whether 
 construed literally or allegorically it contains the 
 elements of ethical truth which must of necessity 
 have entered into man's moral development. 
 
 From the nature of the primitive probation we 
 may now turn to its result. This is embodied in a 
 wonderfully picturesque narrative, which again is in 
 every circumstance true to the deepest ethical truth 
 of our nature. It has been variously interpreted, but 
 no form of interpretation can eliminate the principles 
 of moral truth which it contains. It corresponds to 
 the process of temptation, sin and fall in every indi- 
 vidual man. It gives us: 
 
II 
 
 •!f' 
 
 20 MOIIAL KESPONSIHILITV, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 1. The presentation or Miorgestion from without of 
 the forbidden act as an object of natural desire. 
 
 2. It does this in the face of the conscious know- 
 led»^e of the prohibition, thus converting innocent 
 natural desire into temptation to sin. So Rom. vii. 
 1): "When the commandment came sin came into 
 life, and I died." 
 
 3. It presents the suggestion of unbelief or dis- 
 belief in the truth, rectitude or goodness of God in 
 making the prohibition (v. 5). 
 
 4. The next step is an inward yielding to this 
 suggestion, accepting the word of the tempter before 
 that of God (v. 6). 
 
 5. Then follows the act which outwardly breaks the 
 commandment. 
 
 6. Then follows {a) The sense of moral degradation, 
 Qj) Guilty fear. 
 
 7. Finally, the probation is judged and the sentence 
 pronounced, and penalty enforced. 
 
 In the process as thus set forth there are four 
 stages : 
 
 1. Simple temptation. There appear in conscious- 
 ness the suoforestion of sin and the liorht of the com- 
 mand. This does not involve any sin. 
 
 2. Reasoning. God's commands are reasonable. 
 (Rom. xii. 1.) His law is holy, just and good. (Rom. 
 vii. 12.) But the reasoning process im^XiQ^ groiuing 
 desire, and hence danger- 
 
 3. Doubt. This is the beginning of all sin. (Rom. 
 xiv. 23 ; John iii. 18.) 
 
 il 
 
 ia^^PBeMiMHiaiiiiHiiiw 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PRORATION AND SIN. 21 
 
 4. The completion of the transgression in the out- 
 ward act. (James i. 15.) Even at the third stajjje 
 there is still possibility of return, but at the fourth 
 step the final record is made, and that which is done 
 
 cannot be undone. 
 
 SIN. 
 
 The act of sin thus culminated involves two ele- 
 ments : 
 
 1. Transgression of law^ 1 John iii. 4 : " Sin is the 
 transgression of the law." Rom. v. 13 : " Sin is not 
 imputed when there is no law." 
 
 2. That which gives transgression its true nature 
 and results, viz., guilt. This includes (a) the in- 
 herent badness or evil of sin as opposed to the 
 eternal, immutable and perfect right and good, {h) 
 Desert oF, and liability to, penal consequences, i.e., 
 guilt objective. (c) The inward response of con- 
 science to this desert and liability, ie.,^ guilt sub- 
 jective. 
 
 On the badness of sin as opposed to the goodness 
 of light, i.e., truth and right, see John iii. 19, 20, and 
 XV. 24 ; on its desert, see Rom. i. 18 and ii. 4-11 ; 
 and on the response of conscience, see Rom. ii. 14, 15 
 and vii. 12, 13. Of the Old Testament conception of 
 the nature of sin we may learn much from the 
 names given to it in the Hebrew language. It is: 
 
 1. Avon, a twisting or perverting, wrong pervert- 
 ing right. 
 
 2. Eaa, a breaking, or destroying. 
 
n 
 
 III 
 
 22 MORAL RESPONSIIULITV, PUOIJATION AND SIN. 
 
 3. S/u'ler, a weaving, i.e.y falsehood. 
 
 4. Avert, breath, emptiness. 
 
 5. Shagag, wanderinof, error. 
 
 6. Penlta, rebellion against authority. 
 
 7. BitshUy lawlessness. 
 
 8. Ashain^ laid waste, i.e., condemned under guilt 
 or penalty. 
 
 9. Aiiial, toil, miser}", suffering. 
 
 10. Chattath, a mi.ssing of the mark, i.e., the true 
 end or reward of life. 
 
 In the New Testament the most comprehensive 
 definition of sin is the Greek word (xvojdta, lawless- 
 ness. The vojAos or law expres.ses the true, the 
 eternal right relation of things. This relation springs 
 from the nature of God as the author of the universe. 
 It finds expression in His eternal word and is His 
 will. Sin breaks this, contradicts it. It is wrong 
 relation. First of all, in its commission it is the 
 reversal of the moral law within. It is the law of 
 our moral nature that all the lower self, all motives 
 which spring from the senses, the appetites and the 
 selfish desires, should be subject to the judgment and 
 control of conscience. But sin overthrows this law, 
 since in its commission the will is not directed by 
 conscience but yields to the lower nature influenced 
 from without. 
 
 Again, sin as a completed act is the taking up by 
 me of a wrong relation toward God, or my fellow- 
 beings, or both. The moral law within, which re- 
 
MORAL KESPONSIIULITV, IMiUlJATlON AND SIX. 23 
 
 It 
 
 quires the siipremacy of conscience, is a perfect 
 counterpart of that moral hiw without, which pre- 
 scribes my rij^ht relations to all other beinj^s. And a 
 violation of the moral order within, immediately that 
 it comes forth as an objective act, puts me out of 
 right relations to the universe. But this single act, 
 subversive of right relations within and without, 
 leaves its permanent results within. We cannot once 
 do wrong without producing a permanent wrong 
 state. Sin becomes a character. And this character 
 is a permanent lawlessness, a date of subversion of 
 right relations within ourselves. However, we shall 
 revert to this more at length hereafter. 
 
 From this it will appear that sin is not a mere 
 negative, or a nonentity. It is true that it is not a 
 substance. But it is none the less a reality. All 
 realities may be distributed under three categories — 
 substances, attributes, relations. Sin is a reality in 
 the last category. It is not the mere absence of the 
 right relation, it is a positively wrong relation. It is 
 a new thing. The theory that sin is a mere negation, 
 a nonentity, has arisen from a misconception of its 
 origin. It originates in a negative, a not doing, a 
 defection of the spirit. But the external influence, 
 under which that defection tak' s place, immediately 
 renders the sin a positive act. The spirit is not 
 merely quiescent when it should act ; it is drawn 
 toward the lurong. 
 
 Again, the influence by which it is thus drawn is 
 
24 MORAL UKSPONSMilLlTV, PIIOIJATION AND SIN. 
 
 Hi 
 
 NOT .sin or sinful. Hence sin dues not orinfinate in 
 the Hesh, or tiie environ. nent \>y wl.ich the spirit is 
 united to the external world. The influence of ex- 
 ternal things is not sin. Nor are the external things 
 theinselve.s, wliich inlluence us, sinful. They have 
 their If^ntiinate function. They are to be used, not 
 abused, lint the spirit is to assert its superiority 
 over them, not to resii^n itself to thetii. The law 
 gives man "dominion overall the earth to subdue it." 
 Man is master of externals. If he yield:; to be their 
 slave, tlie sin is in lili}i,not in them. Nor does the 
 sin lie in those subjective susceptibilities to external 
 influences by which man is connected with the ex- 
 ternal world. These too, like th(i outer world with 
 wliicli they bring us into contact, have their uses. 
 They call the self forth into conscious exercise,', and 
 they are our servants for this purpose. And in fulfill- 
 ing this function they are God's most precious gifts. 
 Sight, hearing, imagination, natural affection, and 
 even ap[)etite, have their important and holy oflice. 
 If from this subservient office they are perverted, and 
 the spirit resigns its selfhood and personal autocracy, 
 and yields to be led by these servants of its higher 
 nature, the sin is in the spirit, not in these suscepti- 
 bilities. These considerations at once exclude every 
 theory which makes sin a necessary result of our 
 nature or circumstances. It is our act, originating 
 from the inmost self, our perversion of God's good. 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
MORAL UK.SI'ONSIBILITV, PIIOIJATION AND SIN. 25 
 
 a 
 is 
 
 >) 
 
 THE IIESULTS OF SIN. 
 
 We must now turn our attention to the results of 
 this sinful act; and in so doin^ we shall ohtain a 
 more complete view of its nature. 
 
 The immediate results are threefold. First, a suV)- 
 jective ])ain, the reproach or remorse of conscience. 
 Secondly, the objective disorder of our relations to 
 the universe wliich we <lesi<rnate as evil. Thirdly, 
 the suljcctive disorder within which we call evil 
 character. 
 
 The first of tliese three is commonly called guilt. 
 Let us examine the nature of this. 
 
 We have not tlius far spoken of conscience as a 
 revelation from God, or, as it is sometimes called, 
 God's representative in man, because we did not wish 
 to depart too far froui our (>sychological basis. Wo 
 cannot, however, properly consider the nature of guilt 
 without looking at it objectively, as well as subjec- 
 tively. JUit lirst subjectively. Every act of con- 
 science is an intuition. The i<ieas of ri<;ht and 
 wronj;, and the motive of obli<;ation ar(j not the 
 result of abstraction or generalization. They are 
 primitive ideas, purely spiritual. Now, this third 
 product of conscience, the idea of guilt, is no less an 
 intuition, a simple and purely spiritual notion. And, 
 as in the preceding intuition of conscience it was 
 diHicult to separate the more intellectual form of the 
 intuition, as a ju<lgment of right and wrong, from 
 
 
f 
 
 
 26 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 the motive form of obligatic.i, so here it is difficult 
 to say which is first, the feeling of remorse or the 
 idea of guilt. But clearly here, as in all its functions, 
 conscience acts intuitively. And what is the function 
 of intuition ? May we not say that it looks into the 
 ultimate nature of things. Sense affords us a relative 
 knowledge. Intuition must be superadded to sen- 
 sation to make up perception, which assures us of 
 objective reality in relation, a not me as well as the 
 one. Substance, attribute, power, these are ideas of 
 the ultimate reality and inmost nature of things 
 which come forth intuitively on the occasion of sen- 
 sation. And these intuitional conceptions I cannot 
 avoid accepting as the most profound truth of things. 
 And if this be the function of intuition in reo-ard to 
 things material, is it not equally so in regard to things 
 moral ? Therefore right expresses the absolute nature 
 of certain moral relations ; and wrong expresses the 
 absolute, universal and eternal nature of certain other 
 relations; and guilt expresses the true and eternal 
 nature of sin. It is the most profound view of sin in its 
 essence which we can grasp. It is the spirit's intuitive 
 view of its own sinful act. Liability to penalty is but 
 an external definition of guilt. It expresses rather a 
 conception of the real nature of sin, a conception which 
 is in itself the most terrible of pains. But if this 
 intuitive idea of sin, which we call guilt, expresses 
 the ultimate truth of sin, then it expresses an abso- 
 lute objective reality as well as a subjective state. It 
 
 il. 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 27 
 
 is something which characterizes my sin alivays and 
 everywhere, as well as in its relation to me. Then 
 guilt has its terrible reality before God and before 
 the universe. And if the glimpse of the nature of 
 sin, which I have caught in the secrecy of my own 
 spirit, be so terrible, what shall it be when the eye of 
 the "Judge and all His holy ones" is turned upon it 
 too ? 
 
 If we hold up to view the consciousness of guilt, 
 we shall find further associated with it a sense of 
 apprehension, dread, fear. The particular form in 
 which this feeling may express itself is a matter of 
 indifference in our present inquiry. The only ques- 
 tion is, is it universally present ? If so, then it is a 
 part of the intuition. It may take its outer form 
 from circumstances, imagination, or revelation — the 
 prison, the hangman, the ghost, hell. But the basis 
 of all is within, the spirit of fear is a universal 
 outcome of a guilty conscience. These three, then, 
 guilt, remorse, fear, are the immediate subjective 
 sequence of the act of sin. But they cannot be 
 viewed as mere subjectives. They are the expression 
 of the soul's profoundest convictions as to the real 
 nature of sin. Guilt is the centre of these. Remorse 
 is the soul's wail over the past. Fear is its terrible 
 prophecy of the future. 
 
 EVIL 
 
 is the comprehensive term which includes all the 
 objective realities corresponding to this revelation in 
 the intuitions of conscience. We have seen that sin 
 
 
 Bl 
 
28 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 1 
 
 is a subversion of rijjht relations both within and 
 without ourselves. Those right relations were good, 
 productive of happiness. Their subversion then, 
 must in the nature of things, be productive of misery. 
 And in the same nature of things that misery will be 
 commensurate with the natural capacity for happiness. 
 We have further seen that all sin is a subversion of 
 right relation to God. Hence it is a fundamental 
 subversion. Our relation to God is without doubt 
 the ultimate source of that happiness for wdiich we 
 were created. The subversion of that relation must 
 be the source of corresponding misery. This part of 
 the subject admits of almost indefinite expansion ; but 
 we leave it here with the single remark that what 
 may be called the merely natural consequences of sin 
 reach inllnitely beyond the narrow subjective limits 
 to which some philosophers would conline them. If 
 sin is a universal wrong relation, then by that wrong 
 relation every capacity for pleasure becomes a source 
 of pain, and God and the universe are against the 
 sinner because he has set himself against them. 
 
 Thus far we have tarried at the single act of sin, 
 and have looked at it before and after its completion. 
 Let us now turn from the act and look at the char- 
 acter for evil which it produces. To understand this 
 fully we must examine somewhat further our data in 
 man's spiritual nature. We have already referred to 
 the feelings of guilt, remorse and fear associated with 
 an evil conscience. These have their correspondent 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 29 
 
 )f 
 
 affections in a good conscience. We may take the 
 regenerate human nature as the best representative 
 of our original constitution, and here we find, univer- 
 sally associated with a good conscience, a group of 
 what we are accustomed to call religious affections, 
 which may be reduced to three primary ones, peace, 
 joy and love. These affections we regard as purely 
 spiritual, first, because they arise only in connection 
 with the intuitions of conscience ; secondly, because, 
 while they look outward toward the objective, it is a 
 purely spiritual, not a sensible objective. Peace is the 
 natural rest, the security of right relations as affirmed 
 by conscience. Joy is the active happiness of those 
 relations. Love is the motive influence which those 
 relations afford. We rest in, we de'ight in, we are 
 drawn toward our spiritual environment, while we 
 are in right moral relations thereto. These spiritual 
 affections cannot be defined, but the regenerate man 
 will find no difficulty in calling them up to conscious- 
 ness, and in distinguishing them from correspondent 
 emotions which unite us to our sensible environment, 
 an 1 which are not spiritual, moral or religious in their 
 character. Our senses represent but external and 
 transitory relations, a relative knowledge, and the 
 affections or feelings based upon them belong to the 
 same outer court. The intuitions look into the eternal 
 reality of things, and the affections which are founded 
 upon them represent the spirit's profoundest activity. 
 And these religious affections which accompany a 
 

 r 
 
 ii 1 1 
 
 30 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 good conscience are its most powerful supports in the 
 discharge of its functions. Peace, which looking to 
 the unseen becomes faith, and into the future hope, 
 gives strength to the spirit. It makes it bold and 
 manly toward the right. And joy in doing right and 
 love for the riijht are the strongest incentives toward 
 its performance. They are toward the right what 
 the lower motives, affections and desires are toward 
 sensible objects, and hence, when by the activity of a 
 good conscience these affections are called forth, they 
 tend directly to give 'permanence to character for 
 good. " If our heart condemn us not, then have we 
 confidence {rrappqaiav) toward God." 
 
 Now, let us look at the effect of the sinful act upon 
 these elements of moral and spiritual strength, of 
 permanent character for good. 
 
 ^ 1. The approval of conscience is not merely de- 
 stroyed, it is changed into positive guilt and remorse. 
 
 2. Peace is not merely destroyed, it is converted 
 into fear, apprehension. 
 
 3. The love of the good is not only destroyed, but 
 converted into positive antagonism, hatred of good 
 and God. Milton goes still further when he repre- 
 sents Satan as saying, " Evil, be thou my good," for 
 this seems to be positive delight in badness. Here 
 then, as a direct result of the act of sin, is a complete 
 perversion of all the elements of man's moral nature. 
 The good conscience becomes emphatically an evil 
 conscience. The fallen state is thus very far from 
 
MORAL UESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 31 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 being a mere negation, a pure loss, a return to pure 
 nature. It is a positive, spiritual corruption. 
 
 But there is also another aspect of permanent evil 
 character, a bondage as well as a corruption. We 
 have already described the antithesis of the inward 
 and the outward which exists in the state of develop- 
 ment and probation, and which in fn nishing the 
 opportunity for probation, renders both sin and holi- 
 ness possible. Now, in the probational state the out- 
 ward influence and the inner power which rules over 
 and uses it are commensurate, the outer influence 
 sufficient to call forth the full strength of the inner 
 power, but the inner power sufficient to rule over and 
 subdue all outer things. And this expresses the 
 normal relation of the inner and the outer in our 
 unfallen state. But the first act of sin inverted this 
 relation, and the inversion becomes a permanent char- 
 acter. Henceforth, outward influences rule. Sin 
 dwells in the members. The flesh is its stronghold. 
 
 Thus we come to this inevitable conclusion as to the 
 results of sin, that the very constitution of our nature 
 which was given us for the attainment, development 
 and perfection of holiness becomes by its perversion 
 the means of the origination, perpetuation and per- 
 manence of sin with all its terrible evils. 
 
 But in forming our conception of sin in character, 
 as the result of the individual act of sin, our induc- 
 tion must not be from the facts of our own conscious- 
 ness alone. We might appeal to universal history 
 
 I 
 
 J- 
 
 I 
 f 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 
 tl 
 
 32 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 and literature, but we shall irKjuire onl}^ of the his- 
 toric record of inspiration. There we shall find in 
 the most explicit terms a doctrine of universal indi- 
 vidual sin. This is asserted very early in the moral 
 history of the race. (Gen. vi. 12, etc.) It is presented 
 as the result of the widest experience. (Psa. xiv. 2, 3.) 
 It is represented as an inevitable fact. (Prov. xx. ; 
 1 Kings viii. 66.) It is as explicitly asserted in the 
 New Testament teaching as in the Old. (Rom. iii. 
 9-12, V. 12, etc.; Gal. iii. 22; 1 John i. 8-10. v. 19.) 
 "All have sinned, and have come short of the glory 
 of God." But the teaching of Scripture is equally 
 explicit as to the fact of 
 
 HEART SIN, 
 
 or sin in character, which, as we have seen from the 
 very constitution of our moral nature, flows from sin 
 in act. Very early in the history of the race it is 
 presented as a growing and terrible result of the sins 
 of successive generations of men (Gen. vi. 5, 11, 12), 
 and even after the flood it is still represented as a 
 characteristic of man as man (viii. 21). See also Job 
 xiv. 4, XV. 14-16 ; Psa. li. 10; Eccles. ix. 3 ; Isa. liii. 
 6 ; Jer. xvii. 9. The teaching of Christ on this sub- 
 ject is very explicit. (Matt. vii. 15-17.) There is in 
 human nature a corrupt tree bringing forth evil 
 fruit. So under another figure in Luke vi. 45. In 
 Matt. XV. 18, 19 we have the terrible catalogue of 
 evil propensities which defile the man. So in Matt, 
 xxiii. 25, etc., the worst sin is the vile character 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 83 
 
 within the Pharisee. So St. Paul, in Rom. i. 21, 
 glances at the awful corrupting power of sin in char- 
 acter as leading to the very vilest crimes, crimes im- 
 possible as a first sin. With this he contrasts the 
 true inward keeping of law in chapter ii. 29. Again 
 in chapters vi. 16, etc., and vii. 14-24, he depicts the 
 well-known slavery to sin which he presents as charac- 
 teristic of man as man. Another striking picture of 
 heart sin he gives in the list of the works of the 
 flesh. (Gal. v. 19-21.) St. John is no less explicit in 
 his testimony to this doctrine of heart sin. (1 John 
 ii. 15, 16.) The love of the world and the lust of the 
 flesh are the strenijth of sin. 
 
 The doctrine of heart sin is thus clearly the teach- 
 ing of Scripture as well as of experience, a teaching 
 which has its attestation in the facts of our own 
 moral nature. There is a wrong that / am, as well 
 as that which I do, and for both the one and the 
 other conscience and Scripture declare us guilty 
 before God. 
 
 But the question next arises, is this wrong that I 
 am primarily the work of my own sin ? or, does it 
 belong to a condition of the race resulting from the 
 fall under the primitive probation ? This question 
 leads us next to consider sin in relation to the race, or 
 
 HEREDITARY SIN. 
 
 There are two laws under which man has been 
 created in the order of God, the law of heredity and 
 the law of solidarity. The first of these is strictly a. 
 
34 MORAL RKSPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 I 
 
 M 
 
 natural law operating as cause and effect. But like all 
 natural law it must he controlled by moral law which 
 operates hy the bond of justice. The law of solidarity 
 on the other hand is a moral law, in fact the moral law 
 under which heredity affects moral beings. The 
 inductive proof of this law which enters alike into 
 the doctrine of the atonement and the fall, we will 
 consider again in the study of the Atonement. We 
 shall at present use it only as already established 
 under the head of responsibility, and proceed to deal 
 with the results which follow under these two laws 
 from man's fall into sin under the primitive proba- 
 tion. These results may be summed up under two 
 heads. 
 
 1. Under the law of solidarity in moral responsi- 
 bility, penal results accrue to all the race. 
 
 2. Under the law of heredity which ethically is 
 based on the law of solidarity, depravity descends to 
 all the race. 
 
 These two facts are fully set forth by St. Paul in 
 Rom. V. 12-19. A general principle of family and 
 national solidarity and heredity is recognized in many 
 passages in the Old Testament, to some of which we 
 have already referred. Our Lord himself sets forth the 
 depravity as hereditary in John iii. 5-7: "That which 
 is born of the flesh is flesh." But from St. Paul's 
 expanded statement we may gather the elements of 
 the doctrine more fully. These are : 
 
 1. That by the sin of the first man, sin, both as a 
 
 ^i_ 
 
 tME^WEPiS 
 
MORAL UESPONSIIULITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 35 
 
 ,4) 
 
 generic principle and as a penalty, entered the race. 
 " By one man sin entered into the world and death hy 
 sin." (V. I2a.) "Through one trespass (it) came upon 
 all men unto condemnation." (V. LSa.) So Zphesians 
 ii. 3 : " Were by nature the children of wrath even as 
 the rest." 
 
 2. That sin and the condemnation have so extended 
 to the whole race. " Death passed upon all men." 
 ^' All sinned." (V. 12b.) So 1 Cor. xv. 22: "In Adam 
 all die." It is a well-known teaching of St. Paul that 
 death is the wages of sin (Rom. vi. 23), and so here 
 universal death is not the result of universal indi- 
 vidual sin, but the penalty of the first sin extended 
 to the whole race. " In Adam all die." " Death 
 reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that 
 had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's trans- 
 gression." (V. 14.) But we have already seen that 
 this law of solidarity in moral responsibility has its 
 limits. When we say then that under it penalty 
 attaches to the whole race, we are not thereby justi- 
 fied in asserting this in an unlimited sense. We must 
 therefore ask definitely, what penalty, and how far 
 extended, rests upon the whole race through the sin 
 of the one man ? Paul's first element of penalty is 
 " death." This of course includes physical death. 
 He also uses the term death for that conscious separa- 
 tion from God and condemnation in His sight which 
 arises on the commission of sin. This is spiritual 
 death. Paul does not use the term as synonymous 
 
 i 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 fli 
 
 i\\ 
 
 ! 
 
 36 MORAL IlKSI'ONSIHIMrV, IMIOHATION AND SIN. 
 
 witli depravity, lie lias other words to express this. 
 Nor does he use it separately in the sense which has 
 been defined as eternal death. We are not tlierofore 
 justified, from the words of Paul, in assertino; that as 
 a result of Adam's fall all men are held " liable to the 
 pains of hell forever." But Paul himself brings out 
 his meaning more fully in verse 1(3. He there uses 
 three words to express the actual penal consequences 
 of the one transgression, Hpif.ia eia H(\iTaKpLf.ia. In 
 these words we think we may find both the extent 
 and the limit of penal consequences of Adam's trans- 
 gression, especially as the latter part of the expres- 
 sion is repeated in verse 18, as our translators all take 
 it as an abbreviation for the whule. The first word 
 here used, npif^iay denotes the judgment or sentence 
 against sin in the simplest form. The second term 
 denotes that sentence in aV)solute manner, the final 
 sentence. The preposition ^ls which connects them 
 denotes always tendency, a movement from one to the 
 other, in this case a moral force. It is thus evident 
 that Paul has before his mind two sentences or judg- 
 ments, a present and temporal judgment, under which 
 we now stand ; but beyond this a final and absolute 
 judgment or condemnation to which the other mav 
 lead. But how does it so lead ? Clearly from Paul's 
 point of view through our own probational acts. 
 Everywhere in Paul's teaching the final condemnation 
 is based upon our own works. (Rom. i. 18, ii. 4-6.) 
 Even the temporal form of spiritual death, the con- 
 
 a^^^^^i^n- , v^'-iA 
 
MORAL UESPONsnULITV, PKOliATIOS^ AND SIN. 37 
 
 scious personal separation from Ood, comes throii«^li 
 personal transorression. (Konj. vii. 9.) lUit aijjain this 
 personal transgression sprint^s from " tlie sin which 
 dvvelleth in me." (V. 17.) This is " tlie sin," vvhicii 
 entered by the one man and which thus includes sin- 
 ful character, lust, as well as act and personal j^uilt. 
 Now, in many other passai^es, but especially in our 
 Lord's teaching already quoted, this sinful character 
 comes to us through the law of heredity, a natural 
 law : " That which is born of the flesh is tlesh." Thus 
 in Scripture teaching the actions of the natural law 
 and of the moral law are inseparable. Under the 
 moral law sin works out its own penalty by natural 
 law, and yet this natural Inw is itself based on moral 
 law. The disobedience of one made many sinners. 
 This is the moral side. " That which is born of the 
 flesh is flesh." This is the natural side. But both 
 express the same fact. 
 
 We can now sum up Paul's teaching on sin in rela- 
 tion to the race : 
 
 1. The disobedience or transgression of one man 
 introduced sin into the world, i.e., " the sin," sin as a 
 generic principle. 
 
 2. " The sin " which thus entered is not only the 
 fact of sin, but also an indwelling principle of sin, 
 sprinoring up into life in every man and bringing him 
 into " bondage under a law of sin and death." 
 
 8. Sin brought death, and both passed through unto 
 all men; hence all have sinned. 
 
 
 
fi< 
 
 II 
 
 ii 
 
 1! 
 
 * 
 
 I 
 
 u 
 
 :]8 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 4. But this passage of sin and death is a Divine 
 judgment, a sentence of m^^al law, and its result leads 
 to an absolute and final ser'tence. 
 
 We have thus three facts — the universal depravitj/ 
 of the race, the universal sin of the race, and a Divine 
 judgment of the race, expressed in physical death — 
 as the just result of "one transgression." Paul leads 
 us further and presents us with a clear idea of the 
 extent, as well as of the fact, of this depravity. This 
 indwelling sin is so powerful that " to do that which 
 is good is not present with me." The knowledge of 
 the good, che approval of it, and even a certain delight 
 in it, are not excluded by this sin which dwelleth in 
 me, but the preformance is, and self-deliverance is 
 impossible. This is Paul's doctrine or measure of 
 " total depravity " — the expression he himself does 
 not use. His term is, " I am carnal sold under sin," 
 and " They that are in the flesh cannot please God." 
 
 Such a state of affairs would, of course, imply the 
 termination of all probation, as the essential condition 
 of ability is here wanting, and Paul clearly reinstates 
 the race in probation only in Christ Jesus, who over 
 against this law of sin and death brings in a law of 
 the spirit of life. Under the contemporaneous action 
 of these opposing moral forces, sin from Adam and 
 grace from Christ, Paul regards men as now living in 
 a new probation, the terms of which must follow our 
 study of the Atonement. 
 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 39 
 
 p 
 
 Is 
 le 
 
 THE END OF SIN. 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing considerations 
 that the results of sin are apart of its very nature, 
 so that one has profoundly said that God punishes 
 sin by sin. Sin is its own penalty. The man who 
 sins against the Holy Spirit " hath never forgiveness, 
 but is in danger of eternal sin." Is, then, sin, with 
 all its varied forms of evil, eternal ? This is the most 
 terribly painful question which the mind of man can 
 approach. 
 
 1. The sinful act once done cannot be undone. It 
 has introduced a new thing, a wrong, into God's uni- 
 verse. And this wronof necessitates a new, a defensive 
 position on the part of every being in the universe. 
 That position is justice. Justice is the right relation 
 of God and the universe toward sin — a relation of 
 separation and penalty. And it seems to me that all 
 our intuitional judgments represent this relation as a 
 finality. It cannot but be, inasmuch as the fact of 
 sin cannot now not be. God and all His holy ones 
 can stand in no other relation to sin than that which 
 is represented by the word justice. And, inasmuch 
 as the fact of sin is a fact forever, justice must repre- 
 sent an unchangeable attitude of the Divine nature-. 
 Justice is the tinal and immutable right relation 
 toward sin. 
 
 And this justice is perfect. It is absolutely right 
 It satisfies. It seeks for nothing beyond itself. It 
 
I 
 
 ■\\ 
 
 40 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 yields its claims to no other demand. It cannot 
 do so. Hence justice must abide. Now, so far as 
 the light of reason goes, this is the end. God is thus 
 in the right relation toward the sinner as a sinner. 
 The universe is in the right relation towar<:^ the 
 •sinner and toward a just God. And the sinner 
 liimself feels in his inmost conscience that he stands 
 in the only right relation as a sinner toward all beings 
 and things. And thus justice instantly counteracts 
 sin by establishing a new harmony of moral relations. 
 Justice is right harmony with sin. This is the first 
 conceivable end of sin. 
 
 2. But this sin is mine — mine own act, that which 
 I have created out of myself. Now, if justice is the 
 immutable attitude of God toward sin, it must be 
 the immutable attitude of God toward me, unless I 
 can be severed from my sin. I must be the bearer of 
 aiiy sin. Here enters that unfathomable mystery of 
 the atonement by which the immutability of God's 
 right relation to sin is maintained, and yet the sinner 
 is set free. His sins are no more imputed unto him. 
 Justice toward all sinful acts is then final and eternal. 
 Bat, what of the sinful state ! It is evident that 
 justice represents the right relation of God and all 
 .holv ones toward the sinful state as well as toward 
 the sinful act. But a state may not be like an act, 
 necessarily immutable. It continues, and hence may 
 change, unless change be, in the nature of the case, 
 impossible. Now, we will take for granted, inasmuch 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 41 
 
 as it is not disputed, that the sinful state may be 
 rectified. And thus we have full deliverance from 
 sin by (1) Eternal justice towards the sinful act 
 set forth by the God-man himself bearing penalty ; 
 (2) Severance of the sinner from his sinful act ; 
 (.3) Change of the sinful state. This is the second 
 conceivable end to sin — salvation from it through 
 atonement and redemption. 
 
 8. A third alternative has been submitted bj^ some : 
 the cessation from existence of the sinner, and in this 
 the consummation of justice against the sin. But this 
 is a conclusion at which a spiritual "philosophy can 
 never arrive. This cessation of existence must be 
 either the act of Uod or the effect of sin. Reve- 
 lation alone, not philosophy, could affirm the first. 
 Hence we could have no right to predicate it as a 
 possible alternative. The second, cessation of exist- 
 ence, as the result of sin, implies disorganization. 
 For sin afTects relations, not substance or essential 
 attribute. Hence, if sin affects the existence of a 
 spirit, as spirit, it must he by changing the relation, 
 of the loarts of the spirit, to each other. We have 
 freely admitted and included in our theory of sin a 
 change of the relations of the spirit to its environ- 
 ment, to the body. And this does result in disorgani- 
 zation — severance of the soul from the body. But in 
 the substance and attributes of the spirit we see no 
 such change of relations. Every attribute is per- 
 verted, i e., under the new moral relations to God 
 
 
42 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, TROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 ii 
 
 
 and the universe, peace becomes fear ; joy, pain ; love, 
 hate ; a good conscience, an evil one. Bvt this is not 
 a disorganization. Here are no parts in conflict with 
 each other, but the same one spirit, unchanged in 
 substance or attribute, miserably putting forth its 
 energies in opposition to its normal and happy rela- 
 tions to God and the universe. There is no prophecy 
 of annihilation in the spiritual results of sin. 
 
 In looking then at the ultimate destiny of the sin- 
 ner, we are shut up to the alter^iatives of salvation 
 or eternal justice. Taking the salvation of some to 
 be a fact of experience as well as of revelation, the 
 final question is resolved into this : Are there any 
 limitations to the possibility of salvation such as may 
 leave some spirits finally and forever under the justice 
 of God ? If so, what are these limitations ? 
 
 We may take for granted that if there are such 
 limitations they arise from the moral order of the 
 universe, and are not in any sense arbitrary. And 
 if so, then we are likely to find some indication of 
 them in the moral nature of man. Such limitations 
 we think we find : 
 
 1. In the moral nature of man. 
 
 2. In his subsequent moral acts. 
 
 1. The moral nature of man requires a 'probation 
 in redemption no less than in his original estate. 
 Without this he would not be man. His destiny 
 must be determined by the terms of his probation^ 
 whatever under the redemptive economy those terms 
 
 i i ■;) 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 43 
 
 |ve, 
 
 lOt 
 
 ith 
 in 
 
 [its 
 la- 
 Icy 
 
 may be. To save him without probation would be 
 to annihilate the fvesent constitution of his moral 
 nature, and that, so far as we know, is to annihilate 
 the man. 
 
 2. This limitation of salvation to conditions con- 
 sistent with man's moral nature is still further speci- 
 fied by the subsequent acts of this moral agent. No 
 redemptive scheme can change the moral quality of 
 actions. The man is still free, and if in the new pro- 
 bation he choose sin, no power in the universe can 
 make sin to be other than sin. There must, therefore, 
 continue to exist the possibility of a final relation to 
 justice, not merely of all sin, but of some sinners. 
 
 The most popular mode of escape from this con- 
 clusion is the indefinite extension of probation. By 
 such extension they cherish the hope that the far-off' 
 result will be the universal restoration, so that justice 
 will finally appear only tov/ard the sin that was, not 
 toward the sinner that is. Now, two questions at once 
 arise here. First, would such an indefinite extension of 
 the term of probation be likely to secure the result con- 
 templated ? Secondly, is such an extension consistent 
 with the moral constitution of our nature ? Procras- 
 tination is the thief of virtuous effort — the strongest 
 opposing power to man's redemption. Indefinite ex- 
 tension of the term of probation, therefore, means a 
 weakening of the moral forces for good. And if so, 
 then what have we to hope from an indefinite exten- 
 sion ? Certainly nothing whatever, unless with the 
 
44 MOllAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 fur-off future into which it reaches there come new 
 and mightier moral forces for salv^ation than God's 
 love in Christ now furnishes. This single argument 
 might almost be deemed conclusive. But when we 
 come to look at the subject in the h'ght of .he moril 
 constitution of our nature, the possibility of such 
 indefinite extension seems excluded. 
 
 Both reason and revelation teach us that the first 
 probation of man was determined by a single act of 
 toin. " By one offence judgment came upon all men 
 unto condemnation." DoubtlcvSS under the redemp- 
 tive system the term is extended. But is the exten- 
 sion definite or indefinite ? We believe it to be 
 definite or limited — 
 
 1. Because indefinite extension in one direction 
 would seem to imply a like extension in the other 
 direction. If our moral constitution may admit of 
 indefinite continuance in sin without reaching that 
 permanence of moral character which excludes hope, 
 then there would seem to be a possibility of like 
 indefinite continuance in holiness without attaining 
 that permanence of character which would be eter- 
 nally secure. If this be not so, then we must conclude 
 that the moral nature of the sinner is different from 
 that of the saved, or else that sin and holiness are not 
 the exactly parallel opposites which we have found 
 them to be. 
 
 Again, the relation of the new probation to our 
 moral nature seems to render indefinite extension 
 
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PUOBATION AND SIN. 45 
 
 ll 
 
 impossible. The original probation was in the antith- 
 esis of external influences to the directive power of 
 conscience within. The new probation is the appeal 
 of external influences to conscience and the will, in 
 opposition to the subjective power of evil. Man's 
 probation is now due to influences for good from 
 without. " This is the condemnation, that light is 
 come into the world, and men love darkness rather 
 than light, because their deeds are evil." Now, this 
 would be no probation, unless the influences for good 
 from without were sufficient so far to counteract the 
 power of evil within, as to leave man free, under the 
 direction of conscience, to choose the good. The in- 
 fluences from without must not force the will, but 
 release it from the bondage of sin — set it once more 
 free. Nov/, what is the influence from without which 
 comes to save man from his sinful self ? — Is it not 
 God's love in Christ ? Certainlv, the advocates of an 
 indefinite extension of probation will admit that this 
 is the principal moral influence of Christianity, since 
 they especially are anxious to dispense with all ideas 
 of hell and its fear. But when once that love is fully 
 presented to the sinner, and he is thus brought to the 
 very crisis of his probation, what is the result if that 
 influence is rejected ? Certainly, by that fact, the 
 probation is ended. For the wilful rejection of love 
 is the destruction of its influence and the strengrthen- 
 ing of sin, and this cannot go far without placing the 
 sinner beyond the limits of probation. God maj'. 
 
40 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 it is true, devise new probations which we know not 
 of, but of these certainly we can have neither know- 
 ledge nor hope. "If we sin wilfully, after that we 
 have received the knowledge of the truth, there 
 remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain 
 fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indigna- 
 tion, which shall devour the adversaries." This 
 seems to be the language of reason, as well as of 
 inspiration. 
 
 So strongly does this argument press that the only 
 hope of those who press for an indefinite extension 
 of probation seems to lie in the corrective power of 
 punishment. Let us consider whether there be grounds 
 for hope here. 
 
 By punishment is of course intended suffering, and 
 this suffering must be either from within or from 
 without. It must find its cause in the spirit or in its 
 environment. Against a sufFerino- which arises from 
 the environment, i.e., is inflicted from without, the 
 advocates of broad theology are very much disposed 
 to object, especially if that environment is in any way 
 material. And yet the suffering which arises from 
 environment is the only kind of suffering which can 
 be corrective. If our view of the^spirit's condition in 
 the corruption and bondage of sin be correct, then by 
 nothing which arises within itself can it be delivered. 
 The power which sets it free mustjbe from without. 
 Now, that sufferings, from without, through the body 
 or the circumstance of life, have, by Divine grace, 
 their influence for good, I am free to admit. But 
 
1 
 
 IVV- 
 
 jre 
 lin 
 la- 
 
 lis 
 I of 
 
 MORAL RESPONSIIULITY, PROHATION AND SIN. 47 
 
 universal experience and, if time permitted the inves- 
 ti«(ation, a true philosophy would show that this 
 influence is contined within narrow limits, limits 
 which certainly seem to be reached within fhebounds 
 of this life. 
 
 Some have conceived that in remorse is to be found 
 the ground of an eternal hope. They say that re- 
 morse is a regret for, and hence a still lingering love 
 for the good which has been lost. And, inasmuch as 
 this remorse is the principal ingredient of the purely 
 subjective suffering which sin entails, and as it may 
 be conceived of as increasing with the lapse of pro- 
 gressive duration, it may become the mighty motive 
 to repentance by which the sinner, whom God's 
 chastening could not soften and God's love could not 
 draw, will be led back again to seek and find the 
 right. Now, were this true, then out of man's sin 
 itself would come his salvation, and the moral uni- 
 verse w^ould be self-rectifying. It were answer 
 enough to men who profess to believe the Bible, to 
 ask, then why did Christ die ? 
 
 But is there such an element of salvation in re- 
 morse ? Does it not rather lead to the scorn of the 
 good, hatred of it, utter antagonism to it. So thought 
 John Milton when he put such words as — 
 
 " The unconquerable will 
 And study of revenge, immortal hate," 
 
 into the lips of the lost fiend. 
 
 There is, it is true, a remorse which accompanies 
 salvation — the remorse of a heart broken into contri- 
 
 J 
 
¥ i 
 
 m 
 
 i if J 
 
 48 MOllAL llESPONSIUILITY, PROBATION AND SIN. 
 
 tion by love. The child whom a mothers tears and 
 love has rescued from disobedience is filled with re- 
 morse as it views the hideousness of its sin aorainst 
 such tender love. But this is not the remorse of the 
 soul that tramples on love and has persistently re- 
 jected its full and final appeal. The remorse of such 
 is not full of contrite tears, but of impotent rage and 
 eternal hate. It is indeed " impossible to renew them 
 unto repentance." 
 
 The conclusion, then, seems inevitable that the 
 extension of probation beyond the decisive rejection 
 of the Gospel is a moral impossibility. The word of 
 Gospel salvation must prove a savor of life unto life, 
 or else of death unto death. It is in itself decisive. 
 It judges. It determines probation. As to how God 
 deals with those who have not in their earthly pro- 
 bation been brought to the test of the Gospel, it is 
 not for us to speculate. The book of Revelation, 
 here, is silent ; and we cannot so place ourselves in 
 their position as to find subjective data for the satis- 
 factory examination of the subject. 
 
 But to this definite conclusion we seem clearly led : 
 
 1. That the end of all sin is to be placed under final 
 justice. 
 
 2. That the Gospel must finally determine all pro- 
 bation ; and 
 
 3. That when this is preached to every creature, the 
 END must come when God's unerring judgment and 
 justice shall fix forever the right moral relations of 
 the universe. 
 
n 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
I!! 
 
 liii 
 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 By the Atonement we understand that act or work 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ centrinjy in His death, 
 whereby the forgiveness of sins is possible to God, and 
 for man. 
 
 We do not propose to give an historical exposition 
 of the Church's apprehension of this work. Nor do 
 we attempt a polemic discussion of any one of the 
 various theories of the work of Christ which have 
 obtained in the Church. We shall rather approach 
 the Atonement as a fact clearly set forth in the New 
 Testament, a fact upon which the spiritual ijfe of the 
 Church universal is founded, the central fact of Chris- 
 tianity; and our object will be to apprehend this fact 
 in the light of its statement by Christ and the apoyt^es, 
 and by the principles of a sound moral philosophy. 
 
 We have thus limited ourselves to the New Testa- 
 ment study of the subject, not because important 
 light may not be derived from the Old Testament, but 
 first, because the New Testament contains the most 
 complete statement, embracing all and more than all 
 contained in the Old ; second, because the New Testa- 
 ment statement refers directly and primarily to the 
 work of Christ, the statement of the Old to the sacri- 
 
 ^- 
 
'T' 
 
 fill 
 
 52 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 \i 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ficial and prophetic types by which it was fore- 
 shadowed and the way for it prepared. The fulfil- 
 ment is always more easily understood than the 
 prophecy. We therefore cultivate brevity and cer- 
 tainty by adopting this method. 
 We shall inquire — 
 
 1. What is the moral constitution of the world 
 under which atonement is possible ? 
 
 2. What is the act or work by which atonement 
 is effected — its moral quality, and its valency or force 
 as an atonement ? 
 
 3. The relation of this atonement to human pro- 
 bation and salvation. 
 
 I. The Moral Constitution under which Atone- 
 ment IS Possible. 
 
 This is very clearly set forth by St. Paul in the 
 fifth chapter of Romans, verses 1^-19 inclusive : 
 " Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the 
 world, and death through sin; and so death passe.d 
 unto all men, for that all b'nned : — for until the law 
 sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed when 
 there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from 
 Adam until Moses, even over them that had not .tinned 
 after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a 
 figure of him that was to come. But not as the trespass, 
 so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the 
 one t!ie many died, much more did the grace of God, 
 and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 53 
 
 abound unto the many. And not as through one 
 that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement came of 
 one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of 
 many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the 
 trespass of the one, death reigned through the one ; 
 much more shall they that receive the abundance of 
 grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life 
 through the one, even Jesus Christ. So then as 
 through one trespass the judgement came unto all 
 men to condemnation ; even so through one act of 
 righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justi- 
 fication of life. For as through the one man's dis- 
 obedience the many were made sinners, even so 
 throm^h the obedience of the one shall the many be 
 made righteous." 
 
 Many other passages touch upon or harmonize with 
 the ideas here presented, but as this is the most direct 
 and complete statement, we will formulate our doc- 
 trine from it. 
 
 1. It sets forth as a fact that it is possible for the 
 whole race to be afl^ected for evil or for good, for sin 
 or for salvation, by the act of one member of that 
 race. 
 
 This implies (a) a moral unity of the race ; (6) a 
 united or common responsibility ixs distinguished from 
 individual responsibility. 
 
 In proof of this common responsibility Paul cites 
 the fact that it has taken effect even where individual 
 responsibility was not fully developed (vv. 13, 14). It 
 
 Bi 
 
f 
 
 I! 
 
 54 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 thus precedes and underlies our individual responsi- 
 bility. This law of our moral constitution which 
 makes the whole responsible for the individual act, 
 appears not merely in this statement of one case by 
 St. Paul, but in the whole experience of human life. 
 We find humanity everywhere presenting itself in 
 these moral unities. The family i;? the fundamental 
 unity. Any one of its members may bring untold 
 blessing or woe upon the whole. This responsibility 
 especially, though not exclusively, devolves upon the 
 parents. The children suffer for the sins of the 
 parents, or they are blessed by their virtues. Our 
 whole law of inheritance is based upon it, and thus 
 our jurisprudence recognizes its essential justice. But 
 these moral unities appear in wider circles. The vil- 
 lage, the community, the tribe, the city, the nation, 
 all are examples extending the law until we are 
 prepared by the facts of history to accept Paul's 
 statement that the " transojression of one man broujiht 
 judgement (penal consequences) upon all " the race, 
 and that " through the righteousness of one a free 
 gift came to all" the race. This passage implies (c) 
 that in the history of mankind there actually has 
 been a probation of* the race as a ra^e, based upon 
 this moral unity and common responsibility, as well 
 as a probation of each individual, and that this pro- 
 bation of the race is not only a continuous tact in 
 the moral judgements of history, but had its definite 
 historical result at the very origin of the race, in 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 55 
 
 e. 
 m 
 
 consequence of which well-known penal results have 
 descended to the whole race. It is on the basis of 
 this law that he also affirms a second ^reat proba- 
 tional event in the history of the race, out of which 
 shall flow the world's salvation. The law of moral 
 unity of common responsibility and of race probation 
 is thus clearly established as a fact, both by this 
 scriptural statement and by the observation of his- 
 tory, and its justice is recognized by the common 
 consent of mankind. 
 
 One or two points of error, howevef, must be 
 guarded against in our application and interpretation 
 of this law. 
 
 1. It must not be so extended as to destroy indi- 
 vidual probation. Paul, who is for us the chief 
 expounder of this law, also teaches as the funda- 
 mental law of individual probation, "Whatsoev^er a 
 man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal. vi. 7.) 
 So in the Epistle to the Romans, i. 18-21, and ii. 29 : 
 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, 
 who hold down the truth in unrighteousness ; because 
 that which may be known of God is manifest in 
 them ; for God manifested it unto them. For the 
 invisible things of him since the creation of the 
 world are clearly seen, being perceived through the 
 things that are made, even his everlasting power and 
 divinity ; that they may be without excuse : because 
 that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, 
 
Ill 1 1 
 
 1 
 
 56 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 neither gave thanks." Here is a most complete 
 exposition of universal individual responsibility and 
 probation, which is not destroyed by any advan- 
 tageous or adverse temporal conditions. 
 
 2. Upon this individual probation alone eternal 
 consequences are made to depend. Romans ii. 6-10 : 
 "Who will render to every man according to his 
 works : to them that by patience in well-doing seek 
 for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life : 
 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the 
 truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and 
 indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul 
 of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of 
 the Greek ; but glory and honor and peace to every 
 man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to 
 the Greek : for there is no respect of persons with 
 God." In no single case is the race probation spoken 
 of as the direct cause of eternal penalty to the indi- 
 vidual. This is always and everywhere referred to 
 the individual responsibility and probation. The 
 consequences which flow from race probation belong 
 to this life. They may largely affect the advantages 
 or disadvantages of individual probation, but they 
 are never spoken of as absolutely determining the 
 individual probation, or supplanting or eliminating it. 
 Notwithstanding Adam's sin or Christ's righteousness, 
 each man must give account of himself to God, and 
 ior his own sin or good works be judged for eternity. 
 The law of race responsibility is thus limited by the 
 

 11 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 57 
 
 
 law of individual responsibility, and finally merges 
 into it. The race probation prepares for, lays the 
 foundation of, and makes way for the final -ndividual 
 
 responsibility. 
 
 These are the facts of the case recognized in Scrip- 
 ture, evident in history and acknowledged as right- 
 eous by the common conscience of the race. 
 
 3. In studying the penal consequences which fol- 
 low from race responsibility, and to which the whole 
 race are held, we must distinguish clearly between 
 natural and moral law. Natural law may be founded 
 in moral law and may give effect to moral law, but it 
 does not thereby become moral law. Natural law is 
 an order of cause and effect, operated by the forces of 
 nature ; moral law is an order of right, operated by 
 the principles of justice. The operation of a natural 
 law ma} be counteracted by the force of nature upon 
 which it depends ; that of a moral law only by the 
 principle of justice upon which it depends. A. natural 
 law, by the aid of which effect is given to a moral 
 law, may be suspended, and yet the moral law itself 
 remain in full force in other ways. In the same way 
 a natural law, by which effect is given to a moral 
 law, may have a much wider scope than this particu- 
 lar moral end which it serves in this particular case. 
 Heredity and death are both natural laws used in 
 giving effect to a moral law in the probation of the 
 race, but not to be confounded with the moral law 
 
 
 li' 
 
 'hi 
 
 if 
 
m 
 
 m 
 
 58 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 itself. The bearincr of this upon the doctrine of the 
 Atonement will appear presently.* 
 
 The passage upon which we have based our study 
 of the moral constitution of the race, sets forth two 
 supreme events in the race probation. One is the sin 
 of the first man, in consequence of which penal con- 
 sequences rest upon the whole race. The other is the 
 work of Christ, in consequence of which redemption 
 comes to the race. This last we must now consider. 
 
 J I. The Work or Act of Christ by which Atone- 
 ment IS Effected, its Moral Character, 
 AND its Valency. 
 
 It will already be anticipated that, under this moral 
 constitution of our race which so binds us toofether in 
 moral unity that each can bless or ban the whole, if 
 the Son of God is to save us. He must become one 
 with us, i.e., He must first give himself to us. Under 
 
 * We have not delayed to consider the justice of this moral con- 
 stitution in itself. It is certainly a fact in human life. It is, we 
 think, sufhciently approved as (Jod's right order by a consideration 
 of the wonderful blessings which flow from it. It is the foundation 
 of all the altruistic virtues. Every man under it becomes his 
 brother's keeper. Individual responsibility without it could not 
 attain its most God -like development. If it made the fall possible, 
 it also made possible salvation. If it has entailed a long heritage 
 of ills, it has raised up a countless army of workers, together with 
 Christ, in saving others even by dying themselves. The fact that 
 man's sin turns it into a curse, cannot reflect upon the great and 
 wise and good intent and glorious final result of the purpose of 
 God. 
 
 -_ ill 
 Iff i' 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 59 
 
 ^ 
 
 the Divine order, the incarnation is the first step to 
 the redemption of the race. This our Lord himself 
 expresses in the clearest terms : " The Son of man 
 came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and 
 to give his life a ransom for many." (Matt. xx. 28.) 
 But the incarnation is neither the redemption nor 
 the atonement, though it leads to and provides the 
 means for both. We shall use the term redemption 
 to express the value, or valency, or effect of Christ's 
 work towards man ; atonement, to express its valency 
 towards God. It is the redemption of man, it is 
 atonement before God for men. For both, the incar- 
 nation is, of necessity, under God's order, the first 
 step. He must take upon Him, in order that He may 
 take hold of, our nature. To be a priest He must be 
 made like unto His brethren. Heb. ii. 14-17 : " Since 
 then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he 
 also himself in like manner partook of the same ; 
 that through death he might bring to nought him 
 that had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and 
 might deliver all them who through fear of death 
 were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily 
 not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold 
 of the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behoved him 
 in all things to be made like unto his brethren, tliat 
 he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in 
 things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the 
 sins of the people." This passage clearly states the 
 necessity of the incarnation both for the work of 
 
 ; ! 
 
 'V 
 
 
 ^\ ml 
 
 
^p 
 
 <)0 
 
 Wll 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 ! ■ 
 
 ' i| 
 
 ^!i^ 
 
 it 
 
 redemption or deliverance of man, and for that of 
 atonement or propitiation of God. The moral ground 
 of the first necessity is already apparent. Under 
 the law of moral unity it is only as man that He 
 can act for man. But under the same law, by this 
 very act of becoming man, He makes himself respon- 
 sible to the penalties which under that law rest upon 
 all the race. He not only as one of the race becomes 
 entitled to convey to the race the benefits of His 
 work, but He must at the same time suffer the penal 
 consequences of sin which rest upon the race, and 
 which claim Him with all the rest . of men for their 
 satisfaction. " In Adam all die." (1 Cor. xv. 22.) 
 The penal consequence of the first sin descending to 
 the whole race is expressed in that. " By one man 
 sin entered into the world, and death by sin." And so 
 in the passage now before us the incarnation is spoken 
 of as His taking part in the mortal elements of our 
 nature, " flesh and blood," that through death which 
 thus becomes not only possible, but was indeed by 
 the law demanded of Him, " he might destroy," etc. 
 
 Let us now turn to another remarkable passage in 
 which this act of Christ is set forth in all its steps 
 and sequences from the pre-existent glory with the 
 Father to the final mediatorial glory on the throne of 
 the universe. Phil. ii. 6-li: ''Also in Christ Jesus: 
 who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize 
 to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, 
 taking the form of a servant, being made in the like- 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 01 
 
 s 
 
 
 ness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, 
 he humbled himself, becominf]j obedient even unto 
 death, yea, the death of the' cross. Wherefore also 
 God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name 
 which is above every name; that in the name of 
 Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven 
 and things on earth and things under the earth, and 
 that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Here are the 
 successive steps of this work : 
 
 1. He thought not the being on an equality with 
 God a thing to be grasped, to be held fast as a robber 
 holds his prey. 
 
 2. He emptied himself. 
 
 3. He took the form of a servant. 
 
 4. He was made in the likeness of men. 
 
 5. Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled 
 himself and became obedient, i.e., came under law. 
 
 6. He carried this even to the extent of death, yea, 
 even the death of the cross ; i.e., to the utmost demand 
 of the law upon man as a sinner. 
 
 The intimate relation in thought of this passage 
 with our Lord's own words may almost justify us in 
 regarding the one as an expansion of the other. In 
 each the minister, the servant, appears, in each the 
 giving of His life. It will be seen that the Apostle 
 includes in this one great presentation not only the 
 death of Christ (that is indeed the supreme culmina- 
 tion), but with it His whole life, summed up into one 
 great act of sacrifice beginning in eternity itself. 
 
 it; 
 
 .If 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 !i^ 
 
 ¥y&MiWm^rT 
 
|! 
 
 1' 
 
 Hi 
 
 62 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 But that our statement of the work itself may be 
 more complete, let us place beside this comprehensive 
 exposition other passages of the New Testament 
 which state the essential element or elements in 
 Christ's redeeming and atoning work. 
 
 1. Those which speak of His giving or offering 
 himself. (Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. v. 2, 25 ; 1 Tim. ii. G ; 
 Heb. vii. 27, ix. 14, 25,28.) 
 
 2. Those which speak of His giving or offering His 
 life for us — laying down His life for us. (Matt. xx. 
 28; John x. 11, 15, 17, xv. 13; John iii. 16.) By 
 the side of these may be placed the many passages 
 which speak of redemption through His blood, the 
 sprinkling of His blood, etc., dying for us, suffering 
 for us. 
 
 3. Those which speak of Christ's sufferings as 
 penal, i.e., as borne as the penalty of sin. These are 
 peculiarly important as linking His sufferings with 
 the law of human responsibility, and distinguishing 
 them from the sufferings of a martyr or witness for 
 the truth. (Heb. ix. 28 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24, iii. 18 ; 1 Cor. 
 XV. 3 ; Rom. iv. 25, but especially Gal. iii. 10-14.) 
 " For as many as are of the works of the law are 
 under a curse : for it is written. Cursed is every one 
 which continueth not in all thinsfs that are written in 
 the book of the law, to do them. Now that no man 
 is justified by the law in the sight of God, is evident : 
 for, The righteous shall live by faith ; and the law is 
 not of faith ; but. He that doeth them shall live in 
 
 
 III 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 68 
 
 0; 
 
 
 them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
 having become a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed 
 is every one that hangeth on a tree : that upon the 
 Gentiles miofht CDme the blessinix of Abraham in 
 Christ Jesus ; that we might receive the promise of 
 the Spirit through faith." The curse is the penalty 
 of broken law (v. 10). " Christ became a curse " 
 on our behalf " for us." 
 
 Let us now gather up the scriptural elements of 
 this work of Christ. 
 
 First. The pretemporal. He counted it not a thing 
 to be held fast the being on an equality with God. 
 
 Second. The all-embracing act. He gave himself. 
 
 Third. The successive steps: (1) He emptied him- 
 self ; (2) He took the place of a servant; (3) He 
 became man ; (4) Obedient, or subject to law ; (5) As 
 man He obeyed unto death, yea, the death of the 
 cross. 
 
 Note especially how these passages link His death, 
 (1) with His becoming man (Heb. ii. 14, 15); (2) with 
 His obedience to law (Phil. ii. 8), and (8) with the 
 penalty of law (Gal. iii. 13), thus directly linking His 
 death to the moral constitution under which our race 
 is placed. 
 
 Note. — It is going beyond the legitimate force of tliese passages 
 to contend that Christ suffered the penalty of any individual sin, or 
 of the personal sins of any individual man, or the united penalties 
 of the sins of all men, or of any class of men, or the equivalent for 
 these penalties, or the anger of God, or the torments of the lost. 
 There is not the remotest reference to any of these things in any of 
 
tfflllli 
 
 G4 
 
 THK ATONEMENT. 
 
 these pafesagc'H. On the other hand, (iod with this Son declares 
 himself as always well pleased, mver more so than when He was 
 fulfilling the w ill of the Father by obeying unto death even the 
 death of the cross. If we arc asked, What then is the meaning of 
 ( iethsemane and the cry of Calvary ? we turn to Ifeb. v. 7-9: "Who 
 in the days of his flesh, having ofFercdui) prayers and supplications 
 with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him 
 from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he 
 was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered ; 
 and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey 
 him the author of eternal salvation." He was truly man. As ar 
 man He felt all the bitterness of death in its most cruel form. A» 
 a man He needed to be saved out of death. Even though the Son 
 of God, yet was He disciplined in obedience (as all men are under 
 our moral order) by the things which He sufTered. He sufferedi 
 death, the universal penalty of sin appointed to all men in this life, 
 nothing more, but nothing less. He tasted death for every man. 
 Not " in our stead," for the preposition can scarcely be held in 
 sound scholarship to have that significance, certainly not to be 
 limited to it, but ^*on our hchaJf." Those who think that this is 
 not enough have never realized what it is for man to die. 
 
 But with the historic fact thus clearly defined 
 before us, we must next turn to consider this redeem- 
 ing and atoning work or act in its moral character. 
 
 First. It is an act or work of infinite charity or 
 love. It is love to all sinners. (2 Cor. v. 14, 15.) It 
 is love to His Church, His own, His friends. (Eph. 
 V. 25 ; John xiii. 1, xv. 13.) Love to every indi- 
 vidual. (Gal. ii. 20.) It is infinite love. (Eph. iii. 18.) 
 
 Second. It is this love obeying the infinite love of 
 God the Father. (John iii. 10, iv. 84, vi. 38-40; 
 1 John iv. 8-10; Rom. v. 8.) 
 
 Third. It is love making infinite sacrifice to fulfil 
 
 I 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 65 
 
 this love and yield this obedience. (2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 
 Phil. ii. 5, etc.; John xvii. 20-2(3.) 
 
 Fourth. It is love sacredly fulfilling all law. 
 (Matt. iii. 15.) As the righteous will of the Father. 
 (Matt. xxvi. 30, etc. ; Matt. v. 17, etc. ; Gal. iv. 3, 4, 
 etc.) 
 
 It is thus the world's supreme work of righteous- 
 ness, including every element which goes to make up 
 the beauty of holiness as the highest and greatest 
 thing in the universe, and as infinitely precious before 
 God. 
 
 We now come to the greatest question, Wherein 
 lies the power of this work as an atonement before 
 God ? as the propitiation for our sins ? How does it 
 make it pos.sible for God to forgive sin ? 
 
 First. Note carefully what is to b^. accomplished 
 by the atonement. It is not simply the remission of 
 penalty. It is not the allowing of the sinner to 
 escape punishment. It is true forgiveness. It is the 
 bringing of the sinner back into his place in the 
 heart of God, it is God's receiving him again as His 
 child. Read the 15th of St. Luke for Christ's own 
 presentation of this. The atonement must make it 
 possible for God to forgive sins. 
 
 Again, this does not imply that there is not in the 
 heart of God the grace, the love wh;ch desires to re- 
 ceive the lost child back. This is the very fountain- 
 head of the atonement, " God so loved the world.'* 
 But it does imply that there is a bar, something 
 5 
 
 
 I 
 
I 
 
 6Q 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 which hinders God's love from taking effect. Now, 
 this bar mudt lie either — 
 
 (a) In man the sinner, who will not or cannot be 
 reconciled to God because he chooses to remain in 
 sin ; or 
 
 (6) In the necessities of the moral government of 
 God, whose authority must be maintained over the 
 creatures who have not sinned ; or 
 
 (c) In the nature of God himself, who, because He 
 is holy and just, cannot forgive sin without atone- 
 ment. In other words, the atonement must enable 
 God to be "just and the justifier of him that believ- 
 eth." (Rom. iii. 26.) 
 
 We do not hesitate to accept the latter as the only 
 possible final ground of the necessity of the atonement, 
 first, on the basis of the passage of Scripture just 
 quoted, and again, because in tne ultimate analysis 
 both the other grounds must resolve themselves into 
 this. 
 
 1. Why should the persistence of the sinner in his 
 sins be a bar to forgiveness ? Either because God as 
 holy and just cannot receive such into His favor, or 
 because to do so would undermine the authority of 
 His government. The first, then, necessarily falls 
 into the second or third. 
 
 2. But why should the government of God be 
 undermined by the forgiveness of the sinner either 
 penitent or impenitent ? Either because it indicates 
 a lack of power in God to punish, or because it 
 
HP 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 67 
 
 indicates a lack of disposition, ^n the first case, the 
 authority of God's government would rest on fear, a 
 position which cannot be accepted by those who 
 believe with St. John that God is love. In the second 
 case, the authority would be undermined because of 
 lack of disposition, i.e., of justice, of inflexible will to 
 do right. That is, God's government would be under- 
 mined because injustice would be done, and it is 
 maintained not as a matter of expedience, but of right. 
 If then we believe in right as an eternal and primary 
 principle in God, and do not regard it as o secondary 
 thing, a wise form of goodness, then in this lies the 
 final bar to forgiveness, and the atonement must make 
 it right for God to forgive sin. If it is right, then it 
 cannot shake the throne of God founded on the right. 
 How does the work of Christ make it right for God 
 to forgive sin ? Our question as thus carried back 
 excludes for answer all moral influence theories of the 
 atonement. Moral influence expresses the relation of 
 the atonement to man, most important in its own 
 place. We are asking. What is its relation to God 
 in His own attributes ? especially in His attribute 
 of justice, and to that attribute as ultimate, i.e., view- 
 ing things as right in virtue of their own character, 
 and not merely of certain consequences. If the pen- 
 alty of sin and the condemnation of the sinner are 
 simply expedients for the maintenance of government, 
 then maintain the authority of government in some 
 other way and you may dispense with them. But if 
 they are of eternal equity, 
 
 
 5' I 
 
 j:,j 
 
 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 68 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 how does the atonement secure equity in the 
 Pardon of the Sinner ? 
 
 The underlying principle of the various attempts to 
 answer this question will appear from three examples: 
 
 1. Anselm says sin robs God of His just honor. 
 The atonement pays back this honor to God as it 
 would have been paid back had we ourselves suffered 
 the penalty. 
 
 2. Later on the Calvinistic theologians developed 
 this into the substitutionary theory. Christ suffered 
 the exact penalty or the equivalent for the penalty of 
 the sins of the elect, and hence they are released. 
 
 3. Finally by the use of an analof^y or metaphor 
 this was converted into the commercial view of the 
 atonement. Sin is a debt. Christ paid the debt. 
 We are released. 
 
 Before investigating the Scriptural foundations of 
 these answers we may submit them to analysis to see 
 whether they really supply what we need. 
 
 1. Ansel m's view finds the guilt of sin in that it 
 robs God. But is that its full guilt ? Is not the 
 right, that moral equity which is iix God and in all 
 His works, the very principle which demands that 
 amends should be made to God's honor ? • The evil of 
 sin is more than the violation of personal right even 
 of God. It is the violation of an eternal principle in 
 God and in all His works. That principle not only 
 enjoins the right and forbids the wrong, but it attaches 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 69 
 
 IE 
 
 to 
 
 to right its equitable reward, and to wrong its equi- 
 table penalty, not as an expedient, but as a matter of 
 right. Now, that which right demands is not that 
 the wrong be repaid (that it does demand where- 
 ever possible, but here it may be impossible), but 
 that a new right should be carried into effect, viz., 
 the equity of penalty. It was this phase of the 
 problem which developed the substitution theory of 
 the reformers. They held that in the satisfaction of 
 the penalty of justice, the suffering of penalty may 
 be transferred to a substitute. If the substitute 
 suffers the penalty, then the original transgressor may 
 go free. The principle upon which this view is based 
 is not materially altered, whether we consider the 
 penalty as identical or as equivalent in value. In 
 either case it is held that satisfaction is made, the 
 debt is paid. 
 
 It has been objected to this view, and very properly, 
 that it involves a moral impossibility if taken in its 
 extreme form of identical penalty. The penal conse- 
 quences of sin are thus defined in the Shorter 
 Catechism : " All mankind by their fall lost com- 
 munion with God, are under His wrath and curse and 
 so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death 
 itself and to the pains of hell forever." With this 
 catalogue before us the point seems well taken that it 
 is impossible that Christ should have suffered all this. 
 The greater part of those who hold this view in con- 
 sequence fall back upon some form of equivalence. 
 
 if I 
 
 
 1 :. 
 
 ■"i^t 
 

 
 
 
 I! 
 
 li 
 
 Ili 
 
 II 
 
 > i 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 ;] 
 
 
 : 
 
 i i 
 ! 
 
 \ I 
 
 ; \ 
 
 70 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 2. But it is again objected that the very principle 
 of substitution, instead of satisfying justice, violates 
 justice; that guilt consists essentially of two elements, 
 the culjxt, or obligation to penalty, and the poena, or 
 penalty itself; that while the latter may be trans- 
 ferred, the former in moral delinquency is personal 
 and cannot be transferred; another cannot become 
 blameworthy for my sin, and as the bond of justice 
 which attaches penalty to sin lies in the blamew^orthi- 
 ness, that bond cannot be satisfied, will not attach 
 itself, even though another suffer the penalty ; that 
 in this respect there is an essential difference between 
 sin and a debt. Another may place himself under 
 obligation in justice for my debt. He cannot do so 
 for my crime, except hy becoming particeps criminis, 
 and even then it is his ov/n part in the crime for 
 which he is responsible. Even in human law, where 
 relative justice and the prevention of crime are the 
 objects sought, this principle is not admitted in rela- 
 tion to crime, although freely applied to debt. Much 
 less then could it apply in Divine law where absolute 
 justice is demanded. 
 
 3. It is objected to this principle that if valid at 
 all it secures not forgiveness conditioned on penitence 
 and faith, but absolute discharge. This was freely 
 accepted by the reformers who held that, this substi- 
 tution taking place only on behalf of the elect, abso- 
 lute discharge was secured ; and that regeneration, 
 justification and sanctification were but the effectual 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 71 
 
 operations by which the discharge was to be carried 
 into effect, like the opening of the doors and the 
 knocking off of the chains of the prisoners. 
 
 But while this objection is thus not absolutely fatal 
 in Calvinistic theology, it is so in Arminian. We see 
 no way in which the principle of substitution can be 
 applied except as mvoj ving the absolute security of 
 those for whom it is made. Fomiveness is no lonofer 
 forgiveness, but legal discharge, under this concep- 
 tion. This is not what is required in atonemont, but 
 a propitiation, that is, righteous motive to, or reason 
 for, forgiveness. It would thus seem that under the 
 force of these two objections the substitutionary view 
 must fall to the orround as failinijf to meet two essential 
 Scriptural ideas, the satisfaction of Divine justice on 
 the one hand, and a real Divine forgiveness condi- 
 tioned on repentance and faith on the other. But 
 insuperable as these objections appear, if Scripture 
 sustained this view we should be forced to suspend 
 judgement. But when we come to examine the 
 Scriptural foundation for it, we think it will be found 
 to be far from satisfactory. 
 
 The view is, however, supposed to be sustained by 
 three classes of New Testament passages : 
 
 First. Those which speak of Christ dying for us, 
 sufferinof for us, etc. One of the most strikinor of 
 these is 1 Peter iii. 18 : " Because Christ also suffered 
 for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that 
 he might bring us to God." The idea of substitution 
 
 ti 
 
 ^i 
 
 I 
 
j> 
 
 72 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 in this and all similar passages is supposed to lie in 
 the preposition here used vnep. But the preposition 
 VTtep does not necessarily imply anything as to the 
 manner of carrying the work into effect. It does 
 assert that the benefit or advantage of the work of 
 " the righteous " accrues to " the unrighteous." But 
 it is reading into it more than its legitimate force to 
 make it say that such benefit is farther secured by an 
 act in which the benefactor takes the place of the 
 benefited. In the only two passages in the New 
 Testament in which vnep was translated ''instead 
 of," viz., 2 Cor. v. 20, Phil. 13, the revised version has 
 the more correct, " on behalf of." This does not imply 
 any idea of substitution in person, but only in results 
 or benefits. 
 
 Second. The next class of passages is that in which 
 the preposition avri is used. This is supposed to 
 imply an absolute substitution. In this case no 
 objection lies against the meaning assigned to the 
 preposition. It certainly commonly signifies " instead 
 of," " in the place of." And if in the passage in St. 
 Peter just quoted, or in any similar passage, Christ 
 had been said to have suffered or died, avri jjjugjv^ 
 substitutionary suffering would have been strongly 
 asserted. But this preposition is used only in three 
 passages, and in all cases in the same connection of 
 thought. These are Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, and 
 1 Tim. ii. 6. If in the first two passages, which are 
 in reality one saying of the Master, it had been said, 
 
 ii 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 73 
 
 ju 
 
 t 
 to 
 n 
 e 
 w 
 
 as 
 
 "to give his life," or "to die," avTi i]f^0Dv, then the 
 substitutionary theory could be founded on the words. 
 But that is not said, but this, " to give his life as a 
 ransom price instead of the many ; " the substitution 
 is not of the person who gave his life, but of the act, 
 or the life given, as " a ransom price." It is the ran- 
 som price which, /or the 'purpose of deliverance^ takes 
 the place of the person delivered. 
 
 The same idea appears in the passage, " Who gave 
 himself a ransom price instead vnep (" on behalf of ") 
 of all to be testified in due time." You note the dif- 
 ference in terras : In the first, avri " instead of " " the 
 many " (redeemed) ; in the last, " a ransom price " to 
 take the place, not " of all," but " for the benefit of 
 all." In all these passages the thought centres not on 
 an atonement offered to God, but on a redemption 
 provided for man. Christ's death is the ransom price 
 in our stead as delivering us from sin, "for the benefit 
 of all,'' but instead of all that believe. 
 
 The word " ransom " expresses exactly and beauti- 
 fully the power of Christ's death toward man. But 
 its valency toward God is expressed by the word 
 " propitiation," iXaatjjpiov, an entirely different idea, 
 and we have no right to confuse the two, or to extend 
 the figure of ransom beyond that which it directly 
 illustrates, our deliverance. To ask to whom the 
 ransom price was paid, is to carry the figure beyond 
 its Scriptural use. 
 
 We are therefore led to carry our question back 
 
 
 ij 
 
 (1 
 INI 
 
74 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 once more to the New Testament for answer, and ask 
 is there any light upon it ? How does the work of 
 Christ make it right or just for God to, forgive sins ^ 
 The answer can, we think, be found in the passages 
 already quoted from Romans v. and Phil. ii. 
 
 In the first of these passages Paul is discussing 
 this whole question, both of the fall and the recovery 
 of man, from the ethical or moral standpoint. This 
 certainly touches both its relation to God and man. 
 It is the ethical quality, the wrong in sin, which 
 makes it mighty towards God and man. So it is the 
 ethical quality in Christ's work which makes it 
 mighty toward God and man. The ethical quality in 
 sin Paul expresses by two words. First, related to 
 moral law, it is "transgression" ; second, related to 
 God, ''disobedience." So the ethical quality of 
 Christ's work he expresses by two corresponding 
 words. Toward moral law or principle, it is 
 diuaioD^tXy the fulfilment of law, that which it pre- 
 scribes ; toward God it is " obedience." In trans- 
 gression lies the condemning power of Adam's act ; 
 in righteousness, the restoring power of Christ's 
 work ; in disobedience that which offended God ; in 
 obedience, that which propitiates Him. 
 
 The other passage (Phil. ii. (i, etc.) sets forth the 
 ethical side of the work of Christ as an example to 
 us, and at the same moment as claiming from God 
 the lofty dignity and right to the power which He 
 exercises as Mediator. His mediatorial throne, His 
 
m 
 
 lof 
 
 res 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 75 
 
 i I 
 i ! 
 
 power on earth to forgive sins, is the just reward of 
 His infinite self-sacrifice in obedience to the loving 
 command of that Father who " so loved the world 
 that he gave his only begotten Son," who " sent his 
 Son into the world not to condemn the world, but 
 that the world through him might be saved." It is 
 in virtue of the merit of His work, ts infinite desert, 
 that remission of sins is preached through His name 
 among all nations. It is after He had finished this 
 work, even before He ascended into heaven, that He 
 himself said, " All power is given unto me in heaven 
 and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples 
 of all nations." To the same etfect are the words of 
 St. Peter (Acts ii. 83, etc.), " Being therefore by the 
 right hand of God exalted, and having received of 
 the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
 poured forth this which ye see and hear," i.e., the 
 Spirit of sonship upon man. 
 
 . The sum then of these passages is this, that God 
 the Father, in reward of the loving obedience, and 
 self-sacrifice, and fulfilment of the claims of law, 
 of His Son, grants Him as just reward the power to 
 dispense the forgiveness of sins and power to become 
 the sons of God, in spite of the demerit of their sins, 
 to all who believe in His name. It is not in virtue of 
 individual substitutionary sacrifice, but in virtue of the 
 merit of His obedience, and loving self-sacrifice, and 
 fulfilment of law, even by death, that God has placed 
 Him in that position of supreme mediatorial power as 
 
 n 
 
 
 r^l 
 
 i| 
 
 iCV-s 
 
ill 
 
 I 
 
 76 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 our High Priest, in wliich He shall gather a company 
 which no n\an can number, out of every people and 
 tribe and nation, and that the Father forgives the sins 
 of these for His name's sake, and makes them sons 
 and daughters of the Lord Almighty, heirs of God 
 and joint-heirs with Christ. 
 
 To put it then in one word, it is not the suffering 
 of an equivalent penalty which cancels sin, but the 
 merit of a work of infinite TYioral value, which at 
 once honors God by loving obedience t'o the command 
 of His love, and by laying down life at that command, 
 honors law by meeting its every demand on Him as 
 one with our race. This makes it right for God, first, 
 to enter into relations of mercy to the whole race, in 
 whose nature and for whose sake this work was 
 wrought ; and second, to forgive and accept everyone 
 who comes in His name for mercy 
 
 In this way it is justice that satisfies justice. The 
 higher justice not only counterweighs the lower, but 
 lifts the scale in which the sinner stands weighted 
 with his sins up to God and heaven. The link which 
 binds the work of Christ, then, to God is the link of 
 just reward. It is right to God for Christ's sake to 
 forgive sins. 
 
 III. But we must now consider more fully the link 
 which binds us to Christ's work. 
 
 We have already seen how Christ in the moral 
 order of our united nature bound himself to us as a 
 race by taking upon Him our nature. It was in 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 77 
 
 Ind 
 
 ins 
 )ns 
 fod 
 
 mg 
 
 virtue of this that He was called on to Huflfer the final 
 penalty of the sinning race, i.e., death, and it is in 
 virtue of this that He has opened up the mercy of 
 God unconditionally to the whole race, and placed 
 the whole race on a new and gracious probation. 
 We have now to consider the terms of this probation, 
 and how it carries us up into a new and higher unity 
 of humanity whose head is Christ, and whose issues 
 are eternal salvation. Before entering on this final 
 relation of atonement, let us examine those Scriptures 
 which set forth its unconditioned benefits in the gra- 
 cious probation of the entire sinful race — 
 
 1. As an unconditional result of Christ's work there 
 is a universal resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 22 : " As in 
 Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
 This universal resurrection is for the purpose of judge- 
 ment. " We must all appear before the judgement 
 seat of Christ that every one may receive the things 
 done in the body according to that he hath done 
 whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. v. 10.) So also 
 our Lord himself. John v. 28, 29 : " Marvel not at 
 this for the hour cometh when all that are in the 
 tombs shall hear his voice and shall come forth ; they 
 that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and 
 they that have done ill unto the resurrection of judge- 
 ment." The universal resurrection is thus directly 
 subservient to a universal probation under the 
 mediatorial authority of Christ. 
 
 2. As an unconditional result of the work of Christ, 
 
 
 ^m 
 
11 
 
 i 
 
 
 |i 
 
 I 
 
 78 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 light comes to all men. John i. 9: "That was the 
 true light which lighteth every man that cometh into 
 the world." This light founds probation. John 
 iii. 19 : "This is the judgement that light is come into 
 the world, and men love darkness rather than light 
 because their deeds are evil." Thus the work of 
 Christ for our race provides the beginning and the 
 ending of probation, universal light and universal 
 judgement through that light. 
 
 3. Next we have in this work of Christ a universal 
 provision of Divine grace. Titus ii. 12-14: "For the 
 grace of God, saving for all men, hath been made 
 manifest, instructing us " (i.e., giving us moral light 
 and discipline) " in order that," etc. Here then we 
 have in connection with the atonement a saving 
 course of prohational life and grace provided for all 
 nien. 
 
 4. Next, in accordance with universal gracious pro- 
 vision of probation, we have provision for possible 
 salvation of every man. John iii. 16 : " God so loved 
 the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish but 
 have eternal life." So 1 John ii. 2; Heb. ii. 9; 1 Tim. 
 ii. 6 ; Rom. v. 18, etc. 
 
 5. In accordance with this universal probation, and 
 these provisions of light and grace and possible sal- 
 vation, God wills and is working for the salvation of 
 the world. 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 : " This is good 
 and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who 
 
 
TiJE ATONEMENT. 
 
 70 
 
 he 
 |to 
 i\n 
 Ito 
 [ht 
 of 
 Ihe 
 
 willeth that all men should be saved and come to the 
 knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one 
 mediator also between God and men, himself man, 
 Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all; the 
 testimony to be borne in its own times." "To wit, that 
 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, 
 not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having 
 committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 
 
 These are, according to Scripture, the universal pro- 
 visions of the atonement, i.e., its results. Let us see 
 how they correspond to the universal results of 
 Adam's sin, and hence how they may spring directly 
 and unconditionally by the law of race unity from 
 the work of Christ in our nature and on our behalf. 
 
 1. If univer>>-al death could come into the world as 
 the result of the sin of one man, certainly, under the 
 same law, and with equal or even greater justice, a 
 universal resurrection may come as the result of the 
 righteousness of one man. 
 
 2. If darkness, moral blindness, has fallen upon our 
 world in Adam, surely truth, moral light, may come 
 through Christ by the same law. 
 
 3. If a law of sin in our members has come to all 
 through Adam, a law of grace through the Holy 
 Spirit may come through Christ. (Acts ii. 17.) 
 
 4. If the sin of Adam brought the possibility of 
 eternal condemnation to the whole world (Rom. v. 18), 
 surely the righteousness of Christ may bring the* 
 possibility of salvation within the reach of all. 
 
III I 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 ;i| 
 
 80 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 5. If the sin of Adam brought in a reign of sin 
 and death, so the work of Christ brings in a kingdom 
 of grace and life. (Rom. v. 21.) 
 
 Finally, if the sin of Adam destroyed the condi- 
 tions and possibilities of the original probation granted 
 to the race, surely on the same law the work of Christ 
 may lay the foundations of a new and gracious pro- 
 bation under which men may rise to all the possi- 
 bilities of their being. 
 
 We must now consider what that probation is, and 
 liow it is related to the atoning work of Christ. 
 
 Without entering into the nature of probation in 
 general, which will be discussed in another paper, it 
 is sufficient to note the fact so fully declared in Scrip- 
 ture, that the condition of the new probation ii^ faith. 
 (John iii. 18 ; Acts x. 43 ; Rom. iii. 21-26.) Here the 
 Lord himself, speaking through John, and Peter and 
 Paul unite. If at times repentance on the one side as 
 the preparation for this faith, and baptism on the 
 other as the profession of this faith, are associated 
 with it, it is only as the perfecting of faith that they 
 are so presented. Faith is the essential condition of 
 the Christian probation. 
 
 Again, this faith is personally in Christ. The per- 
 sonal Saviour is the centre and object and foundation 
 of this faith. Our Lord himself generally uses faith, 
 the noun, in the absolute and generic sense. But the 
 verb " believe " {Ttiareveiv)^ He occasionally applies 
 to himself, " believing in," or " on me," though in the 
 
 • •% 
 
 mtiim 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 81 
 
 Sin 
 10 m 
 
 idi- 
 Ited 
 jrist 
 
 )ro- 
 
 synoptic gospels generally used in the absolute sense. 
 But in St. John's Gospel, thirty-nine passages, about 
 one-half of the whole number, give us " believe in or 
 on Christ." Nearly this same proportion holds in th'^ 
 Act and Epistles. So in the A "ts and the Epistles, 
 the word faith, used absolutely in the large number 
 of cases, is when the object is mentioned, in nineteen 
 instances, "faith in or of Christ," in three, "faith in 
 or toward God," and in one case, " faith in his 
 (Christ's) blood." This fact makes it quite evident 
 that to th3 mind of the New Testament writers, the 
 personal Christ was the object of faith rather than 
 any abstract conception of the Atonement, on the one 
 hand, or any specitic declaration of promise on the 
 other. The Atonement was the work of Christ, and 
 the promises were the words of Christ, and the faith 
 which believed in Hivi included both. The single 
 expression, " faith in his blood," does in one case 
 point to the Atonement as the object of faith. There 
 the Atonement is yet forth as a propitiatory offering. 
 " Whom God has s^t forth a propitiation through 
 faith in his blood." So in the parallel passage : " He 
 is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, 
 but also for the sins of the whole world." Thus even 
 this passage does not separate Christ from His work. 
 He is the offering and the offerer, and " faith ii his 
 blood " is faith in himself, as He gives himself a pro- 
 pitiatory offering to God. All that we have already 
 said about the moral value of His work applies directly 
 
 to this offering and sacrifice. 
 6 
 
 i 
 
 :»:-4 
 
fill 
 
 82 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 According to the teaching of the New Testament, 
 then, the new probation established by Christ's work 
 for the whole race makes individual acceptance with 
 God depend upon a continuous personal faith, w^hich 
 faith takes hold of Christ not only as giving himself 
 for the whole world, but as giving " himself for me." 
 (Gal. ii. 20.) How does this act of faith bring me 
 thus into special and individual relation to Christ 
 and His work for my salvation by the forgiveness of 
 my sins ? 
 
 We have already seen that by the general moral 
 law, explained at the beginning of our study, the 
 general benefits which flow to the race from the 
 Atonement come through Christ's uniting himself to 
 the race, restoring it to all the possibilities of spiritual 
 life It is under the same law that each individual 
 is personally linked to Christ for the personal benefits 
 of the Atonement. Faith is the instrument of union 
 with Christ. *' Christ dwells in our hearts by faith," 
 and we by faith are grafted into Him, the living vine. 
 We are ** menrbers of his body," we are '' his brethren," 
 we are "his ^aints," "his elect," ''his own," "his pecu- 
 liar people," " his church." AM these easily recognized 
 Scripture terms express an inner unity with Christ, 
 in virtue of which the full benefits of the Atonement 
 are conferred, no longer as a matter of universal un- 
 conditioned grace, but as a matter of gracious proba- 
 tion. "If children, heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs 
 w^ith Christ, if so be that we suflfer with him that we 
 
THE ATONEINIENT. 
 
 83 
 
 
 »j 
 
 may be also glorified together." It is at this point 
 that the Church, for nearly fifteen centuries, has been 
 divided into two opposing camps ; the one, and in all 
 the ages by far the larger part, holding that the 
 entrance into this higher unity is truly probational ; 
 the other that it is absolutely fixed and eflfected by 
 God. In discussing this problem the advocates of the 
 necessitarian view have always had this advantage, 
 that the substitutionary theory of atonement in its 
 very nature implied a fixed and determined number 
 whose sins were borne, in whose stead Christ suflfered, 
 and whose sins were cancelled by His sufferings. On 
 the other hand, those who have maintained the pro- 
 bational view have the advantage, first, of the inner 
 consciousness of responsibility which every man feels, 
 and from which he cannot set himself free by any 
 consideration of his moral conditions ; and secondly, 
 of the entire tenor of Scripture which certainly sup- 
 ports the idea that, under the Gospel, man is in a 
 truly probational relation to God and to eternal des- 
 tiny. This question presents itself under another 
 topic of theology and must there be discussed. It is 
 only necessary here to ask. Does the view of the 
 valency of the Atonement, and of its relation to the 
 race and to the individual, which we have here pre- 
 sented, lay the foundation for a probational or for a 
 necessitated personal salvation ? 
 
 First. There can be no doubt that the merit of 
 Christ's work calls for its reward. That reward is 
 
it 
 
 84 
 
 THE atonemp:nt. 
 
 } 
 
 I 
 
 il 
 
 ! ! 
 
 i 1 it 
 
 i 
 
 
 all the fulness of Divine love, grace and promise to 
 His own. These are assured to His people by the 
 justice as well as the love of the Father. To those 
 who are in Christ Jesus, the immutability of God 
 assures " no condemnation." In Christ we have a 
 strong consolation who have fled for refuge, to lay 
 hold of the hope set before us in the Gospel. But 
 while the relation between Christ's work and His 
 reward is thus unalterably sure, it is a great mistake 
 to suppose it capable of being weighed, measured, or 
 numbered, or equated with the demerits or wants of 
 any number of sinners. Christ would have His 
 reward in the infinite love, faithfulness and grace 
 of the Father in the salvation of one sinner, and 
 nothing less than the merits of Christ coidd save that 
 one sinner. Those same 7,'^erits needed for the sal- 
 vation of one sinner are at the same moment, and by 
 the very same virtue, adequate to the salvation of all 
 the countless myriads of the race. It is this personal 
 character of the work of Christ which makes it cap- 
 able of unlimited amplication. " He is the author of 
 eternal salvation unto all them that obey Hiu)." 
 (H'^b. v. 9.) Every time that a sinner comes to God 
 in His name, He is still "able to save to the utter- 
 most them that draw near unto God through him, 
 seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for tbtm." 
 (Heb. vii. 25.) While, therefore, the merit of Christ's 
 work is immutably certain in its efficacy, and un- 
 limited in its application, that application is, by its 
 
to 
 the 
 
 ose 
 iod 
 e a 
 lay 
 
 THK ATONEMENT. 
 
 85 
 
 very nature, capable of control by probational con- 
 ditions, in fact must be controlled by conditions of 
 some kind. It is capable of unlimited application. 
 It is applied only to those who are Christ's. In this 
 all are agreed. The only question is, How do we 
 become Christ's — by a determining decree of God, or 
 by probational faith ? The work of Christ itself cer- 
 tainly does not by its nature determine it. The Scrip- 
 tures everywhere proclaim its unlimited scope, and 
 the possibility of its application to all. It is a per- 
 sonal merit of the Son who obeyed the Father's loving 
 command even unto death, vea, the death of tlie 
 cross. It has given him mediatorial power. That 
 power is needed in all its fulness by every sinner. 
 It is, therefore, capable of laying the foundation of 
 just such gracious probation as our Arminian theology 
 requires, and as we believe the Scripture teaches. 
 
 Again, this work of Christ in its nature exerts the 
 moral power by which we may be lifted into the new 
 and holy life. 
 
 First. It asserts the guilt of sin The law which 
 condemns it to penalty cannoc be broken. Christ 
 himself died to obey that law. He suffered the 
 penalty laid upon the race. 
 
 Second. It sets forth the unspeakable value of 
 holiness and of obedience to God. The infinite sav- 
 ing efficacy of Christ's work lies in the value of 
 obedience. The <j:lorv of His mediatorial kinnrdom 
 is founded on the worth of His righteoiisness and 
 obedience. 
 
86 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 [I 
 
 n 
 
 
 Third. It has in it all the drawing power of love. 
 " He loved us and gave himself for us." " We love 
 hini because he first loved us." 
 
 Fourth. It is the example to man and to the uni- 
 verse of moral beinjjs, of Divine rij^hteousness in all 
 its fundamental elements — 
 
 1. As right. 
 
 2. As law^ 
 
 3. As obedience. 
 
 4. As self- sacrifice. 
 
 5. As love. 
 
 Lastly, by the power of its moral value as a work 
 of right, of law, of obedience, of self-sacrifice, of love, 
 it gives infinite strength to that moral power in which 
 the government of God stands eternally secure. It is 
 not an expedient, not a make-shift to terrify, or a 
 public dramatic object lesson, but it is the highest 
 perfection of moral good that the universe has seen 
 or can see, WTOUght out to the honor and glory of the 
 Father by His well-beloved Son — a work which 
 anorels det^ire to look into, and beholding; enter more 
 perfectly themselves into the moral mind of God. 
 
 The Atonement then originates with the love of the 
 Father to a world of sinners sending His only begot- 
 ten Son. It is wrought by the love of the Son who 
 enters into the will of the Father with loving obedi- 
 ence. To render that obedience, He enters into that 
 law of our moral constitution which renders salvation 
 possible and becomes man. As man He bows to all the 
 
 '(•■a; 
 
 m^M 
 
« 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 87 
 
 penalty which Divine law had laid upon the race. He 
 does this that He may win from among men some who 
 will believe on His name, i.e., find the lost sheep. In 
 doing this He merits from the Father an infinite 
 reward, the benefits of which accrue to the race with 
 which He has made himself one—first to all the race 
 in bringing all within reach of God's mercy and a 
 new and gracious probation, and then to all who 
 receive Him and become His own in "giving them 
 power to become the sons of God." 
 
 Thus, that which atones for sin is the oft'ering to 
 God of an infinite righteousness, in which the bearing 
 of penalty is indeed the culmination of self-sacdfice, 
 but in which the efficacy lies in the merit of its love, 
 and from which there springs an inexhaustible foun- 
 tain of grace and salvation. 
 
 •1