.A.T O JST E ML E 1ST T. 
 
 SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 THE SACRIFICIAL, IN CONTRAST WITH THE 
 PENAL, SUBSTITUTIONARY, AND MERELY 
 MORAL OR EXEMPLARY THEO- 
 RIES OF PROPITIATION. 
 
 S. G. BURNEY, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 Professor of Systematic Theology in Cumberland University. 
 
 " Search the Scriptures, . . . they are they that testify of 
 me." The Great Teacher. 
 
 " I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." Paul. 
 
 NASHVILLE, TENN.: 
 
 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE. 
 
 1888,
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1888, 
 
 BY UKV. S. G. BURNEY, 
 In the office of the. Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
 
 TO MY 
 
 HIGHLY ESTEEMED 
 
 PERSONAL FRIEND AND BROTHER, 
 
 "WELL TRIED AND TRUE," 
 
 HONORABLE JOHN FRIZZELL, 
 
 THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, 
 
 IN ATTESTATION OF HIS HIGH 
 
 MORAL WORTH; 
 
 ALSO, 
 
 AS A HUMBLE 
 
 EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE 
 
 FOR THE VALUABLE SERVICES 
 
 RENDERED THE AUTHOR 
 
 IN BRINGING OUT 
 
 THIS BOOK. 
 
 2209822
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 PABT I. REVIEW OF CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. Preliminary Statement 11 
 
 n. Soteriology of the Apostolic Fathers 24 
 
 III. Soteriology of the Patrists 28 
 
 IV. SEC. 1. Conflicting Theories of Soteriology 35 
 
 2. Dissensions Arise 36 
 
 3. Anselm Rejected Claims of Satan 37 
 
 V. SEC. 1. Soteriology of the Reformation 43 
 
 2. Grotius' Soteriology 45 
 
 3. Anselinic and Grotian Soteriology Contrasted . . 47 
 VI. SEC. 1. Liniborch and Curcellaeus 52 
 
 2. Arminian Authors 56 
 
 VII. SEC. 1. Limborch's Soteriology 61 
 
 2. John Wesley's Views 68 
 
 3. Rer. John Fletcher's Views 70 
 
 4. Richard Watson on Effects of Atonement ... 74 
 
 6. Dr. Clark's Views 76 
 
 6. General Statements 78 
 
 VHL Dr. Charles Hodge's Theory Considered 82 
 
 IX. Reatus Culpse et Reatus Poense 108 
 
 X. SEC. 1. Appeal to the Bible 121 
 
 2. Reconciliation 122 
 
 3. Dr. Hodge's Terms 126 
 
 4. Summary of Re-view 128 
 
 PABT IL NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. Preliminary Statements 131 
 
 SEC. 1. Divine Justice and Law 133 
 
 2. God is Sovereign and Free 137 
 
 3. Sin not Debt, but Crime 138 
 
 II. SEC. 1. Natural or Human Atonement 145 
 
 2. Some Facts Concerning These Cases of Atonement 151 
 
 III. SEC. 1. Bible Usage of the Word Atonement 162 
 
 2. Particular Instances of Its Bible Use 164 
 
 3. Poll-tax Atonement 168 
 
 4. Atonement in Relation to the Golden Calf . . . 170 
 
 5. Atonement for Treason 172 
 
 6. Atonement for Seduction 174 
 
 (v)
 
 vi CONTENTS. 
 
 CIIAPTKH IV. SEC. 1. Some (iencral Statements 176 
 
 2. Requirements of Mediatorship 178 
 
 3. Men Can Not Make Atonement 181 
 
 V. The Conclusion Reached 186 
 
 VI. The renal ami Non-Penal Theory of Christ's Death Con- 
 trasted .... 190 
 
 VII. No Penalty in Atonement, Human or Divine 20f> 
 
 VIII. .SEC. 1. Christ's Stillcrings Like Those of Moses .... 219 
 
 2. Infinite Personality 220 
 
 8. Christ's Last Prayer on the Cross 221 
 
 IX. The Tabernacle Atonements 220 
 
 X. The Scape-goat Considered 248 
 
 XI. Relation of Christ's Suffering to His Propitiation ... 258 
 
 . XII. The Question Tested by the Bible Facts 271 
 
 XIII. SEC. 1. Christians Bearing One Another's Burdens . . . 288 
 
 2. Another Text Kelied Upon by Ponalists .... 289 
 
 3. Christ A Ransom for Many 297 
 
 4. Christ Redeems Us by His Blood, Ktc 299 
 
 5. The Prepositional Argument 303 
 
 XIV. Some Special Questions Concerning Atonement .... 307 
 
 XV. SEC. 1. AVas Christ Bound by the Same Divine Law that 
 
 Binds All Other Men ? 322 
 
 2. Did Christ Obey the Law in Place of Those for 
 
 Whom He Died? 323 
 
 3. How Are We Saved by the Mediation of Christ ? 350 
 
 4. How is Unification With Christ Secured? ... 339 
 XVI. SEC. 1. Sufficiency and Redundancy of Merit in Christ . 345 
 
 2. Typal Relation Between Adam sind Christ . . . 350 
 
 3. Relation of Believers to the Law 354 
 
 4. Why Are All Not Delivered by the Obedience of 
 
 Christ? 356 
 
 5. The Scriptures Teach a Non- Penal .Scheme of .Sal- 
 
 vation 358 
 
 XVII. SEC-. 1. Libertarian .Substitution 361 
 
 2. Importation of Spiritual Life Not in Conflict 
 
 With Natural Law 364 
 
 XVIII. SEC. 1. Anselmic and Pelagian Sotcriology Compared . . 372 
 
 2. Substitution an Incubus to Christianity .... 376 
 
 3. All Fiction Excluded 378 
 
 PART III. EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. . . 380
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 f* In the following pages is presented a scheme of 
 Soteriology different in many respects from any the- 
 ory known to me. Yet it may be true that there is 
 not a new idea in the whole work. New ideas are 
 rare things. 
 
 Be this as it may, the ideas the facts with which 
 I build are so combined and adjusted, as to form 
 a theory materially different from any I have seen. 
 Yet, it is on its practical side what anti-Calvinists 
 generally preach. 
 
 The work is divided into three parts; the first 
 comprising a very brief statement of all the princi- 
 pal theories of Soteriology from the origin of Chris- 
 tianity to the present time. The more radical de- 
 fects of these theories have been briefly indicated. 
 
 The second part comprises what I conceive to be 
 the true nature of the plan of salvation through 
 Christ, the great Sin-bearer and Propitiator. In 
 the discussion of this part of the subject, the re- 
 spective characteristics of the substitutionary and 
 non-substitutionary theory are often set in con- 
 trast. 
 
 (vii)
 
 viii PREFACE. 
 
 The third part comprises a brief argument in 
 favor of an atonement for all men. 
 
 The matter was originally prepared for the theo- 
 logical classes, and was delivered to them in lecture 
 form. For convenience this form is retained in the 
 book. 
 
 At one time I thought of publishing the whole 
 in three volumes, each part forming one volume. 
 But, for reasons deemed sufficient, an abridgement 
 of the whole is published in one volume. All the 
 parts, especially the first and third, have been very 
 much abridged. The third part, as originally pre- 
 pared for the classes, comprises a full examination 
 of the arguments for and against a limited atone- 
 ment. 
 
 The arguments against substitution, as presented 
 in these pages, were prepared before "Atonement 
 and Law " became known to the theological classes. 
 The author of this vigorous book rejected the old 
 arguments as quite insufficient, and attempted the 
 defense of substitution by a new line of argument. 
 
 Of course my refutation of the old arguments 
 was no refutation of the new. This fact furnished 
 the occasion for my little book, "Atonement and 
 Law Reviewed." That book and this furnishes a 
 complete refutation of the doctrine of substitution 
 in every hitherto attempted mode of defense.
 
 PREFACE. ix 
 
 My arguments are directed chiefly against substi- 
 tution in its rigid Calvinistic form, which is its only 
 real form. For to substitute is to put one thing or 
 person in the place of another. Hence, if one does 
 not take the place of another, then there is no sub- 
 stitution. Hence, if my arguments are conclusive 
 against Calvinistic substitution, they are conclusive 
 against all substitution. For double imputation ^ 
 is the fundamental idea of substitution, or the put- 
 ting of one thing in the place of another. 
 
 Consequently, if there is no change or double 
 imputation, then there is no substitution; or to 
 deny double imputation is to deny substitution it- 
 self. It is to affirm and deny the same thing at the 
 same time. 
 
 A conditional substitution or change is an inher- y 
 ent impossibility. It confounds the actual and the 
 possible. It affirms that what w, is not, but only 
 may be. To say that Christ is our substitute if we 
 believe on him, otherwise he is not, distinguishes 
 between those in whose place he died, and those for 
 whom he is a substitute. This is manifestly a dis- 
 tinction without a difference; is, in fact a verbal 
 contradiction. 
 
 This conditional substitution assumes that the 
 sinner can come to Christ independently of Christ. 
 But the Bible teaches that it is the sufferings and
 
 x PREFACE. 
 
 resurrection of Christ that render repentance, etc., 
 possible. (Luke xxiv. 47.) 
 
 On Christ as risen all divine influence depends. 
 We come to God only by him. (John xiv. 6.) 
 Conditional substitution is impossible because it 
 conditions a past event upon a future event. A 
 past event may condition a future event, but mani- 
 festly a future event can not condition a past 
 event. 
 
 Christ's death is a past event, an accom- 
 plished fact. His death was substitutionary, or it 
 was not. If it was, then he does not become our 
 substitute by our believing on him; for ever}'' body 
 knows that a subsequent act can not change the 
 character of a prior act. But, if Christ did not die 
 as our substitute, then no act of ours can make his 
 death substitutionary; and if he saves us at all he 
 saves us as our benefactor, and not as our substi- 
 tute. 
 
 In view of these facts, I have addressed my ar- 
 guments chiefly against substitution, as held by 
 Calvinists, rather than the various modified theo- 
 ries proposed by anti-Calvinists. 
 
 From 1834 to 1852 I literally had no distinctly 
 defined theory of the nature of the atonement. 
 Perhaps no period of my ministry was more pro- 
 ductive of apparent good.
 
 PREFACE. xi 
 
 I taught then, as now, that men are saved not by 
 the suffering of Christ, but by Christ himself. 
 
 In 1852 I had occasion to study the subject. The 
 consequence was the adoption of a modified form 
 of the Grotian or governmental theory. This I 
 thought preferable to the Anselmic, or satisfaction 
 theory. With this, however, I was never satisfied, 
 as I indicated twenty years after in my only pub- 
 lished statement on the subject prior to the publi- 
 cation of ' ' Atonement and Law Reviewed. ' ' 
 
 One among many reasons for this dissatisfaction 
 is that it assumes a real difference between admin- 
 istrative and retributive law, while, in fact, these 
 are not two laws, but only two aspects of one and 
 the same law. 
 
 The great moral law is in respect to God the rule 
 of his administration, and, hence, is conceived of 
 as administrative law. But the same law in re- 
 spect to men is the rule of obedience, which being 
 a concreation of the human mind is appropriately 
 called retributive law. 
 
 All human law is administrative; all divine law 
 is both administrative and retributive. God gov- 
 erns the physical world as well as the moral by law, 
 and all the subjects of law, in the realm of matter 
 and mind, are in some way affected by the admin- 
 istration of their appropriate laws.
 
 xii PREFACE. 
 
 Hence, the retributions of moral law are simply 
 God's acts administering his own law. Conse- 
 quently, these are not two laws but one, which we 
 may consider under two phases, viz. : administra- 
 tive and retributive. But, as there is but one law, 
 so there is but one penalty. 
 
 While holding this theory, I often tried to dis- 
 criminate between administrative and retributive 
 penalty. I labored to conceive how Christ could 
 suffer the penalty of the former without enduring 
 the penalty of the latter. Of course I failed. 
 Even an archangel might be very well excused for 
 inability to discriminate between a thing and itself. 
 In the last analysis this governmental theory or 
 administrative theory resolves itself into the satis- 
 faction theory, or into nothing. If Christ suffered 
 retributive penalty in our place, then the satisfac- 
 tion theory is, of course, true. If he did not surfer 
 this retributive penalty, then he suffered no penalty 
 at all, and the administrative theory vanishes into 
 air. 
 
 Seeing these facts, I was shut up to the necessity 
 either of adopting Anselmic penal substitution, or 
 of rejecting substitution in toto. This I would 
 have done over thirty years ago if I could have 
 seen how any atonement is possible without sub- 
 stitution.
 
 PREFACE. xiii 
 
 But I now thank the Giver of all good that / do 
 see how real atonement is made without substitu- 
 tion; also, how no real atonement can be made by 
 penal substitution; because salvation by the deeds 
 of the law, whether performed by principal or sub- 
 stitute, is not salvation by atonement or by grace. 
 
 In "Atonement and Law Reviewed," it is be- 
 lieved by nearly all those whose opinions I have 
 learned, the new arguments in favor of substitution 
 are hopelessly overthrown. In the present work, if 
 I am not mistaken, the old arguments are as thor- 
 oughly answered. Of course an answer to the new 
 is not necessarily an answer to the old, nor con- 
 versely, except so far as these arguments rest on 
 principles common to both lines of defense. It 
 will, therefore, contribute much to a thorough 
 understanding of the subject to study both books. 
 
 In working out the exceedingly difficult question 
 of atonement, I followed no human authority 
 not even my "Confession of Faith" for, highly 
 as I esteem this authority, I have ever recognized 
 it as subordinate to the word of God. 
 
 The Bible was my standard of supreme authority. 
 If it had led me into conflict with my Confession 
 of Faith on any points, I should have rejected it on 
 such points without hesitation. Happily, how- 
 ever, the Bible and Confession are in full accord.
 
 xiv PREFACE 
 
 Being, as I verily believe, in full accord with the 
 Bible, I have a conscience void of offense toward 
 God; and being in full accord with our Confession 
 of Faith, I have a conscience void of offense 
 toward my brethren. I have not discussed atone- 
 ment as an isolated question, but in its relations to 
 other vital questions. It is not merely a treatise 
 on atonement, but is rather a full scheme of sote- 
 riology a somewhat detailed statement of the plan 
 of salvation. While this fact will give critics a 
 wider field for the exercise of their astuteness, it 
 will be more satisfactory to those who desire to 
 gain rather than give light. 
 
 Among anti-Calvinistic substitutionists, there 
 never has been a consensus as to the exact sense of 
 substitution. Hence, we have about as many 
 theories as writers. These theories not only con- 
 tradict one another, but each one involves the 
 principle of self-contradiction, viz.: that in some 
 sense Christ's death does and does not save us. To 
 construct a non-suicidal scheme of anti-Calvinistic 
 substitution is an inherent impossibility. We 
 might as successfully attempt to construct a trian- 
 gular circle. 
 
 In fact, what some mean by substitution is prop- 
 erly benefaction. Tradition and habit have bound 
 them with the fetters of a false terminology which
 
 PREFACE. xv 
 
 involves them in a false theory, requiring the help 
 of legal fictions and realistic assumptions. 
 
 The plan presented in this work rejects substitu- 
 tion and all legal fictions and realistic conceits, and 
 deals with law, sin, its penalties, and salvation in a 
 practical common sense way, as the scientist deals 
 with the facts of nature, taking his theories from 
 his ascertained facts, and not his facts from his the- 
 ories, as substitutionists are wont to do. If I have 
 presented the plan of salvation in a form more hon- 
 oring to God, more in accord with his justice and 
 benevolence, more intelligible to the human mind, 
 and more in accord with our noblest instincts and 
 the demands cf reason; more in accord with all that 
 is known of God and law in the realms of matter 
 and mind, and especially in better accord with the 
 Bible, than any possible scheme of substitution can 
 be, then the reader, I think, can not reject it with- 
 out injustice to himself. 
 
 Of the ultimate general acceptance of the theory, 
 I have not the shadow of a doubt. 
 
 I, of course, am sensible of no defects in the 
 argument. I am, however, sensible of defects in 
 other respects. 
 
 The order of the discussion is not as perfect as it 
 might be. Some repetitions also occur. These, 
 though considered a blemish in authorship, may
 
 xvi PREFACE. 
 
 prove of some advantage to the reader by familiar- 
 izing him with ideas and forms of statement with 
 which he is not familiar. 
 
 I invite thorough investigation do not deprecate 
 legitimate criticism; what is erroneous ought to be 
 exposed and corrected. But I do deprecate cap- 
 tiousness, caricature, and misrepresentation the 
 cheapest and the meanest of polemic vices, and the 
 chief stock in trade of "small critics}' 1 
 
 If " this work be of man it will come to naught; 
 but if it be of God, ye can not overthrow it." " O 
 my Father . . . not as I will, but as thou wilt."
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Infinite and the Unconditioned alone is in- 
 capable of mistakes. God can not err. But the in- 
 finite and unconditioned can not create the infinite 
 and the unconditioned. This would be to create 
 beings equal to himself, which is on many accounts 
 absurd. The very idea of a created unconditioned, 
 self-existent being is a contradiction in terms. 
 The limitation is not in the divine power, but in 
 the incongruity of the thing itself; for what is cre- 
 ated can not be unconditioned or self-existent. 
 
 The Infinite, therefore, can produce only the 
 finite. But finiteness in a rational creature neces- 
 sarily gives the possibility of mistake or sin, but 
 does not necessitate or cause it. It gives the possi- 
 bility of sin; else neither man nor any of the angels 
 had fallen. It does not create the necessity of sin; 
 else all the angels had fallen. Hence, we conclude 
 that all rational creatures are created with the pos- 
 sibility of sinning, but not with the necessity of 
 sinning. 
 
 The old conceit that God could create a moral 
 world, absolutely incapable of sin, is contradicted by 
 all that we know of God and of the nature of moral 
 government. Such a world would require the utter 
 negation of all creature freedom and a necessitated 
 
 (i)
 
 2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 virtue or obedience, which is a contradiction in the 
 adjective. 
 
 Certainly God is free, but his freedom does not 
 consist in a choice between the possible and the im- 
 possible between a world capable of sinning and a 
 world incapable of sinning, but in choosing between 
 creating and not creating. This conclusion is sup- 
 ported by the fact that sin does exist among all or- 
 ders of rational creatures known to us. 
 
 How can the creation of rational creatures under 
 such liabilities be reconciled with the wisdom and 
 goodness of God ? Certainly we can not know God 
 to perfection. His thoughts are not as our thoughts 
 nor his ways as our ways. We may know more as 
 to what he does than as to why or how he does 
 things. Still it is perhaps not impossible to vindi- 
 cate to human reason his goodness in the creation 
 of the angel world. This I shall not here attempt. 
 
 As far as we know there is a marked difference 
 between the conditions in which angels and men 
 were created. The former without an animal nat- 
 ure and without the capacity of progeny, but the 
 latter with an animal nature and with progenitory 
 capacity. 
 
 These two facts constitute an immense difference 
 between the primitive states of angels and men, and 
 in this difference, perhaps, we should find the reason 
 for the great difference in the divine economies 
 toward them. The first human pair brought evil 
 upon themselves by voluntary disobedience, just as 
 did the fallen angels. Why, then, were they fa- 
 vored with a different economy and one more favor-
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 able than was given to the angels? The reasons 
 may be, first, that they were, because of their dual 
 nature, subject to greater temptations. 
 
 The sensuous organism, the seat of carnal appe- 
 tites, is distinctly recognized as a fruitful source of 
 evil. The animal desire for food is named as a 
 prominent ingredient of the temptation in Eden, 
 and the first temptation with which the sinless 
 Christ was assailed after his forty days' fast was an 
 appeal to his sensuous appetite. 
 
 The angels, it is suppposed, were by their nat- 
 ure free from this fruitful source of seduction. 
 They were capable of assault only through the as- 
 pirations and susceptibilities peculiar to mind or 
 spirit. But the first human pair were subject to all 
 the temptations common to both the animal and 
 spiritual nature. This may be one reason why 
 they were favored with a different and better econo- 
 my than were the angels. Secondly, the fact that 
 the first human pair were intended as the progeni- 
 tors of a numerous race, any one, or all, of whom 
 might be involved in moral evil by the disobe- 
 dience of an ancestor constitutes, perhaps, the chief 
 reason why God deals with angels and men by dif- 
 ferent methods. 
 
 We know so little of these matters, particularly 
 of the angels, that it is not very safe to dogmatize. 
 The case of the descendants of Adam is immensely 
 different from that of Adam himself. His evils came 
 through his own voluntary action. His children 
 are born into a state of evil. They, of course, were 
 in no sense the originators of this evil state. They
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 are involved in the evil consequences of a sin over 
 which they have no more control than they have 
 over their own creation, and that, too, by an order 
 of things which God has established. But exactly 
 what that order is, or how Adam's sin involved his 
 posterity in moral evil is a question that has been 
 much discussed, but never very satisfactorily set- 
 tled. The most popular solutions proposed are the 
 following: 
 
 1. It is maintained that the first human pair, 
 when they sinned, comprised all human nature; 
 consequently that their act was the sin of human 
 nature and the sin was as really the sin of every 
 human being as it was of the first pair. Hence, all 
 are alike justly condemned to eternal death. 
 
 This seems to be the theory asserted in the West- 
 minster Catechism. It assumes that realism is 
 true. Its fallacy I have sufficiently exposed in my 
 work on anthropology. 
 
 2. Others, rejecting realism, teach that Adam 
 was divinely constituted the federal representative 
 of his race, and, having sinned, his sin became by 
 imputation the sin of all his posterity and justly 
 subjects them "to all the miseries of this life, to 
 death itself, and the pains of hell forever. ' ' 
 
 This seems to be what is taught in the Westmin- 
 ster Confession of Faith. This view assumes that 
 guilt is transportable from one person to another. 
 It rests on legal fictions that is, on airy nothings. 
 
 3. Another solution is that Adam was in some 
 way the representative of his race which would have 
 been involved in his sin had he not repented and
 
 INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 been brought into a saved state prior to the birth 
 of Cain. Hence, his fallen nature is not imputed 
 nor imparted to his progeny, who are consequently 
 born in the same state in which Adam was created. 
 
 Numerous objections lie against this theory, not 
 the least of which is that in the last analysis it 
 saves the sinner, or rather human beings, by works, 
 just as Adam would have been saved by works if he 
 had never sinned at all. 
 
 This seems to be the theory held by Arminius 
 and some not all of his followers. 
 
 4. A fourth view bearing on the question is that 
 Adam's sin had no evil effect upon his children; 
 that they are born in the same state in which Adam 
 was created, and become sinners by force of the ex- 
 ample of others. 
 
 This scheme is hard to reconcile with the Bible, 
 and, if possible, still harder to reconcile with itself. 
 According to the scheme, a man can not become an 
 exemplar without previously sinning; but he can not 
 sin without a previous example. This brings the 
 matter to a dead lock renders the inception of sin 
 impossible. Whose example led Eve into sin ? or 
 whose example caused the first sin ? It is too plain 
 to require elaboration that if there can be no sin 
 without prior example, and no example without pri- 
 or sin, then the possibility of sin is quite excluded. 
 
 5. The most satisfactory solution of the perplex- 
 ing question, I think, is this: Adam by disobe- 
 dience corrupted his moral nature, and by natural 
 generation transmitted that moral corruption or 
 spiritual death to his children, just as he trans-
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 mitted his physical, intellectual, and sesthetical 
 nature to them by heredity; like produces like. 
 
 This view simplifies the whole subject, makes it 
 intelligible to the common mind, supersedes the 
 necessity of all scholastic and realistic conceits, such 
 as federal representation and judicial imputation, 
 and sufficiently accounts for the depravity of chil- 
 dren, without committing us to the regressus in- 
 volved in the assumption that sin is the result of 
 example, and is, above all, in strict accord with the 
 Bible. 
 
 But a question paramount in importance to that 
 just considered is, How can the divine goodness 
 and honor be harmonized with any method of ad- 
 ministration that makes Adam's sin a source of 
 moral evil to his posterity ? 
 
 I reply, I should not know how to answer this 
 question, if it was so, that no remedy is provided 
 for this fearful evil an evil which, unless it is set 
 aside, or in some way compensated, must result in 
 endless death the death of the immortal soul ; and 
 for what ? Well, for a sinful nature the source of 
 actual personal sin over which we have no more 
 control than over our own creation. I repeat, if no 
 remedy was provided, no means by which escape 
 from such evils is possible, then I do not know how 
 to answer the question. 
 
 That an ample remedy has been provided in the 
 gracious mediation of Christ is universally allowed 
 by all Christian communions, except those that 
 hold to unconditional election and reprobation. 
 By some it is maintained that the evils brought
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 upon us by our connection with the first Adam are 
 exactly counteracted or done away by our relation 
 to the second Adam. 
 
 This, I think, is an inadequate and an unscrip- 
 tural view of the subject. If the mediation does 
 this much and no more, it certainly does some- 
 thing for us, but possibly too little to save many; 
 for on this hypothesis I do not see how we can es- 
 cape the necessity of saving ourselves by works. 
 But salvation is all of grace ', and in no sense by 
 works. I prefer to say that as our relation to the 
 first Adam insures our depravity, and death in sin, 
 so our union with the second Adam insures our 
 salvation. Good works are the normal fruits of 
 this union, and not its cause. Fruit has no power 
 to change the quality of the tree that bears it. 
 
 Hence, I rejoice in the conviction that we gain im- 
 mensely more by union with the second Adam than 
 we lose by our relation to the first Adam. For 
 Adam's obedience could have saved no one but 
 himself, the Confessions of Faith to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. Under the law each must obey 
 for himself. But it is much easier for sinners to 
 believe in Christ than it was for Adam to keep the 
 law. 
 
 The mediation of Christ in the interest of hu- 
 manity not only vindicates the divine justice and 
 wisdom, but is a most marvelous display of the 
 divine goodness and mercy, such as could not be 
 conceived by finite minds but for its gracious reve- 
 lation in God's word.. For, rightly understood, it 
 is the supreme object of adoration in heaven and
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 earth. It is the ineffable God in Christ, reconcil- 
 ing a sinful and lost world unto himself. 
 
 The question is often pertinently put as to wheth- 
 er mediatorship a days' man between God and his 
 rational creatures is an essential, or only an inci- 
 dental characteristic of a moral government ? 
 
 In reply, I suggest that in relation to beings cre- 
 ated, as we suppose the angels are, without progen- 
 ital relationship, a mediator is probably not an es- 
 sential provision. At least I see no reason why it 
 should be so, nor have we any intimation from the 
 Bible that any has been provided. 
 
 But in regard to beings created and related as 
 are human kind, the case is quite different. So 
 much so, that a mediator seems to be a prime ne- 
 cessity, or what is necessary both to vindicate the 
 divine honor and to make it possible for men to 
 escape the consequences of inherited evil. The 
 divine fatherhood seems to require some such pro- 
 vision for those created in his own image but sub- 
 jected to unavoidable moral evil. 
 
 It is generally represented that the act of God in 
 providing a mediator was the result of his knowing 
 that the first man would sin and involve his pos- 
 terity in ruin, and that compassion moved him to 
 provide the requisite means of salvation for some or 
 all. 
 
 This view of the subject seems to make the me- 
 diation of Christ a sort of afterthought; also im- 
 plies that Adam's acts, as foreseen by the Creator, 
 had much to do in determining, modifying, or 
 changing God's plan of administration in relation
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 to human beings. Such a procedure might not be 
 unworthy of finite beings, but seems to me to be 
 derogatory to the wisdom of the infinite Creator. 
 
 The mediation of Christ, I prefer to believe, is 
 no afterthought, no mere expedient devised to meet 
 an unexpected emergency, no adventitious adjunct 
 to a previously formed but defective plan. The 
 mediatorship of Christ is rather a fundamental part 
 of the divine purpose in relation to humanity, so 
 that the functions of the first and the second Adam 
 are reciprocally complementary. Our relations to 
 the two Adams mutually imply each other, and 
 should be regarded as the product not of two but 
 of one and the same divine act ; so that the purpose 
 to create humanity was the purpose to provide me- 
 diatorship for them. 
 
 This view of the subject releases us from the ne- 
 cessity of disparaging the divine excellence by as- 
 suming that his plan of administration was deter- 
 mined, or in any way modified, by the conduct of 
 Adam, as it was foreknown to the Creator. 
 
 Hence it is that the mediation of Christ is as old 
 as the creation. He was ' ' a lamb slain from the 
 fcnmdation of the world." His mediation, too, was 
 just as real and as efficacious before his incarnation 
 as it is now. He was always the "light of the 
 world, " " the way and the truth and the life, " " the 
 resurrection and the life." His incarnation, death, 
 and resurrection add nothing to his life-giving, 
 soul -saving power. They rather are the means by 
 which he reveals himself to the world and manifests 
 his love to humanity, demonstrates his power over
 
 io INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sin and death, and shows himself an all-sufficient 
 Savior, able to save to the uttermost all that trust 
 in him. This manifestation is of immense moral 
 significance, an inestimable boon to humanity, and 
 constitutes the essential difference between the Old 
 and the New Testament dispensation. 
 
 But how does Christ, as mediator, save man? 
 This question is variously answered. Some pro- 
 pose one thing and some another. The Bible 
 method I think is presented (imperfectly, however) 
 in the following pages. To this the reader is re- 
 spectfully referred.
 
 PART I. 
 
 REVIEW OF CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 
 
 The mediatorship of Christ is the great central 
 doctrine of the Bible. Christ is declared to be 
 "the Savior of all men, especially of them that be- 
 lieve." But how he saves men whether by his 
 precept and example, or by relaxing the rigor of 
 his law in the interest of the guilty and helpless, 
 or by obeying the law as a substitute of the guilty, 
 both in its preceptive and penal requirements, or 
 by imparting his own spiritual life to those who are 
 dead in trespasses and sins is a question about 
 which good and great men very widely differ. 
 
 The doctrine that Christ saves men by becoming 
 their substitute in law and suffering in their place 
 has obtained large currency in both papal and 
 Protestant countries. Anselm (1109), Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, a scholastic theologian of eminent 
 piety and wonderful intellectual acumen, it is gen- 
 erally allowed, was the first to formulate this view 
 of the subject. 
 
 The leading positions of Anselm' s theory, as
 
 12 REVIEW OF 
 
 given by Dr. Shedd, (His. Chris. Doct. Vol. II., pp. 
 277-8) are as follows: 
 
 " Beginning with the idea of sin, Anselm defines 
 this as the withholding from God what is due to 
 him from man. Sin is debt. But man owes to 
 God the absolute and entire subjection of his will to 
 the divine law and will. 
 
 This is not given, and hence the guilt, or debt, 
 of man to Deity. The extinction of this guilt does 
 not consist in simply beginning again to subject the 
 will entirely to its rightful sovereign, but in giving 
 satisfaction for the previous cessation in so doing. 
 God had been robbed of his honor in the past, and 
 it must be restored to him in some way, while at 
 the same time the present and future honor due 
 him is being given. But how is man, who is still 
 a sinner, and constantly sinning, to render this 
 double satisfaction, viz., satisfy the law in the fut- 
 ure by perfectly obeying it, and in the past by en- 
 during its whole penalty ? 
 
 It is impossible for him to render it; and yet this 
 impossibility, argues Anselm, does not release him 
 from his indebtedness or guilt, because this impos- 
 sibility is the effect of a free act, and a free act must 
 be held responsible for all its consequences, in con- 
 formity with the ethical maxim that the cause is 
 answerable for the effect. 
 
 But now the question arises: Can not the love 
 and compassion of God abstracted from his justice 
 come in at this point and remit the sin of man with- 
 out any satisfaction ? 
 
 This is impossible, because it would be irregu- 
 larity (aliquid inordinatum} and injustice. If un- 
 righteousness is punished neither in the person of 
 the transgressor, nor in that of a proper substitute, 
 then unrighteousness is not subject to any law or 
 regulation of any sort; it enjoys more liberty than
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 13 
 
 righteousness itself, which would be a contradiction 
 and a wrong. . 
 
 Furthermore, it would contradict the divine jus- 
 tice itself, if the creature could defraud the Creator 
 of that which is his due, without giving any satis- 
 faction for the robber)-. Since there is nothing 
 greater and better than God, there is no attribute 
 more just or necessary than that punitive righteous- 
 ness innate to deity, which maintains the honor of 
 God. 
 
 This justice, indeed, is God himself; so that to 
 satisfy it is to satisfy God himself. ' ' 
 
 Remarks. i. We are here taught that man is a 
 sinner, and can not save himself. This is certainly 
 true. 
 
 2. We are taught that God can not save the sin- 
 ner, unless justice receives prior satisfaction for hu- 
 man sin. This plainly excludes the possibility of 
 salvation; for, confessedly, the sinner can not satis- 
 fy justice for himself, and for God to satisfy his own 
 justice in the place of the sinner would be to suffer 
 the penalty of his own law that is, to suffer the 
 consequences of not loving himself, which is simply 
 inconceivable. But, if this was possible, it would 
 be the same thing as pardoning sin without any 
 satisfaction at all. 
 
 If A owes B and is unable to pay, and B deposits 
 the amount of the debt to the credit of A, the debt 
 is not paid but forgiven without an equivalent 
 value. This is not satisfaction of law, but abro- 
 gation. 
 
 Again, if it was possible for God to satisfy justice 
 in the sinner's place, such an act would in itself be
 
 14 REVIEW OF 
 
 an act of mercy, and in no sense in order to mercy, 
 and would ipso facto release the sinner from con- 
 demnation, just as B's act in putting the amouut 
 of the debt to A's credit releases A from his in- 
 debtedness. 
 
 3. We are here taught that "justice, indeed, is 
 God himself, so that to satisfy it is to satisfy God 
 himself." This is a scholastic conceit, founded 
 upon realism, and involves numerous absurdities: 
 
 (1) It depersonalizes the deity and reduces him 
 to an impersonal principle. It leads inevitably to 
 fate and atheism. 
 
 (2) It makes justice dominate the divine will in 
 such a way that God may will to do what his jus- 
 tice forbids his doing. Hence, it is claimed that 
 God can not show mercy without first satisfying 
 justice, to do which, as we have seen, is itself an 
 act of mercy. 
 
 (3) Certainly God is just, but he is never called 
 justice in the Bible or anywhere else except in re- 
 alistic philosophy. But he is called Love. Justice 
 and love are both attributed to God. If justice 
 imperatively requires the punishment of sin, then 
 love still more imperatively requires the pardon of 
 sin. Both attributes are immutable, and reconcil- 
 iation is impossible; for justice requires satisfaction 
 prior to any act of love, but for God to satisfy 
 justice is itself an act of love. This clearly dem- 
 onstrates the utter absurdity of founding the neces- 
 sity of atonement in the divine attributes, as Anselm 
 and all substitutionists are wont to do. 
 
 Anselm having stated what he conceived to be
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 15 
 
 required by divine justice, proceeds to indicate how 
 these requirements are met by the God-Man. He 
 says: 
 
 "There are two ways in which this attribute 
 (justice) may be satisfied. First, the punishment 
 may be actually inflicted upon the transgressor. 
 But this would be incompatible with his salvation 
 from sin, . . . because the punishment required is 
 eternal, in order to offset the infinite demerit of 
 robbing God of his honor." 
 
 Remarks. i. It is here taught that punishment 
 satisfies justice, or the law. This vital error will 
 be subsequently fully exposed. It is sufficient here 
 to suggest that if punishment satisfies law or jus- 
 tice, then Satan is as really satisfying law as are the 
 angels. But to satisfy law is to be free from con- 
 demnation of law that is, to bear the consequences 
 of not loving God, as the law requires, is to satisfy 
 the law and be free from condemnation. This phi- 
 losophy exterminates the difference between obedi- 
 ence and disobedience, and hence between spiritual 
 life and spiritual death, between heaven and hell. 
 
 2. We have here given a false ground of the 
 eternity of punishment. The punishment of sin 
 is alleged to be eternal because it is infinitely de- 
 meritorious. This can not be so, for no act of a 
 finite creature can be either infinitely meritorious 
 or demeritorious, because this would be exactly 
 equal to saying that a finite being is capable of an 
 infinite obedience or infinite disobedience, which is 
 palpably absurd. Infinite demerit, then, can not be 
 the ground of eternal punishment. Sin and its
 
 1 6 REVIEW OF 
 
 punishment are coterminous, just as cause and 
 effect. If Satan should cease to hate, and come to 
 love God, he would necessarily cease to bear the 
 penalty that is, the consequence of not loving God. 
 Persistent or endless disobedience is the real ground 
 of endless punishment. 
 
 3. It is here distinctly taught that punishment 
 "offsets infinite demerit." This logically teaches 
 that Satan is as truly free from demerit as are those 
 that have never sinned. The man that pays his 
 debts as he makes them is as truly out of debt as 
 he that never makes debts; or the man that offsets 
 his demerit by any means is as free from demerit as 
 he that never sinned. 
 
 4. Anselm says: "The second and only other 
 way in which the attribute of justice can be satis- 
 fied is by substituted or vicarious suffering. ' ' 
 
 Remarks. This proposition will in due time be 
 sufficiently considered. I wish here to note an in- 
 congruity inherent in all substitutionary schemes 
 of salvation, viz. : they assume as the basis of the 
 scheme that "justice, indeed, is God himself, so 
 that to satisfy it is to satisfy God himself," and 
 hence that justice dominates the divine will. But 
 in order to make room for substitution, it becomes 
 necessary to reverse this position, and allow the 
 divine will to dominate divine justice, or rather to 
 exterminate it from the divine mind; for to punish 
 the innocent in the place of the guilty is not only 
 an act of will, but is an act utterly destructive of 
 every principle of justice. This would not be tol- 
 erated by any human government. The theory
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 17 
 
 abounds with many such glaring incongruities 
 from which no human ingenuity can free it, some 
 of which will be noted in their proper place. 
 
 5. Anselm informs us that no mere finite being 
 can perform the office of substitute for sinners. 
 This is certainly true, and he might have said, No 
 other being can fill such an office in the sphere of 
 moral or divine law. He says: 
 
 "Only God, therefore, can make this satisfaction. 
 Only Deity can satisfy the claims of Deity. But 
 on the other hand, man must render it; otherwise 
 it would not be a satisfaction for man 1 s sin." 
 
 Remarks. This is sufficiently profound, but 
 whether true is another matter. God, it seems, is 
 in a strait. He has been robbed of his honor by 
 the "infinite demerit of sin." He demands that 
 this demerit shall be "offset" by the punishment 
 of a substitute, so as to save the transgressor. But 
 no finite being can be a sufficient substitute. But 
 God alone is infinite. He, then, alone can satisfy 
 himself. "Only Deity can. satisfy the claims of 
 Deity." 
 
 How is this? If I owe a man a debt, and he de- 
 termines that I shall not pay it, but that some other 
 person shall pay it, but can find no other person 
 that can satisfy it, then of course he must lose the 
 debt or pay it himself. But if he pays it to him- 
 self, or satisfies his own claims against me, what is 
 that but forgiving the debt; or if the claim can be 
 satisfied only by the infliction of penal suffering 
 upon the substitute, then he must punish himself.
 
 i8 REVIEW OF 
 
 Can God inflict penal wrath upon himself? If 
 punishment alone can satisfy the claim, and only 
 Deity can satisfy the claims of Deity, then it fol- 
 lows that God must satisfy the claim against me by 
 inflicting the punishment upon himself. 
 
 6. But while God makes the satisfaction he must 
 make it through a man. He says: "But on the 
 other hand man must render it, otherwise it would 
 not be a satisfaction for man's sin." 
 
 Remarks. This is certainly very deep or dark, 
 or both. One point of difficulty is to know the 
 precise difference between making satisfaction for 
 sin and rendering satisfaction for sin. A difference 
 is evidently intended, but usage, I think, does not 
 recognize it. We are left to conjecture as to what 
 it is. God makes the satisfaction, and man renders 
 the satisfaction. But the satisfaction can be made 
 only by suffering the full penalty of the law, which 
 is "eternal death." But this same satisfaction is 
 rendered by man. Deity makes the satisfaction 
 suffers eternal death to satisfy the Deity, and man 
 renders the satisfaction eternal death for the 
 same purpose. Who then suffers eternal death, in 
 which the satisfaction consists? Is it God, or man, 
 or both ? This to an ordinary common-sense man 
 seems a real difficulty. But the astute author 
 escapes t or thinks he escapes, by the aid of his 
 realistic philosophy. He does not mean that God 
 as God suffered eternal death, for this would in- 
 volve consequences too shocking to be admitted. 
 Nor does he mean that man as man endured eternal 
 death as a substitute for men. But he means that
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 19 
 
 the God-Man, as a theanthropic person, suffered the 
 equivalent of this eternal death. He continues: 
 
 "Consequently, the required and adequate satis- 
 faction must be theanthropic that is, rendered by a 
 God-Man as God, the God-Man, can give to Deity 
 more than the whole finite creation combined could 
 render. Furthermore, this theanthropic obedience 
 and suffering was not due from the mere numaiiity 
 of Christ. This was sinless and innocent, and 
 justice had no claims, in the way of suffering, 
 upon it. And, moreover, only a man's obedience, 
 and not that of a God-Man, could be required of a 
 man. Consequently the divine-human obedience 
 and suffering was a surplusage in respect to the 
 man Christ Jesus, and might overflow and inure to 
 the benefit of a third party " the elect world. 
 
 Remarks. i. The doctrine is that God, apart 
 from humanity, did not and could not, as a sub- 
 stitute, obey the law and suffer its penalty in the 
 place of man. This is certainly true. 
 
 2. That Christ, as man, apart from divinity, 
 could and did obey the law preceptively for himself; 
 that, being sinless, he was not required to bear any 
 penalty on his own account; nor was it possible for 
 him as a man to obey the law and suffer its penal- 
 ties in the place of others. This is certainly true. 
 
 3. That God, as the God-Man, "can (and did) 
 render to deity more than the whole finite creation 
 combined could render" that is, that the God-Man 
 could render more obedience, and at the same time 
 endure more penal suffering than all finite creatures 
 combined. 
 
 A purely divine person could not do this. A
 
 2o REVIEW OF 
 
 purely human person could not do this, but a God- 
 Man, a theanthropic person could, and actually did 
 this wonderful thing. 
 
 Perhaps we should never cease to admire the 
 ingeniousness of this conceit; and if it was any 
 thing more than a conceit, we should never cease to 
 be grateful to its author for so wonderful a revela- 
 tion. 
 
 But when we expel the realism upon which it 
 rests, the pretty vision vanishes into thin air. 
 
 The illusion is in this "God-Man," "this thean- 
 thropic obedience and suffering," "this Divine- 
 Human obedience and suffering." 
 
 Christ possesses both a divine and human nature. 
 This fact is expressed by the use of these composite 
 terms. The terms themselves "are mere names or 
 symbols of things, and not themselves substantial 
 entities. But Anselm invests them with attributes 
 of substantial entitiveness, and attributes to the 
 God-Man qualities and powers not proper to either 
 a purely divine or human being e. g. , the power 
 of rendering "to the Deity more than the whole 
 finite creation combined could render. " This pure 
 divinity could not do; this pure humanity could not 
 do. But the God-Man, the human and the divine 
 in combination, it is assumed, could do this marvelous 
 thing. 
 
 If it could be proved that the God-Man could do 
 this, it would not prove the substitutionary theory 
 to be true; for other insuperable difficulties array 
 themselves against it. But if substitutionists can 
 not prove the doctrine of realism, or that names or
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 21 
 
 word-symbols have the powers of substantive entities, 
 then the whole substitutionary scheme of salvation 
 dissolves into dust. 
 
 t Having discussed this doctrine at some length in 
 "A tenement and Law Reviewed," and as I shall 
 have occasion to refer to it subsequently, I shall sayx 
 only enough here to show the reader the impossibil- 
 ity of the God-Man's rendering any such obedience 
 and enduring any such suffering as are ascribed to 
 him. 
 
 1. We call Christ a theandric person. But this 
 does not imply that he did or could perform any the- 
 andric acts, or any acts neither strictly divine nor 
 human, but something essentially different from 
 both. His divine and his human nature were not 
 amalgamated, forming a tertium quid and of" course 
 his acts, none of them, were amalgamated acts, 
 comprising a human and a divine element. On the 
 contrary, his every act was either purely human or 
 purely divine. 
 
 Man has a body and a mind, but all his sufferings 
 are purely physical or mental they are not amal- 
 gamated sufferings, but all have their source either 
 in the body or in the mind, not equally in both. 
 They deeply sympathize with each other. But this 
 they could not do if the suffering had its source 
 equally in both. The application is easy enough, 
 and you can make it for yourselves. 
 
 2. Even if theanthropic "obedience and. suffer- 
 ing" were possible, it brings no relief. Because 
 just so far as the God-nature participates in the 
 obedience and suffering, just so far does God, -as a
 
 22 REVIEW OF 
 
 substitute for men, obey the requirements and suffer 
 the penalties of his own law, or render obedience 
 to himself and at the same time pour his wrath and 
 righteous indignation upon himself. This is too 
 plain to require a word of explanation. 
 
 3. If it should be admitted that Christ, as a the- 
 andric personality had omnipotent power, still it is 
 true that the terms of the law which he obeyed 
 exclude the possibility of his rendering any substi- 
 tutionary obedience, either preceptivelv or penally. 
 For the law explicitly requires obedience according 
 to ability. ' ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength. ' ' Of 
 course Christ as a man could do this only for himself. 
 If we say that he as a theandric person rendered an 
 obedience which neither the divine nor the human 
 nature could separately render, then we require him 
 as a man to love God with more than all his ability. 
 To require him to love with all his ability on his 
 own account, and at the same time to love in the 
 place of millions of others, would be to require an 
 impossibility. Hence, it is so plain as scarcely to 
 require saying, that if the God-Man obeyed the 
 law and endured its penalties in the place of men, 
 then that obedience was rendered exclusively by 
 his divinity, and in no part by his humanity. This 
 no man, not even the most inveterate realist, would 
 be willing to admit. 
 
 It is .said that the "Divine-Human obedience and 
 suffering was a surplusage in respect to the man 
 Christ Jesus, and might overflow and inure to the 
 benefit of a third party."
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 23 
 
 This assumes that the God-Man was capable of 
 rendering to God more love [love is the fulfilling 
 of the law] than the law required. But we have 
 just seen that the terms of the law exclude the pos- 
 sibility of any supererogatory obedience. Conse- 
 quently there is absolutely no surplusage of "obe- 
 dience and suffering to overflow and inure to the 
 benefit of a third party" unless, indeed,' it comes 
 from the God side of the God-Man. But this is 
 equivalent, as we have seen, to pardoning sin with- 
 out any atonement at all. 
 
 These statements I have thought proper to make 
 in regard to the fundamental principles upon which 
 Anselm, with marvelous ingenuity, rears his colos- 
 sal scheme of soteriology. The merits of the the- 
 ory as modified and supported by his admirers will 
 be considered in subsequent discussions.
 
 24 REVIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 SOTERIOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 It is generally admitted that the Christian writers 
 who immediately succeeded the apostles give no 
 clear intimations that they believed that Christ 
 saves men by a penal death. They distinctly 
 recognize him as the Savior of men. They speak 
 of his sufferings, his death, his righteousness, etc. 
 But no one claims that they teach with any pre- 
 cision that Christ suffered the punishment of sin 
 in the place of those for whom he died. Yet it is 
 persistently claimed that this doctrine was held by 
 them. I will here cite the principal passages in 
 their writings that are relied upon in support of 
 this claim. These I take from the "History of 
 Christian Doctrine," by W. G. T. Shedd, D.D., 
 Vol. II. , p. 208, et seq. , to which the reader is re- 
 ferred. 
 
 i. Polycarp, a pupil of John, says: 
 
 " Christ is our Savior; for through grace are we 
 righteous, not by works; for our sins he has even 
 taken death upon himself, has become the servant 
 of us all, and through death for us our hope, and 
 the pledge of our righteousness. The heaviest sin 
 is unbelief in Christ; his blood will be demanded 
 of unbelievers; for to those to whom the death of 
 Christ, zvhich obtains the forgiveness of sins, does not 
 prove a ground of justification, it proves a ground
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 25 
 
 of condemnation Our Lord Jesus Christ 
 
 suffered himself to be brought to death for our 
 sins; let us therefore without ceasing hold stead- 
 fastly to him who is our hope, and the earnest of 
 our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, 'who bare 
 our sins in his own body .on the tree.' ' 
 
 This seems to be the sum total of the proof that 
 Polycarp believed that Christ as a substitute died 
 in the place of men in such a sense as to bear their 
 guilt and punishment and infallibly insure to them 
 eternal life. It is hardly necessary to say that there 
 is not a solitary word in the whole quotation that 
 teaches or even implies the doctrine. 
 
 Still it is easy to see how substitutionists deceive 
 themselves by such passages, viz. : if it is said that 
 "Christ died for us," they assume that he died 
 penally in our stead. They thus beg the whole 
 question by gratuitously assuming to be true what 
 they are required to prove to be true. 
 
 The language of this apostolic father, if inter- 
 preted in the light of its own terms, can not be 
 reconciled with the substitutionary scheme. If the 
 theory is true, how could Christ ' ' become the serv- 
 ant of all ? " or " the hope and pledge of righteous- 
 ness to all ? " or how could his blood be demanded 
 of unbelievers, since all for whom his blood was 
 shed necessarily believe? or how can his blood be 
 demanded of those for whom it was not shed? or 
 how could his death be a ground of condemnation 
 to those for whom he did not die ? 
 
 Much more might be said, but need not. All 
 Polycarp says is in harmony with a non-penal the-
 
 26 REVIEW OF 
 
 ory, but can not be reconciled with the penal 
 scheme. [How Christ bore sin will be explained 
 in due time.] 
 
 2. The next witness called is Ignatius (tn6). 
 Dr. Shedd says: 
 
 "The expiatory agency of Christ is explicitly 
 recognized by Ignatius. In one passage he speaks 
 of Christ as the One who gave himself to God, ^an 
 offering and sacrifice for us. ' In another place he 
 bids believers to stir themselves up to duty ''by the 
 blood of God.' In another place he remarks that 
 ' if God had dealt with us according to our works 
 we should not now have had a being;' but that 
 now, under the gospel, we 'have peace through the 
 flesh and blood and passion of Jesus Christ. ' ' 
 
 These quotations instead of proving penality 
 actually disprove it. Offering and sacrifice are in- 
 compatible with penality. I need not offer another 
 word. They can claim pertinency to the issue 
 only on the assumption that Christ could not suffer 
 for us unless he suffered in our stead the very 
 point which requires proof. 
 
 3. The next witness quoted is Barnabas, com- 
 panion of Paul. He says: 
 
 "The Lord endured to deliver his body to death 
 that we might be sanctified by the remission of sins 
 which is by the shedding of that blood. ' ' 
 
 This is every way as favorable to non-penality as 
 to penality. 
 
 4. Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul, is next 
 invoked in the interest of substitution. His lan- 
 guage is:
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 27 
 
 "His (Christ's) blood was given for us, poured 
 out for our salvation; he gave by the will of God 
 his body for our body, his soul for our soul." 
 
 It is pure assumption to say that "for" is here 
 intended for ' ' instead of. ' ' This will be elsewhere 
 more fully considered. That Clement did not hold 
 the penal theory is fairly evinced by the fact that 
 he has much to say of Christ as a "high-priest." 
 No high-priest,- or any other priests, Jewish or pa- 
 gan, ever bore the guilt and punishment of those V 
 for whom they ministered. Substitution requires 
 no priest. As a theory an executioner is all it 
 needs. This will subsequently be seen.
 
 28 REVIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 SOTERIOLOGY OF THE PATRISTS. 
 
 In this period of the history of the church the 
 claims of Satan were extensively recognized. 
 
 If sin is a debt, and Christ paid the debt, to 
 whom did he pay it? This question divided the- 
 ologians for near a thousand years. The most in- 
 fluential writers insisted that Satan, in seducing 
 the progenitors of mankind, acquired a valid right 
 to their services; and that Christ, in order to save 
 men, must satisfy this satanic claim: otherwise z- 
 justice would be done to Satan. 
 
 SECTION I. Irenaeus, in his book against her- 
 esies, says: 
 
 "The word of God [the Logos\, omnipotent and 
 not wanting in essential justice, proceeded with 
 strict justice even against the apostasy or king- 
 dom of evil itself \apostasiam\, redeeming from it 
 \_ab ed\ that which was his own originally, not by 
 using violence, as did the devil in the beginning, 
 but by persuasion [secundum suadelam\, as it be- 
 came God, so that neither justice should be in- 
 fringed upon, nor the original creation of God 
 perish. ' ' 
 
 Here we have a distinct recognition of the rights 
 of Satan, which justice required should be in some 
 way satisfied. 
 
 Irenseus says not one word about Christ's satisfy-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 29 
 
 ing the justice of God for men, or redeeming men 
 from its claims, but from the kingdom of evil only. 
 But Anselm utterly rejects the claims of Satan. It 
 is therefore the extremest folly to attempt to harmo- 
 nize the views of these two writers; for this can be 
 done only by maintaining that Christ died to sat- 
 isfy the just claims both of God and Satan. 
 
 Yet it is claimed that there is no contradic- 
 tion. This claim is based on the following quota- 
 tion from Irenaeus' Epistle to Diognetus: 
 
 u God himself gave up his Son a ransom for us 
 \huper hemon\, the holy for the unholy, the good 
 for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorrupti- 
 ble for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. 
 For what else could cover our sins but his right- 
 eousness? In whom was it possible for us, the un- 
 holy and the ungodly, to be justified, except the 
 Son of God alone ? O sweet exchange ! O won- 
 derful operation ! O unlocked for benefit ! that the 
 sinfulness of many should be hidden in one, that 
 the righteousness of one should justify many un- 
 godly. ' ' 
 
 On this extract I remark: (i) That it of itself 
 teaches nothing distinctively as to the nature of 
 Christ's sufferings, whether they satisfied the claims 
 of God or Satan. If Irenaeus was consistent with 
 himself he meant the latter. 
 
 (2) What it does teach is that men are saved by 
 Christ's righteousness, acquired by 'satisfying the 
 claims of Satan to whom he believed men owed 
 some sort of allegiance, just as a man imprisoned 
 for debt is saved by the kindness of a friend who 
 pays the debt. Much more might be said in proof
 
 30 REVIEW OF 
 
 of this position. But this is not Anselmic substi- 
 tution, with its invariable double imputation. 
 
 SECTION II. It is well known that Clement of 
 Alexandria, and Origen, Basilides, and Valentinus 
 held views in direct conflict with the substitution- 
 ary and penal scheme of salvation. They did not 
 regard the death of Christ as a penal satisfaction to 
 divine justice. If this doctrine is the great central 
 doctrine of Christianity, and was taught by Christ, 
 the apostles, and the apostolic fathers, it is marvel- 
 ous that the most learned and pious men of that 
 early period should hold opinions in utter conflict 
 with it. That such men might err on minor and 
 speculative doctrines is fairly presumable; but that 
 they should teach doctrines contrary to the central 
 truth of Christianity, which correlates all other 
 Christian doctrines to itself, and yet be recog- 
 nized as lights and leaders in the Christian world, 
 is in itself incredible. The fact that they do not 
 recognize the doctrine of penal satisfaction in any 
 form as true or false is sufficient proof that it had 
 no existence in their day. 
 
 SECTION III. Athanasius (373) is quoted in sup- 
 port of the substitutionary theory. He acknowl- 
 edges the claims of Satan, but "has less to say" of 
 these claims "than his predecessors." Still, it is 
 insisted that he also recognized the claims of divine 
 justice in contradistinction to those of Satan. If 
 this is so, then Christ had a double work to per- 
 form: to satisfy justice as a divine attribute, and to 
 satisfy the "just" claims of Satan. How could he 
 do this? He died but once. How could that
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 31 
 
 Single death be so disposed of as to satisfy these 
 adverse claims? Are we at liberty, without the 
 most absolute proof, to attribute to this most astute 
 author such palpable absurdity? Such proof does 
 not exist. In vindication of Athanasius' consist- 
 ency, I suggest that he believed, in common with 
 others, that Satan, by conquest, had acquired a 
 property right in men; and that Christ, by his suf- 
 ferings, had satisfied this just claim, and thus. re- 
 deemed men; just as captives taken in combat were 
 redeemed by the payment of a ransom. 
 
 All that Athanasius says on the subject can, I 
 think, be more easily reconciled with this view 
 than with the notion that Christ suffered penally to 
 satisfy the claims both of Satan and of God. For 
 it would be an easy matter to show that a number 
 of his expressions can not be harmonized with the 
 Anselmic theory at all. 
 
 SECTION IV. Augustine (430), it is well known, 
 directed his attention principally to anthropology. 
 He accepted the soteriology current in his time. 
 He consequently unhesitatingly allows the claims 
 of Satan. In his work, ' ' De libero arbitrio, ' ' he 
 says: 
 
 "God the Son being clothed with humanity sub- 
 jugated even the devil to man, extorting nothing 
 from him by violence, but overcoming him by the 
 law of justice; for it would have been injustice if 
 the devil had not had the right to rule over the 
 being whom he had taken captive. ' ' 
 
 Here we have a distinct avowal of the legal rights 
 of Satan in men, and also the origin of those rights
 
 32 REVIEW OF 
 
 capture. According to the custom of the times 
 a man captured belonged to the captor, and a 
 stipulated price paid to the captor released, re- 
 deemed, the captive. This was exactly Augustine's 
 conception of the plan of salvation. Satan captured 
 Adam and Eve. This gave him a just right to them 
 and their posterity. Christ rendered to Satan a 
 just equivalent, and thus released them, or a part 
 of them, from bondage to Satan, and this liberation 
 from Satan was a full release from all legal liabili- 
 ties to punishment. To require a ransom to be 
 paid for one captured into slavery to the captor, 
 and another ransom to be paid to the party from 
 which he was captured would be an unprecedented 
 procedure. It is simply incredible that the astute 
 minds of Athanasius and Augustine should advo- 
 cate any such absurd things. 
 
 They were evidently misled by the false assump- 
 tion that the divine government is analogous to hu- 
 man governments in regard to the law of right. 
 Knowing that Christ does ransom men from con- 
 demnation, they concluded that he ransoms them 
 by penal suffering, rendered to satisfy the claims of 
 Satan. As the absurdity of this view of soteriology 
 becomes more apparent as the centuries pass away, 
 many of the leading minds sought to replace the 
 claims of Satan with the claims of abstract justice. 
 Hence, the Anselmic scheme. That Augustine 
 himself held views utterly antagonistic to those of 
 Anselm is apparent from the following facts: 
 
 i. He expressly denies any absolute necessity for 
 atonement at all, and asserts only a relative necessi-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 33 
 
 ty. In this he posits the atonement in the divine 
 will, and not in divine justice. In this he and An- 
 selm are in point-blank conflict. 
 
 2. He blends justification and sanctifieation, or 
 supplements the righteousness of Christ with the 
 personal righteousness of the individual. In this 
 he is contradicted by Anselm, and very properly, 
 too. 
 
 3. Augustine boldly asserts the rights of Satan, 
 which Anselm rightly rejects in toto. 
 
 4. Augustine teaches a general atonement, or 
 that Christ died for all men. This is contradicted 
 by the Anselmic theory, which can avoid universal- 
 ism only by denying general atonement. 
 
 A few facts may be pertinently stated in connec- 
 tion with the preceding discussion: 
 
 1. The Apostolic Fathers the immediate suc- 
 cessors of the apostles presented the plan of sal- 
 vation mostly in the language of the sacred Scrip- 
 tures that is, they preached a crucified and risen 
 Christ as the Savior of all men, especially of them 
 that believe. They say nothing of the claims of 
 Satan, or of satisfying abstract justice. They make 
 Christ himself the Savior of men. 
 
 2. Their simple, matter-of-fact soteriology was 
 superseded by wild speculations, founded upon a 
 few misapprehended Bible texts, such as Col. ii. 
 15; Heb. ii. 14, concerning Satan and the king- 
 dom of evil. The result was that the claims of 
 Satan were largely recognized, and Christ's death 
 acknowledged as a satisfaction of these claims, and 
 so general and so deeply rooted were these convic- 
 
 3
 
 34 REVIEW OF 
 
 tions that it required near a thousand years for the 
 church to free itself from the obnoxious figment. 
 
 3. The astute and pious Anselm, impressed with 
 the fallacy of the rights of Satan, and perceiving the 
 evil tendency of supplementing the merits of Christ 
 with human merit, as the ground of salvation, put 
 forth his wonderful power to free Christianity from 
 these grievous incumbrances. Had his success 
 equaled his abilities, he would have achieved won- 
 ders for the Christian world. Unfortunately, how- 
 ever, he was thoroughly permeated with the realis- 
 tic philosophy, and lived in an age when scholars 
 dealt with fancies as facts, and abstractions as real- 
 ities. The result is a scheme of soteriology, re- 
 markable for its ingenuity, but the outcome of 
 which is that Christ died to enable God to show 
 mercy to sinful men, the fallacy of which has pre- 
 viously been indicated. 
 
 4. It seems worthy of mention that this wonder- 
 ful man constructs his soteriology of realistic ma- 
 terial furnished by his own fertile brain, and wholly 
 independent of the Bible. The Bible never author- 
 ized him to say that "justice, indeed, is God him- 
 self, so that to satisfy it is to satisfy God himself" 
 never authorized him to say that Christ died to sat- 
 isfy justice. These conceits are the products of his 
 own inventive genius.
 
 CELRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 35 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SECTION I. Conflicting Theories oj Soteriology. 
 
 The Apostolic Fathers, like the apostles them- 
 selves, it is generally said, had no formulated 
 scheme of soteriology. It is certainly true that 
 they had no scheme of salvation apart from a liv- 
 ing Christ. 
 
 They indulged in no inane speculation concern- 
 ing the relation of Christ's mission to divine jus- 
 tice, or as to what effects it had upon God, or upon 
 the divine government, or upon the moral and legal 
 states of men. They did not teach that Christ's 
 beautiful example, or his wise precepts, or his mar- 
 velous self-denial, or his sufferings, or his death, 
 or his resurrection, however valuable these things 
 may be, ever saved any body or assured salvation 
 to any one. 
 
 On the contrary, they taught that Christ himself 
 not his precepts, not his death, not his resurrec- 
 tion but the crucified, but risen Christ saves men 
 by making them partaker's of his own spiritual 
 life. They preached him as "the light of the 
 world," as "the true light that lighteth every 
 man," as "the way, the truth, and the light," as 
 "the resurrection and the life," who is himself the 
 "propitiation for the sins of the whole world," 
 "the Savior of all men, especially of them that be-
 
 36 REVIEW OF 
 
 lieve," who "came into the world to save sinners, 
 even the chief. ' ' 
 
 They preached facts, not figments, and their the- 
 ory, their philosophy of salvation, was in their 
 facts. They preached a living Christ, who came 
 to save the world by taking away the sins of indi- 
 viduals, as he took away the maladies of those that 
 came to him when he was visible to human eyes. 
 They preached a living Christ, a quickening spirit, 
 who though invisible is as truly present in this 
 world as he was before his ascension, and raising 
 up men to spiritual life by the same power with 
 which he raised Lazarus from the dead. 
 
 This was the gospel in its simplicity and in its 
 power God in Christ, reconciling the world unto 
 himself. 
 
 SECTION II. Dissensions Arise. 
 
 Within two centuries the gospel had attracted to 
 the church men of all shades of philosophy and re- 
 ligion, all classes seeking to modify the new re- 
 ligion by their peculiar faith. Speculation was rife 
 and wild. Error came in like a flood. The simplic- 
 ity and spirituality of the gospel gave way to forms 
 and ritual observances. Sacraments and ordinances 
 were substituted for the living Christ. To his suf- 
 fering or death was attributed a power which be- 
 longed only to himself as the living and life-giving 
 spirit. His sufferings, it was imagined, offset the 
 sufferings which were due to men's sins, because 
 of their subjection to the prince of evil. This view 
 was boldly maintained by the leading minds of the 
 church, such as Irenseus, Athanasius, Augustine,
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 37 
 
 and man}- others; while others, such as Gregory the 
 Great and others, denied the claims of Satan, and 
 held that Christ suffered penally to satisfy the 
 claims of punitive justice, imminent in the divine 
 nature and dominative of the divine will. 
 
 This conflict lasted about a thousand years, dur- 
 ing the first part of which the claims of Satan were 
 greatly in the ascendancy, and during the latter 
 part the claims of justice held the supremacy. The 
 conceit that Satan had property rights in all hu- 
 manity, which must be equitably met before men 
 could be rightfully freed from sin, was the original 
 form of the doctrine of penal substitution, I have 
 not a doubt. This view gradually merged itself, 
 during the course of centuries, into the conceit that 
 Christ died to satisfy divine justice. This, I think, 
 was not a triumph of truth over error, but the tri- 
 umph of one error over another. The one unduly 
 exalts Satan, the other absolutely depersonalizes 
 the Deity. 
 
 SECTION III. Anselm boldly and rightfully re- 
 jected the claims of Satan, and boldly and wrong- 
 fully asserted the claims of abstract justice, assum- 
 ing that "Justice, indeed, is God himself, so that 
 to satisfy it is to satisfy God himself. ' ' 
 
 His scheme, however, met with only partial fa- 
 vor, some accepting it fully, others with material 
 modifications, and others rejecting it outright. 
 
 i. Abelard. This acute schoolman rejected in 
 toto the scheme of Anselm, except as to the claims 
 of Satan. His view of the subject is succinctly
 
 38 REVIEW OF 
 
 given in History of Christian Doctrine, Vol. IT., p. 
 287, and is as follows: 
 
 4 ' The Deity can pardon upon repentance. There 
 is nothing in the divine nature which necessitates 
 a satisfaction for past transgressions, antecedently 
 to remission of penalty. Like creating out of noth- 
 ing, redemption may and does take place by fiat, by 
 which sin is abolished by a word and the sinner is 
 received into favor. Nothing is needed but peni- 
 tence in order to remission of sin. The object of 
 the incarnation and death of Christ, consequently, 
 is to produce sorrow in the human soul. The life 
 and sufferings of the God-Man were intended to ex- 
 ert a moral impression upon the hard and impeni- 
 tent heart, which is thereby melted into contrition 
 and then received into favor by the boundless com- 
 passion of God." 
 
 It is sufficient here to say that this scheme is in- 
 sufficient as a plan of salvation. It makes no pro- 
 vision for a change of man's spiritual nature, ex- 
 cept such as may be produced by his mental acts. 
 It is, in fact, a plan of salvation by works under fa- 
 vorable circumstances. 
 
 2. Lombard (1164) rejected Anselm's theory and 
 accepted that of Abelard in its fundamental princi- 
 ples. He admits, however, that the claims of jus- 
 tice are met to a limited extent by the sufferings of 
 the Redeemer. "They deliver man from the tem- 
 Poral penal consequences of sin, provided baptism 
 be administered and penance be performed. ' ' 
 
 These statements show an utter misapprehension 
 of the gospel plan of salvation, both on its divine 
 and its human side. It restricts the merits of Christ
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 39 
 
 to the temporal consequences of sin; and yet sup- 
 plements these merits with human works. A sin- 
 ner saved by this plan, I should think, could never 
 know to whom he should return thanks whether 
 to Christ or himself. 
 
 3. Bernard of Clairvaux (1153), condemns the 
 soteriology of Abelard, asserts the claims of Satan, 
 which he holds were met by the sufferings of Christ, 
 and of course disagrees with Anselm in this respect; 
 he agrees with Augustine in denying an absolute, 
 and in asserting only a relative, necessity for atone- 
 ment. In this, too, he is in conflict with Anselm. 
 
 4. Hugo St. Victor (1140), Dr. Shedd says: 
 
 "Approaches somewhat nearer in technical re- 
 spects to ... Anselm than did . . . Bernard. 
 While unwilling to give up the old patristic no- 
 tion of a satisfaction of Satan's claims, he is dis- 
 tinct in asserting and exhibiting the relations of the 
 work of Christ to the divine nature. The sacrifi- 
 cial element as distinguished from the legal is very 
 apparent in this schoolman. . . . 'The Son oif 
 God,' he says, 'by becoming man, paid man's 
 debt to the Father, and by dying expiated man's 
 guilt." 
 
 The absurdity of these views is too apparent to 
 require special notice. 
 
 5. Bonaventura (1272) is one of the most astute 
 of the schoolmen. He agrees, except as to the ab- 
 solute necessity of atonement, with Anselm, and 
 labors with much earnestness and skill to free the 
 scheme from objections. He raises a number of 
 questions, which, to a shrewd mind, having right
 
 40 REVIEW OF 
 
 conceptions of God and a moral government, would 
 seem to be impertinent and trifling, such as: 
 
 "First, Whether it was fit in itself (congruum) 
 that human nature should be restored by God. 
 
 Secondly, Whether it was more fitting that human 
 nature should be restored by a satisfaction of jus- 
 tice than by any other method. 
 
 Thirdly, Whether any sinless creature could ren- 
 der satisfaction for the whole human race. 
 
 Fourthly, Whether any sinful man, assisted by 
 divine grace, could make satisfaction for his own 
 sins. 
 
 Fifthly, Whether God was under obligation to 
 accept the method of satisfaction by the death of 
 Christ. 
 
 Sixthly, Whether God could have saved the hu- 
 man race by some other method. ' ' 
 
 These questions were evidently suggested by false 
 notions of God, justice, satisfaction, penal suffering, 
 and the mission of Christ. The soteriology of this 
 author is subject to the objections that lie with 
 crushing force against the penal theory in all its 
 forms, and will here receive no further notice. 
 
 6. Thomas Aquinas (1274) is considered "the 
 strongest systematizer among the schoolmen." In 
 answer to the question "Was it necessary that 
 Christ should suffer in order to the salvation of 
 man ? " he discriminates between different kinds of 
 necessity. He says: 
 
 "If by necessity be meant that which from its 
 very nature can not but be ... then there was no 
 necessity for the suffering of Christ. 
 
 Again, if by necessity, external compulsion be 
 meant, then the sufferings of Christ were not nee-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 41 
 
 essary. But, thirdty, a thing is necessary when it 
 is indispensable in order to the attainment of some 
 other thing, and in this sense the death of Christ is 
 necessary. It is, not, indeed, 'a matter of necessity 
 that a man's sin should be pardoned, but if it be 
 pardoned it is necessary that Christ should first 
 make satisfaction to justice for its commission/' 
 
 This discrimination between different kinds of 
 necessity is proper. Christ's death was necessary 
 not in the sense that it could not but be, nor in the 
 sense of external compulsion but necessary as a 
 means of human salvation. But Aquinas, in com- 
 mon with penalists, mistakes utterly the sense in 
 which Christ's death was necessary as a means of 
 salvation. His death was necessary, not to satisfy 
 justice in relation to others, but because if he had 
 not died he could not have risen, and if he had not 
 risen he could not have become a quickening spirit, 
 and if he had not become a quickening spirit he 
 could have saved nobody, and would be no Sav- 
 ior. This will be made plain in subsequent dis- 
 cussions. 
 
 In reply to the question, whether redemption 
 could not have been accomplished in some other 
 method, he teaches that: 
 
 "Though it is, abstractly considered, possible to 
 save man in some other manner, it becomes impos- 
 sible, when once God has determined to accomplish 
 the work in the way and manner he has. ' ' 
 
 In this statement he rejects the very foundation 
 of Anselm's theory, which posits the necessity of 
 atonement in divine justice, independently of the 
 divine will. He further says:
 
 42 REVIEW OF 
 
 "If God had willed to liberate man from sin 
 without any satisfaction, he would not have done 
 any thing contrary' to justice. ... If God sees fit 
 to remit that penalty, which has. been affixed to 
 law only for his own glory, no injustice is done." 
 
 It is thus seen that Anselm and Aquinas are in 
 irreconcilable conflict as to the foundation princi- 
 ples of the penal scheme of salvation. Aquinas is 
 more in harmony with Augustine and the papal 
 church generally than with Anselm. 
 
 7. Duns Scotus asserted a scheme of soteriology 
 in violent conflict with his predecessors, and di- 
 vided the papal church into two great parties, called 
 Thomists and Scotists. The foundation of his the- 
 ory was: -"Tanlttm valet omne creatum oblatum 
 pro quanta acceptat Deus illud et non plus. ' ' He 
 denied the infinite demerit of sin, and the infinite 
 value of Christ's sufferings. He held that: 
 
 "God was pleased to accept this particular sac- 
 rifice as an offset and equivalent for human trans- 
 gressions; not from any intrinsic value in it, but 
 because he so pleased. He might have accepted 
 any other substitute, or he might have dispensed 
 with accepting any substitute at all." 
 
 Duns Scotus makes penal satisfaction purely a 
 matter of divine pleasure and not of justice, and all 
 oblations are worth just what God may be pleased to 
 accept them at, and no more. His scheme, upon 
 the whole is, perhaps, not more unreasonable or 
 unscriptural than that of Anselm, but it evinces an 
 utter misapprehension of the mediation of Christ.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 43 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 SECTION I. Soteriology of the Reformation. 
 
 Anselm was a warm admirer of Augustine, whose 
 anthropology he seems to have accepted in full. 
 He, it is conceded, was the first theologian who 
 attempted a systematic formulation of a substitu- 
 tionary and penal scheme of soteriology. It was 
 but natural, all things considered, that he should 
 construct his soteriology to meet the requirements 
 of Augustinian anthropology. In brief, his soteri- 
 ology may be regarded as the natural product of a 
 false anthropology, false views of human freedom, 
 and false conceptions of the nature and possibilities 
 of the moral law; or regarded as the theological 
 complement of universal predestination, uncondi- 
 tional election and reprobation, irresistible grace, 
 and philosophical necessity, so called. 
 
 Anselm did his work with a masterly hand, so 
 much so that eight hundred years of keen dialect- 
 ical sifting has been able to add but little of any 
 value to the theory. 
 
 The Reformers, too, were warm admirers of 
 Augustine. Accepting his anthropology without 
 questioning its truth, they very naturally accepted 
 the Anselmic soteriology, which is dove-tailed 
 into it. 
 
 The distinction between the active and passive
 
 44 REVIEW OF 
 
 obedience of Christ is an addition, but surely no 
 improvement to the theory. The Reformers also 
 rejected the Anselmic conceit that the elect were 
 equal in number to the fallen angels. 
 
 The Reformers, according to Dr. Shedd, have 
 much more to say than does Anselm as to how men 
 are saved or put into possession of Christ's active and 
 passive obedience. Different doctrinal statements 
 are given in their answers to this question. These 
 differences are more in terminology than in the 
 doctrine. Perhaps we can find no answer more 
 explicit or of higher authority than that given in 
 the Westminster Confession (chap, x., sees, i, 2): 
 
 "All those whom God hatlj predestinated unto 
 life, and those only, he is pleased in his appointed 
 and acccepted time effectually to call, by his word 
 and spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which 
 they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus 
 Christ ; enlightening their minds spiritually and 
 savingly to understand the things ol God, taking 
 away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a 
 heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his al- 
 mighty power determining them to that which is 
 good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, 
 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing 
 by his grace. 
 
 This effectual call is of God's free and special 
 grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in 
 man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being 
 quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is 
 thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace 
 the grace offered and conveyed in it." 
 
 This is sufficiently explicit and sufficiently mon- 
 ergistic.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 45 
 
 SECTION II. Grotius* Soteriology. 
 
 This is radically different from that of Anselm, 
 and very much like that of Duns Scotus. Grotius 
 was a distinguished scholar and jurist, and lays his 
 legal learning largely under contribution in formu- 
 lating his soteriology. 
 
 We may learn the leading principles of his scheme 
 from the following quotations taken from ' ' History 
 of Christian Doctrine. ' ' He says : 
 
 ' 'All positive laws are relaxable. Those who fear 
 that if we concede this we do an injury to God, be- 
 cause we thereby represent him as mutable are much 
 deceived. For law is not something internal in 
 God, or in the will itself of God, but it is a par- 
 ticular effect or product of his will. But that the 
 effects or products of the divine will are mutable, is 
 very certain. Moreover, in promulgating a positive 
 law which he might wish to relax at some future 
 time, God does not exhibit any fickleness of will." 
 
 In proof of this he refers to the abrogation of the 
 ceremonial law. 
 
 In reply to the objection that "guilt should be 
 punished, . . . and therefore, that punishment is 
 not a matter of ' optional choice, ' neither is it re- 
 laxable," he says: 
 
 "It is to be noticed that it does not always follow 
 
 . that injustice is done when justice is not done. . . . 
 
 It is not a universal truth that if a thing may be 
 
 done with justice, it can not, therefore, be omitted 
 
 without injustice." 
 
 What Grotius says of justice is true; what he 
 says of law is not true of the great moral law of
 
 46 REVIEW OF 
 
 God, but is true only of ordinances which are 
 intended as servitors of this moral law. 
 Grotius says: 
 
 "He who sins deserves to be punished. . . . 
 But that any and every sinner be punished with 
 such a punishment as corresponds with his guilt is 
 not absolutely and universally necessary." 
 
 He teaches that God has the absolute right to 
 relax or even abolish law, but that it would be im- 
 proper to do either without weighty reasons. He 
 says: 
 
 ' ' The all- wise Legislator has a most weighty cause 
 for relaxing this law, in the fact that the human 
 race had lapsed into sin. For if all mankind had 
 been given over to eternal death, as transgressors, 
 two most beautiful things would have utterly per- 
 ished out of the universe reverence and religion 
 toward God, on the part of man, and the exhibition 
 of a wonderful benevolence toward man on the part 
 of God." 
 
 Grotius holds that, as a matter of fact, the law is 
 not abrogated or relaxed as to all mankind, but 
 only as "to a certain class of persons, ' ' viz. : be- 
 lievers. "This relaxation consists in merely dis- 
 pensing with the penalty; the law as a precept or 
 rule of duty is untouched and unrelaxed." 
 
 But it is asked, if God by an act of will can relax 
 and even abrogate the law, why did Christ die, or 
 make any atonement at all ? To this Grotius re- 
 plies : 
 
 ^ The necessities and requirements of the created 
 universe render it unsafe (for God) to exercise his
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 47 
 
 power and right to remit the penalty of the law 
 without any satisfaction of any kind, on the ground, 
 therefore, that the interest of the creature, and not 
 on the ground that the attributes of the Creator 
 require it, must there be an atonement in order to 
 remission. ... So many and so great sins can not 
 be remitted with safety to the interests of creation, 
 unless God at the same time give some kind of ex- 
 pression to his detestation of sin. The sufferings 
 and death of the Son of God are an exemplary 
 exhibition of God's hatred of moral evil, in con- 
 nection with which it is safe and prudent to remit 
 that penalty which so far as God and the divine 
 attributes are concerned might have been remitted 
 without it." 
 
 Grotius here distinctly announces the fundamental 
 principles of what is variously called the Govern- 
 mental, Rectoral, and New Calvinistic theory of 
 atonement, according to which Christ suffered pe- 
 nally not to satisfy retributive, but administrative 
 justice; he died in the "interest of creation, and 
 not in the interest of the divine attribute of justice;" 
 his death was purely exemplary and expressive of 
 God's hatred of sin. As a theory it avoids some of 
 the hard points of the Anselmic scheme; but is 
 itself involved in inexplicable confusion, as will be 
 seen. 
 
 SECTION III. The Anselmic and the Grotian 
 Soteriology Contrasted. 
 
 These soteriologies differ so widely both in their 
 radical principles and in their details that it seems 
 not improper to note some of their antagonisms. 
 
 i. Anselm posits the law in the divine nature so 
 that God being what he is the law necessarily is as
 
 48 REVIEW OF 
 
 it is. Grotius makes the law the product of the 
 divine will. Hi this Grotius is right and Anselm 
 wrong. 
 
 2. Anselm makes the law unabrogable, and even 
 unrelaxable. Grotius makes it relaxable and even 
 abrogate, if God should will either. In this 
 
 O 
 
 Anselm is right, and Grotius is wrong, as we may 
 see. 
 
 3. According to Anselm' s notion of the law, its 
 abrogation would be the destruction of the Deity 
 and its relaxation a modification of his nature, just 
 as the destruction of any of the primary properties 
 of matter would be the destruction of matter itself, 
 and a change of the properties of matter would be 
 a modification of matter itself. 
 
 But according to Grotius' idea of the law, its 
 abrogation would be an exemption from all obliga- 
 tion, and its relaxation a partial exemption. 
 
 But according to the true conception of the law, 
 its abrogation would be the destruction of the created 
 mind itself, and its relaxation a modification of the 
 nature of the mind. For the law is a concreation 
 of the mind is written upon the heart and as such 
 is as truly a product of the divine will as is the 
 mind itself. Hence, an abrogation of the law would 
 involve the destruction of the mind and its relaxa- 
 tion an essential change of the mind, just as the 
 abrogation or modification of the essential properties 
 of matter would involve its destruction or modifica- 
 tion. Hence, while divine ordinances or laws of 
 expediency, which are only objective and are only 
 survitors of the great moral law may be abrogated
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 49 
 
 or relaxed, no concreated and subjective law can be 
 so dealt with without disastrous consequences. 
 
 Anselm is fatally at fault when he makes the law 
 indigenous to the divine nature and independent of 
 the divine will. Grotius is equally at fault when 
 he fails to make the law indigenous to the human 
 mind, or subjective as well as objective, and asserts 
 it to be abrogable and relaxable. 
 
 4. Anselm asserts an absolute, and Grotius a' 
 relative, necessity for atonement for sin. Anselm 
 posits this necessity in the divine attributes; Grotius 
 posits it in the exigencies of the divine government. 
 Both are radically wrong, for the real necessity is 
 found in the lapsed state of humanity, or rather in 
 the purpose of God to save sinners. It is man that 
 needs a mediator, not God. 
 
 5. Anselm makes the death of Christ ipso facto 
 satisfy justice or law, expiate the guilt and necessi- 
 tate the salvation of all for whom he died. Grotius 
 makes the death of Christ exemplify God's hatred 
 to sin, and so vindicate the righteousness of the 
 divine government as to justify God in relaxing the 
 law as to its penalty in regard to believers, but 
 leaves the sinner to meet the preceptive requirements 
 of the law by his own obedience; thus rendering, 
 as he believes, salvation possible to all, inevitable 
 to none, but sure only to believers. Both are rad- 
 ically wrong, for the death of Christ of itself satis- 
 fies substitutionally no law, expiates no guilt, relaxes 
 no claims, and saves- no souls. 
 
 The risen Christ alone saves. This, I trust, will 
 be made sufficiently plain. 
 4
 
 ^o REVIEW OF 
 
 6. Anselm's scheme involves the doctrine of sal- 
 vation by works in its most rigid form. Perfect 
 obedience to the law is salvation by ' ' deeds of the 
 law," whether this obedience is rendered by a sub- 
 stitute or by a principal. Hence, if Christ fully 
 obeyed the law for the elect, then they are as truly 
 saved by the deeds of 'the law as if they had rendered 
 that obedience themselves. But if salvation is by 
 works, then it is not by grace. 
 
 Grotius' scheme is obnoxious to the same charges 
 in a different form, unless we should choose to call 
 relaxation of law, or "dispensing with penalty," 
 an act of grace. 
 
 According to Anselm this obedience was rendered 
 wholly by the substitute, and the salvation of the 
 elect is purely a matter of law hence not of grace. 
 According to Grotius the obedience is rendered 
 partly by the substitute, and partly by the sinner 
 himself; or the obedience of the substitute and that 
 of the principal so supplement each other as to 
 meet the full preceptive requirements of the law, 
 the penalty being dispensed with by relaxation. 
 If this relaxation is regarded as an act of grace, as 
 Grotius no doubt considered it, then it is plain that 
 his scheme saves the sinner partly by the legal obe- 
 dience of Christ, partly by his own obedience, and 
 partly by the grace of relaxation. 
 
 [Note. This question is here only incidentally 
 mentioned, and will be more fully considered in 
 another connection. ] 
 
 Between two theories so manifestly false there is 
 perhaps no grounds for a rational choice. We
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTKK.IO.LOGV. 51 
 
 know that salvation is purely and exclusively by 
 grace not by the works of the law performed by 
 either principal or substitute. "By the deeds of 
 the law (whether performed by Christ or the sinner) 
 shall no man be justified." It is not Christ's deeds 
 that are "the end of. the law for righteousness to 
 every one that believeth," but Christ himself. It 
 is not the Lord's deeds that is our righteousness, 
 but the Lord himself. It is not Christ's works, his 
 death, etc., that is made unto us wisdom, right- 
 eousness, sanctification, and redemption, but Christ 
 himself. We are saved by grace, not by works 
 personal or substitutionary.
 
 52 . REVIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SECTION I. Limborch and Curcellaeus. 
 
 The writings of these authors present us with a 
 form of Arminian soteriology as distinguished from 
 that of the Reformers. Dissenting radically from 
 the Augustinian anthropology, consistency imper- 
 atively required them to reject the Anselmic soteri- 
 ology, or at least to materially modify it. The fact 
 that their earnest endeavor was only a partial suc- 
 cess is attributable not to a want of ability, but 
 rather to the difficulty of freeing themselves from 
 the influence of an inherited faith and popular 
 prejudices. They, however, made some material 
 advancement in the right direction, discarded some 
 of the errors of the popular faith, and freed the 
 doctrine of propitiation from the ungracious limi- 
 tarianism which Augustinian anthropology had 
 imposed upon it. Their endeavor was to avoid 
 what they deemed the errors of Socinianism, on 
 the one hand, and those of the Reformers on the 
 other. This Grotius had attempted to do, but his 
 doctrine was not acceptable to them because he rep- 
 resented that the atonement was made in the inter- 
 est of the moral government, and not to satisfy 
 divine justice. Limborch, in criticising Grotius' 
 opinions on this point, raises the question: "An 
 Christus morte sua, circa Deum aliquid effecerit?"
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 53 
 
 He answers in the affirmative, insisting that Christ, 
 by his death, did in some way satisfy the divine 
 nature in behalf of sinful humanity. 
 L,imborch says: 
 
 "Jesus Christ may be said to have been punished 
 \_punitus] in our place, in so far as he endured the 
 greatest anguish of soul and the accursed death of 
 the cross for us, which were of the nature of a vica- - 
 rious punishment in the place of our sins. \_Quez 
 poen<z vicari<z pro peccatis nostris rationem hab- 
 uitJ\ And it may be said that our Lord satisfied 
 the Father for us by his death, and earned right- 
 eousness for us in so far as he satisfied not the rigor 
 and exactitude of the divine justice, but the just 
 as well as compassionate will of God \yoluntati Dei 
 justcz simul ac misericordi\ and went through all 
 that God required in order to our reconciliation." 
 
 The very form of these statements shows that 
 Limborch was satisfied neither with the doctrine 
 of Anselm nor that of Grotius; that he believed 
 the truth to lie between these conflicting theories. 
 He denies that the sufferings of Christ satisfied 
 divine justice in its rigor and exactitude, but 
 asserts that these sufferings did satisfy the just and 
 compassionate will of God. He evidently means 
 that the death of Christ was more than exemplary 
 and governmental, as Grotius taught; that it did 
 satisfy justice or law in some way, but not in the 
 Anselmic sense. He made a laudable effort to find 
 a position between Anselm and Grotius by agreeing 
 with both in some things and differing with both 
 in some things. 
 
 Curcellaeus expresses himself with more de-
 
 54 REVIEW OF 
 
 cision and precision on the points upon which he 
 touches than does Limborch. He says: 
 
 "Christ did not make satisfaction by enduring the 
 punishment which we sinners merited. This does 
 not belong to the nature of a sacrifice, and has 
 nothing in common with it. For sacrifices are not 
 payment of debts, as is evident from those offered 
 under the law. The beasts that were slain for 
 transgressors did not expiate the penalty which 
 they merited, nor was their blood a sufficient lutron 
 for the soul of man. But they were oblations 
 only by which the transgressor endeavored to turn 
 \Jlectere] the mind of God to compassion, and to 
 obtain remission from him. Hence, the formula in 
 the law applied to those who had expiated their 
 sins by offering a sacrifice: "And it shall be for- 
 given him." Leviticus iv. 26, 31, 35. 
 
 Limborch and Curcellaeus sufficiently agreed in 
 opinion. Their views may be expressed in the fol- 
 lowing propositions: 
 
 I. They reject, with decision, the notion that 
 Christ's death satisfied divine justice, expiated the 
 guilt of all for whom he died, and rendered their 
 final salvation a matter of pure justice. 
 
 3. They hold that Christ's death was of the nat- 
 ure of a vicarious punishment for sinners, and 
 earned righteousness for us in so far as it satisfied 
 the just as well as compassionate will of God, who, 
 by an act of will, remits the sins of all believers. 
 
 The different parts of the theory are hard to put 
 together so as to give a clear idea of how the sinner 
 is really saved. 
 
 Christ's death was in some way penal and vicari-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 55 
 
 ous, and ' ' earned righteousness for us in so far 
 as he satisfied the just as well as the compassionate 
 will of God." Yet the sinner's- salvation is not as- 
 sured, nor even possible, without a gracious par- 
 doning act. Now the trouble is to understand just 
 how much in the matter of salvation is due to 
 Christ's penal and vicarious death his righteous- 
 ness earned for us and how much to the gracious 
 act of God's " compassionate will." It seems that 
 the sinner is saved, partly by vicarious obedience, 
 and partly by a gracious pardoning act. 
 
 But salvation secured in whole or in part by the 
 deeds of the law, as we have seen, is not salvation 
 purely by grace. One radical defect in the scheme 
 is this penal and vicarious element. In this it is 
 less self-consistent than the Anselmic, which saves 
 the sinner exclusively by substitutionary obedience 
 to the law. Another defect in the plan is this: If 
 any sinner for whom Christ suffered vicariously and 
 penally in any sense, happens not to comply with 
 the conditions of this gracious pardoning act, then, 
 of course, the penalty, or some part of it, is twice 
 endured, by Christ and by the sinner. 
 
 3. A third and more grave objection to the plan 
 is, that it saves the sinner in part by a vicarious 
 punishment, and, hence, with a penal righteous- 
 ness. But, in utter condemnation of this scheme, 
 the Bible teaches that it is Christ himself that saves 
 sinners, and not his sufferings or death. 
 
 4. This scheme is highly commendable for two 
 distinct things:
 
 56 REVIEW OF 
 
 (1) It rejects the self-contradictory notion of pe- 
 nal sacrifices. 
 
 (2) It refuses to make salvation inevitable to 
 some and impossible to others, and thus maintains 
 the possibility of moral retribution. 
 
 SECTION II. How men are saved according to 
 Arminian Authors. 
 
 No scheme of soteriology is complete that does 
 not clearly indicate how it secures salvation from 
 sin. 
 
 The Arminian theory is in many respects radi- 
 cally different from the Anselmic or Calvinistic. 
 The latter infallibly saves all for whom Christ died; 
 but, being intended for a part only, only a part 
 can be saved. 
 
 The Arminian theory asserts that Christ died for 
 all, and that his death infallibly secures justification 
 to all in a state of infancy, and that none are lost 
 except those that commit actual sin and fail to re- 
 pent. Arminius himself is not very full nor very 
 clear in his teaching on this subject. 
 
 The following statements (taken from Dr. Mil- 
 ler's "Conflict of Centuries," pp. 95, 96), indicate 
 his views. He says (Vol. I., 317): 
 
 "For, if 'original sin condemns no one,' it is a 
 necessary consequence that all those will be saved 
 who have not themselves committed actual trans- 
 gressions. Of this class are all infants without ex- 
 ception." 
 
 He says (Vol. I., 318, 319): 
 
 ^'All those will be saved who have not com- 
 mitted actual transgression. Because God has taken
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 57 
 
 the whole human race into the grace of reconcilia- 
 tion, and has entered into a covenant of grace with 
 Adam and with the whole of his posterity in him. 
 . . . And since infants have not transgressed this 
 covenant, they do not seem to be obnoxious to this 
 condemnation. . . . When Adam sinned in his own 
 person and with his own free will, God pardoned 
 that transgression. There is no reason, then, why 
 it was the will of God to impute this sin to infants, 
 who are said (by Augustine) to have sinned in Adam 
 before they had any personal existence, therefore, 
 before they could possibly sin at their own will and 
 pleasure. ' ' 
 
 Remarks. i. It is here taught that God par- 
 doned Adam's sin. This is a charitable but a gra- 
 tuitous assumption. It may or may not be true. 
 To build a theory upon it is not quite safe. 
 
 2. It is also taught that God entered into a cove- 
 nant of grace with Adam, and took the whole hu- 
 man race into the grace of reconciliation. This, I 
 suppose, means that Adam was regenerated as well 
 as justified, and as none but Adam and Eve existed 
 at the time of the making of this covenant, all their 
 posterity come into the world in the same justified 
 and saved state. 
 
 I do not understand Arminius to mean that Ad- 
 am's subsequent obedience would insure the salva- 
 tion of all or any of his posterity, as Augustinian- 
 ism teaches woiild have been the consequence of 
 his continuous obedience under the legal covenant; 
 but that each individual must keep the covenant 
 for himself. 
 
 Arminius does not here specify the terms of this
 
 58 REVIEW OF 
 
 gracious covenant, or indicate wherein it differs 
 from the first or legal covenant, which Adam trans- 
 gressed. 
 
 If one sin is sufficient to produce a forfeiture of 
 covenanted blessings, and bring condemnation, then, 
 wherein does this covenant of grace differ from the 
 original covenant of works ? 
 
 If one sin does not bring condemnation, then, 
 how many may be committed without incurring it ? 
 
 If a person, as an adult, keeps 'this covenant 
 through life, is he saved by grace or by works ? 
 
 If a child dies in infancy, by whose righteousness 
 or obedience is it saved by its own or that of 
 Adam, or that of Christ ? I know some say, it is 
 saved, as to its body, by Christ in the resurrection. 
 But the material question is, by whose obedience is 
 its soul saved? 
 
 As a matter of fact, the infant is capable neither 
 of obedience nor disobedience and, hence, seems to 
 be a proper subject neither of justification nor of 
 condemnation. Yet, we must needs save it, soul 
 and body. Augustinians have no more trouble 
 with infant salvation than with adult; for with them 
 the salvation of adults and of infants is purely mon- 
 ergistic. 
 
 But how the infant is saved is a troublesome 
 question to non-necessitarians. Arminians are not 
 well agreed among themselves. Some save them, 
 or seem to save them, at least as to their souls, with- 
 out Christ; others through Christ, some with and 
 others without regeneration. 
 
 Unless it has the mind of Christ, it is none of
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 59 
 
 his. This it can not have except by being made 
 partaker of Christ's nature in regeneration. If this 
 regeneration is unconditional, it seems hard to escape 
 the doctrine of a necessitated virtue or obedience. 
 I do not claim to be able to relieve the^subject of all 
 embarrassment. I think, however, that conditioned 
 infant regeneration is not an impossible or absurd 
 thing. 
 
 1. What changes actually occur in the capacities 
 of the soul as the spiritual world begins to open 
 upon the mental vision whether the mind becomes 
 more vigorous and capable of clearer apprehension 
 of truth we do not know. 
 
 But assuming that such favorable changes do 
 occur at this juncture in the capacities of the intel- 
 lect, then, of course, the emotional and volitional 
 power will be proportionally increased, and the 
 voluntary acceptance of Christ becomes possible to 
 the infant mind before it has left the body. 
 
 But assuming that no such advantageous changes 
 occur, still it is perhaps not impossible for regenera- 
 tion such as is needed to fit the soul for communion 
 with Christ to occur by its normal method. 
 
 2. As the beatific vision unfolds to the infant 
 spirit, unconscious of evil, in its transit across the 
 border line, it, ere it leaves the body, ma}' be so 
 enamored of the loveliness of Christ and the heav- 
 enly world as to yield to him with all its will power 
 though it may be little more than instinct and 
 be filled with the love of a new-born soul. If it is 
 not distinctly conscious of faith in Christ it may be 
 rapturously conscious of a new-born love, and love
 
 6o REVIEW OF 
 
 is bliss. Christ loves it, but does not love in its 
 stead, but imparts his own nature to it as the altar 
 imparts its holiness to the gifts placed upon it, 
 and thus enables it to love for itself ; and to love is 
 to be saved and happy; for "love is the fulfilling 
 of the law."' 
 
 3. We know that very young children have a 
 ready capacity for the beautiful, and without any 
 rational comprehension of beautiful objects, seek to 
 appropriate them. 
 
 Why, then, may not the infant spirit, as it ap- 
 proaches the spirit land, be enamored of the loveli- 
 ness of the glorified Christ, and seek to appropriate 
 him as it is wont to do with other objects that 
 delight it? 
 
 I do not offer this as a satisfactory solution of the 
 difficult problem of infant salvation. It, however, 
 avoids the extreme rnonergism of Augustinianism, 
 on one hand, and on the other the ungracious no- 
 tion that infants may be saved without regeneration.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 61 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SECTION I. Limborcfts Soteriology. 
 
 ' ' The man who elaborated, and set forth more 
 luminously than all others, the Arminian theory, 
 was Philip Limborch [1633-1717]." I do not pro- 
 pose a general examination of the doctrines of this 
 able advocate of Arminianism, but will briefly 
 notice his views as to how atonement saves man. 
 He says [see Schaif's History, Chap. II., 27]: 
 
 ' ' Adam as being the common parent of all man- 
 kind, exposed all his posterity* to the same miseries 
 to which himself was liable. For it is not to be 
 supposed that Adam's sin had no effect but upon 
 himself alone, which is said to be the error of 
 Pelagius. But all the miseries into which he fell 
 by his sin are entailed upon his posterity. . . . All 
 are subject to the same fate, viz., death. However, 
 this death is not to be looked upon as properly a 
 punishment inflicted on Adam's posterity; for it is 
 impossible that the innocent should be punished for 
 another's offense, but is a natural necessity of dying, 
 derived from Adam, on whom it was inflicted as a 
 punishment." 
 
 Remarks.**.. It is here taught that Adam's sin 
 affected his posterity, entailing upon them all the 
 miseries that were visited upon himself. But by 
 "miseries" is here meant not moral, but only 
 physical evils, such as pain in parturition, disease, 
 and death.
 
 62 REVIEW OF 
 
 2. It is here assumed that all miseries, including 
 physical death, are the results of Adam's sin, which 
 is contradicted by every science that sheds a ray of 
 light on the subject. 
 
 On this point Limborch indorses Augustine, who 
 attributed physical death and all physical evils to 
 Adam's sin. 
 
 3. Limborch antagonizes the Augustinian as- 
 sumption that all suffering presupposes guilt in the 
 sufferer. He teaches that what Adam suffered as a 
 punishment, viz., death, his children suffer from 
 natural necessity, and without any fault of their 
 own. In this, however, he is not consistent with 
 himself. If the children are subjected to physical 
 death without personal guilt, why was Adam not 
 subject to it without personal guilt, or before he 
 sinned, or without any voluntary agency of his own ? 
 Yet the death of the children, Limboreh teaches, 
 was the natural result of Adam's sin. This as- 
 sumes the death of Adam to be judicial, or a penal 
 visitation of a supernatural providence; but the 
 same death in relation to his children, to be a non- 
 judicial and non-penal result of a natural necessity, 
 or a natural providence; and yet it was in some way 
 conditioned upon Adam's sin, or physical death was 
 judicial and penal in Adam, but is natural and non- 
 penal in his posterity. 
 
 Now, I submit, whether punishment judicially 
 inflicted upon the parent ever becomes, because 
 of the offense thus punished, the natural and non- 
 penal heritage of the children. If there is any uni- 
 formity in nature then we must believe that if
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 63 
 
 physical death was penal in Adam, then it must be 
 so in his children; if not penal but natural in the 
 children then it was only natural in Adam. 
 
 I protest against the notion that God changed the 
 order of the physical world on account of Adam's 
 sin. 
 
 4. Limborch teaches that Adam's sin was judi- 
 cially visited with physical and moral evils upo;i 
 himself, and these physical evils become the heri- 
 tage of his posterity by natural necessity or natural 
 heredity. When he says, "All the miseries into 
 which he fell by his sin are entailed upon his pos- 
 terity," he, by "miseries," means only temporal 
 evils, as expulsion from paradise, pain in child- 
 bearing, the wife's subjection to the husband, earn- 
 ing bread by the sweat of the face; but Adam's 
 guilt was not entailed either judicially or other- 
 wise. He, however, admits 
 
 ( ' That infants are born in a less degree of purity 
 than Adam was created, and have a certain inclina- 
 tion to sin, which they derive not from Adam, but 
 from their next immediate parents." 
 
 This seems to be a fatal admission ; for ' ' a less 
 degree of purity " implies some degree of impurity. 
 If as Limborch says truly, ' ' Our first parents (were 
 not) created holy, but only innocent and upright," 
 then they were not fit for heaven, for without holi- 
 ness "no man shall see the Lord." If children are 
 born with a less degree of purity than had Adam, 
 and he was created only innocent not holy or 
 righteous then of course they are not fit for heaven.
 
 64 REVIEW OF 
 
 This natal " inclination to sin derived . . . from 
 parents" implies in the case of infants, disqualifica- 
 tion for heaven. Certainly we should distinguish 
 between an inclination to sin and the act of sinning. 
 The first is the state of the sensibility, and the other 
 an act of the will. But if the inclination is not 
 resisted by an act of will, it becomes sin; to hate a 
 brother is murder. The inclination to sin will sure- 
 ly lead to sin, if it is not counteracted by an adverse 
 inclination ; and we have no evidence of any adverse 
 natal inclination in infants. 
 
 Pelagius is more consistent with himself than 
 Limborch. The former denied all natal deteriora- 
 tion in the child, and thought it needed no regen- 
 eration to insure it against punishment. The latter 
 admits it less pure than Adam, and to be inclined 
 to sin, yet thinks it fit for heaven without any spir- 
 itual change. 
 
 Again, Pelagius and Ljmborch exactly reverse 
 each other in regard to natural evils. What Pe- 
 lagius attributes to the natural course of things, as 
 physical pain, death, etc., Limborch attributes to 
 a judicial curse inflicted upon Adam as a punish- 
 ment, all of which comes upon his children as an 
 inheritance, or from natural necessity. 
 
 If infants are free from such moral defection as 
 disqualifies them for heaven, I do not see how they 
 are in any proper sense saved, as to their souls, by 
 Christ. 
 
 Arminius admits, or seems to admit, the possi- 
 bility of a transmission of disqualification for heav- 
 en by heredity, or by covenant; but insists that as a
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 65 
 
 matter of fact Adam was converted prior to the 
 propagation of his species, and could, therefore, 
 transmit only his regenerated nature. But Lim- 
 borch denies that such disqualification can be trans- 
 mitted from parent to child; but insists that natural 
 evils, as pain and death, are actually transmitted. 
 
 These astute theologians also differ as to the re- 
 lation of Adam and his children, Arminius mak- 
 ing it both natural and federal, and Ljmborch only 
 natural. In relation to these positions, two in- 
 quiries seem pertinent: 
 
 1. If Adam could and did transmit physical evil, 
 as pain and death, or the forfeiture of animal life, 
 why could he not transmit moral evil or spiritual 
 death? Sin is itself disobedience to moral law. 
 Why, then, should it involve Adam's posterity in 
 physical evil only ? or why should it involve them 
 in physical evil at all ? Might we not as reasonably 
 say that the violation of physical law involves not 
 physical but only moral evils? To these and other 
 similar questions, the theory in hand can, I think, 
 give no satisfactory answer. 
 
 2. How can a natural agency produce supernat- 
 ural results? This would be the case if Adam 
 transmitted his regenerated nature to his descend- 
 ants. . 
 
 It is a charitable assumption that Adam was re- 
 generated and saved, but there is, I think, no con- 
 clusive proof. Even if he was regenerated, he 
 manifestly could not impart that regenerated state 
 to his children, for that was a derivation from 
 Christ a supernatural change in his relation to 
 5
 
 66 REVIEW OF 
 
 God, which he could not himself produce, no more 
 than the leopard can change its spots. 
 
 If Adam could have created by his own acts an 
 independent and saving righteousness for himself, 
 then he might have transmitted his own regener- 
 ated state to his children. In this event he would 
 have been his own savior, and that by works of the 
 law. 
 
 We thus see how Adam could originate a sinful 
 nature in himself by disobedience, and how he 
 could transmit that sinful nature to his children; 
 also see why he could not, even if he was really 
 regenerated, transmit that regenerated state to his 
 progeny. Because the natural can not propagate 
 the supernatural. This is the all-sufficient reason 
 why the children of regenerated parents are born 
 unregenerate, and require regeneration just as the 
 children of unregenerate parents. 
 
 The divinely ordained law of heredity transmits 
 what is indigenous to the mind, but not what is 
 supernaturally imparted to the mind. Hence, all 
 the children, both of regenerate and unregenerate 
 parents, are the children of wrath by nature, or 
 natural generation, and all may become the chil- 
 dren of God by grace or regeneration. 
 
 Nothing, I think, is gained to the infant world 
 or to the divine administration by either the scheme 
 of Arminius or that of Limborch. For, while it is 
 claimed that infants are born in a saved state, yet 
 it is conceded that they generally, if not invariably, 
 fall as did Adam, and require to be saved by re- 
 generation or re-regeneration. For, beginning ex-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 67 
 
 istence in a saved state, if they ever sin, or cease to 
 love God with all the heart, etc., they become un- 
 saved and require to be re-saved by Christ. 
 
 Of course, if they never sin, they can have no 
 consciousness of sin and no consciousness of a 
 change of state in relation to God, and seem to be 
 as truly their own saviors as are the unfallen an- 
 gels. 
 
 To the charge that the child seems to be saved 
 independently of Christ, Limborch makes this 
 reply: 
 
 "He is their Savior, not because he cleanses 
 them from sin, for infants are incapable thereof, 
 but because he delivers them from death [in the 
 resurrection] which they derived from Adam by 
 natural generation, from which they could not be 
 freed but by Jesus Christ. We therefore maintain 
 that children dying in infancy are saved not by 
 their own innocency, but by the redemption of 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 This answer is shrewd enough, but is subject to 
 many objections, only a few of which will be here 
 indicated. 
 
 1. It seems to condition the activity, if not the 
 very existence, of the mind upon the life of the 
 body which savors of materialism. 
 
 2. It makes Christ the Savior of infants because 
 he delivers them from physical death in the resur- 
 rection. Well, is he not the Savior of the wicked 
 in the same sense, if there is a resurrection both of 
 the just and of the unjust? 
 
 3. It seems to imply that Christ is the Savior of
 
 68 REVIEW OF 
 
 infants only as to their bodies, but the Savior of 
 adults both as to soul and body. 
 
 I think it a better and more biblical vindication 
 of the divine administration, and greatly simplifies 
 the perplexing question, to admit outright and 
 flatly that infants are made partakers of Adam's 
 moral corruption (not of his sinful act) by natural 
 generation, and that they are saved from this by 
 becoming partakers of Christ's righteousness in 
 spiritual regeneration. 
 
 SECTION \\,John Wesley 1 s views. 
 
 "John Wesley was reared and trained under the 
 direct influence of the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
 Church of England, which . . . are intensely Au- 
 gustinian, both in origin and doctrine. These arti- 
 cles he believed and defended with his character- 
 istic conscientiousness a great part of his life. . . . 
 Accordingly we find him at one period of his 
 career asserting these views as unqualifiedly as 
 Augustine or Luther. ' ' 
 
 In answer to question 15, ne says: 
 
 u In Adam all die that is, (i) Our bodies be- 
 come mortal. (2) Our souls died that is, were 
 disunited from God, and, hence, (3) were all born 
 with a sinful, devilish nature. By reason whereof 
 (4) we are children of wrath, liable to death eternal. 
 (Rom. v. 18; Eph. ii. 3.) Works v. 195." 
 
 "Mr. Wesley was a progressive man. He made 
 changes slowly, but when truth presented itself to 
 his great and honest heart, he embraced it though 
 it involved radical changes." 
 
 "In 1784 Mr. Wesley prepared a ' Sunday serv- 
 ice,' especially designed for the Methodists in Amer- 
 ica. In this he abridged the thirty-nine articles to
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 69 
 
 twenty-four, and made many and great changes 
 both in these and in the office of baptism. The 
 ninth article of the thirty-nine, which became the 
 seventh in our twenty-five, he cut down until al- 
 most every vestige of Augustinian phraseology was 
 eliminated. . . . Mr. Wesley abridged it until it 
 reads thus in our (Methodist church) seventh : 
 
 ' ' ' Original sin standeth not in the following of 
 Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the 
 corruption of the nature of every man that natu- 
 rally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, 
 whereby man is very far gone from original right- 
 eousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil 
 and that continually.' " 
 
 Remarks. In this quotation we have: 
 
 1. A distinct recognition of original sin, or cor- 
 ruption of humanity. 
 
 2. A denial that it consists in following Adam 
 as Pelagians affirm. 
 
 3. The affirmation that it is transmitted by nat- 
 ural generation. 
 
 4. That every man is very far gone from original 
 righteousness. 
 
 5. That man because of his natal state is inclined 
 to evil continually. 
 
 Dr. Miller, in his ' ' Conflict of Centuries, ' ' inter- 
 prets Wesley to mean that this "original sin," or 
 corruption of nature common to all, is not of the 
 nature of sin. If it is not, then why call it sin of 
 any kind ? If we are born with this original sin, 
 which inclines us to evil continually, must it not 
 be removed from the infant in order to give it a 
 capacity for heaven, or for loving God ?
 
 70 REVIEW OF 
 
 I think Mr. Wesley thought so. When he says 
 nothing is sin strictly but a voluntary transgression 
 of a known law of God, he speaks of actual, out- 
 ward transgression, and not of original sin or cor- 
 ruption of nature common to all men. If he be- 
 lieved that infants need a change of nature so as to 
 be inclined not to evil but to good, then his two 
 utterances are not in conflict, but if he believed 
 that infants need no change of any sort, then I can 
 not harmonize his statements. 
 
 SECTION III. Rev. John Fletcher's views of the 
 influence of atonement iipon men. 
 
 If I understand this able and popular author, he 
 saves the infant not by its own personal righteous- 
 ness nor innocence, nor by regeneration or any 
 change of its moral nature, but by the impartation 
 of Adam's regenerated nature to it. The following 
 quotations give his views. He says (Checks, Vol. 
 I, 161): 
 
 " i. The Scriptures tell us that Christ in all 
 things hath the pre-eminence. But if Adam is a 
 more public person, a more general representative 
 of mankind than Jesus Christ, it is plain that in 
 this grand respect Adam hath the pre-eminence 
 over Christ. Now, as this can not be, as Christ is 
 at least equal to Adam, it follows that as Adam 
 brought a general condemnation and universal seed 
 of death upon all, so Christ brings upon them a 
 general justification and a universal seed of life. 
 
 "2. I never yet saw a Calvinist who denied that 
 Christ died for Adam. Now, if the Redeemer died 
 for our first parents, he undoubtedly expiated the 
 original sin the first transgression of Adam. And
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 71 
 
 if Adam's original sin was atoned for and forgiven 
 to him as the Calvinists, I think, generally grant, 
 does it not follow that though all infants are by 
 nature children of wrath, yet through the redemp- 
 tion of Christ they are in a state of favor or justifi- 
 cation ? For how could God damn to all eternity 
 any of Adam's children for a sin which Christ ex- 
 piated? A sin which was forgiven almost six 
 thousand years ago to Adam, who committed it in 
 person ? 
 
 "3. The force of this observation would strike 
 our Calvinistic brethren, if they consider that we 
 were not less in Adam's loins when God gave his Son 
 to Adam in the grand original gospel promise than 
 when Eve prevailed on him to eat the forbidden 
 fruit. As all in him were included in the covenant 
 of obedience before the fall, so all in him were like- 
 wise interested in the covenant of grace and mercy 
 after the fall." 
 
 Remarks. These statements are very perspicu- 
 ous, and teach with sufficient distinctness the fol- 
 lowing points: 
 
 1. That Adam was not only the natural head, 
 but also the covenant representative of mankind; 
 that his sin ' ' brought a general condemnation and 
 a universal seed of death upon all." 
 
 2. That Christ is in like manner a representative 
 of all represented by Adam, and ' ' brings upon 
 them a general justification and a universal seed of 
 life." 
 
 Here it is plainly taught as need to be that Adam 
 by virtue of his representative character, brought 
 condemnation and moral corruption, or spiritual 
 death, upon all men; and that Christ by virtue of
 
 72 REVIEW OF 
 
 his representative character brought justification 
 and moral purification or spiritual life, to all; or 
 that the obedience of the second Adam exactly re- 
 verses the legal and moral effects of the disobedi- 
 ence of the first. 
 
 3. The principle of representation here set forth 
 is identical in kind with. that taught by Augustine, 
 but differs from it in the extent of its application 
 on the Christ side that is, the first Adam repre- 
 sented all, and, hence, all are the children of wrath; 
 but the second Adam represented only a part, and, 
 hence, only a part can be saved. 
 
 4. Fletcher teaches, as do Calvinists, that the 
 atonement infallibly saves in one sense all for whom 
 it is made. This he does when he says: u Now, if 
 the Redeemer died for our first parents, he undoubt- 
 edly expiated the original sin the first transgres- 
 sion." 
 
 Calvinists, when they assert this doctrine, mean 
 that all for whom Christ died will be necessarily 
 and eternally saved; but Fletcher means that Christ 
 having died for Adam, he undoubtedly expiated his 
 sin, and that his posterity are consequently born in 
 a saved state, or saved from the effects of Adam's 
 sin. According to Augustinianism all infants com- 
 mence existence in a state of spiritual death, but 
 Christ died for a part only, and all these will neces- 
 sarily be saved. According to Fletcher all infants 
 commence existence in a state of spiritual life. If 
 they die in infancy they are infallibly saved. If 
 they attain to accountability they may lose this 
 spiritual life and be lost, unless they repent and be-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 73 
 
 lieve in Christ. In this event they are twice par- 
 doned, first seminally and then personally. This 
 seems to require that the obedience of the second 
 Adam shall more than offset the disobedience of 
 the first, which somewhat spoils the theory. 
 
 According to one scheme, all are inevitably saved 
 that God intended to be saved. According to the 
 other, all come into existence in a saved state, but 
 all attaining adult age rqay be lost by personal 
 transgression. 
 
 Both schemes, I think, comprise some vital truths 
 both some radical errors both rest equally upon 
 legal fictions, or conceptions which have no founda- 
 tion in facts; both regard the relation between 
 Adam and his posterity as unique and legal, or 
 judicial, and both regard Christ's death as affecting 
 
 the legal state of millions of beings before they 
 have any existence thus confounding potentiality 
 with actuality. This is to deal with figments as 
 solid facts. I always existed as a potentiality in 
 Adam, and Adam in the Deity. If the possible and 
 the real are identical, then I am as old as Adam, 
 and Adam is as old as the Deity. The reader may 
 furnish many other illustrations of this fallacy if he 
 chooses. 
 
 But this inveterate realism characterizes and vi- 
 tiates all the schemes of soteriology that seek to 
 offset the demerit of one act by the merit of another 
 act. It was not Adam's unrighteousness as an 
 entity, apart from his personality, that corrupted 
 humanity, but Adam himself. It is not Christ's
 
 74 REVIEW OF 
 
 righteousness apart from Christ that saves men, but 
 it is Christ himself that saves. 
 
 SECTION IV. Richard Watson on the effects of 
 atonement. 
 
 Watson, like Wesley, was originally a fairly 
 orthodox Augustinian in his views of original sin, 
 and continued so during the greater portion of his 
 life ; at least, this seems to be a fair inference from 
 the teachings of his "Institutes." His opinions, 
 however, were very much changed in favor of Ar- 
 minianism. 
 
 In his comment on Matthew xix. 14, having ex- 
 plained ' ' the kingdom of heaven " as " the spirit- 
 ual kingdom of Christ on earth, and also that glo- 
 rious reign of God over redeemed and glorified men 
 in a future world, ' ' he says : 
 
 " If little children are the subjects of his spiritual 
 kingdom on earth, then, until the moment that by 
 actual sin they bring actual condemnation upon 
 themselves, they remain heirs of eternal glory; and 
 if they become the subjects of the latter by dying, 
 then a previous relation must have existed upon 
 earth between them and Christ as their Redeemer 
 and Sanctifier." 
 
 Remarks. It is here taught by fair implication: 
 (i) That children are born in vital union with Christ, 
 and "remain heirs of eternal glory " "until the 
 moment that, by actual sin, they bring personal 
 condemnation upon themselves." 
 
 (2) That they were redeemed and sanctified sem- 
 inally, or as potentialities in Adam, or before they
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 75 
 
 have any real existence, or instantly upon their na- 
 tivity. 
 
 (3) That they may, and probably always, forfeit 
 their vital union with Christ, and their heirship to 
 eternal glory "by actual sin" unless they die in 
 infancy. If they do bring personal condemnation 
 upon themselves, then they, of course, must be re- 
 redeemed, or re-delivered, and re-sanctified, in order 
 to their salvation. This process may, of course, be 
 indefinitely repeated. 
 
 Now, I submit whether it would not be better to 
 allow that children are not born in vital union with 
 Christ and heirs of eternal glory ; that they are not 
 redeemed (saved) and sanctified thousands of years 
 before they exist, but that they are redeemed from 
 sinful propensions and sanctified, or put in vital 
 union with Christ after they are born. If Christ is 
 able and willing to redeem them from sin and sanc- 
 tify them thousands of years before they exist, 
 surely he is able and willing to do so after they are 
 born. 
 
 The pre-natal sanctification and redemption of 
 non-existent beings from non-existent sins is a sub- 
 ject hard to deal with in a satisfactory way. But 
 the sanctification and redemption of actually exist- 
 ent beings from actual evil is far less difficult of 
 comprehension. It quite perplexes me to know 
 how God could feed and clothe men thousands of 
 years before they exist, and equally so as to how 
 he can sanctify and save beings before they exist. 
 We know quite well that thousands of years ago 
 God did provide means in the economy of nature
 
 76 REVIEW OF 
 
 by which he feeds and clothes men as they come 
 into being through successive generations, and it 
 seems not at all unreasonable that he, thousands 
 of years ago, made provision, in the economy of the 
 moral world, by which he sanctifies and saves men 
 as they come into being through successive ages. 
 
 NOTE. Mr. Watson infers that children are " in 
 vital union with Christ," and . . . heirs to eternal 
 glory from the fact that they are said to be u of . . . 
 the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 To be of the kingdom of heaven I think is not 
 necessarily to be in "vital union with Christ." 
 "The kingdom of heaven," as used in the New 
 Testament, often, perhaps generally, includes not 
 only those actually saved, but those in a salvable 
 state. The words are about equivalent to gracioiis 
 dispensation, or Christ's mediatorial reign. That 
 all in the kingdom were not in a saved state is quite 
 clear. The kingdom of heaven is like to a man that 
 sowed good seed in his field, but an enemy sowed 
 tares. The -wheat and the tares were in the same 
 field, or kingdom. The five foolish virgins were 
 in the kingdom. The man not having on a wed- 
 ding garment was in the kingdom. It is not safe to 
 say that all in the kingdom are in vital union with 
 Christ. 
 
 SECTION V. Dr. darkens views. 
 
 Commenting on Matthew xix. 14, in speaking of 
 little children, Dr. Clarke says : 
 
 " A great part of God's kingdom is composed of 
 such literally; and those only who resemble little 
 children shall be received into it. Christ loves little
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 77 
 
 children because he loves simplicity and inno- 
 cence. ' ' 
 
 These three propositions are literally true ; and 
 Augustinians would have no hesitation in adopting 
 them, because they are capable of explanation in 
 full harmony with their doctrine. Nor is it at all 
 certain that Dr. Clarke meant to teach that children 
 are born without a sinful nature. Indeed, he else- 
 where seems to teach a contrary doctrine. 
 
 Dr. Clarke, of course, believed that infants, dying 
 in infancy, are saved ; but he did not deny their de- 
 pravity, "nor do I think he intended to teach that 
 they are born with a fitness for heaven. 
 
 Commenting on Ps. li. 5, ' ' Behold, I was shapen 
 in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me, ' ' 
 he says : 
 
 U A genuine penitent will hide nothing of his 
 state; he sees and bewails not only the acts of sin 
 which he has committed, but the disposition that 
 led to those acts. He deplores not only the trans- 
 gression, but the carnal mind which is enmity 
 against God. . . . Notwithstanding all that Grotius 
 and others have said to the contrary, I believe David 
 to speak here of what is commonly called original 
 sin; the propensity to evil which every man brings 
 into the world with him, and which is the fruitful 
 source whence all transgressions proceed." 
 
 He adopts, as a suitable paraphrase of the text, 
 the following very expressive words : 
 
 " As my parts were developed in the womb, the 
 sinful principle diffused itself through the whole, so 
 that body and mind grew up in a state of corruption 
 and moral imperfection. ' '
 
 78 REVIEW OF 
 
 No Augustinian, I think, would care to assert 
 infant depravity more vigorously than Dr. Clarke 
 has here done. He evidently did not believe that 
 the death of Jesus Christ prevented the transmission 
 of moral defection from Adam to his posterity. 
 
 SECTION VI. General statements concerning 
 Arminian soteriology. 
 
 From this very brief notice of these distin- 
 guished and learned authors of the Arminian 
 school, we are able to see with some degree of dis- 
 tinctness wherein they agree, also disagree with 
 Augustinians concerning the atonement and its 
 actual effects upon those in whose interests it is 
 provided. 
 
 These agreements and disagreements the reader 
 can note for himself. 
 
 A few general statements may be allowed. 
 
 i. These Arminian authors from whose writings 
 I have quoted, it should be remembered, especially 
 the earlier of them, labored under serious disad- 
 vantages. Augustinianism was the doctrine of 
 Luther and of the Reformers generally; also of the 
 papal Church, at least, ostensibly. To oppose it 
 was to incur condemnation at the hands of the 
 Protestant clergy generally; to subject themselves 
 to no small degree of theological odium; to incur 
 persecution, misrepresentation, and an unenviable 
 notoriety. 
 
 This is the common heritage of those whose con- 
 victions and conscience require them to dissent 
 from the popular faith. In addition to all this, some 
 of them had been reared in the Augustinian faith,
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 79 
 
 and could not be reasonably expected at once and 
 fully to free themselves from their inherited opinions. 
 This, we know, is one of the most difficult achieve- 
 ments of the human mind. 
 
 But these men, good and great, were true to their 
 convictions, and had the moral heroism to defend 
 them at whatever disadvantage. 
 
 That they, under the circumstances, should make 
 no mistakes commit no errors was not to be ex- 
 pected. Not to do so, all things considered, would 
 have been marvelous. 
 
 2. In some things, some of them, I think, de- 
 parted too far from Augustinianism, not in denying 
 infant reprobation, limited atonement, and ' ' irre- 
 sistible grace," but in denying infant depravity 
 and the necessity of some change establishing in 
 them a tendency to love God (which alone qualifies 
 for heaven), and in predicating a continuance in 
 a saved state upon human works making such 
 works a condition, rather than the fruit, of a saved 
 state. 
 
 3. In some things, I think, some of them did not 
 go far enough from Augustinianism. (i) In assert- 
 ing with Augustinians, as some of them do, that 
 Adam was some sort of a covenant or judicial rep- 
 resentative of his posterity, other than as other 
 parents are; and a corresponding, judicial, and rep- 
 resentative element in the official character of 
 Christ. There are, I think, absolutely no substi- 
 tutions with double imputation in the sphere of 
 divine law, physical or moral. (2) In agreeing,
 
 80 REVIEW OF 
 
 as some of them do, with Augustinians, that there 
 is some sort of merit in penal sufferings, and that 
 Christ suffered penally, as a substitute for men, 
 they, I think, greatly erred. 
 
 4. The reader will observe that there is by no 
 means perfect accord in doctrine among them. 
 They, perhaps, agreed better in what they denied 
 than in what they affirmed. This diversity of 
 views on abstruse and important questions under 
 the circumstances, was unavoidable. This is no 
 disparagement of the men, or of their churches. 
 It rather evinces their candor, independence, and 
 conscientiousness, and is, therefore, to their credit 
 rather than discredit. There was sufficient accord 
 of opinion to justify co-operation and achieve suc- 
 cess. Arminianism has become a wonderful power 
 for good. 
 
 5. The reader will also observe that these writers 
 generally, including Limborch, who had a stronger 
 anti-Augustinian tendency than Arminius, admit 
 that the sufferings of Christ were in some way sub- 
 stitutionary and penal. These several schemes of 
 atonement may, therefore, be regarded as modifica- 
 tions of the Anselmic soteriology; and just in so 
 far as they are substitutionary and penal are ob- 
 noxious to the same objections that lie against the 
 Anselmic scheme. 
 
 Having made this brief statement of the various 
 schemes of soteriology, and criticised some of their 
 postulates, I now propose a more formal examina- 
 tion of the substitutionary principle and its defenses
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 81 
 
 as made by later writers. Of those who hold the 
 substitutionary scheme in its less inconsistent form, 
 Dr. Charles Hodge may be considered an able 
 perhaps the ablest representative. For this reason 
 his presentation of the subject will be specially 
 considered. 
 6
 
 82 REVIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SECTION I. Dr. Charles Hodge's advocacy of 
 the penal theory of atonement considered. 
 
 Dr. Hodge's finished scholarship, eminent abili- 
 ties, and life-time devotion to theological studies 
 entitle his opinions on the subject of soteriology to 
 profound respect. 
 
 In his Systematic Theology he has discussed the 
 subject at considerable length, and with marvelous 
 skill. His presentation and defense of the rigidly 
 substitutionary and penal theory of atonement are 
 superior to any thing I have seen. The presenta- 
 tion is so specious, its hard points so adroitly dis- 
 posed of, that many whose instincts and reason re- 
 coil at the doctrine itself, reject it without profess- 
 ing to be able to disprove it. 
 
 Perhaps any adverse theory any theory denying 
 that Christ's death was penal and substitutionary 
 would be deemed radically defective if it did not at 
 least indicate some method of escape from the con- 
 clusions which Dr. Hodge's arguments are intended 
 to support. We can not believe things known to 
 be contradictory. Though we may accept, for rea- 
 sons which we deem sufficient, one theory without 
 being able to point out the fallacies of an opposite 
 theory, yet, it is more satisfactory to know precise- 
 ly wherein the rejected theory is at fault.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 83 
 
 It, therefore, seems proper that, in rejecting the 
 penal theory, so ably advocated by Dr. Hodge, I 
 should indicate my objections to his arguments. 
 Only his leading positions will be noticed, and this 
 not in labored detail, but in the briefest manner 
 compatible with clearness. 
 
 Dr. Hodge adopts the following statement of 
 Christ's work, given by Delitzsch (Theo. Vol. II., 
 
 P- 543): 
 
 "If a man keeps in view our desert of punish- 
 ment, and allows the three saving doctrines of 
 Scripture to stand in their integrity, namely: 
 
 1. That God made Him who knew no sin to be 
 sin for us that is, imputed our sins to Him. 
 
 2. That Christ, although free from guilt, laden 
 with our guilt, was made a curse for us that is, 
 suffered the wrath of God due to us; or, as the 
 Scripture also says, that God executed on his Son 
 judgment against sin, He having taken upon Him 
 flesh and blood, and offered Himself as a sacrifice 
 for us for the expiation of sin. 
 
 3. That in like manner his righteousness is im- 
 puted to believers, so that we may stand before 
 God, as he had submitted to the imputation of our 
 sins, in order to their expiation; if these premises 
 remain unobliterated, then it is as clear as the sun 
 that Christ suffered and died as our substitute, in 
 order that we need not suffer what we deserved, 
 and in order that we, instead of dying, should be 
 partakers of the life secured by his vicarious 
 death." . 
 
 This is a fair statement of the theory; and to its 
 defense Dr. Hodge addresses himself with a zeal, a 
 wealth of erudition, and a fertility of invention
 
 84 REVIEW OF 
 
 seldom surpassed. He knows his forces, and mar- 
 shals them with consummate skill; and, like a 
 good strategist, claims a sweeping victory in every 
 rencounter. Never, perhaps, was a bad cause fa- 
 vored with a more gallant defense. Every thing 
 in this defense is admirable, except the argument 
 itself. This, I think, is sadly at fault. 
 
 Let us see whether there is sufficient ground for 
 this opinion. 
 
 SECTION II. Dr. Hodge says (Vol. II., p. 468): 
 
 "Expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and in- 
 tercession are the several aspects under which the 
 work of Christ, as a priest, is presented in the word 
 of God." 
 
 Comment. I. The word "expiation" never oc- 
 curs in the Bible, (old version) but is unfortunately 
 introduced into the new. 
 
 2. By expiation here is meant exemption from 
 liability to punishment; or that none for whom 
 Christ died can ever perish. This contradicts Rom. 
 xiv. 15. 
 
 3. By "reconciliation" Dr. Hodge means God's 
 reconciliation to those for whom Christ made expi- 
 ation, and not man's reconciliation to God. This 
 contradicts Rom. v. 10, u; 2 Cor. v. 18-20. 
 
 4. His schemfe is, Christ's death procures expia- 
 tion^ expiation procures propitiation, propitiation 
 procures God's reconciliation to the elect, and this 
 reconciliation insures their regeneration and pres- 
 ervation to everlasting life. (See Vol. II., p. 514.)
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 85 
 
 SECTION III. Dr. Hodge objects to the word 
 atonement " to express the work of Christ." 
 
 1. He says it is ambiguous. He says (p. 469), 
 ' ' To atone is properly to be, or cause to be, at 
 one. " "In this sense to atone is to reconcile. ' ' 
 But it is also in the second place, used to express 
 that by which the reconciliation is effected. It then 
 means satisfaction." 
 
 Comment. ' ' Satisfaction ' ' and ' ' compensation, ' ' 
 like expiation, are extra-biblical ; and the ideas they 
 are intended to express also extra-biblical. They 
 smack, too, of ' ' quid pro qrUo. ' ' 
 
 2. He says : 
 
 "Another objection to its general use is that it 
 is not sufficiently comprehensive. As commonly 
 used it includes only the sacrificial work of Christ, 
 and not his vicarious obedience to the divine law. 
 The atonement of Christ is said to consist of his 
 suffering and death. But his saving work includes 
 far more than his expiatory sufferings. ' ' 
 
 Comment. Our author objects to the word 
 atonement because, "as commonly used," it does 
 not include Christ's "vicarious obedience" that 
 is, his active obedience in contradistinction to his 
 passive obedience, so called. I have elsewhere suf- 
 ficiently exposed this inane distinction between 
 "active and passive obedience." What act of 
 Christ's antemortem life was vicarious, or was per- 
 formed in the place of any one else much less of 
 all mankind, and which has been set to their credit ? 
 It certainly would be gratifying, if not profitable, 
 to know this.
 
 86 REVIEW OF 
 
 "But his ... expiatory sufferings?" suffer- 
 ings which insure all for whom he died against all 
 penal suffering? Well, Christ never endured any 
 such suffering. This is plain from reference to 
 Rom. xiv. 15, and will be made abundantly plain 
 in this discussion. 
 
 3. "A third objection is that this use of the word 
 atonement is a departure from the established usage 
 of the Churches of the Reformation." 
 
 Comment. The Reformers used the word to in- 
 clude expiation, propitiation, and reconciliation. In 
 this they were certainly not quite exact. The Re- 
 formers are high authority, but the Bible is higher, 
 and in the use of this word modern usage is nearer 
 the Bible than the Reformers. 
 
 In the Bible this word is always used in the sense of 
 propitiation never in the sense of expiation rarely, 
 if ever, in the sense of reconciliation. (If ever 
 used in the sense of reconciliation, it is in reference 
 to the scapegoat Lev. xvi.) Yet, according to its 
 generally accepted etymology, its literal meaning is 
 reconciliation. If this is the literal meaning of this 
 hybrid word, and if_in the Bible its general, if not 
 invariable, meaning is propitiation, as is elsewhere 
 seen, then the word in the Bible is used, not in its 
 literal, but metonymical sense the sequence put 
 for its antecedent a form of trope of frequent oc- 
 currence in the Bible. This view of the subject is 
 strongly favored, if not conclusively proved, by the 
 significant fact that the word atonement never oc- 
 curs in the New Testament New Version at all, but 
 is replaced by the word .propitiation.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 87 
 
 Our author pithily says, "It is important to ad- 
 here to old words, if we would adhere to old doc- 
 trines." In this I heartily concur, and for this 
 reason I protest against such Bible exotics as ' ' ex- 
 piation, " " piacular, " " satisfaction, " " compensa- 
 tion," "just equivalent," etc. These words have 
 well-nigh excluded the living Christ from modern 
 soteriology. 
 
 SECTION IV. Dr. Hodge very properly discrim- 
 inates between debt and crime. But it is not 
 believed that he properly characterizes either debt 
 or crime. 
 
 He says (p. 476) : 
 
 ' ' The word satisfaction is the one which for ages 
 has been generally used to designate the special 
 work of Christ in the salvation of men. . . . There 
 are, however, two kinds of satisfaction which, as 
 they differ essentially in their nature and effects, 
 should not be confounded. The one is pecuniary, 
 or commercial, the other penal, or forensic. When 
 a debtor pays the demand of his creditor in full, he 
 satisfies his claims, and is entirely free from any 
 other demands. ... It is a simple matter of com- 
 mutative justice a quid pro quo so much for so 
 much. ... It matters not to him (the creditor) 
 by whom the debt is paid whether by the debtor 
 himself, or by some one in his stead because the 
 claim of the creditor is simply upon the amount 
 due, and not upon the person of the debtor." 
 
 Comment. The question here raised as to 
 whether "the claim of the creditor is simply upon 
 the amount due," or " upon the person of the debt- 
 or " is a point concerning which penalists can not
 
 88 REVIEW OF 
 
 agree among themselves. Those that make sin a 
 debt place the obligation upon the person of the 
 debtor. Those denying that sin is a debt put the 
 claim " upon the amount due." Dr. Hodge's view 
 seems to be an impracticable one. A debt implies 
 both a debtor and a creditor. An obligation on the 
 part of the former implies a right on the part of 
 the latter. The right of the creditor is personal, 
 and therefore real, but the obligation "upon the 
 amount due" is impersonal, and hence, unreal, For 
 all rights and obligations are personal . Dr. Hodge 
 says the claim is "not iipon the person of the 
 debtor." In this I think he errs. I think he also 
 errs in his characterization of crime. He continues, 
 " In the case of crime the matter is different. The 
 demand is then upon the offender. He himself is 
 amenable to justice." 
 
 Comment. Justice, like "the amount due," is 
 an impersonality, to which a person can not be 
 amenable. 
 
 He continues, " Substitution in human courts is 
 out of the question." But other substitutionists 
 contradict this, and say that "substitution is a 
 normal provision of law. ' ' He says : 
 
 "The essential point in matters of crime, is not 
 the nature of the penalty, but who shall suffer. 
 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. And the penalty 
 need not be, and very rarely is, of the nature of the 
 injury inflicted. All that is required is that it 
 should be a just equivalent. For an assault it may 
 be a fine ; for theft, imprisonment ; for treason, 
 banishment, or death."
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 89 
 
 Comment. Two radical errors, common to all 
 substitutionists, may here be noted, both of which 
 are exposed in "Atonement and Law Reviewed." 
 
 The tacit assumption that divine law is like 
 human law. In human law the penalty does not 
 grow naturally and necessarially out of the offense, 
 but is arbitrarily and judicially determined by the 
 law maker. This is a radical defect in all criminal 
 human law; for the penalty may never be in exact 
 accord with the degree of guilt. Of a thousand 
 murders, no two of them may be of exactly the same 
 degree of criminality, yet the penalty inflicted upon 
 all is exactly the same. Omniscience alone is com- 
 petent to put the punishment in exact accord with 
 the criminality. 
 
 Most substitutionists formally admit subjective 
 law law written upon the heart but others deny 
 it utterly, and affirm law in commandment only. 
 But those that formally admit subjective law logic- 
 ally deny it when they assume divine law to be 
 analogous to human law, which is necessarily law 
 in commandment only. Especially do they com- 
 mit logical suicide when they admit subjective law, 
 and yet assert the doctrine of substitution with in- 
 variable "double imputation." Dr. Hodge is sen- 
 sible of this difficulty, and attempts to escape it by 
 distinguishing between" reatus culpce and reatus 
 poencz, to which attention will in due time be 
 given. 
 
 Human law is law in commandment only. Of 
 such law only can it be said that "the penalty need 
 not be, and very rarely is, of the nature of the in-
 
 90 REVIEW OF 
 
 jury inflicted." Instead of "very rarely" Dr. 
 Hodge should have said never. Even in the lex 
 talionis an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth 
 there is only an external similarity between the 
 offense and its penalty. In this case, as in all other 
 human punishments, the penalty is judicially fixed, 
 and does not come necessarily out of the nature of 
 the offense. 
 
 I do not know exactly what is meant by the 
 words, "the injury inflicted." If they are intended 
 to mean an injury inflicted by the offender upon 
 justice or God the idea is extravagant. They may 
 be intended as the equivalent of the words offense 
 committed. 
 
 This immutable and vital truth should be dis- 
 tinctly apprehended and never forgotten, viz. : that 
 the natural penalties of all divine law physical 
 and moral are determined both as to nature and 
 severity by the nature and turpitude of the offense. 
 From this rule there is no departure. Judicial vis- 
 itations form no exceptions. They are extra-nat- 
 ural, but do not supersede the natural, as will be 
 elsewhere seen. 
 
 From these brief statements the reader can not 
 fail to see that our author fails to properly charac- 
 terize debt, because he makes it obligation upon a 
 thing and not upon a person. Also fails rightly 
 to characterize crime against God's law, because he 
 predicates of it what is true only of crime against 
 human law. The first error is of small conse- 
 quence; the second is of immense significance, as 
 we shall see.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 91 
 
 Dr. Hodge continues : 
 
 "Another important difference between pecuni- 
 ary and penal satisfaction is that the one ipso facto 
 liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor 
 is free, and that completely. No delay can be ad- 
 mitted, and no conditions can be attached to his 
 deliverance. But in the case of the criminal, as he 
 has no claim to have a substitute take his place, if 
 one be provided, the terms on which the benefits of 
 the substitution shall accrue to the principal ~ are 
 matters of agreement or covenant between the sub- 
 stitute and the magistrate who represents justice." 
 
 Comment. 1. ( It is one of the absurdities of the 
 substitutionary theory that many of the elect, whose 
 sins Christ, it is claimed, has fully expiated, are 
 permitted or rather necessitated to pass a large part 
 (possibly the whole) of life in sin and. suffering 
 as murderers, liars, , thieves, libertines, etc. Dr. 
 Hodge's explanation may do credit to his polemic 
 abilities, but seems to me to bear hard on "the 
 contracting parties." (See page 360.) That the 
 Father and the Son who, in "the stipulations of 
 the compact ' ' into which they entered, should by 
 covenant leave the elect, whom God "loved with a 
 peculiar and discriminating love," to sin and suffer 
 in this manner, is unreasonable if nothing worse. 
 The mystery becomes the more appalling when we 
 remember the relation between God and these neg- 
 lected elect ones. That relation, according to our 
 author, is this: Christ has obeyed the law both pre- 
 ceptively and penally, and expiated their sins that 
 is, released them from liability to punishment. 
 God is propitiated toward them, is reconciled to
 
 92 REVIEW OF 
 
 them, and is actually bound by covenant (p. 362) 
 "to renew their hearts, to satisfy and comfort them, 
 and to qualify them for his service and kingdom." 
 But why this terrible tardiness in fulfilling these 
 covenant promises? Is God "slack concerning his 
 promises ? ' ' Well, they ' ' are matters of agreement 
 or covenant between the substitute (Christ) and the 
 magistrate who represents justice" (God)! The' 
 reader will not fail to remember that "the wages 
 of sin is death," and that "to be carnally minded 
 is death," and that these unregenerated elect ones 
 are carnally minded, and are actually enduring the 
 wages, the penalty of sin; and yet, according to Dr. 
 Hodge, their sins are actually expiated that is, 
 they are released from punishment, Christ having 
 been punished for them. 
 
 2. Our author says: "The moment the debt is 
 paid the debtor is free, and that completely. ' ' This 
 I heartily indorse. But when he says the case of 
 the criminal is different in regard to time of deliv- 
 erance, I beg to dissent. 
 
 Dr. Hodge says : ' ' The deliverance of the offender 
 may be immediate, unconditional, and complete." 
 This seems eminently just and proper. But he 
 continues, "or it may be deferred, suspended on 
 certain conditions, and its benefits gradually be- 
 stowed." This delay seems unjust, and without 
 any reason except to meet the requirements of the 
 theory. 
 
 Now, why should the debtor be released the in- 
 stant his debt is paid? Simply because there is no 
 claim against him. The act of paying ipso facto
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 93 
 
 releases. Then why is not the "criminal " in like 
 manner released the instant justice receives "ple- 
 nary satisfaction" for his guilt? "A just equiva- 
 lent," it is said, has. been received. There is then 
 absolutely nothing against him. Every principle 
 of right and honor requires his instant release, as 
 truly so in the case of the criminal as of that of the 
 debtor. Justice having received plenary satisfac- 
 tion, has no more right to delay release an instant 
 than the creditor has to demand a thousand dollars 
 more than is due on his bond. This'is too plain to 
 admit debate. 
 
 Suppose A is sentenced by the court to ten years 
 in the penitentiary for crime, and faithfully serves 
 out his time, and the State official should detain 
 him in prison one or five years longer, would this 
 be just or honorable ? Would not the State or its 
 officials be liable for damages, and would not any 
 court in Christendom allow damages? Suppose A 
 is condemned to be hung till dead, and B on the 
 scaffold proposes to become his substitute (the law 
 consenting), and actually is hung till dead, and the 
 State authorities should refuse to release A, or rather 
 actually hang him some, would not the law receive 
 more than its due ? and is it not as great an outrage 
 for justice to receive more than its due as to receive 
 less ? 
 
 Tt may also be pertinently said that if the regen- 
 eration of some of the elect is delayed through long 
 years of sinning and spiritual death, by covenant 
 stipulations between the High ' ' contracting par- 
 ties," then it follows necessarily, either that justice
 
 94 REVIEW OF 
 
 receives more than is just, or that Christ did not 
 render plenary, but only partial satisfaction to 
 justice, and the elect rebel is required to suffer his 
 own punishment in part, and thus complete the in- 
 complete work of his substitute. It also follows 
 that Christ died more for some of the elect than for 
 others. This, perhaps, is no more incomprehensible 
 than is Dr. Hodge's assumption that Christ "died 
 unequally" for the elect and reprobate. These are 
 only a part of the logical difficulties that beset Dr. 
 Hodge's characterization of criminality and its ex- 
 piation. 
 
 SECTION V. Substitutionists have great trouble 
 in satisfying one another as to the kind and degree 
 of suffering that was necessary on the part of Christ 
 to satisfy justice in behalf of men. The household 
 seems to be hopelessly divided against itself. 
 
 1. Some teach that his suffering was the same, 
 both in kind and degree, as that to which all men 
 are liable. This, though perhaps the most revolt- 
 ing, is the least inconsistent of all substitutionary 
 schemes. The essential idea of substitution is 
 sameness, both as to kind and degree. If I engage 
 
 o o o 
 
 a man to take my place in any affair, and he does 
 not do both as to kind and degree what I am re- 
 quired to do, he is in no proper sense my substitute. 
 This is too plain to require discussion. 
 
 But this view of the suffering of the sinless 
 Christ is so abhorrent to our instincts that it is very 
 seldom asserted. 
 
 2. Some hold that Christ suffered in degree, but 
 not in kind what all for whom he died would have
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 95 
 
 suffered in time and eternity. This is not substitu- 
 tion in any proper sense. If I am required by law 
 to do a particular thing, and engage another man to 
 do it in my place, and he, instead of doing it, does 
 an equal amount of other work, he does not act the 
 part of a substitute; nor will the law release me. 
 If, however, the governor choose to accept what is 
 actually done, in lieu of what I am required to do, " 
 then this is a matter of sovereign prerogative, and 
 not of law or justice. Hence, it is manifest that if 
 the elect world is required by justice to do one thing, 
 and Christ does another thing, and God accepts what 
 he does in lieu of what they are required to do, then 
 the atonement is not a matter of justice, but of sov- 
 ereign prerogative. But atonement by sovereign 
 prerogative is ' ' the holy horror ' ' of the less incon- 
 sistent substitutionists. 
 
 3. Another school of substitutionists deny that 
 Christ's sufferings were the same either in kind or 
 degree with those to which the elect would be liable; 
 but allege that these sufferings were "a just equiv- 
 alent," of equal value, and, therefore, "a real satis- 
 faction," "a plenary satisfaction to justice." Dr. 
 Hodge, I think, should be regarded as the peerless 
 champion of this theory. He shall speak for him- 
 self. He says (p. 471, et seq.): 
 
 "All . . . that the Church teaches when it says 
 that Christ satisfies divine justice for the sins of men, 
 is that what he did and suffered was a real adequate 
 compensation for the penalty remitted and the ben- 
 efits conferred. His sufferings and death were ade- 
 quate to accomplish all the ends designed by the
 
 96 REVIEW OF 
 
 punishment of the sins of men. He satisfied jus- 
 tice. He rendered it consistent with the justice of 
 God that the sinner should be justified. But he 
 did not suffer either in kind or degree what sinners 
 would have suffered. In value his sufferings infin- 
 itely transcended theirs. The death of an eminent- 
 ly good man would outweigh the annihilation of a 
 universe of insects. So the humiliation, sufferings, 
 and death of the eternal Son of God immeasurably 
 transcended in worth and power the penalty whieh 
 a world of sinners would have endured. ' ' 
 
 "It was an act of pure grace that God arrested 
 the execution of the" penalty of the law, and con- 
 sented to accept the vicarious sufferings and death 
 of his only begotten Son." 
 
 Comment. i. As a scheme claiming to be vica- 
 rious, this is farther removed from real substitution 
 than those previously noticed. It can be called 
 substitutionary only by courtesy. It is rather 
 atonement by sovereign prerogative than by substi- 
 tution. God ' ' consented to accept, ' ' etc. To con- 
 sent is an act of will, of sovereign prerogative, and 
 not of abstract justice. In this scheme the will is 
 dominant, both as to the kind and degree of suffer- 
 ing, and justice is made subordinate, and is content 
 to receive just what sovereign prerogative chooses 
 to give; and yet Christ's death is a satisfaction to 
 justice! 
 
 2. Some of the ideas expressed in the last quota- 
 tion seem to call for a brief notice. 
 
 (i) That what Christ " did . . . was a real adequate 
 compensation for ... the benefits conferred. " It 
 will be remembered that Dr. Hodge makes Christ's 
 "active obedience" so called, constitute a part of
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 97 
 
 the atonement. To this he here refers. But this 
 doctrine is in conflict with Rom. v. 18. " Through 
 one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all' 
 men." Compensation? To whom or what ? Can 
 God receive compensation ? Can an impersonal 
 thing like justice? 
 
 (2) That what Christ . . . "suffered was a real 
 adequate compensation for the penalty remitted." 
 Compensation in penalty ? If penalty endured by 
 a substitute compensates God, or justice, or any 
 thing else, then, of course, it can do no less when 
 endured by the principals. 
 
 Hence, it inevitably follows that Satan and his 
 hosts are compensating God or justice for all their 
 sins. It is so plain as scarcely to need saying that 
 there is no merit, no power ill penalty to compen- 
 sate any thing. When pain comes to have the 
 power of removing its cause, then penalty may ex- 
 piate guilt or take away guilt. 
 
 3. In the next sentence our author teaches that 
 the end of punishment is to satisfy justice? It 
 scarcely needs to be said that, if such is its design, 
 it utterly fails of its end. This is sufficiently 'dem- 
 onstrated elsewhere. 
 
 4. "He rendered it consistent with the justice of 
 God that the sinner should be justified." 
 
 If Christ's penal sufferings render it consistent 
 with the justice of God that sinners should be jus- 
 tified, do not the penal sufferings of the fallen an- 
 gels or any one else have the same power ? Surely 
 penalty can not be more efficacious in the substi- 
 tute than in the principal. Certainly God can be 
 7
 
 98 REVIEW OF 
 
 just in justifying all those who through faith in 
 Christ are made partakers of his righteousness; but 
 hot in justifying all for whom Christ died. If this 
 were so, I hesitate not to say universalism would 
 be true. Dr. Hodge understands the text to which 
 he alludes (Rom. iii. 25) to teach that Christ's suf- 
 ferings constitute the propitiation, and hence, that 
 it is what Christ has done that expiates sin and in- 
 sures the salvation of the elect. But the text does 
 not say this* nor mean it. On the contrary it makes 
 Christ himself the propitiation, or propitiatory. 
 Nowhere in the Bible is Christ's sufferings or death 
 called a propitiation, but Christ himself is the pro- 
 pitiation; or it is not what Christ has done that 
 saves us, but Christ himself. 
 
 See Rom. iii. 25; i John ii. 2; iv. 10. 
 
 5. That the penal theory of atonement logically 
 expiates all sin may be further shown by the fol- 
 lowing facts: 
 
 It is laid down as a fundamental law that there 
 can be no pardon without punishment. Dr. Hodge 
 quotes with approbation (and often re-affirms it) the 
 following from Ebrard (p. 477): 
 
 ' ' Guilt, as we know, can be removed only by 
 punishment. Either the sinner himself must bear 
 the punishment, or a substitute must be provided 
 to assume the guilt and bear the punishment, and 
 thus freedom from guilt, or righteousness, be secured 
 for the offender. ' ' 
 
 Dr. Hodge says: 
 
 "This is the fundamental idea of atonement or 
 satisfaction. . And this is the essential idea of
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 99 
 
 the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ as it is pre- 
 sented in the Scriptures." 
 
 Comment. It is here announced as a universal 
 principle (i) That penal suffering is the basis, and 
 only basis, of pardon, or that there can be no par- 
 don without antecedent punishment. 
 
 (2) That penal suffering is equally efficacious in 
 securing freedom from guilt, whether endured by 
 the principal offender or by his substitute. 
 
 Now, it is a most marvelous thing that good and 
 great men who advocate this principle of expiation 
 can not see that it of necessity expiates blots out 
 takes away the unrighteousness of Satan and all 
 other rebels in the moral world, and actually in- 
 vests them with righteousness commensurate to the 
 claims of justice or the divine law, and necessarily 
 insures their salvation. 
 
 All this is so plain as scarcely to require com- 
 ment. I need only here indicate a few points. If 
 there is no pardon without punishment, then there 
 is no punishment without pardon; just as we may 
 say, there can be no effect without a cause, so there 
 can be no cause without effect. It is not meant 
 that punishment and pardon are convertible terms, 
 any more than that cause and effect are convertible 
 terms, but that punishment to the full satisfaction 
 of justice insures the pardon. Hence, there can be 
 no punishment without a resulting pardon, just as 
 there can be no cause without an effect, for what 
 produces no effect is not a cause. 
 
 But, according to the doctrine, punishment may 
 be endured either by the principal or by a substi-
 
 ioo REVIEW OF 
 
 tute, and it is just as efficacious in one as the other. 
 Hence, if Christ's penal sufferings as a substitute 
 satisfies justice and procures pardon, so does Satan's 
 penal sufferings satisfy justice and secure pardon for 
 himself, and so of every other sinner. 
 
 SECTION VI. Penalists have serious trouble 
 among themselves as to the particular character of 
 Christ's sufferings. They all agree that the}- were 
 penal inflicted on him as a punishment of the sins 
 of men; but what is included in this penalty is not 
 agreed. Dr. Hodge gives what he deems the most 
 satisfactory solution of the difficult problem. 
 
 He says (p. 474): 
 
 "The words penal and penalty do not designate 
 any particular kind or degree of suffering, but any 
 kind or any degree which is judicially inflicted in 
 satisfaction of justice. The word death, as used in 
 Scripture to designate the wages or reward of sin, 
 includes all kinds and degrees of suffering inflicted 
 as its punishment. By the words penal and penalty, 
 therefore, we express nothing concerning the nature 
 of the sufferings endured, but only the design of 
 their infliction." " We only say on the one hand 
 that his sufferings were neither mere calamities nor 
 chastisements designed for his own benefit, nor 
 merely dogmatic, or symbolical, or exemplary, or 
 the necessary attendants of the conflict between 
 good and evil; and on the other hand we affirm 
 that they were designed for the satisfaction of jus- 
 tice. He died in order that God might be just in 
 justifying the ungodly." 
 
 Comment. This, instead of being a clear and 
 satisfactory solution, seems to me to imperil all 
 forms of atonement refuses to say more than "that
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 101 
 
 Christ's sufferings were penal," and "were designed 
 for the satisfaction of justice," and were so not be- 
 cause of their nature, but only because they were 
 designed to be so. 
 
 (i) The "words penal and penalty do not desig- 
 nate any particular kind or degree of suffering, but 
 any kind or degree which is judicially inflicted in 
 satisfaction of justice." Or, "their character as 
 penal depends not on their nature, but on their de- 
 sign. ' ' Hence, ' ' the very same kind and amount of 
 suffering may in one case be a calamity; in another 
 a chastisement; in another a punishment." This 
 clearly denies any necessary connection between sin 
 and the character of its punishment; also between 
 the degree of guilt and the degree of punishment. 
 It also makes the punishment of sin not a matter 
 of inflexible justice, but purely of will of sovereign 
 prerogative. 
 
 Now, this may be accepted as substantially true 
 of human governments and punishments, but of all 
 divine law and penalties it is fearfully false. 
 
 As we have seen, the penalties affixed to human 
 laws are of necessity arbitrary, temporary, and judi- 
 cial, having no necessary connection with the of- 
 fense; but in divine government the punishment is 
 determined, both as to kind and degree, by the 
 offense. In the sphere of divine law, physical and 
 moral, like produces like, in relation to sin and its 
 penalties, as it does in relation to parent and prog- 
 eny. But according to our author, the kind and 
 degree of penal suffering is determined, not by its 
 nature, but by its design; justice requires the pun-
 
 102 REVIEW OF 
 
 ishment, but the offense, in no sense, determines 
 the kind and degree of the punish men t. These 
 are judicially determined by the administrator, and 
 are administered, not by natural but by supernat- 
 ural providence. The punishment comes not nec- 
 essarily out of the abnormal state of the offender, 
 but as a judicial act of God, just as the punishment 
 of the murderer comes from the hands of the hang- 
 man; or sin and punishment are not causally, but 
 only contingently related. 
 
 Holding such views of punishment, Dr. Hodge 
 is not inconsistent with himself in asserting that 
 Christ did not suffer either in kind or degree what 
 men would have suffered; nor is he inconsistent 
 with himself in holding that ' ' God arrested the ex- 
 ecution of the law, and consented to accept the 
 vicarious suffering and death of his only begotten 
 Son." He is, however, in violent conflict with 
 the Bible, and reason as well, in both these partic- 
 ulars. 
 
 (2) According to the theory, any suffering, phys- 
 ical or mental, may be a calamity, or a chastise- 
 ment, or a punishment, just as God designs it. 
 Hence, the suffering of a substitute need not be 
 the same in kind with that of the principal, for 
 one kind is just as adequate to satisfy justice as an- 
 other, if God designs it as such ; or whatever suffer- 
 ing God designs as a satisfaction of justice is an 
 adequate satisfaction. This, the reader will not fail 
 to see, makes penalty purely a matter of will, and 
 not of justice at all. Hence, it logically follows 
 that if God chose to do so, he could save the elect
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 103 
 
 by a decree or act of will without any atonement at 
 all. 
 
 If God had designed it any suffering, physical or 
 mental, possible to Christ, would have been an 
 adequate satisfaction to justice. The only reason 
 why his suffering, consequent upon his forty days 
 fast, did not satisfy justice for all the world, is that 
 God did not design it. If he had been a galley- 
 slave, or a hod-carrier, his suffering under such 
 labors would have been adequate to satisfy justice, 
 if God had so designed, for ' ' their character as 
 penal depends not on their nature, but upon their 
 design. ' ' 
 
 (3) Another fatal consequence of the doctrine 
 ' ' that the very same kind and amount of suffering . 
 may in one case be a calamity; in another a chas- 
 tisement; in another a punishment," is that justice 
 is minimized, dwarfed, and practically reduced to 
 zero. Justice demands penal satisfaction for sin. 
 But any suffering, becomes penal only by design, 
 and any kind and amount is an adequate satisfaction 
 if it is designed to be so. Now, what necessarily 
 follows ? Thus : To ' ' design ' ' is purely an act of 
 will, or sovereign prerogative. An act of will may 
 substitute one kind of punishment for another, and 
 one degree for another; rather, the will, irrespective 
 of justice, fixes both the degree and kind of punish- 
 ment that must be endured by unsaved sinners, and 
 which must be accepted as "a real adequate satisfac- 
 tion to justice," and then substitutes a punishment 
 for Christ different in kind and less in degree than 
 that fixed for sinners. This Dr. Hodge clearly
 
 I0 4 REVIEW OF 
 
 teaches. In this change the claims of justice are 
 set aside, and it must accept as a real adequate sat- 
 isfaction whatever sovereign prerogative may happen 
 to give. This does not quadrate with the Anselmic 
 idea of justice. 
 
 Now, it is a self-evident proposition that the 
 right to substitute one kind and one amount of 
 punishment for another is the right to set aside 
 punishment altogether, and to save the sinner 
 without any atonement, or expiation, or satisfaction 
 to justice. 
 
 The right to take my house for half value with- 
 out my consent is the right to take it for nothing. 
 The right to relax is the right to abrogate law. 
 ' (4) If it should be said that God's, infinite per- 
 fection gives an infallible guaranty that he will 
 always do right, and that his designs or purposes 
 will always be in the strictest accord with justice, 
 I cordially accept all this as true, and rejoice in it. 
 But according to Dr. Hodge it is not true. God 
 fixed the kind and amount of penalty proper to the 
 sins of the elect. This kind and amount of pen- 
 alty were in exact accord with justice. But when 
 God accepted Christ as the substitute "of his peo- 
 ple," he changed the penalty materially both as to 
 kind and amount. If the penalty as fixed for sin- 
 ners was just, then of necessity the penalty as fixed 
 for their substitute was unjust. If the latter was 
 just, then the former was unjust. Dr. Hodge's 
 theory, take it as we will, makes God unjust, if the 
 atonement was made primarily to satisfy justice.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 105 
 
 (5) Another perplexity arising out of our author's 
 doctrine perhaps should be noticed. He says: 
 
 ' ' The word death, as used in Scripture to desig- 
 nate the wages or reward of sin, includes all kinds 
 and degrees of suffering inflicted as its punish- 
 ment." 
 
 Of course every kind and degree of suffering is 
 either penal or it is not. It can not be both ; yet 
 our author seems to make it both. His theory of 
 Adamic sin requires him to make absolutely all 
 suffering penal; but his theory of Christ's suffering 
 requires him to inake some suffering only a calam- 
 ity or non-penal, and some penal, according as God 
 designs it for one or the other. The design, we are 
 informed, makes all the difference, and this differ- 
 ence affects God alone, and not the sufferer; it mat- 
 ters not a particle with him whether his suffering 
 is a calamity or a punishment. If I burn your 
 house, the effect to you is the same whether my 
 design was malice, or revenge, or plunder, or 
 any thing else. I alone am affected by the design. 
 If the "character" of sufferings "depends not on 
 their nature, but on their designs," then it does not 
 matter a particle whether a man's sufferings are 
 calamities, chastisements, or punishments. The 
 sufferings of Christ and of Judas as to themselves 
 were exactly the same; their sufferings differed only 
 as to God that is, in his designs. 
 
 (6) Our author very much confuses "calamity" 
 and "punishment." He says: "The word death, 
 as used in Scripture to designate the wages or re- 
 ward of sin, indicates all kinds and degrees of suf-
 
 io6 REVIEW OF 
 
 fering inflicted as its punishment." The proposi- 
 tion might be interpreted to mean that all suffering 
 is penal, or to mean that some is not penal. He 
 expresses himself more clearly elsewhere, saying 
 (p. 1 20): 
 
 ' l The wages of sin is death ; . . . therefore death 
 must include not only all the miseries of this life 
 and the dissolution of the body, but also all that is 
 meant by spiritual and eternal death. ' ' 
 
 The doctrine, here and elsewhere taught is, that 
 all suffering of which men are the subjects physi- 
 cal and mental is strictly and exclusively a pun- 
 ishment of sin. Why, then, does he say : 
 
 "Suffering without any reason of its occurrence 
 is calamity; if inflicted for the benefit of the suf- 
 ferer, it is chastisement; if for the satisfaction of 
 justice it is punishment. The very same kind and 
 amount of suffering may in one case be a calamity, 
 in another a chastisement, in another a punish- 
 ment?" 
 
 The answer is, he thus classifies suffering so as to 
 justify himself in saying that the value of Christ's 
 sufferings depended ' ' not upon their nature, but 
 upon their design. ' ' The strategy is bold but in- ' 
 volves him in contradiction. 
 
 To say that all suffering is a punishment of sin, 
 and then classify sufferings as calamities, chastise- 
 ments, and punishments is glaringly illogical. It 
 makes a thing differ from itself. It is to say that 
 calamity is a punishment, and yet differs radically 
 from a punishment. Truth is not self-contradic- 
 tory.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 107 
 
 I do not object to the classification of human suf- 
 ferings as calamities, chastisements, and punish- 
 ments. The radical error lies in the Augustinian 
 assumption that all human suffering is a punish- 
 ment of sin sin in the person of the sufferer a 
 conceit repudiated alike by reason and revelation.
 
 io8 REVIEW OF 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SECTION I. Reatus culptz et reatus p 
 Dr. Hodge says (p. 476): 
 
 "The word guilt . . . expresses the relation 
 which sin bears to justice, or, as v the older theolo- 
 gians said, to the penalty of the law. The relation, 
 however, is twofold. 
 
 First, that which is expressed by criminality and 
 ill-desert, or demerit. This is inseparable from sin. 
 It can belong to no one who is not personally a sin- 
 ner, and it permanently attaches to all who have 
 sinned. It is not removed by justification, much 
 less by pardon. It can not be transferred from one 
 person to another. 
 
 But, secondly, guilt means the obligation to sat- 
 isfy justice. This may be removed by the satisfac- 
 tion of justice personally or vicariously. It may be 
 transferred from one person to another, or assumed 
 by one person for another.." 
 
 On page 188, et seq., we have the same doctrine 
 given at greater length. I will cite only a few sen- 
 tences: 
 
 " The guilt of our sins is said to have been laid 
 upon Christ that is, the obligation to satisfy the 
 demands of justice on account of them. . . . When 
 a man has been punished his liability to justice or 
 obligation to the penalty of the law ... is re- 
 moved. It would be unjust to punish him a sec- 
 ond time for that offense. , This distinction
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 109 
 
 theologians are accustomed to express by the terms 
 reatus culp<z and reatus poencs.' 1 ' 1 
 
 Comment. This distinction as to different phases 
 of guilt is deemed of vital importance to the substi- 
 tutionary scheme of atonement. It is supposed to 
 show how a sinner's liability to punishment may be 
 transferred to another, while his criminality still 
 remains his own, and to thus remove the apparent 
 absurdity of saying that guilt in the sense of crimi- 
 nality may become the guilt of another. It is cer- 
 tainly shrewd but not satisfactory. 
 
 1. It discriminates' between pardon and justifica- 
 tion. The idea seems to be that the sinner is pardoned 
 when Christ became his substitute, but is not justi- 
 fied until he believes. Pardoned from eternity 
 justified in time. This brings no relief, for it is as 
 easy to justify as it is to pardon a sinner from eter- 
 nity. The Bible makes no such distinction. Nor 
 can we have any clear conception of a difference 
 between a divine act in pardoning and such an act 
 in justifying a sinner forensically. If they are dif- 
 ferent, then there are two legal divine acts, sepa- 
 rated by indefinite time, and yet conditioned one upon 
 the other, and infallibly insuring the one the other. 
 
 2. "Guilt means the obligation to satisfy jus- 
 tice." This is impracticable realism, dealing with 
 the abstract as with the concrete with conceptions 
 as with realities. 
 
 Guilt has no existence except as a state of the 
 mind, and justice exists only as a quality in mind. 
 Both are impersonal, and for this reason alike in- 
 capable of ' ' obligation ' ' and ' ' satisfaction. ' ' Our
 
 IIO REVIEW OF 
 
 author means that suffering satisfies justice. Now, 
 if guilt can be obligated, and can discharge that 
 obligation by suffering, and justice can be satisfied 
 by that suffering, then guilt and penalty are lifted 
 wholly above the sphere of the real into the sphere 
 of the abstract, and have no existence except as 
 mental conceptions. Why not deal with sin and 
 its consequent suffering in a common sense practi- 
 cal way, as we deal with other stern realities ? 
 
 I should much prefer to say that the guilty sin- 
 ner is subject to punishment. It is not his guilt 
 that is punished but the sinner himself because of 
 his guilty or abnormal state. Suppose that I 
 should say, "Sickness from poison means obliga- 
 tion to satisfy the laws of health," what would 
 physicians think of me? And, suppose I should 
 duplicate the absurdity by saying that the suffering 
 produced by sickness cures or removes the sickness, 
 as penalists say suffering removes its cause, how 
 long could I escape the asylum ? 
 
 Penalists have been led into such absurdities 
 largely by attempting to construct the moral gov- 
 ernment of God after the models of human govern- 
 ment, whereas the true analogies of the moral gov- 
 ernment are found in the government of the phys- 
 ical world; because God is the law-maker and ruler 
 in the physical world in a sense in which he is not 
 in human governments. 
 
 3. ' ' This [guilt] may be removed by the satisfac- 
 tion of justice personally or vicariously." The 
 logical correlate of this proposition saves every sin- 
 ner in the universe; Satan and his hosts not ex-
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. in 
 
 cepted. How is this? Thus: " Guilt in the sense 
 of reatus poence may be removed by the satisfaction 
 of justice." Suffering alone satisfies justice and 
 releases from reatus poence. Christ rendered this 
 satisfaction for the elect. Satan and all other sin- 
 ners render it personally each for himself. Hence, 
 just as Christ's suffering satisfied justice and re- 
 leased the elect from the reatus poence liability to 
 punishment exactly so, and in an equally satisfac- 
 tory manner, do the personal sufferings of Satan 
 and others satisfy justice and release them from rea- 
 tus poence, 
 
 This releases Satan and every other sinner from 
 liability to punishment exactly in the same sense 
 as does the satisfaction of Christ release the elect. 
 This satisfaction by personal suffering is in every 
 way just as perfect as that rendered by Christ, for, 
 if this is not the case, then justice never gets its 
 due, nor can it help itself ; for it is the only satis- 
 faction it can ever receive. 
 
 Hence, we have all rebeldom released from the 
 reatus poence, or liability to punishment. 
 
 Now, let us look after the reatus culp&, or guilt 
 in the sense of ' ' criminality, " " ill-desert, " ' ' de- 
 merit, " u moral pollution. ' ' 
 
 It is the uniform teaching of Augustinians that 
 those for whom Christ made expiation are infallibly 
 saved that is, the removal of the reatus poence in- 
 fallibly secures the removal of the reatus culpce. 
 Dr. Hodge says (p. 472): 
 
 ' * When a ransom is paid and accepted, the deliv- 
 erance of the captive is a matter of justice. So, in
 
 ii2 REVIEW OF 
 
 the case of the satisfaction of Christ, justice de- 
 mands the salvation of his people. That is his re- 
 ward. . . . What reason can there be for the in- 
 infliction of the penalty for which satisfaction has 
 been made ? ' ' 
 
 Hence, it follows from the strictest logical neces- 
 sity, that just as Christ's substitutionary penal 
 suffering removed the reatus poencs of the elect, 
 and thereby infallibly insures the removal of their 
 reatus culp&\ so the personal penal sufferings of 
 Satan removes his reatus poence and thereby in- 
 fallibly removes his reatus culpce. 
 
 The argument may be differently stated: 
 
 Penal suffering removes reatus poencs. 
 
 Satan's sufferings are penal. Therefore, Satan's 
 reatus poence is removed. 
 
 Justice requires the removal of the reatus culpce 
 of all those whose reatus poence has been removed 
 by penal suffering. 
 
 Satan's reatus poence is removed by penal suffer- 
 ing. Therefore justice requires the removal of Sa- 
 tan's reatus culpce. 
 
 If this argument is in any respect unsound I con- 
 fess my inability to see it, and would be grateful to 
 any one for indicating its fallacy. But, if the logic 
 is sound, and if the doctrine of penal satisfaction 
 upon which it is founded is true, then Satan and 
 all rebeldom have a guaranty of salvation founded 
 upon immutable justice. 
 
 4. Certainly there is an appreciable distinction 
 between criminality and penality, between moral 
 corruption and punishment, and we may indicate
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 113 
 
 this difference by the technical forms, reatus ciilpce 
 and reatus poence, if we choose. But it must be 
 remembered that though they are logically distinct 
 they are- both logically and chronally inseparable. 
 Criminality involves liability to punishment, and 
 punishment presupposes criminality. 
 
 Of course there is no objection to the distinction 
 itself, but grave objection to the order and manner 
 of relationship between criminality and penality as 
 held by substitutionists. 
 
 (i) As to the order of relation between crime and 
 penalty, it seems superfluous to say that they are 
 related as cause and effect, or as antecedent and 
 consequence, and that crime is the antecedent and 
 punishment the consequence. Hence, no crime, no 
 punishment. To take away the criminality is to 
 take away, or rather to prevent, the punishment 
 To remove the disease is to relieve the pain which 
 it produces. 
 
 But substitutionists reverse this natural order of 
 the relation between crime and punishment, mak- 
 ing the removal of the reatus poetics antecedent to 
 the removal of the reatus culpcs that is, exemption 
 from punishment is the antecedent of deliverance 
 from criminality. 
 
 Hence, the sinner is pardoned, released from all 
 liability to penal suffering, when Christ became his 
 substitute, but is left in his criminal and polluted 
 state; morally corrupt, but not liable to the di- 
 vinely ordained consequence of his corruption! At 
 enmity against God, yet not liable to the conse- 
 quences of that state of enmity. Such a state of
 
 n4 REVIEW OF 
 
 things, it is self-evident, is impossible in the sphere 
 of either physical or moral law. It would be pos- 
 sible only in the sphere of human law, and possi- 
 ble here only because of the inherent weakness of 
 human law. Thus, a man commits a malicious 
 murder, is indicted and tried by the proper court; 
 but, by the bribery or death of witnesses, or by 
 corrupting the court, he procures a verdict of ac- 
 quittal, and is set free. This verdict operates as a 
 barrier against subsequent prosecution and punish- 
 ment. This is exactly the state in which substitu- 
 tionary satisfaction puts all for whom Christ died. 
 His death absolutely delivers from reatus poente, 
 but leaves them in the meshes of reatus culp<z, 
 from which, however, they are at some indefinite 
 time to be wholly or in part relieved. 
 
 If this is the method of the ' ' divine govern- 
 ment," then, well may we regard the "Great 
 Atonement ' ' as the ' ' Great Exception, ' ' and despair 
 of ever harmonizing " Reason and Revelation." 
 
 (2) The manner of the relation between crimi- 
 nality and penality is as objectionable as is the or- 
 der of their relationship as held by substitutionists. 
 Men are delivered from the liability of punishment 
 when Christ a Lamb slain from the foundation of 
 the world became their substitute. But these 
 men are born and become, possibly, as hardened in 
 sin as a long life may allow them, before they are 
 delivered from criminality. 
 
 This view not only reverses the natural order of 
 cause and effect, as we have just seen, but absolutely 
 separates them by an indefinite period of time.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 115 
 
 Such separation is possible only in the sphere of 
 human law. Because of defects of human law the 
 criminal may escape penalty for a longer or shorter 
 period, or may never be judicially punished at all. 
 This possibility results from the fact that the penal- 
 ties of human law are purely arbitrary are fixed 
 by judicial authority, and have no necessary con- 
 nection with the crime. The punishment, if it 
 comes at all, comes from without, and through the 
 agency of other minds. Hence, the penalty for the 
 same offense is now this, now that in one State 
 one thing, and in another something different, ac- 
 cording to the judgments or whims of the law- 
 givers. 
 
 But it is not so in divine law. Criminality and 
 penalty, as I have often said, are causally connected, 
 the latter growing naturally out of the former, 
 and is determined by it as the stream comes from 
 the fountain, by which its character is determined. 
 God has immutably fixed this relation between 
 criminality and penalty, and no power short of om- 
 nipotence can separate them. But God does not 
 ordain laws in the realms of matter or mind to re- 
 voke or modify them on occasion. Hence, the only 
 possible method of escape from penalty is to get rid 
 of the criminality that produces it. 
 
 To do this to condemn sin to destroy sin to 
 take away sin was the grand mission of the Son 
 of God. This he does, not by suffering its penal- 
 ties, certainly, for this would give sin and Satan the 
 completest possible triumph, but by a radically dif- 
 ferent method, as will be elsewhere explained.
 
 u6 REVIEW OF 
 
 SECTION II. It deserves also to be stated that 
 crime and penalty in the sphere of all divine law 
 are strictly co-inceptive and conterminous. Though 
 logically distinct, and related as antecedent and se- 
 quence, yet they take origin together, and if the 
 criminality is never removed the punishment is 
 necessarily endless. But the effect continues no 
 longer than its cause. This is so because the pen- 
 alty inheres in the criminality and comes necessarily 
 out of it, just as all effects inhere in their causes, 
 and come naturally and necessarily out of them. 
 
 This is the character of punishment in the sphere 
 of natural providence, which in no way conflicts 
 with punishment by supernatural providence, as 
 will be presently seen. 
 
 If these statements are true, how unreasonable it 
 is to represent the great merciful Law-giver, who 
 ordained law for the conservation of the world, as 
 "suspending the law," " modifying the law," u re- 
 laxing the law by sovereign prerogative," etc. 
 
 Even so great and learned a man as Dr. Hodge 
 speaks in this way. He says (p. 471, et seq.): 
 
 " It was an act of pure grace that God arrested 
 the penalty of the law." This refers to Adam's 
 sin, and assumes that God on that occasion arrested 
 the penalty affixed to the prohibition. I should say 
 there was no arrest of penalty on that occasion, or 
 any other. If God can arrest the natural penalties 
 which he has ordained and established on one oc- 
 casion, he can on all occasions; if for one year, then 
 forever. This would reduce the physical and the 
 moral world to chaos.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 117 
 
 " In the day them eatest thereof them shalf surely 
 die." I venture to affirm that the threatened pen- 
 alty was instantly inflicted without any arrest or 
 modification, exactly in the sense in which God in- 
 tended, and Adam understood it. God is not slack 
 concerning his promises or threatnings, as some 
 men count slackness. 
 
 The death intended was the natural and God-or- 
 dained consequence of the sin which inhered in it. 
 I have elsewhere and repeatedly defined penalty of 
 any divine law to be the forfeiture or loss of the 
 good which the law is intended to conserve. If 
 this is true, how is it possible to transgress God's 
 laws, and yet escape the penalties he has wisely af- 
 fixed to transgression? How can I hate, and yet 
 escape the consequences of not loving, as the law 
 imperatively requires me to do ? 
 
 If it should be said that all things are possible 
 with God, and that he can arrest natural law, or 
 set aside penalties; that he stopped the mouths of 
 lions, quenched the violence of fire, etc. 
 
 Certainly all things that involve no contradiction 
 are possible with God. He did preserve Daniel 
 among the lions, and the Hebrew children from the 
 violence of fire; but he set aside no law, arrested 
 no penalty. He is represented as having in many 
 instances been turned away from a purpose to pun- 
 ish judicially special sins, but I call to mind no in- 
 stance of the suspension or arrest of natural penalty. 
 [This subject will be further considered in the fol- 
 lowing section.] 
 
 Dr. Hodge, as a pronounced substitutionist, holds
 
 n8 REVIEW OF 
 
 to ^^separability of crime and penalty. He says 
 (p. 49o,^j*?.) : 
 
 "The justice of God is revealed in his works. 
 (a) In the constitution of our nature. The connec- 
 tion between sin and misery is so intimate that 
 many have gone to the extreme of teaching that 
 there is no other punishment of sin but its natural 
 effects. This is contrary to fact as well as to Script- 
 ure. Nevertheless, to be * carnally-minded is death,' 
 that is, damnation. There is no help for it. It is 
 vain to say God will not punish sin, when he has 
 made sin and its punishment inseparable. The 
 absence of light is darkness; the absence of life is 
 death. (K) It is, however, not only in the constitu- 
 tion of our nature, but also in his works of prov- 
 idence that God has revealed his purpose to punish 
 sin. The deluge; the destruction of the cities of 
 the plain, . . . are proof enough that God is an 
 avenger, that he will in nowise spare the guilty." 
 
 Comment. The harmony of these statements 
 with others, and even among themselves, is not 
 very apparent. 
 
 i. We have the admission of punishments of 
 sin as natural effects, an instance of which is " to 
 be carnally-minded is death that is, damnation. ' ' 
 
 This, I think, is exactly true. "Damnation," 
 then, is a natural, and not a contra-natural prov- 
 idence. But our author says it "is contrary to fact 
 as well as to Scripture" to say "that there is no 
 other punishment of sin but its natural effects, " 
 and names the deluge and many other events as 
 proof of his assertion. Here things radically dif- 
 ferent are confounded, and confusion follows. You 
 can not fail to perceive quite a difference between
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 119 
 
 the ' ' death that is, damnation ' ' which is the effect 
 of carnal-mindedness, and the death produced by 
 the deluge. One was the death of the soul; the 
 other of the body. One came from within from 
 the state of the mind; the other from without 
 from the clouds. The one involved continuous 
 suffering; the other only a transient suffering. One 
 is a necessary consequence of a violation of divine 
 law as a concreation of the mind itself, or a natural 
 providence; the other, a contingent punishment, in 
 no sense conditioned upon the state of the mind, 
 but an arbitrary visitation for a specific administra- 
 tive purpose or a supernatural providence. They 
 are not commutable, they do not exclude one the 
 other, nor does one presuppose or involve the 
 other. Things so radically different should be 
 broadly distinguished. This may be done by des- 
 ignating one as natural, because it is the natural 
 consequence of sin; the other judicial, because it is 
 arbitrarily inflicted for specific purposes. Both are 
 equally from God, but are inflicted on different 
 grounds, and by different processes. 
 
 Dr. Hodge seems to refer spiritual death to nat- 
 ure, and the deluge to providence. This is an inad- 
 equate view of the subject. God is as truly u in 
 nature," though not "of nature," as he is "over 
 nature." He was as truly the creator of Cain as 
 he was of Adam, though the processes in these cre- 
 ations were radically different. I protest against 
 this distinction between nature and providence as 
 unbiblical and unreasonable. 
 
 2. I do not clearly see how the assertion that
 
 120 REVIEW OF 
 
 God "has made sin and its punishment insepara- 
 ble, ' ' can be reconciled with the assertion ' ' that 
 God arrested the penalty of the law ' ' in reference 
 to Adam's sin, or the often reiterated assertion that 
 Christ suffered the penalty of the law in the place 
 of men. If natural death was any part of the pen- 
 alty of Adam's sin, and God arrested that death for 
 nine hundred years, it seems that ' ' sin and its pun- 
 ishment [are not] inseparable." 
 
 If Christ suffered the punishment of the sins of 
 the elect thousands of years before they were born, 
 it does not appear to be true that God ' ' has made 
 sin and its punishment inseparable. ' ' How hard it 
 is for men even of the most brilliant powers to 
 make error consistent with itself ! I heartily con- 
 cur with Dr. Hodge when he says that God ' ' has 
 made sin and its punishment inseparable;" but 
 can not agree with him when he says God arrested 
 the execution of the penalty of the law in relation 
 to the first human sin, or when he says that Christ 
 suffered the penalty in the place of men thousands 
 of years before they are born. To do this would be 
 to affirm and deny the same thing.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 121 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SECTION I. Appeal to the Bible. 
 
 If the Bible teaches the doctrine of a penal atone- 
 ment, then, of course, it must be accepted as true, 
 for from its decisions there is no appeal. With all 
 due deference to Dr. Hodge's superior learning and 
 ability, I must be allowed to say, that, instead of 
 taking his theory from the obvious teaching of the 
 Bifce, he interprets the Bible by the requirements 
 of his theory. Thoroughly believing his doctrine 
 to be true, he, of course, must at all hazards make 
 the Bible support it. In doing this he, I believe, 
 takes undue liberty with many texts of Scripture. 
 I think no text is intended to teach it, and none 
 can be made to teach it, without a misinterpreta- 
 tion, or misapplication, or illicit inference from it. 
 Like other substitutionists, he uses but few texts, 
 but claims the sanction of the whole Bible. 
 
 He, of course, cites those that seem most favor- 
 able to his views, and disposes of those that seem 
 to oppose it in a sufficiently cavalier manner. He, 
 as do penalists generally, assumes that Christ could 
 not dieyfrr men in any other way than in their place 
 or stead. He consequently interprets the whole 
 Levitical law in regard to sacrifices as proof of 
 penal substitution, or interprets it by Isaiah liii., 
 and in this way proves his substitution by the con-
 
 i22 REVIEW OF 
 
 current testimony of the law and the prophets. 
 This testimony will be elsewhere examined. 
 
 He makes reference to some New Testament 
 texts, which he, however, generally disposes of dog- 
 matically, rarely exegetica'lly, and still more rarely 
 does he interpret them in logical harmony with 
 their contexts. 
 
 It would not be a difficult task, though it would 
 be a tedious one, to show that not one of these 
 texts is intended to teach penal substitution. 
 
 Many arguments or texts are not necessary to 
 prove a doctrine true or false. One is often suffi- 
 cient. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider all 
 his arguments or all the texts which he uses in 
 support of his doctrine. A few will serve as an 
 illustration of his general plan. 
 
 SECTION II. Reconciliation. 
 
 Dr. Hodge, explaining Rom. v. 10, says (p. 514): 
 
 " * Being reconciled by the death of his Son,' in 
 verse 10, is parallel to the clause, ' Being justified 
 by his blood,' in verse 9. The one is exchanged 
 for the other as different forms of expressing the 
 same idea. But justification is not sanctification. 
 It does not express a subjective change in the sin- 
 ner. And, therefore, the reconciliation here spok- 
 en of can not express any such change. . . . The 
 death of Christ as satisfying justice, reconciles God 
 to us." 
 
 Speaking of Eph. ii. 16, "That he might recon- 
 cile both unto God in one body by the cross," he 
 says: 
 
 ' ' Here again the reconciliation of God with man
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 123 
 
 is effected by the cross, or death of Christ. The 
 change (the reconciliation) is not in man, but, 
 humanly speaking, is in God; a change from the 
 purpose to punish to a purpose to pardon and save. 
 There is, so to speak, a reconciliation of God's jus- 
 tice and of his love effected by Christ's bearing the 
 penalty in our stead." 
 
 .In reference to 2 Cor. v. 18, "Who hath recon- 
 ciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ and hath 
 given unto us the ministry of reconciliation," he 
 says: 
 
 ' ' This does not mean that God changed our heart 
 and made us love him. ... It can only mean that 
 through Christ through what he did and suffered 
 for us peace is restored between God and man, 
 who is able and willing to be gracious." 
 
 Comment. i. I will not say much that might 
 be pertinently said of this disposition of these plain 
 texts. Dr. Hodge, in Rom. v. 10, makes men the 
 subjects of reconciliation not God and identifies 
 it with justification. It is pertinent to say that the 
 Bible never confounds reconciliation and justifica- 
 tion ; never uses them ' ' as different forms of ex- 
 pressing the same idea." The Bible always uses 
 reconciliation as expressive of a moral and not a 
 forensic state of the mind. 
 
 2. In all the other citations Dr. Hodge makes 
 God not man the subject of reconciliation; God 
 is reconciled to man. 
 
 This contradicts the plain teaching of the texts 
 themselves. They show on their face that it is not 
 God reconciled to man, but man reconciled to God.
 
 124 REVIEW OF 
 
 Rom. v. 10: "While we were enemies we were 
 reconciled to God." This is admitted to refer to 
 man, but not to his subjective or moral state. 
 Then, of course, the ' ' we ' ' represents unregener- 
 ate but justified men. This subordinates the moral 
 state to the legal, and turns Bible philosophy up- 
 side down. 
 
 Eph. ii. 16: "That he might reconcile both in 
 one body by the cross. ' ' Dr. Hodge says, ' ' Here 
 again the reconciliation of God to man is effected 
 by the cross. ' ' But the text says as clearly as lan- 
 guage can say that both Jews and Gentiles are rec- 
 onciled to God by the cross. God is the reconciler 
 of men ' ' unto God, ' ' and not the reconciler of 
 himself unto himself, as our author teaches. This 
 needs no further comment. 
 
 2 Cor. v. 18: "Who hath reconciled us to him- 
 self by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the min- 
 istry of reconciliation." Dr. Hodge says: 
 
 "This does not mean that he changed our heart 
 and made us love him. ... It can only mean that 
 through Christ through what he did and suffered 
 for us peace is restored between God and man. ' ' 
 
 But the text teaches that God is the reconciler 
 who reconciles men to him, and not himself to 
 men. 
 
 Again, if reconciliation describes a state of the 
 divine mind, how could the ministry of it be given 
 to men? I can conceive how God, through the 
 ministry of men, can reconcile men to himself; but 
 am utterly unable to see how men could minister
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 125 
 
 reconciliation as a state of the divine mind, to. men, 
 or to God, or any thing else; especially as that rec- 
 onciliation had been an accomplished fact from the 
 foundation of the world. This being the case, 
 what need for any such ministry? It evidently 
 could effect nothing could not change God; for 
 God was reconciled to man by the Lamb slain from 
 the foundation of the world, and could not affect 
 man for he is not the party to be reconciled; nor 
 does he need- reconciliation, for, according to the 
 theory, he was reconciled when Christ became his 
 substitute. 
 
 Are these the vagaries, the conceits, the incon- 
 gruities of the Bible, or only of substitutionary 
 penalty ? Dr. Hodge quite conveniently omits all 
 notice in this connection of the igth and 2oth 
 verses. Certainly he could have put them dogmat- 
 ically, if not logically, in harmony with his theory. 
 
 ' ' God was in Christ reconciling the world unto 
 himself" not reconciling himself to himself, nor 
 himself to the world. 
 
 "We beseech you, on behalf of Christ, be ye 
 reconciled to God." Too self-luminous to admit 
 of specious perversion! 
 
 These texts can not be tortured into harmony with 
 penal substitution. They condemn it utterly, be- 
 cause they teach with sun clearness: 
 
 First, that men are reconciled to God, and not 
 God to men. 
 
 Secondly, that they are not, actually reconciled to 
 him by the fact of Christ's death, but are to be rec- 
 onciled by or through his death or cross. For, if
 
 126 REVIEW OF 
 
 they were reconciled when Christ became their sub- 
 stitute from eternity, then God could not be now 
 reconciling them, nor could the apostles without 
 stultifying themselves beseech them to be or be- 
 come what they already are. How foolish to be- 
 seech a man to be or become what he actually is, or 
 what God has already made him! 
 
 But the substitutionary scheme logically requires 
 these texts to be explained or rather perverted sub- 
 stantially as Dr. Hodge has done. He is in full 
 accord with substitution, but in glaring conflict 
 with the Bible. 
 
 SECTION III. It may be of some interest to no- 
 tice Dr. Hodge's terms and how he disposes of 
 them. 
 
 His terms are satisfaction, expiation, pardon, pro- 
 pitiation, reconciliation, justification, regeneration, 
 sanctification. 
 
 1. Satisfaction is what Christ's penal death ren- 
 dered to justice. 
 
 2. Expiation is the effect of this satisfaction upon 
 the sinner's legal state, releasing him from the lia- 
 bility to punishment. 
 
 3. Pardon is the recognition of this satisfaction 
 and expiation, just as the surrender of a bond is 
 the recognition of the discharge of the obligation. 
 
 4. Propitiation is the effect of this satisfaction, 
 etc., upon God. He now can be just in justifying 
 the sinner. 
 
 5. Reconciliation relates sometimes to God and 
 sometimes to man.
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 127 
 
 (1) In relation to God it is either identical with 
 propitiation or inseparable from it. 
 
 All these changes actually occurred in eternity, 
 or when Christ became a substitute for the elect. 
 
 (2) Reconciliation in relation to man is identical 
 with justification, purely forensic in character, in- 
 volving no change in the sinner's moral states. 
 
 This seems sometimes to be an affair of time, and 
 sometimes of eternity. There is no perceptible 
 reason why it might not be as exclusively an affair 
 of eternity as is expiation, except that the Bible 
 happens to condition justification, the reputed 
 equivalent of reconciliation, upon faith, which is 
 not possible till after the sinner is born. The the- 
 ory is greatly perplexed at this point. 
 
 All these changes are purely legal, and affect 
 only God and his purposes in relation to men. 
 They involve no change whatever in man's moral 
 condition; or he is only legally cleansed, but still 
 morally polluted exempt from punishment, but 
 carnally-minded, and therefore in a state of death, 
 which Dr. Hodge calls "damnation." Legally 
 saved, but morally and really damned. 
 
 6. Regeneration is inceptive sanctification in the 
 sense of moral purification. This is purely a mon- 
 ergistic work which God is justly bound to perform 
 for all for whom Christ died ' ^efficaciously. ' ' 
 
 This moral purification, though God is justly 
 bound to perform it, justice having received ' ' real 
 adequate compensation ' ' for it, may, by covenant 
 stipulation, be indefinitely deferred after birth, and 
 at best comes only by a gradual process.
 
 128 REVIEW OF 
 
 j 
 
 This is strictly the process of salvation by penal 
 substitution as set forth by one of its ablest de- 
 , fenders. 
 
 I wish here to call your attention to two remark- 
 able facts. 
 
 (1) If this scheme is true, then the atonement 
 consists exclusively in God's acting upon himself 
 in such a manner as to enable him to ' ' change from 
 the purpose to punish tp a purpose to pardon and 
 save" (p. 515). 
 
 (2) According to the scheme every characteristic 
 of the atonement, every element in it is purely legal 
 without a single moral feature about it. There is 
 in it absolutely no recognition of any pertinency or 
 adaptation to man's condition as a free, moral 
 agent. A hard necessity reigns over all over God 
 because he can not pardon sin unless it is first pun- 
 ished, and over man because he has no choice be- 
 tween the acceptance and rejection of salvation; for 
 he, according to the substitutionary scheme, has as 
 little agency in the matter of his regeneration as he 
 has in the removal of his liability to punishment 
 as little agency in the removal of his reatus culp& 
 as in the removal of his reatus poencs. 
 
 God does what his nature compels him to do, and 
 man necessarily receives what God necessarily gives, 
 is the logical outcome of the theory. This is fate, 
 and u fate is atheism." 
 
 SECTION IV. Summary of Review. 
 
 From this brief summary of the various schemes 
 of soteriology that have been received with more 
 or less favor by the Christian Church from the days
 
 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 129 
 
 of the apostles to the present time, we may gather 
 some important lessons. 
 
 1. The Apostolic Fathers, as we have seen, seem 
 to have had no very distinctly defined theory of 
 soteriology. Barnabas and Clement, of Rome, both 
 disciples of Paul, and Ignatius and Polycarp, both 
 pupils of John, all teach that Christ died for men, 
 and that he is the Savior of all that believe on 
 him, but give us no very distinct statements as to 
 how his death avails to the salvation of believers. 
 
 2. Patristic soteriology, as we have seen, was 
 sadly marred and degraded by the assumption that 
 Satan had just property rights in mankind, and 
 that the sufferings of Christ did in some unaccount- 
 able manner satisfy these just claims. Some of the 
 most influential men of the Church, such as Atha- 
 nasius, Augustine, and others scarcely less illus- 
 trious, taught this doctrine. Advocated by these 
 champions -of orthodoxy, it was, of course, consid- 
 ered orthodox. 
 
 3. Anselm, in the early part of the eleventh 
 century, formulated the satisfaction theory. Re- 
 jecting the idea that Christ suffered to satisfy the 
 claims of the devil, he assumed that Christ suffered 
 to satisfy the claims of justice, which he deemed 
 the most central attribute of God. ' ' This justice, ' ' 
 he says, " indeed is God himself, so that to satisfy 
 it is to satisfy God himself." The Anselmic sote- 
 riology was dove-tailed into Augustinian anthrp- 
 pology. 
 
 Its fundamental principles necessarily involved 
 the doctrine of universalism, or a limited atone-
 
 130 CHRISTIAN SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 ment. For this and other reasons it was generally 
 rejected up to the Reformation. Luther and the 
 Reformers generally adopted it, and it is in its fun- 
 damental principles the prevailing theory in all 
 Calvinistic churches of to-day. Those that reject 
 Augustinian anthropology generally reject Anselmic 
 soteriology, in whole or in part. Some such adopt 
 a modified form of it, and some have formulated 
 theories radically different from it. 
 
 4. The facts of history show that there never 
 has been a consensus in the Christian Church con- 
 cerning the doctrine of atonement. This is true 
 not only of Christendom as a whole, but is also 
 true of the different ecclesiastical organizations of 
 Christendom. 
 
 In fact, the subject is so subtle, so extremely dif- 
 ficult of a lucid and self-consistent exposition, that 
 differences of opinion are quite excusable, provided 
 we hold hard by the Bible truth, that u Jesus Christ 
 and him crucified ' ' is the Savior the only, but all- 
 sufficient Savior of the world. 
 
 It is not theories that save men, but Christ him- 
 self, and faith in him assures salvation, whether we 
 know how he saves us or not. Still, men will the- 
 orize, and false theories obscure the truth and tend 
 to paralyze the gospel. The theory which puts truth 
 in its simplest form and brings the human mind in 
 closest contact with the living Christ is of all others 
 presumably the best. 
 
 To outline such a theory is what is attempted in 
 the following pages.
 
 PART II. 
 NATURE OF ATONEMENT-NON-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 
 
 Having briefly reviewed the various forms of the 
 penal and vicarious scheme of atonement, and indi- 
 cated some objections to the scheme itself in all its 
 forms, I will now attempt a statement of a theory 
 primarily moral, and legal only because it is moral, 
 but radically different from what is generally known 
 as the moral theory. 
 
 Let me here remind the class that it is one thing 
 to disprove a given theory, and quite a different 
 thing to establish another in its place. 
 
 If two theories only were possible, then to dis- 
 prove one would be to prove the other. But in 
 this instance this is not strictly true; for while the 
 theories are in many respects contradictory, they 
 are in other respects only contrary, and in some 
 particulars even coincident. 
 
 The question which most concerns us is, What 
 scheme best agrees with all the Bible facts that have 
 any bearing on the subject ? is best adapted to the 
 
 (130
 
 132 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 nature and needs of humanity? and best satisfies 
 the demands of human reason ? 
 
 Let me also suggest that the subject is so many- 
 sided involves so many collateral and vital ques- 
 tions as the divine attributes, the essential char- 
 acteristics of moral governmeijt, the nature of sin, 
 moral retribution, confession, repentance, faith, 
 regeneration, justification, etc. that to present a 
 I}ir4's-eye view of the whole subject is, perhaps, im- 
 possible. Such is the complexity of the question 
 that its different phases must be studied, both in 
 detail and also each in its relation to the whole. 
 
 What is imperatively required, is so to define and 
 adjust the several parts, that when combined they 
 shall form one symmetrical, self-consistent, and self- 
 s,upporting whole. Such a presentation of the en- 
 tire subject would be equivalent to a self-affirmation 
 of ifs truth, Wticl) as the harmonious combination 
 of all the parts of a complicated machine proves 
 the several adjustments to be right. Any scheme 
 of atonement that arrays one Bible truth against 
 another ca.n not be true. 
 
 Allow me also to say that the most formidable 
 difficulty that I have encountered in attempting to 
 formulate the doctrine of atcmeinent has arisen from 
 preppssessiqns in favor of the legal and substitution- 
 ary theory, fo dispossess ourselves of an inherited 
 fait^, especially when it is venerable with age and 
 well-nigh universally accepted by the learped and 
 the good, is one of the inost difficult achievements 
 of the human mind. My present views are the re- 
 sult pf years of persistent and painful thought.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 133 
 
 My o\Vri experience, therefore, prepares trie to ap- 
 preciate any difficulties that may beset the niirids 
 of others on the subject, and to sympathize" with 
 theiii in their troubles. 
 
 SECTION 1. Divine Justice dhd Law. 
 
 Certainly God is just. " Tile judge of all the earth 
 will do right." But it does not follow that justice 
 "is the most central attribute of God;'* Of that 
 "justice is God," or that what satisfies justice' satis- 
 fies God, father than 1 that what satisfies God satisfies 
 justice. 
 
 Justice is an impersorial thing, and as such is in- 
 capable of ffiakirig deinands or of receiving satisfac- 
 tion, except in a tropical sense. Persons alone 
 rfiake dematids, arid persons alone are capable of 
 making and receiving satisfaction. 
 
 We have the word justice from the wofd jiis arid 
 jus froffi jubeij, to coirim'arid, order, of direct. To 
 coinrhaiid presupposes a purpose, arid purpose is a 
 product of will. God's purposes are to him the rule 
 Of his actiori, arid justice as ari attribute in' hifri is 
 nis integrity to his purposes. As fie can riot act 
 contrary to his purposes, he can not "be Utijtist in 
 action, for justice as an attribute' is iiis fidelity to 
 his purposes. 
 
 God is love. Love fUrriishes the motives of nis 
 stctiori and infinite wisdom the riieah's for the attairi- 
 ment of his purposes, tlence,* all his purposes afe 
 both good and wise. t,eibriitz is substantially right 
 when he represents justice as " love guided by wis- 
 doffl. ' ' Justice as a divine attribute is simply God y s 
 integrity to His wise arid be'rievdletit purposes, jus-
 
 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 tice and right are coincident. It is impossible for 
 God to be unjust, because it is impossible for him 
 to act contrary to his purpose. 
 
 Justice as a characteristic of the divine adminis- 
 tration is essentially coincident with the divine will, 
 and of course with the divine law, which is but an 
 expression of that will. 
 
 Justice, according to this view, instead of being 
 the most central attribute of God, dominating the 
 divine will, is simply God's fidelity to the wise and 
 beneficent purposes of that will. 
 
 God in creation has written his law upon the 
 human mind, and fixed the relation between 
 moral actions and their consequences. These con- 
 sequences constitute the awards of virtue and vice. 
 This law, as written in the heart, is intended for 
 the good of the subjects. 
 
 If obeyed, good, and only good, is the result. 
 This is the reward God has affixed to obedience. 
 If disobeyed, evil, and only evil, is the necessary 
 consequence. This evil consists in the negation 
 of the good, which is the divinely appointed reward 
 of obedience. 
 
 We must act, and of necessity, must act in accord 
 with law, or in contravention of it; consequently 
 must experience the reward of obedience, or the 
 penalty of disobedience. We . can not do both at 
 the same time. H^d it been possible for God to 
 create a moral being capable of the reward or hap- 
 piness, which he has annexed to obedience, but 
 without any capacity of punishment or unhappi- 
 ness, probably he would have created man in this
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 135 
 
 condition. But it is certain that lie has not so 
 created him; and so far as we can see, the capacity 
 for obedience is the capacity for disobedience, and 
 the possibility of moral good is the possibility of 
 moral evil. If so, then to create man with capacity 
 for the good, without the liability to the evil, im- 
 plies a contradiction. But God is just or true to his 
 own purposes, as revealed in the constitution of the 
 human mind, and in his word, both affirming the 
 former subjectively, and the latter objectively that 
 "the soul that sinneth it shall die," and that 
 4 ' the wages of sin is death. ' ' 
 
 This is the aspect of divine justice or law that 
 imperatively requires not some expedient or plan 
 by which punishment can be separated from dis- 
 obedience, or effect from its cause, for this would 
 require God to change the necessary relation be- 
 tween disobedience and penalty but some plan by 
 which the sinner can be changed from a rebel 
 against justice or law, to a state of submission to 
 law or to God. The restoration of the rebel to 
 obedience is by necessary consequence the removal 
 of penalty, just as the cure of the disease is the re- 
 moval of its painfulness. Hence, the grand object 
 of atonement, as I humbly conceive, is not to satisfy 
 abstract justice by substitutionary penalties and 
 legal fictions, transferred guilt, etc., but to satisfy 
 concrete justice in the sinful soul, to purge the 
 conscience, and enable the sinner to love God and 
 his neighbor as himself. 
 
 The great obstacle to human salvation lies not in 
 God's estrangement from men, but in man's es-
 
 136 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 trangement from God. This is clearly demon- 
 strated by the fact that God so loved the sinful 
 world as to give his Son for its deliverance from 
 sin. 
 
 This removal of guilt both as to rcatus culptz 
 and reatus poetic? restores the sinner to obedience 
 to loving God supremely and this obedience 
 honors God and magnifies the law, both in its ob- 
 jective and subjective aspects, or the conscience; 
 and this is salvation. 
 
 The invariable characteristics of the divine law 
 are : 
 
 1. It requires personal obedience. u Thou shaft 
 love" etc. 
 
 2. Its penalties are coincident with its transgres- 
 sions. "/ the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt 
 surely die." 
 
 3. It excludes the possibility of substitutionary 
 obedience. " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." 
 
 4. It excludes the commutation of one penalty 
 for another. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that 
 shall he also reap. ' ' 
 
 To interpret divine law by human law leads to 
 false notions of God and his law, of sin, of retribu- 
 tion, and of the plan of salvation. By doing this 
 unwise thing substitutionists have constructed a 
 scheme of soteriology which is in violent conflict 
 with every one of these fundamental and invariable 
 characteristics of the divine law. Hence, they save 
 the sinner without personal obedience of any form; 
 save him temporarily by arrest of penalty; save him 
 everlastingly by substitutionary obedience; save
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 137 
 
 him by the exchange of one penalty for another; 
 and save him finally by making a commuted pen- 
 alty, endured by a substitute, a "satisfaction," an 
 "adequate compensation to justice" or law, which 
 is to say that the effect removes its cause. 
 
 What is imperatively required is a scheme of sal- 
 vation that saves the sinner by grace, not by the 
 works of the law, but in the strictest harmony with 
 law. Such a plan is taught in the Bible. 
 
 SECTION II. God is sovereign and free. 
 
 God is not bound by any central attribute (for 
 one is no more central than another) to do this or 
 that in contravention of his will; but having pro- 
 jected under the prompting of immeasurable love, 
 guided by infinite wisdom, the plan of the moral 
 world, he is free to do whatever he sees best for the 
 accomplishment of his purposes, without any pro- 
 test from justice. Incompatibility between deter- 
 minative and executive volitions between para- 
 mount and subordinate purposes between ettds 
 and means on the part of God, wotild, I suppose, 
 be wrong or unjust, or a want of integrity to his 
 own purpose, plan, or promise. But mutability or 
 want of integrity is impossible to him. Hence, the 
 end of justice, coincident with the end of the 
 divine law, is good, not evil not good to the 
 greatest number but good to all and evil to none. 
 Justice is neither incompatible with the bestowal 
 of unmerited favor, as when the householder gave 
 the laborer a penny for his one hour's work; nor is 
 it incompatible with gratuitous favor, as when God 
 spared Aaron and Israel, in the affair of the golden
 
 138 NATURE OK ATONEMENT. 
 
 calf, for Moses' sake, who made atonement for 
 them. Such unmerited favors are 110 infractions 
 of justice, when they better serve the divine pur- 
 pose or pleasure, than the withholding of the favor 
 or the infliction of the punishment would be. The 
 Bible abounds with examples of forgiveness with- 
 out any "real adequate compensation" to abstract 
 justice, so called; also with instances of favors 
 bestowed which justice could not demand. This 
 fact will be clearly demonstrated in subsequent 
 pages. 
 
 If these views are correct, it follows that the par- 
 amount obstacle to salvation is not in justice, nor 
 in God, but in the state of the human heart in 
 man's moral corruption, carnal-mindedness, and 
 consequent moral death. What is needed is not a 
 substitute to suffer this death in his stead, but 
 something to take away this carnal-mindedness 
 the cause of this death, or "damnation," as Dr. 
 Hodge explains it. This penalty can never do. 
 
 SECTION III. Sin not debt but crime. 
 
 Substitutionists are in conflict among themselves 
 as to whether sin is a debt or something else. 
 
 Anselm, the formulator of the substitutionary the- 
 ory, says, " Sin is debt," and makes the atonement 
 the payment of this debt. Dr. Shedd indorses 
 Anselm, and penalists generally accept this theory. 
 Dr. Hodge, however, denies. He makes it an of- 
 fense, but makes it analogous to debt. He thus 
 secures to himself a sort of double definition, and 
 skillfully plays from one to the other as occasion 
 may require.
 
 NON- PENAL THEORY. 139 
 
 To make sin strictly a debt and nothing but a 
 debt secures some polemic advantages in favor of 
 substitution. This, however, avoids some difficul- 
 ties only by creating others perhaps more formid- 
 able. 
 
 To regard sin only as debt is either to minimize 
 sin or to maximize debt. We get the word debt in 
 the Lord's prayer only by taking a word literally, 
 which was evidently intended to be taken tropic- 
 ally. This is manifest from the fact that Christ 
 explained the word by another, which is never used 
 in the sense of debt. No apostle, no inspired writ- 
 er ever calls sin a debt. 
 
 If we assume sin to be properly debt, and fix our 
 attention upon its essential characteristics as debt, 
 we can not fail to reach erroneous conclusions con- 
 cerning the nature of sin, and false notions of sin 
 lead to correspondingly false notions concerning the 
 remedy for sin. For this reason the question de- 
 mands a fair investigation. 
 
 I here quote from "Atonement and Law Re- 
 viewed:" 
 
 ' ' In the last analysis sin and debt agree. ' ' Mr. 
 Armour affirms Paul denies. I concur with the 
 latter, and affirm that sin in the last analysis is law- 
 lessness enmity to God, carnal-mindedness, and a 
 state described as spiritual death. Debt is not nec- 
 essarily so. It implies no alienation, no enmity, 
 no motive or desire to injure the creditor, is not 
 necessarily a breach of good morals, implies no dis- 
 regard to the rights of others, or criminal intention. 
 It often results from providential occurrences, from
 
 140 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 misfortune, often from benevolent arid piotls pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Certainly one man may intentionally defraud an- 
 other; but then he becomes more than a debtor a 
 criminal, a sinner in fact. Debt, unaccompanied 
 with bad intention, brings no moral retribution 
 upon the debtor. If it results from unavoidable 
 circumstances it may bring regret, but not remorse; 
 for it is a calamity, not a crime. 
 
 if it results from imprudence its most fruitful 
 source it is followed with the ordinary penalties 
 of imprudence, and not with the sting of conscious 
 guilt. Whatever temporal evils may arise from it, 
 the soul's salvation is not imperiled by it. Can 
 Mr. Armour say these things of sin? If he can 
 not, why does he strategetically assert the identity 
 6f sin and debt ? 
 
 Again, it is not improper to say that debt is not 
 necessarily an offense to the creditor, even if it 
 should never be paid. The creditor is often the 
 best friend to the debtor loves him most, has the 
 utmost faith in him, and permits him to increase 
 his indebtedness with little, perhaps no, prospect 
 of ever receiving payment. Is this true of sin ? Is 
 it not necessarily offensive to God the abominable 
 thing that he hates ? offensive and hateful, not be- 
 cause it personally injures him, but because it is a 
 willful abuse of the beneficent and infinitely wise 
 provisions he has graciously made for the happi- 
 ness of his rational creatures. It is as truly a curse 
 to the creature as it is an offense to the Creator; for 
 every sin against God is a sin against the trans-"
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 14; 
 
 gressor himself, being an infraction of the condi- 
 tions upon which his good necessarily depends. 
 Sin is to the sinner himself what the self-injected 
 poison of the viper, which, in its delirium of rage, 
 thrusts its fangs into its own flesh and dies of its 
 own venom. Can all this be said of debt? If not, 
 why attempt to identify them? To do this is to 
 maximize debt and minimize sin to convert the 
 mole-hill into a mountain and the mountain into a 
 mole-hill. 
 
 3 ut Mr. Armour makes much ado over the word 
 "debts" in the Lord's prayer. He, however, is 
 presumed to know that the original, opheilcmata, is 
 used both of debts and also of sins or trespasses; 
 that the word, as used in Matt. vi. 12, is explained 
 in verse 15 by the word paraptomata, trespasses; 
 that Jyuke, in the prayer itself, uses the word sins, 
 hamartia, instead of the word debts; that Mark, in 
 the parallel text, uses trespasses, paraptomata. 
 
 Mr. Armour is also presumed to know that nei- 
 ther paraptoma nor hamartia is ever translated 
 debt, but that opheilema is used in the sense of sin. 
 To build up a mammoth theory on so shallow a 
 foundation is certainly extremely perilous to truth. . 
 But this is the only show of Bible authority our au- 
 thor has for calling sin a debt. But the Bible gives 
 no authority for the assumption that sin is debt in 
 any proper sense, or in such sense that it may be 
 transferred from one person to another, as human 
 obligations may be transferred by consent of parties. ' ' 
 
 A radical point of difference between debt and 
 crime may be thus stated :
 
 142 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 If I contract a debt with the purpose or intention 
 not to pay it, then I am both a debtor and a crimi- 
 nal. If I contract a debt with the full intention to 
 pay, and by misfortune become unable to pay, then 
 it becomes, perhaps, a calamity to both parties, cer- 
 tainly to me, because I experience the feelings of 
 sore regret, on account of my inability to pay, but 
 I have no consciousness of intended wrong. 
 
 But, if I commit a crime against God, the feeling 
 of regret is inevitable to me; also the feeling of 
 remorse, which is far different and far worse than 
 regret. In a case of debt, my creditor, having a 
 right to do what he will with his own, may gra- 
 ciously forgive me the whole debt, and thus relieve 
 me of my painful regrets. 
 
 But in the case of crime, if God should formally 
 propose forgiveness, this could bring no effective 
 release, because I have sinned against the law of 
 right within me, or against myself, from which 
 nothing can relieve me, except a change of my 
 mental state a purging of my conscience. This 
 difference between debt and crime is radical. Sin 
 is a crime against objective and subjective law 
 against God and the sinner himself. 
 
 To relieve the soul from its abnormal state, from 
 its enmity against God, and the sad disharmonies 
 that sin has produced within, is to restore it to the 
 favor of God. The required change is a change in 
 the state of the soul not a change in God. Of 
 course he is angry with the wicked, is indignant at 
 their-rebellion against himself, and their violations 
 of the law upon which their own good is condi-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 143 
 
 tioned. Nor can lie ever cease to be angry with 
 them so long as they remain in a state of lawless- 
 ness, which is the cause alike both of his displeas- 
 ure and their unhappiness. It is not God that 
 needs to be changed in relation to the sinner, but 
 the sinner in relation to God. A child in rebellion 
 against a loving but indignant parent needs to be 
 changed, not the parent. The rebellion ended and 
 obedience restored, parental indignation ceases for 
 the reason that its cause no longer exists. 
 
 No adjustment of the divine attributes by legal 
 fictions or otherwise is possible, for they are not 
 misadjusted; but, if such an absurd thing was pos- 
 sible, it would be of no value. To reconcile a 
 parent to a rebellious child is not to reconcile the 
 child to the parent or to remove its enmity, and the 
 misery that is born of hatred. 
 
 The physician in relieving human suffering does 
 not inanely attempt to doctor or change nature, 
 whose laws the patient has violated. He doctors 
 the patient and strives to relieve his sufferings by 
 taking away his disease his abnormal state. God, 
 in the realm of hygienic law, and in the realm of 
 moral law, is consistent with himself. He does not 
 in the former relieve human suffering by bringing 
 the sufferer into harmony with natural justice or 
 law, and then in the latter by the reverse process of 
 bringing law into harmony with the sufferer. 
 
 This latter very preposterous thing is exactly 
 what substitution attempts to do. It sets God to 
 work to reconcile himself, or justice, to sinners, in- 
 stead of reconciling sinners to himself. (A very
 
 144 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 reasonable inference is that if all men are not 
 saved it is only because God has not succeeded in 
 reconciling- himself to men.) 
 
 Dr. Hodge and others distinctly avow this doc- 
 trine. God reconciling himself to sinners ? 
 
 Commenting on Eph. ii. 16, he says (p. 515): 
 
 u The change is not in man, but, humanly speak- 
 ing, in God; a change from a purpose to punish to 
 a purpose to pardon and save. There is, so to 
 speak, a reconciliation of God's justice and of his 
 love effected by Christ's bearing the penalty in our 
 stead. ' ' 
 
 This remarkable passage I have previously no- 
 ticed, and will now call attention only to the man- 
 ner in which it is stated. "The change is not in 
 man, but, humanly speaking, in God." Well, itn- 
 humanly speaking, where would the change be? 
 In man or in God? What he means is a puzzle. 
 Does he mean that the change is real or mythical ? 
 
 Passing a similar expression in the next sentence 
 unnoticed, you will observe the singular assertion 
 that a reconciliation of God's justice and of his 
 "love is effected by Christ's bearing the penalty in 
 our stead." 
 
 "God so loved the world that he gave his Son," 
 etc. How could Christ's sufferings reconcile God's 
 justice and love, which had no quarrel? Does sin 
 disharmonize the divine attributes, as well as ab- 
 normalize the human soul ? Surely if sin can array 
 one divine attribute against another, or create dis- 
 harmony in the divine nature, then it must be 
 mightier than God himself.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 145 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 SECTION I. Natural or Human Atonement. 
 
 We have seen that sin is not debt in any proper 
 sense; that it is far worse than debt an offense 
 against God and a violation of subjective law, a 
 self-degradation and forfeiture of the good which 
 the beneficent law of God is intended to conserve. 
 
 Evidently the sinner is in a strait, not God. The 
 sinner needs a change, not God. The sinner needs 
 reconciling to God, not God to the sinner. God, 
 though angry with the wicked, so loved the world 
 that he gave his Son to save it (anger and love are 
 not incompatible things). But the sinner hates 
 God; his carnal mind is at enmity against God; 
 and this Dr. Hodge says is ' ' damnation. ' ' 
 
 In the light of such facts it is easy to see that 
 some plan or expedient is necessary to relieve men 
 of their abnormal enmity against God, and thus 
 restore them to the state of loving obedience to 
 God obedience to God, to law is the only possible 
 immunity against God's anger, as revealed in the 
 stern retributions of his law. The change needed 
 is not the adjustment of the divine attributes, but 
 of man's sinful state; not the removal of his reatus 
 poence by a substitute, but reatus culpfz. If this is 
 so, then the remedy must be primarily moral in 
 character; for moral forces alone are capable of 
 10
 
 146 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 producing moral changes in free moral beings. 
 Substitutionists admit generally that after men 
 have been legally saved by substitutionary legal 
 conceits, it is still necessary to regenerate or purify 
 the corrupt heart in order to save men. In other 
 words, after they have legally saved the sinner, 
 they are under the necessity of supplementing this 
 legal deliverance by a deliverance from his moral 
 pollution; the latter alone being real, the other 
 fictitious; for to save a sinner in his sins is plainly 
 not to save him at all. 
 
 Let us now consider whether an atonement pri- 
 marily legal in character, or one primarily moral in 
 character is required by the disturbed relations be- 
 tween God and the sinner, or whether the state of 
 the case requires primarily the removal, by substi- 
 tutionary penalty, of the sinner's liability to pun- 
 ishment, in order to the removal of his criminality, 
 or the removal of his criminality in order to the 
 removal of his liability to punishment. 
 
 Must the sinner be pardoned in order to be re- 
 generated, or be regenerated in order to be par- 
 doned ? 
 
 The real issue is, Does Christ save us by suffer- 
 ing the punishment of our sins in our place, or by 
 delivering us from our enmity against God and re- 
 storing us to a loving obedience ? 
 
 I affirm the latter, and support it by an appeal to 
 known facts of human nature, and facts given in 
 the Bible. 
 
 i. The divine law the supreme law of the moral 
 world as truly requires us to love our neighbor as
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 147 
 
 to love God. Hence, it is possible to sin against 
 our neighbor, and this sin men often commit. Sins 
 against our neighbor make ' ' countless thousands 
 mourn," and fill the world with human woe. But 
 is there no remedy for these evils? None, abso- 
 lutely, if it is true in the sphere of the human law, 
 as substitutionists affirm it to be in the sphere of 
 the divine law, that there can be no pardon without 
 punishment, or that all pardon has its ground and 
 reason in punishment. 
 
 These sins generate enmities and strifes which fill 
 the world with needless woes. 
 
 But is there no remedy for these ills ? None 
 absolutely none if there can be no pardon without 
 punishment, as penalists persistently affirm; for if 
 a man's sins against his neighbor can not be par- 
 doned without being first punished, then pardon is 
 utterly worthless. It relieves no suffering, for to be 
 pardoned is to be punished, and to be punished is to 
 be pardoned. 
 
 But there is a remedy for these ills which, if 
 faithfully applied, would effectually prevent the 
 miseries arising from sins against our neighbor; 
 and common sense perhaps I should say human 
 instinct suggests it. It is confession on the part 
 of the offender, and forgiveness on the part of the 
 offended. 
 
 If I sin against you, I instinctively know that I 
 ought to confess and ask pardon. I feel this to be 
 due to myself, as well as to you, for nothing short 
 of confession can relieve me of my mental unrest, 
 my stings of conscience.
 
 148 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 You, on the contrary, instinctively know, when I 
 have made confession and asked pardon, that you 
 ought to forgive. You feel that you owe this to 
 yourself, as well as to the offender; and not to for- 
 give is to make yourself, as well as the other party, 
 more or less unhappy, according to the circum- 
 stances. If confession is made and pardon granted, 
 unhappiness is prevented. 
 
 These facts lie within the sphere of human con- 
 sciousness. They are matters of constant expe- 
 rience. This is atonement propitiation and recon- 
 ciliation by moral means and for moral ends. 
 
 2. If I owe you a debt and pay it, or if another 
 pays it for me, this would be, if sin is a debt, a 
 legal atonement. The transaction is purely legal, 
 and does not in any way necessarily change the 
 moral relations of the parties. If friends before the 
 payment, we may be after it; if enemies before, we 
 may be afterward. It, however, is a gross mis- 
 nomer to call this an atonement; for debts are not 
 matters to be atoned for, but paid. 
 
 3. If I sin against you, or injure you in person, 
 property, or reputation, and you sue me, and I am 
 duly punished, it would be an unpardonable mis- 
 nomer to say that I am pardoned ; for this is pun- 
 ishment, and in no sense pardon; for it does not 
 change our moral relations does not reconcile us. 
 We may even be more bitter enemies after the pun- 
 ishment than before. * 
 
 4. If I sin against you, or injure you in any res- 
 pect, and make full and manly confession, and ask 
 forgiveness, this is atonement on my part, and is
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 149 
 
 the only atonement possible for me to make. The 
 atonement can not be made by the payment of 
 something of equivalent value, for there is abso- 
 lutely no standard of equivalence between debt and 
 offense. We could as properly attempt to say how 
 much sound would be an equivalent for a given 
 amount of color. 
 
 If the confession is accepted, reconciliation fol- 
 lows, and harmony between the parties is secured. 
 
 If the confession is not accepted, then perpetual 
 enmity and its consequent evils must follow; for 
 the only atonement possible on my part has been 
 offered. 
 
 In this case the party originally offended becomes 
 responsible for the evils of perpetual strife, and a 
 real offender against his neighbor and his own 
 peace; for not to forgive upon confession and re- 
 pentance is as great a breach of moral law and the 
 law of amity as is the original offense; or, if you 
 sin against me, and confess and ask pardon, and I 
 refuse to forgive, then I become as great an offender 
 against moral law as you, and I become responsible 
 for the perpetuation of the strife. 
 
 u Seventy times seven" are we required to for- 
 give our neighbor who sins against us if he repents. 
 "If we repent God is faithful and just to forgive 
 us our sins." We are here fairly taught that for- 
 giveness upon repentance is not merely a privilege, 
 but an imperative duty, and that God, in this re- 
 gard, does himself just what he requires us, both 
 by subjective and objective law, to do. 
 
 Perhaps I should say that one of the worst of-
 
 150 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 fenses against the peace of society is the refusal to 
 forgive upon confession those that sin against us, 
 for the very simple reason that it makes personal 
 animosities perpetual, or renders harmony and mu- 
 tual love impossible; whereas, if all offenses were 
 promptly confessed and forgiven as God requires 
 universal harmony among men would prevail. 
 
 5. If you sin against me and then repent, and I, 
 instead of forgiving you, take vengeance into my own 
 hands and punish you to my own satisfaction, this 
 punishment does not restore the lost harmony, does 
 not cause me to love you or you me. Forgiveness 
 would restore peace, but punishment perpetuates it; 
 or if this punishment conditions and secures recon- 
 ciliation, as substitution requires us to believe, then 
 Satan and all his hosts are in a state of reconcilia- 
 tion with God. 
 
 6. Another class of atonements may receive brief 
 attention, viz. : such as require the offices of a me- 
 diator. In some cases of estrangement among men 
 their relations may be such as to render it difficult 
 for either party to take the initiative, in the way of 
 reconciliation. In such cases the offices of a mut- 
 ual friend may be of great service. Through him 
 the parties may come to understand each other bet- 
 ter, and their obstacles to a reconciliation be thus 
 removed. 
 
 Or, the mediator may fail to induce the offender 
 to make confession and to persuade the offended 
 party into a willingness to pardon upon confession. 
 In all such cases the responsibility rests upon the 
 unyielding party.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 151 
 
 SECTION II. Some important facts concerning 
 these cases of atonement. 
 
 1. These human atonements, as I shall venture 
 to call them, are not strictly analogous to that made 
 by the great Mediator and Atoner, which was in 
 the highest sense unique. Still they are all, except 
 that relating to debt, veritable atonements of their 
 kind, according to the Bible idea of atonement, as 
 we shall subsequently see. 
 
 2. I wish it distinctly noted that all possible en- 
 mities and disharmonies among men and their sub- 
 sequent reconciliations have their origin in the 
 sphere of the moral, and not in the sphere of the 
 legal, relations of men; and that the legal grows 
 naturally out of the moral; thus: first, the offense 
 which is moral, then the condemnation, which is 
 legal; first, the confession, which is moral, then 
 the pardon or justification, which is legal. The 
 legal is always subordinate to the moral, and comes 
 necessarily out of it, as effect follows cause. 
 
 Hence, there can be no condemnation without 
 antecedent moral corruption as its cause, and of 
 course no pardon or justification without the ante- 
 cedent removal of this moral corruption. 
 
 If this is not true, then it follows that if I sin 
 against you, you must forgive me before I can repent, 
 which we know is a psychological absurdity, and 
 exactly reverses the Bible law of forgiveness. 
 
 3. These cases of atonement may be not inap- 
 propriately, I think, called natural atonements, or 
 natural propitiations; because they seem to be nat- 
 ural, or indigenous to the human mind; or the
 
 152 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 principle which underlies them seems to be a 
 concreation of the soul itself. If I give you just 
 cause of offense, I am instinctively impressed that 
 I ought to make some amends by confession, apol- 
 ogy, or something of this kind; and you feel in- 
 stinctively to realize that I ought to make the 
 acknowledgement. I feel that I have no right to 
 expect your favor unless I make the ' ' amende hon- 
 orable;" you feel that without the confession on 
 my part, your forgiveness would be unworthily be- 
 stowed and actually of no value, because not sought 
 nor even desired. 
 
 How strictly coincident in this regard are the re- 
 quirements of the Bible and the constitution of the 
 human mind ? The latter is the mandate of God 
 from within; the former from without. Let us not 
 forget that the divine is in the human, and the 
 human, though dim, is a copy of the divine; and 
 this fact authorizes the belief that the laws and 
 processes of the human mind are at least real, 
 though dim, adumbrations of those of the divine. 
 
 4. From the cases considered we can readily see 
 that this natural law of confession and forgiveness 
 is indispensable to the harmony of human society; 
 perhaps I should say to the very existence of society, 
 for what the world would be without it, is impossi- 
 ble to conceive. 
 
 5. If it is the law of God, subjectively and ob- 
 jectively given, that sins committed must be con- 
 fessed in order to be forgiven, and when confessed 
 must be forgiven in order to harmony and peace, 
 then, we are naturally inclined to inquire wherein
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 153 
 
 consists this wonderful power of confession or re- 
 pentance which seems to have its ground in the 
 constitution of the mind itself. Why should it 
 condition and insure forgiveness ? Or how does it 
 propitiate ? 
 
 I answer, we know the fact that confession does 
 propitiate, or make favorable the offended party to- 
 ward the offender; we know it from experience and 
 from the Scriptures, but the manner of the fact is 
 not so obvious. 
 
 Still, by a careful observation of the laws of 
 mental activities and states we may learn enough to 
 satisfy us that the relation between confession and 
 forgiveness has its foundation or reason in the 
 nature of the mind itself. 
 
 (i) Let it be observed that the moral states of the 
 mind are determined by the motives of action; also 
 that every volition is followed by a corresponding 
 state of the mind as the act of rising up or sitting 
 down is followed by a corresponding bodily state or 
 attitude. 
 
 Every external act is an act of executive voli- 
 tion, and presupposes a determinative volition or 
 purpose to which it is subordinate, and of which it 
 is an expression. An external act of disobedience 
 is simply executive of a previously formed purpose 
 of disobedience. In this purpose and its corre- 
 sponding states consist the guilt, the criminality, 
 the rebellion, the enmity, of which the external 
 act is the revelation or expression (Matt. v. 28 ; I 
 John iii. 15). This enmity in one party, when re- 
 vealed by external acts, necessarily awakens indig-
 
 154 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 nation or displeasure in the other party, and happy 
 fraternal relations are of course suspended and must 
 continue so, as long as these respective states of 
 mind continue. 
 
 Happily, a change is not impossible. It may be 
 brought about by the parties themselves or through 
 a mutual friend. The offender, seeing his folly, 
 may repent that is, turn from his offensive purpose. 
 This change of purpose is necessarily followed by a 
 corresponding state of feeling, and the offender is 
 actually reconciled before any confession to the of- 
 fended party is made. The act of outward confes- 
 sion has in itself no merit, no virtue to propitiate. It 
 is only the revelation to the other party of repentance 
 or change of purpose and feeling in regard to him. 
 
 Hence, it is sufficiently clear that this repentance, 
 this change of purpose and feeling; this self-recon- 
 ciliation is the propitiating, or favor-producing, 
 power, which gives to the offended party ample 
 ground for both real and declarative pardon. 
 
 Hence, just as our disregard to the law of amity 
 is the ground and reason of our neighbor's indigna- 
 tion toward us, just so a return to obedience to this 
 law is the ground and reason for the withdrawal of 
 that indignation. As disobedience to fraternal law 
 necessarily involves condemnation, so repentance, 
 which is a return to obedience, necessarily insures 
 release from condemnation, or gives sufficient 
 ground for this release. 
 
 This I hesitate not to affirm is the law of forgive- 
 ness as revealed both by the Bible and by the facts 
 of human nature.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 155 
 
 (2) But, as previously stated, a mediator is in 
 some cases uecessary, even among men. The me- 
 diator, of course, must be a man, and must also be 
 not a partisan but an impartial friend, whose offices 
 are equally acceptable to both the offender and the 
 offended. He is not in any sense a substitute for 
 either party. Pie is only the medium of peaceful 
 communication between them, whose business is 
 to make peace and restore the parties to harmony. 
 He does not assume the guilt of the offender and 
 suffer in his stead, thus releasing him from all lia- 
 bility. Just as easily and as appropriately might 
 he assume the indignation and wrath of the offend- 
 ed party. In fact, if he, as mediator, becomes the 
 substitute of one party, he must be the substitute 
 of both; otherwise he is strictly a partisan, and not 
 a mediator at all. If he assumes the guilt of one, 
 then he must assume the indignation and anger of 
 the other, and accomplish the work of his mediator- 
 ship by pouring out his wrath upon himself. 
 
 Of course the mediator attempts no such prepos- 
 terous and impossible things. Peace-makers among 
 men are benefactors to human society, human and 
 divine law recognize them as such, and pfonounce 
 them blessed. But if man could not become a me- 
 diator without becoming the substitute of one or 
 both parties, few men, I imagine, would ever be- 
 come peace-makers. 
 
 What the mediator really does is not to take the 
 place of one or both the parties, but to help the 
 offender to return to his duty and to do just what 
 the law of fraternal peace requires him to do, and to
 
 156 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 induce the offended party to accept this repentance 
 as the condition of forgiveness. 
 
 From these common sense truths, it is clear that 
 the propitiation is simply in the repentance or in 
 the obedience, and not in any suffering endured by 
 the offender or any impossible substitute. Repent- 
 ance propitiates simply because it is a return to 
 obedience is itself obedience in spirit and inten- 
 tion which is all the law of fraternal peace re- 
 quires; and this law, receiving all it requires, of 
 course ceases to condemn; and, if the offended 
 party refuses to pardon, he himself becomes the 
 offender against that law, and is a worse enemy to 
 fraternal peace than the repentant original offender. 
 The hard-hearted and unforgiving brother, who was 
 unwilling to receive his repentant prodigal brother, 
 was a worse man than the returned prodigal. The 
 resolution : 
 
 " I will arise and go to my father, and will say 
 anto him, Father I have sinned against heaven and 
 n thy sight; I am no more worthy to be called thy 
 ;on: make me as one of thy hired servants. And 
 ic arose and came to his father. But his father . . . 
 an andjfell on his neck and kissed him." 
 
 Here we have atonement in its full sense, includ- 
 ng reconciliation, propitiation, and pardon. 
 
 The prodigal's repentance, as evinced by his 
 ctual return to his father, was, as to himself, 
 ^conciliation; as to his father,' it was propitiation, 
 r what pleased him, satisfied him, delighted him, 
 Because it brought back to him his son who was 
 Dst and dead, but now found and saved.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 157 
 
 These facts also teach us with sufficient fullness 
 and clearness that pardon does not consist, as penal- 
 ists teach, in the removal of penalty, leaving the 
 soul in its moral pollution or criminal state. A 
 murderer, may be arbitrarily pardoned by guberna- 
 torial fiat. This releases him from the gallows, but 
 not from his guilt; but pardon of sin consists in 
 deliverance from the guilt itself which causes the 
 punishment. This is done simply by restoring the 
 disobedient to obedience, much like the removal of 
 effects by the removal of their causes. 
 
 6. As we have seen, God recognizes the fact that 
 we may sin one against another, and has most ex- 
 plicitly enjoined the duty of forgiveness. He has 
 so constituted human nature as to condition for- 
 giveness of sins one against another upon repent- 
 ance. The duty to forgive is as imperatively en- 
 joined as the duty to repent. We have also seen 
 that nothing short of confession, and nothing dif- 
 ferent from confession, can be a sufficient reason for 
 pardon. 
 
 Now, the human bears the image of the divine. 
 It, therefore, is in the highest degree improbable, 
 or, rather, is unreasonable, that God should ordain 
 one law of forgiveness for some sins and a diamet- 
 rically different law for the forgiveness of other 
 sins. One method of atonement and pardon for 
 sins against humanity and a contrary method of 
 atonement and pardon for sins against God ? Can 
 this be possible ? 
 
 The fact that the human mind is created in the 
 image of the divine mind seems to authorize the
 
 158 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 inference that there is at least some similarity in 
 their moral attributes. Hence, that justice, truth, 
 love, mercy, etc., in the human are generically the 
 same as they are in the divine. The differences, 
 which of course are immense, are differences of de- 
 gree and not of kind. If this is not so, the Bible 
 is certainly not a revelation, but a riddle. But the 
 Bible is a revelation of God, and God is consistent 
 with himself ; then it fairly follows that the law of 
 human forgiveness, as revealed in nature and in the 
 Bible, is generically the same as the law of divine 
 forgiveness. That God should make confession the 
 absolute condition of forgiveness in reference to 
 men, and punishment the indispensable condition 
 of forgiveness in reference to himself, is a thing in 
 itself inconceivable. It presupposes that the moral 
 government of God is an ill-considered piece of 
 patch -work, without any determinate end, and 
 utterly without any uniform relation between ante- 
 cedents and their sequences, conditions and ends 
 e. g.: If my neighbor sins against me, I am bound 
 to forgive him on condition of his repentance; but 
 if he sins against God, that can be forgiven only on 
 condition of punishment inflicted upon the sinner 
 himself or a substitute. 
 
 In relation to the human, the punishment is 
 taken away by removing its cause. In relation to 
 the divine, the cause is removed according to cove- 
 nant engagement by taking away the effect. 
 
 7. But while the laws of forgiveness are, in rela- 
 tion both to the human and divine, generically the 
 same, they are in their accidents specifically differ-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 159 
 
 ent. For instance, in relation to men's sins against 
 one another, men may be their own atoners, or may 
 be reconciled through a mere human mediator. 
 But this, for reasons hereafter to be given, the of- 
 fender can not do in relation to sins against God. 
 
 8. I have often been asked the question, What 
 become of these sins of humanity against human- 
 ity, if they are forgiven upon confession? Are 
 they pardoned without punishment at the hands of 
 the offended party ? In reply I will say only what 
 seems to be a satisfactory answer. 
 
 (1) If our sins had to be punished at the hands 
 of those against whom we sin as a condition of 
 pardon, then this world would be a pandemonium, 
 society would be impossible, " vindicatory justice " 
 would devour the human race. This is self-evi- 
 dent, and no man would be willing to subject him- 
 self to the charge of insanity, by saying that our 
 sins against each other can not be pardoned unless 
 they are first punished; but thousands hold to penal 
 substitution, which asserts that punishment is the 
 only ground, and is the absolute condition of divine 
 forgiveness. 
 
 (2) If you can tell me what becomes of pain 
 when it ceases to affect you; or what becomes of 
 the malady which produces the pain, when it is 
 cured; you can answer the question as to what be- 
 comes of our sins and their penalties when they 
 are taken away. 
 
 (3) In accordance with Bible language these of- 
 fenses are pardoned, forgiven, remitted, blotted out,
 
 160 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 or cease to exist as disturbers of the peace of the 
 parties concerned. 
 
 But, if pardon is not conditioned upon punish- 
 ment, what becomes of the claims of justice ? I 
 answer, what satisfies the parties concerned satisfies 
 justice. God commands us to forgive, and, as we 
 have seen, not to forgive when confession has been 
 made is to sin against God. You do not feel that 
 you have violated justice .when you have forgiven 
 an offense. If this was so, truly our condition 
 would be an anomalous one, and as deplorable as 
 anomalous; namely, unable to forgive without sin- 
 ning against justice, and yet equally unable to re- 
 fuse to forgive without sinning against God. This 
 you will perceive is exactly the condition in which 
 substitution puts us, if the laws of human and di- 
 vine forgiveness are the same in kind that is, we can 
 not forgive without defrauding justice, nor refuse to 
 forgive without sinning against God. 
 
 (4) But, after all, does not society, or the moral 
 world if we prefer, suffer loss on account of sin. I 
 answer, if not to realize what is possible of realiza- 
 tion is to suffer loss, then all sin brings a loss; for 
 not to realize a possible good is to experience the 
 deprivation of that good, as not to acquire knowl- 
 edge is to suffer the evils of not acquiring it. To 
 such loss all moral governments, which are not 
 composed of indefectible creatures, are liable; but, 
 as I have repeatedly said, punishment repairs no 
 losses of any kind. But it should be observed that 
 there is less loss in forgiveness, when it is possible, 
 than in non-forgiveness, simply because forgiveness
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 161 
 
 checks the evil, while non-forgiveness perpetuates 
 it. 
 
 9. The preceding are some of the collateral ques- 
 tions connected with the doctrine of atonement. 
 Their discussion is intended as preparative to the 
 consideration of the great central doctrine of Chris- 
 tianity, viz. : the mediation of Christ. 
 ii
 
 162 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 SECTION I. The Bible usage of the word Atone- 
 ment. 
 
 Having considered the general subject of atone- 
 ment including reconciliation, propitiation, par- 
 don, etc. in relation to our sins against one an- 
 other, let us now consider atonement in relation to 
 our sins against our divine Father. 
 
 As we have seen, the word is not a New Testa- 
 ment word at all, and yet is currently used to ex- 
 press the central doctrine of the Bible. We have also 
 seen that in its popular use it is highly ambiguous, 
 is used sometimes in the sense of reconciliation, or 
 at-one-mindedness; and sometimes in the sense of 
 propitiation, or that which renders reconciliation 
 possible; and sometimes in a double sense, includ- 
 ing both reconciliation and propitiation. 
 
 In view of this diversity of usage, it is a matter 
 of the first importance to ascertain, if possible, its 
 exact meaning as used by the Old Testament 
 writers. 
 
 I hope to be pardoned for saying the very first 
 thing necessary is to lay down the dictionaries, 
 which reflect the vices as well as the virtues of the- 
 ological authors of the last eight or ten centuries, 
 and take up the Bible and test in the crucible of 
 common sense the word as there used.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 163 
 
 To determine the color of objects through col- 
 ored glass, or to apprehend the truth through per- 
 verted symbols, is impossible. 
 
 The exclusion of the dictionaries becomes a 
 prime necessity, because theologists have forced 
 into the word what it was never intended to mean, 
 adopting as its lexical equivalents such words and 
 phrases as "satisfaction," "expiation," " piacular 
 offerings" "penal sacrifices" "vicarious obe- 
 dience" "legal equivalents" "adequate compen- 
 sation to justice, ' ' etc. 
 
 Such expressions, I feel safe in saying, were never 
 suggested by a careful examination of Bible facts, 
 allowing the Scriptures to be their own interpreter; 
 but by the exegencies of a theory founded upon false 
 conceptions of the immutable attributes of God. 
 
 In settling a Bible question, it is of no conse- 
 quence to ascertain the sense in which terms are 
 used by secular and theological writers. The vital 
 question is, In what sense do the sacred writers use 
 them? This it behooves us now to determine in 
 reference to the much-abused word, atonement. 
 
 i. You do not need to be informed that the He- 
 brew word kaphar, translated in our English Bibles 
 atonement, means a literal covering, and is the 
 name given to the top, or lid, of the ark of the 
 covenant (Ex. xxv.) as a protection to its contents. 
 Of course the word when used in relation to men 
 and their sins is taken, not in this literal, but in a 
 tropical sense. The chief difficulty is to determine 
 precisely what this tropical sense is, or in what 
 atonement really consists.
 
 164 NATURE OF ATONEMENT* 
 
 The lid of the ark was intended to protect its con- 
 tents from injury, rather than to deliver them from 
 injury already existing. But the word is not gen- 
 erally used in this sense. Sin exists and a remedy 
 is required. The remedy is found only in atone- 
 ment. Thus far all agree. But in what does 
 atonement consist, and how does it deliver from 
 sin ? 
 
 Penalists say atonement consists in suffering the 
 penalty of sin, and thus saves by this penal satisfac- 
 tion rendered to justice. I dissent, and affirm that 
 atonement does not consist in deliverance secured 
 by penal suffering, but by a radically different 
 method. 
 
 SECTION II. Particular instances of its Bible 
 use. 
 
 The word atonement often occurs in the Old Tes- 
 tament, but only in a few instances do the contexts 
 give any distinct idea of what constitutes the aton- 
 ing power. In these few instances, however, we 
 have clear proof that it does not consist in penal 
 suffering, but in placating or pleasing God by fidel- 
 ity to him. Note the following instances. 
 
 From Leviticus xvi. 11-20, and other texts, we 
 learn that atonement was required not only for the 
 people, but also for inanimate things connected 
 with the tabernacle service. In verse 20, we read: 
 
 "And when he (the priest) had made an end of 
 atoning for the holy place, and the tent of the meet- 
 ing and the altar," etc. 
 
 (i) We learn from the context that these things
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 165 
 
 required atonement only "because of the unclean- 
 ness of the children of Israel." 
 
 Of course the cleansing of the holy place, etc., 
 by atonement was ritual, because they were not ca- 
 pable of a moral cleansing. 
 
 (2) The atonement was made by priests, for none 
 others, unless divinely appointed, could make atone- 
 ment for any thing pertaining to divine worship. 
 
 (3) This atonement was made by blood, just as 
 that for the priest and the people was made, as in 
 verses 11-15. This fact of itself is fatal to penal 
 atonement. According to the theory, the sufferings 
 of the sacrificial kid, as a symbolical substitute for 
 the worshiper, constituted the atonement. 
 
 This granted, what follows? This: that the kid 
 was a substitute for the holy place and the altar, to 
 make atonement, for which it endured the same 
 penal suffering, both in degree and kind, that it en- 
 dured for the offerer or sinner. If atonement for 
 the worshiper required penal suffering, then, of ne- 
 cessity, atonement for the holy place and the altar 
 required penal suffering; for, if this is not so, then 
 penal suffering is no part of atonement at all. The 
 matter may be thus put: 
 
 Atonement was made for. the holy place. 
 
 But the holy place had no sins to be punished. 
 
 Therefore, atonement is not made by punish- 
 ment. 
 
 A less suicidal view of the subject, I think, is 
 possible. 
 
 The holy place had no sins to be punished, but 
 God required it to be relieved of such uncleanness
 
 1 66 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 as comes of connection with the unclean; as the 
 uncleanness that comes of contact with a dead body. 
 But the same sacrificial blood that sanctifies to the 
 purifying of the flesh of the worshiper is capable 
 of sanctifying to the ritual purification of the altar 
 and holy place (Heb. ix. 13, 21, 22). By the blood, 
 the altar, etc., were sanctified to sanctify is to 
 make holy, to consecrate to God, and whatever is 
 thus sanctified is acceptable, or well p" easing to 
 him. 
 
 But to make acceptable is to make atonement. 
 
 For whatever is sanctified to him is acceptable, 
 and nothing else. In Rom. xii. i, we have the 
 exact order, ' ' I beseech you ... to present your 
 bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God." 
 Sacrifice sanctification or appropriation to God, 
 and acceptance by God. Heb. ix. 13, 14, gives the 
 same order. 
 
 The penal theory requires us to believe that the 
 sufferings of the kid were penal, and that these suf- 
 ferings made atonement for the altar, or rendered it 
 acceptable to God; and. this requires us to believe 
 that God substitutionally punished the altar, in 
 order to make it acceptable to him, or in order to 
 reconcile himself to it. If this is credible, noth- 
 ing is incredible. 
 
 (4) It seems proper here to say that in reference 
 to the sin offerings for the people, the pains endured 
 by the sacrificial victim in dying were deemed of 
 no consequence whatever. They constituted no 
 part of the atonement. They were simply inci- 
 dental to it. If the blood could have been pro-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 167 
 
 cured, and other requirements met without a 
 particle of pain on the part of the victim, the value 
 of the sacrifice would have been diminished not a 
 particle. It seems the climax of pious trifling to 
 assert that the momentary pangs of a kid repre- 
 sented in sacred symbol the torments of the lost 
 soul. 
 
 The significance of the sacrifice lies quite in an- 
 other direction. Penalists attach all value to the 
 suffering of the victim, and none whatever to the 
 blood, except as the proof of the suffering. On the 
 contrary, the whole value was in the blood, and 
 none in the momentary pain incident to its death. 
 
 "The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have 
 given it to you upon the altar to make atonement 
 for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an 
 atonement for the soul ' ' (Lev. xvii. 1 1). 
 
 This teaches that it is not suffering as such, penal 
 or otherwise, but the blood that secures atonement. 
 " The life ... is in the blood," "for it is the blood 
 that maketh the atonement" not the suffering as 
 such. The life is in the blood, or the blood enshrines 
 the life, and in shedding blood for sacrificial purposes 
 there is a consecration of life to God. Hence, the 
 altar, etc., sprinkled with this consecrated symbol 
 of life made atonement for it, or rendered it accept- 
 able to God. 
 
 The atonement was not in the suffering as such, 
 but exclusively in the giving of the blood, or life, 
 to God. 
 
 This truth is fully proved by the sacrifice of 
 Isaac.
 
 1 68 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 (5) It seems supererogatory to say that we have 
 a real atonement in this case, but no penal suffering 
 no suffering of any kind by the altar, symbolical 
 or real. Exactly so is it in every case. The atone- 
 ment is the giving of the blood, or life, to God. 
 The blood and life are equivalents. To give one 
 was in intention to give both. Hence, the bloodless 
 sacrifice of Isaac. 
 
 We also learn that no less blood was required to 
 make atonement for the holy place and the altar 
 than for an individual worshiper, and no more for 
 the whole Jewish nation, than for one man. Thus 
 the victim and the blood necessary to atonement 
 for the altar was sufficient for the whole nation 
 millions of people. 
 
 This fact is certainly difficult to harmonize with 
 the doctrine that Christ's sufferings were equal in 
 degree to the eternal punishment of those for whom 
 he suffered. But if typal atonement was made sim- 
 ply by obedience to the precepts of the law, we can 
 very well understand how a sacrificial victim suffi- 
 cient for one was sufficient for all. 
 
 It is here clearly seen that the facts in regard to 
 this atonement can not be harmonized with pe- 
 nality. 
 
 SECTION III. Poll-tax Atonement. 
 
 In Ex. xxx. 11-16, we have an account of what 
 I shall call an Atonement poll-tax. Every man of 
 twenty years of age was required to pay into the 
 treasury a half shekel "the rich no more, the 
 poor no less." 
 
 This money was an offering unto the Lord, and
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 169 
 
 is called a ransom for the soul and the atonement 
 money, and was given to make atonement for the 
 soul. 
 
 1. This atonement, as appears from the facts, 
 was made not to secure a return of lost favor, but to 
 prevent the loss of favor already in possession; just 
 as by paying our taxes we prevent the fines and 
 penalties which come from not paying them. In 
 this regard this atonement is in exact accord with 
 the lid, or covering of the ark of the covenant. 
 
 It protects from injury rather than delivers from 
 evils previously incurred. 
 
 2. No blood was shed, 'without which there is no 
 remission, and no sins were remitted simply because 
 there were none to remit. 
 
 3. This atonement was not made by a priest, be- 
 cause the particular sin to which it related, not 
 having been committed, no mediator was necessary. 
 Every man was his own atoner, just as any man, not 
 guilty of any particular sin, may secure divine favor 
 by avoiding that sin. 
 
 4. This atonement, called a ransom for the soul, 
 consisted purely and exclusively of personal obe- 
 dience to the preceptive requirements of the law. 
 It was atonement by perfect obedience and by suf- 
 fering of .no kind, penal or otherwise. On this 
 wise the unfallen angels, I suppose, make atonement, 
 propitiate, satisfy justice, law, God, and conscience, 
 and enjoy perfect and continuous blessedness. I 
 wish the class to study these cases thoroughly, for 
 we have atonement here in the exact analogy, in 
 which the lid of the ark was a covering, a protec-
 
 170 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 tion to the contents of the ark. It is in utter con- 
 flict with penal substitution in every essential 
 feature. If one is true the other can not be true; 
 for one palpably contradicts the other. Judge for 
 yourselves. 
 
 SECTION IV. Atonement in relation to the 
 golden calf. 
 
 In Ex. xxxii., and in Deut. ix., we have an 
 atonement made by Moses for the children of Israel 
 in the affair of the golden calf. How was this 
 atonement made? 
 
 This is the answer: 
 
 "And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, 
 ' O this people have sinned a great sin, and have 
 made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt 
 forgive their sin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, 
 out of thy book, which thou hast written.' And 
 the Lord said unto Moses, ' Whosoever hath sinned 
 against me, him will I blot out of my book ' ' ' (Ex. 
 xxxii. 31-33). 
 
 We have a more circumstantial account of this 
 same atonement in Deut. ix. 18, 19. Moses says: 
 
 " And I fell down before the Lord' as at the first; 
 forty days and forty nights I did neither eat bread 
 nor drink water; because of all your sin which ye 
 sinned in doing that which was evil in the sight of 
 the Lord, to provoke him to anger. For I was 
 afraid of the anger and hot displeasure wherewith 
 the Lord was wroth against you to destroy you. 
 But the Lord hearkened unto me that time also. ' ' 
 
 i. This is expressly called an atonement (verse 
 30). The vital elements are in the line of personal 
 fidelity to God, who requires supreme love and full
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 171 
 
 self-surrender to himself. This loving obedience to 
 God and love to his neighbor, Moses manifested in 
 his prostration before the Lord, in his self-abnega- 
 tion, in confessing the sin of his people, in his forty 
 days' fast, in the entreaty to be blotted out of the 
 book of life, if his people could not be spared. 
 
 2. God was propitiated, atonement was made, 
 and divine anger turned away, and the people 
 spared, not because their sins were expiated, but 
 for Moses' sake. 
 
 They were spared not for the sake of what Moses 
 did, but for the sake of what he was, and he was 
 what he was because of what he did, or because of 
 his persistent fidelity and obedience to God and love 
 for his people. 
 
 3. The punishment threatened was not inflicted, 
 either upon Moses, or the people, or any one else. 
 Yet we have genuine atonement, but no penal in- 
 fliction upon principal or any substitute. 
 
 4. What become of the claims of "justice," the 
 most central attribute of God, in this case ? Not a 
 word is said about it. What was turned aside was 
 divine anger, indignation not justice, surely. 
 What satisfied God evidently satisfied justice. 
 
 5. No typical beast is slain, or sacrificial blood is 
 shed ; yet there was a priest and a sacrifice in inten- 
 tion, as when Abraham offered up Isaac. Moses, 
 like Christ, was both priest and sacrificial victim, 
 who offered his life as a sacrifice to God for the sake 
 of his people, and which, because he was what he 
 was, God accepted as a sweet- smelling savor. 
 
 6. Moses staked his life upon the issue. He did
 
 172 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 not propose to give his life, as a substitute, for that 
 of his people, nor to die in their stead; but to die 
 with them, or share their destiny die with them 
 if they must die. But God spared them for his 
 sake. 
 
 Surely the penal theory receives no countenance 
 from the facts in this case, but is condemned in 
 toto. 
 
 SECTION V. Atonement for treason. 
 
 Num. xvi. 41-48, gives us the history of an 
 atonement which is highly instructive. 
 
 The congregation of Israel charged Moses and 
 Aaron, because of the destruction of ' ' Korah and 
 his company," with killing the Lord's people. 
 This unjust charge was a virtual impeachment of 
 the justice and honor of God himself, who had 
 punished the sedition and sacrilege of Korah in 
 a summary manner. This charge provoked God to 
 punish the rebellious people. A cloud of wrath 
 covered the tabernacle, and a fearful plague fell 
 upon them. ' ' And the Lord commanded Moses 
 and Aaron to get" out of the way that he "might 
 consume them as in a moment." But Moses and 
 Aaron, instead of getting out of the way, deter- 
 mined to stay in the way. 
 
 They fell upon their faces resolutely purposing to 
 share the destiny of their people. "And Moses 
 said unto Aaron, Take a censor, fire from the altar, 
 and incense, and make an atonement;" and "Aa- 
 ron made an atonement for the people; " and " He 
 stood between the dead and the living, and the 
 plague was stayed."
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 173 
 
 i. Here we have a real atonement, a deliverance 
 from temporal death, by the turning away or ap- 
 peasement of God's indignation. What saved the 
 people was the prompt refusal of Moses and Aaron 
 to get out of the way, and their self-sacrificing pur- 
 pose to share the destiny of their people, to die 
 with them, if they must die. This was obedience 
 to One requirement of the divine law loving their 
 neighbor as themselves. This was heroic fidelity 
 to their people. 
 
 But they were not less faithful to the other re- 
 quirement of that law loving the Lord their God 
 with all their hearts. Thjs love they demonstrated 
 by their reverence and prostration on their faces a-nd 
 the burning of incense, which is .the divinely ap- 
 pointed symbol of confession, prayer, and suppli- 
 cation. 
 
 2. This atonement is distinguished by a note- 
 worthy, but very instructive circumstance. This: 
 God commanded Moses and Aaron to do a thing, 
 which they refused to do, and by doing something 
 contrary appeased the anger of him whose command 
 they had disobeyed. 
 
 But how could disobedience please God ? or obe- 
 dience displease him ? or how could disobedience to 
 a command save the people, obedience to which 
 would have resulted in their destruction ? 
 
 The paradox is easily solved. God's command to 
 Moses and Aaron to get up from among the people 
 that he "might consume them as in a moment," 
 was intended as a trial of their faith, as was his 
 command to Abraham to sacrifice his son. If
 
 174 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Moses and Aaron had obeyed this command, they 
 would have violated the great moral law of love 
 and sinned against their people; or they would have 
 preferred themselves to their people. But by dis- 
 obeying this command they proved their loyalty to 
 God's law, and their fidelity to their people. 
 
 We thus see that the atoning, or propitiating 
 power in this instance was in obedience, or the 
 merit that comes from obedience. 
 
 3. Here we have real atonement, but no substitu- 
 tion, no penalty, no defrauding of justice, but a 
 turning away of divine anger by obedience to the 
 supreme law of love. 
 
 SECTION VI. Atonement for seduction. 
 
 In Num. xxv. , we have an atonement remarkable 
 for the uniqueness of its method. Some Israelites 
 had been seduced into a degrading idolatry by the 
 Moabites. This very much distressed the loyal 
 people, and displeased the Almighty. 
 
 On a certain occasion, when the loyal people 
 were weeping before the tabernacle, and deploring 
 the sins of their kindred, Ziinri, one of the chief 
 men of the Hebrews, brought Cozbi, a Midianite 
 princess, into the very presence of Moses and the 
 congregation, then weeping over the sins of their 
 people. 
 
 Phineas rose up from his intercessions, and fol- 
 lowed Zimri and Cozbi into the tent, and with a 
 spear slew them both. The plague, which had 
 already destroyed twenty thousand, was instantly 
 stayed. God said that Phineas had turned away 
 his wrath by this act, and made an atonement for
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 175 
 
 Israel, "because he was zealous for my sake or 
 with my zeal. ' ' And God gave him and his seed 
 an everlasting priesthood, ' ' because he was zealous 
 for his God and made an atonement for the children 
 of Israel." 
 
 This atonement may on first thought seem to be 
 essentially different from all others mentioned in 
 the Bible. But upon reflection we find that while 
 it differs in external form from all others, it is in 
 essence in the mental states generically like all 
 others. Righteous indignation is the obtrusive 
 form of feeling displayed. 
 
 This, however, was the natural outgrowth of his 
 zeal for his God, and jealousy for his honor, and 
 this again was the natural and necessary psycholog- 
 ical consequence of his love to God and love to his 
 people. . 
 
 The same love and devotion to God and his peo- 
 ple that prompted Moses to fast and pray forty days, 
 and to ask to be blotted out of God's book, if his 
 offending brethren should be destroyed, prompted 
 Phineas to vindicate the honor of God and avenge 
 the insult offered to his people. 
 
 This atonement, we can not fail to observe, .was 
 made by a priest, formally consecrated to the office 
 of mediator. The same act performed by any one 
 not recognized as a priest, it is presumed, would 
 not have been an atonement at all. 
 
 Other Bible atonements involving the same fun- 
 damental principles, might be here noted, but need 
 not. Others, however, will be subsequently referred 
 to for special purposes.
 
 176 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SECTION I. Some general statements. 
 
 1. The first and the second atonements considered 
 were made in accordance with legal requirements 
 and legally prescribed forms. They were regular 
 ordinances of the theocratic government. 
 
 All the others were made without such require- 
 ments, and according to no prescribed form. They 
 were suggested by fearful emergencies, which were 
 without anticipation pure surprises. The atone- 
 ments were none the less effective, however, on this 
 account, for the purposes intended. 
 
 2. They were all made by priests the divinely 
 ordained mediators between God and men men 
 separated unto and consecrated to him, for special 
 purposes. Whatever is thus separated and conse- 
 crated to God is holy, and belongs to God in a pe- 
 culiar sense, and commands his care and love (Ex. 
 xix. 5; Deut. xiv. 2; xxvi. 18; Titus ii. 14; i Peter 
 ii. 9). 
 
 The Levitical priesthood had peculiar duties, pe- 
 culiar privileges, and peculiar power with God, 
 which no unconsecrated man dare to arrogate to 
 himself. Saul, we learn from i Sam. xix. , lost his 
 kingdom by arrogating the right, even in what he 
 deemed an emergency, to play the role of a priest 
 in offering sacrifices. We also learn from Num.
 
 Nox- PENAL THEORY. 177 
 
 xvi.) that Korah, Dothan, and Abiram, and all that 
 pertained to them, were swallowed up by the earth 
 for a seditious attempt to obtain the priesthood, and 
 for offering incense which consecrated priests alone 
 were authorized to offer; likewise two hundred and 
 fifty princes of the assembly "men of renown " 
 were destroyed by fire from heaven for burning in- 
 cense a function peculiar to priests. 
 
 Even the censors in which these wicked sedition- 
 ists had burned holy incense were deemed hallowed, 
 and the material of which they were made was not 
 permitted to be put to secular uses, but was manu- 
 factured into coverings for the altar. 
 
 The careful study of this chapter (Num. xxv.) 
 can not fail to impress us with a sense of the pe- 
 culiar sacredness of the priesthood, and of whatever 
 pertained to their functions. 
 
 I therefore repeat that these atonements were 
 made by priests, and evidently could have been 
 made by none but priests. 
 
 3. The punishments, thus turned away by these 
 atonements, were the arbitrary and temporary pen- 
 alties of special sins, such as idolatry, treason, etc., 
 and not the natural or ordinary penalties of the 
 great moral law. Hence, these atonements could 
 not change the moral states of those for whom they 
 were made, nor relieve them from the natural pen- 
 alties of sin. 
 
 4. Though none but a priest could make atone- 
 ment for sin against God, yet these atonements that 
 have been considered all lie in the same line with 
 human atonements, or atonements for sin committed 
 
 12
 
 178 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 by man against his fellow-man. As far asunder in 
 some respects as heaven and earth, or God and 
 man, yet like heaven and earth, God and man, they 
 have some things in common. 
 
 Man is created in God's image; hence, we find 
 something of the divine in the human. In no re- 
 spect, I feel confident, is this something more strik- 
 ingly displayed than it is in the great law of atone- 
 ment and forgiveness. While human atonements 
 are adequate for the purposes of social intercourse 
 among men, and Aaronic atonements adequate to 
 appease the anger of God against those guilty of 
 special treasonable offenses against the theocracy, 
 and also to take away ritual uncleannesss, etc., 
 Messianic atonement alone is adequate to secure 
 reconciliation to God and fit the soul for heaven. 
 
 SECTION II. The requirements of mediator ship. 
 
 The requisites for efficient mediatorship are love 
 to both parties and zeal for their honor and interest. 
 But, while loving both, the mediator differs from 
 both in his mental states, in his purpose and feel- 
 ing. He has neither the indignation nor wrath of 
 the offended party, nor the remorse and shame of 
 the offending party. Their purposes, whatever 
 may be their specific character, are in the direction 
 of discord. His purpose, on the contrary, is to 
 destroy this discord, and restore harmony and peace, 
 and " make through himself of twain one new man, 
 so making peace.'' 
 
 If the mediator succeeds, lie turns away ap- 
 peases, sets aside the wrath of the offended party, 
 and bears^ lakes away, destroys the sin of the of-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 179 
 
 fending party. But he never experiences the anger 
 of the one, nor the shame, conscious guilt, and re- 
 morse of the other; or becomes the substitute bf 
 one or of the other; or, if of either, then necessari- 
 ly of both; otherwise, he is hot a mediator at all, 
 but a partisan. 'But to do either is just as impossi- 
 ble as it is to change his personality. 
 
 The laws of forgiveness in relation to the hu- 
 man and the divine are generically the same, but 
 specifically different, only because of the differences 
 of the relations of the parties. 
 
 Among men, as We have seen, self-atonement, or 
 atonement through a human mediator, is possible. 
 But in relation to sin against God, such atonement 
 is simply impossible. 
 
 The relations between God and man effectually 
 exclude atonement by mere human agency. Many 
 reasons might be given in support of this proposi- 
 tion; only two, however, will here be named. 
 
 (i) Man's utter ignorance of God, and also of 
 himself. 
 
 He of himself knows not whence he is, nor what 
 he is, nor for what end he was made; and of course 
 knows not what to dti, or how to reach the end of 
 his being,* or even whether it has any end. He is 
 conscious of the sad disharmonies and unrestfulness 
 of his own soul, and is painfully cognizant of a like 
 mental unrest in others. But how to free himself 
 from this dissatisfaction, or whether deliverance is 
 possible, he does not know, tie feels that he is de- 
 pendent but does not know upon what or whom. 
 He is unhappy but does not know why that he is
 
 i8o NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 a rebel, but does not know against what whether 
 against a power within himself? or a power without 
 him and above him. 
 
 He has not of himself the knowledge of God as 
 his divine Father, and of course knows not where- 
 in he has offended him, or whether he has offended 
 him at all, or how to procure his favor. 
 
 Hence, the very first thing necessary to the res- 
 toration of the lost harmony between God and man 
 is a mediator, adequate to reveal God to man, and 
 man to himself. 
 
 The God-Man alone is adequate to this double 
 office, for none but the divine in Christ can reveal 
 God to man, and none but the human in Christ can 
 reveal man, as to his spiritual nature and grand 
 possibilities, to himself. (Matt. xi. 27; xvi. 17; 
 Luke x. 21, 22.) 
 
 Hence, Christ is the light of the world, revealing 
 God to men and men to themselves. 
 
 (2) If sinful man even knew God as thoroughly 
 as God knows himself, and knew himself as thor- 
 oughly as Omniscience knows him, he could not 
 make atonement for himself; nor could any mere 
 human being make it for him. For, as we have 
 seen, what is holy, sanctified, consecrated, to God is 
 his in a peculiar sense, and is always acceptable, 
 agreeable, pleasing to him; but the unsanctified, 
 unconsecrated, is never acceptable. 
 
 This is proved by the scope and animus of the 
 whole tabernacle service, and the uniform teaching 
 of the New Testament. (See Rom. xii. i ; 2 Thes, 
 ii. 13; Heb. ix. 13, 14; i Pet. i. i, 2.)
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 18.1 
 
 Nor, as we have shown, is it allowable for any 
 but a priest to offer sacrifice or make atonement for 
 any thing. This, it will be remembered, was fear- 
 fully exemplified in the punishments of Saul, Ko- 
 rah, and the two hundred princes "men of re- 
 nown. ' ' 
 
 SECTION III. Men can not make atonement. 
 
 Two questions very naturally arise: 
 
 (1) Why can a man not consecrated sanctified 
 set apart to the priestly office, offer sacrifices or 
 make atonement ? 
 
 The answer seems to be this: God accepts nothing 
 not sanctified or consecrated- to him. Hence, atone- 
 ment was required for the altar, etc., as also for 
 men. But none but priests, or those whom God 
 has sanctified, can sanctify or make atonement for 
 themselves or any thing else. Hence, the unsanc- 
 tified can no more make atonement for themselves 
 than they can change their own nature. This will 
 be subsequently noticed. 
 
 (2) Why can real atonement not be made for the 
 sinner by any divinely appointed human priests, as 
 Moses or Aaron ? Or, why could they not impart 
 their holiness to others, as God had imparted his to 
 them? 
 
 The answer obviously is, that God's holiness is 
 original ; theirs derived. Hence, they could impart 
 only ritual or ideal holiness not real could not 
 impart God's holiness, but only a symbol of that 
 holiness; hence, could make, not a real, but only a 
 ritual atonement for themselves or any thing else. 
 Hence, while they could make ritual atonement for
 
 1 82 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 the altar and holy place, arid for men; also turn 
 away God's auger, provoked by sius against the 
 theocracy; they could not make such atonement as 
 to render reconciliation and salvation from sin 
 against the divine law possible. 
 
 Hence, it is certainly true that no atonement, 
 made by Moses, or Aaron, or any other human 
 priest, ever saved a soul from the natural conse- 
 quences of sin, or rendered such salvation possible. 
 None but a priest, capable of making men partak- 
 ers of God's righteousness, is capable of doing this. 
 The God-Man alone is such a priest. 
 
 This distinction between the Aaronic and the 
 Messianic sacrifices and the atonements grounded 
 upon them ought to be specially noted and empha- 
 sized. 
 
 The Bible never confounds them but makes 
 1;hem as distinct as shadow and substance. These 
 tabernacle sacrifices and atonements were the di- 
 vinely appointed types of Messianic atonement. 
 
 The distinction between these atonements is 
 clearly drawn in Heb. ix. 13, 14: 
 
 "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the 
 ashes of a heifer, sprinkling them that have been 
 defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh; how 
 much more shall the blood of Christ, who through 
 the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish 
 unto God, [sanctify and] cleanse your conscience 
 from dead works unto God." 
 
 Here the precise difference between the Aaronic 
 sacrifices and atonements and the Messianic is clear- 
 ly specified. The former "sanctifies unto the
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 183 
 
 cleanness of the flesh " that is, ritual purification, 
 such as purification from defilement by contact with 
 a dead body. (Num. xix. n, 12.) The latter sanc- 
 tifies unto the purification of the ' ' conscience from 
 dead works to serve the living God." 
 
 If to cleanse the conscience is not to change 
 the moral state and fit the soul for the service of 
 God, then certainly there is no need for regenera- 
 tion, or moral purification at all; for what more can 
 God require of a soul than to have a conscience 
 purified from dead works, and be thus prepared for 
 the service of God. 
 
 Consistent substitutionists are required to identify 
 the effects of Aaronic and Messianic atonement, and 
 deny that either of them can do more than relieve 
 from the liability of punishment. 
 
 Dr. Hodge says (p. 509) : 
 
 " Heb. ix. 14 is especially important and decisive. 
 The apostle, in the context, contrasts the sacrifices 
 of the law with that of Christ. If the former, con- 
 sisting of the blood of irrational animals, nothing 
 but the principle of animal life could avail to effect 
 external or ceremonial purification, how much more* 
 shall the blood of Christ, who was possessed of an 
 eternal spirit or divine nature, and offered himself 
 without spot unto God, avail to the purification of 
 the conscience that is, effect the real expiation of 
 sin. The purification spoken of in both members 
 of this comparison is purification from guilt and 
 not spiritual renovation. The Old Testament sac- 
 rifices were expiatory and not reformatory, and so 
 with the sacrifice of Christ. The certain result and 
 ultimate design in both cases was reconciliation to 
 the favor and fellowship of God. ' '
 
 184 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 By reconciliation he means propitiation. I re- 
 gret to say, but fidelity requires me, that it would 
 be difficult to embody in so brief a space and in so 
 plausible a manner, more grievous error than is con- 
 tained in this quotation. 
 
 It will be sufficient here to indicate the errors, 
 without attempting a formal refutation. 
 
 1. We are here taught that to purify the con- 
 science is to expiate sin that is, to remove the 
 reatus poence, but not the reattis culpcs, as else- 
 where explained. 
 
 The plain Bible plan is to take away the liability 
 to punishment by purifying the conscience, or to 
 remove pain by curing the disease. 
 
 2. We are here taught that the blood of the sac- 
 rificial animal and the blood of Christ purify in ex- 
 actly the same sense that is, both take away the 
 punishment, but neither takes away criminality. 
 This is flatly contradicted by Heb. ix. 9; x. 2-4, 
 and many other texts. 
 
 3. We are here expressly taught that ' ' the Old 
 Testament sacrifices were expiatory " that is, took 
 away liability to punishment. But the Bible says, 
 "It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats 
 should take away sins ' ' in any sense. Levitical 
 sacrifices purified ritually and symbolically; but rit- 
 ual purification does not release either from crimi- 
 nality or punishment. If it did either, then every 
 Jewish worshiper and every baptized person is 
 saved. (See texts above and parallels.) 
 
 4. We are here taught that the sacrifice of Christ, 
 just like the Jewish sacrifices, was "expiatory,"
 
 NON- PENAL THEORY. 185 
 
 and not " reformatory " takes away the punish- 
 ment, but not the criminality of sin. But Heb. 
 ix. 14; x. 2, makes it cleanse the conscience or 
 moral states of men. 
 
 5. We are here taught that "the certain result 
 and ultimate design in both cases was reconcilia- 
 tion to the favor and fellowship of God." If this 
 is true, then the salvation of all Jewish worshipers 
 is assured, and also every man for whom Christ 
 died. 
 
 6. Dr. Hodge extols the sacrifice of Christ as in- 
 finitely superior to those offered by human priests. 
 But, according to his teaching, this superiority con- 
 sisted chiefly in the superiority of his person over 
 the sacrificial victims; for both had the same effica- 
 cy both were "expiatory" both rendered cer- 
 tain the reconciliation of those for whom they were 
 offered. 
 
 These are only a part of the errors comprised in 
 this quotation.
 
 i86 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 SECTION I. The conclusions reached. 
 
 In the preceding discussions the following vital 
 conclusions have been, I think, fairly proved in re- 
 gard to atonements: 
 
 1. Our sins against our fellow-men may be con- 
 fessed and pardoned upon repentance, which is 
 always implied in confession. Repentance is 
 simply a return to duty or obedience, or to that 
 peaceful state which our sin has destroyed. The 
 disharmony is removed by the removal of its cause. 
 
 In such cases the offender may be his own atoner, 
 or may have 'the friendly aid of a mediator. But 
 in no case is the pardon based on a punishment of 
 principal or substitute by the offended party. In 
 these reconciliations there is change of mental 
 states, but no radical change of the moral nature. 
 Hence, no supernatural power is required. 
 
 2. We have seen that while man may be his own 
 atoner in reference to his sins against his neighbor, 
 he can not atone for his sins against God. God is 
 by nature holy, but we are by nature unholy. 
 Hence, reconciliation requires not a mere change 
 of mental states, as distinct from the moral nature, 
 but a radical change of man's sinful nature. This 
 sinful or corrupt nature, man himself can not 
 change he was born with it; he can as easily
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 187 
 
 change the color of his eyes or his form or any 
 other native characteristic. He needs to be newly 
 created, regenerated, born again. God alone can 
 produce this change of his natal moral state. 
 
 Hence, he can not make atonement for himself, 
 or put himself into harmony with God and thereby 
 enjoy immunity from his sins. 
 
 3. We have also seen that none but men selected 
 by the Almighty himself for the priestly office, 
 could sanctify, or make holy, or offer sacrifices, or 
 make atonements for any body or any thing; also 
 that these priestly functions extended only to ritual- 
 istic and symbolical consecrations, sacrifices, etc. 
 
 In regard to these atonements, two important 
 facts were fully demonstrated: 
 
 First, they did not change the moral states or 
 moral nature of any thing. Inanimate things, 
 temple, altar, etc., had no moral nature to change, 
 no moral guilt to remove. Nor could they of 
 themselves, independent of Messianic atonement, 
 have any such effect upon priests or people. 
 
 These priestly functions expended their entire 
 force in the temple service, in ritual sacrifices, sanc- 
 tifications, and atonements, all of which were sym- 
 bolical of the great Messianic sacrifices, and of a 
 less gorgeous but more spiritual worship. 
 
 4. We have seen that God's priests were also per- 
 mitted, not commanded, to make atonement for spe- 
 cial sins, committed against the theocracy. Treason 
 is, generally punishable with temporal death. God 
 often so punished it. This punishment is generally 
 represented as the product of God's anger, wrath,
 
 i88 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 or indignation. Never as the vindication or satis- 
 faction of divine justice. 
 
 For this sin, Moses and Aaron and Phineas are 
 said in a few instances to have made atonements. 
 But these atonements, while real and adequate for 
 the ends intended, had no relation to sins against 
 the moral law, and from such sins they had no 
 power to save. 
 
 These atonements consisted exclusively in turn- 
 ing away God's anger that is, in making him mer- 
 ciful or propitious. 
 
 I suppose it would not have been unjust to de- 
 stroy the rebels, having a right to do what he wills 
 with his own. But it evidently was not unjust to 
 spare them. 
 
 (Parenthetically this suggests a question for sub- 
 stitutionists to solve. What will they do with jus- 
 tice in such cases ? Dr. Hodge sees the difficulty 
 and sets it aside by identifying justice and anger. 
 But this strategy involves the absurdity that God is 
 never just except when he is angry.) 
 
 When I say these atonements consisted in propi- 
 tiation, I mean not that God was well pleased with 
 the seditious people, but that he spared them for 
 the sake of his faithful and consecrated priests, who 
 thrust themselves between God's enkindled indig- 
 nation and the rebellious people, pleading for mer- 
 cy, not for themselves but for their kindred, and 
 proposing to perish with them if they must perish. 
 
 God, it seems, could not punish the rebels with- 
 out punishing his consecrated and loyal priests. 
 He must of necessity either punish his true and
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 189 
 
 faithful priests, for the sake of his enemies; or 
 spare his enemies for the sake of his friends. He 
 chose to spare the wicked for the sake of the true 
 and tne good. 
 
 According to penalists, God can not pardon the 
 wicked for the sake of the good, but can readily 
 punish the good for the sake of the wicked. 
 
 In civil jurisprudence it is deemed better to ex- 
 cuse the guilty than to punish the innocent. 
 Hence, the benefit of every doubt is given to the 
 accused. But in theological jurisprudence, it is 
 deemed more just to punish the innocent in the 
 place of the guilty, than not to punish at all. Jus- 
 tice clamors for its pound of flesh and must have it, 
 however much blood may be lost in getting it. ' 
 
 SECTION II. The facts reverse the penal theory. 
 
 i. The facts in regard to these atonements and all 
 others recorded in the Bible absolutely reverse the 
 penal theory of justice. Instead of proving that 
 what satisfies justice satisfies God, they show most 
 clearly that what satisfies God satisfies justice. 
 God is always just, always true to his purpose, 
 which is both benevolent and wise. He can never 
 be unjust, because his purposes can never be in 
 conflict. 
 
 But what becomes of the dictum, no pardon 
 without prior punishment, in view of these atone- 
 ments? The penalty threatened was instant tem- 
 poral death. Did a single man ever suffer this pen- 
 alty after atonement had been made ? Or, did any 
 one ever suffer substitutionally while making atone- 
 ment?
 
 190 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 No; these priests suffered not as criminals, nor as 
 legal substitutes of criminals, which no law, human 
 or divine, ever allowed. They suffered only on ac- 
 count of the calamities of those they loved as they 
 loved themselves. Theirs was the suffering of in- 
 tense agonizing love for the guilty; love turned to 
 deepest grief, sorrow well-nigh unto heart-breaking. 
 
 Think of Moses on the mount in a forty days' 
 fast, prostrate before God, confessing the sin of his 
 people, and pleading for them, saying: "O this 
 people have sinned a great sin. . . . Yet now, if 
 thou ivilt forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I 
 pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast ivritten. ' ' 
 
 Perhaps deeper agonizing love more thorough 
 self-denial for others' sake was never expressed in 
 more graphic form. 
 
 Not for the sake of what Moses did, but rather 
 for the sake of what he was, as manifested by this 
 prayer, God spared the people and honored Moses 
 as their atoner. What is true of this atonement is 
 true of all others made in the interest of sinful hu- 
 manity. They consist not in penalties, but in the 
 obedience of loyal loving hearts, expressed in con- 
 fession, intercession, etc. 
 
 If the atonement or propitiation made by Christ 
 is penal, then it is contradictory of all others men- 
 tioned in the Bible. 
 
 If these atonements made by Moses, Aaron, and 
 Phineas are moral in kind, and that of Christ is" 
 penal in kind, then we can not ascertain the mean- 
 ing of the Bible by comparing one part with an- 
 other, or spiritual things with spiritual things.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 191 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SECTION I. The penal and the non-penal theory 
 of Chris fs death contrasted. 
 
 Truth and error are generally more clearly ap- 
 prehended and discriminated when set in contrast 
 with each other. 
 
 That Christ did die as a sacrifice for our sins is 
 not in question. That he was made a curse for us, 
 that he bore our sins in his own body on the tree, 
 that he came to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
 himself, are facts not in dispute. 
 
 But the question is, In what sense was he made a 
 curse for us, or bear our sins, or put away sin ? 
 
 The penal theory asserts that Christ was made a 
 curse for us in the sense in which the murderer is 
 accursed, when he dies on the scaffold; that he was 
 a penal sacrifice; that he put away sin by suffering 
 its penalty. 
 
 The non-penal theory denies and affirms radically 
 different views. The fundamental points of differ- 
 ence may be tims summarized: 
 
 i. The penal theory asserts that Christ's death 
 was a penal sacrifice made primarily to satisfy 
 justice, as the most central attribute of God, "to 
 satisfy which is to satisfy God himself." 
 
 The non-penal theory denies and alleges that this 
 sacrifice was primarily purely moral in character,
 
 192 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 and satisfies justice, because it serves God's purposes 
 in meeting the exigencies of man's moral and re- 
 ligious condition. 
 
 2. The penal teaches as its ground principle that 
 all pardon is the result of punishment; that there is 
 absolutely no pardon without prior punishment as 
 its ground and reason. 
 
 The non-penal protests, and alleges that sins par- 
 doned are not punished, and sins punished are not 
 pardoned; that pardon is exemption from punish- 
 ment on conditions satisfactory to the pardoning 
 power. 
 
 3. The penal teaches that Christ's death propi- 
 tiates only because it was a punishment for the sins 
 of mankind. 
 
 The non-penal denies that there is any propitia- 
 tion in penal suffering, and affirms that Christ has 
 become through his death and resurrection the pro- 
 pitiation for the sins of the world. 
 
 4. The penal teaches in its only self-consistent 
 form that Christ obeyed the divine law in man's 
 stead, and thus satisfied justice in man's behalf, and 
 that God, as an act of justice, regenerates and saves 
 men. 
 
 The non-penal protests, and affirms that it is im- 
 possible for one person to obey the moral law or 
 to love God in the room of another* and to suffer 
 its penalty (which is the consequence of not loving 
 him), in the place of another; that Christ obeyed 
 the divine law in his own place; that his personal 
 righteousness or obedience is imparted to believers, 
 in the act of believing, as was Adam's vitiated nat-
 
 NOX-PEXAL THEORY. 193 
 
 ure and consequent condemnation imparted to us by 
 heredity. 
 
 5. The penal teaches that to suffer the penalty of 
 the law is to obey the law, and to satisfy justice; 
 that Christ thus substitutionally obeyed the law, 
 and thus procured the pardon and salvation of all 
 for whom he died. 
 
 The non-penal objects, and affirms that to suffer 
 the penalty of the law is not to obey the law, or 
 that to love God is obedience, but that to suffer the 
 consequences of not loving is in no sense obedience; 
 that there 1 is no obedience in penalty, the terms 
 being mutually exclusive one of the other; or, if 
 there is true obedience in penalty, then Satan and 
 his hosts are as truly obeying the divine law as are 
 the saints in heaven. We might as well say that a 
 murderer hanging by the nack is obeying the law. 
 The law requires him to be a peaceable citizen, but 
 the hanging man, instead of obeying the law, is 
 suffering the consequence of not obeying it. Mer- 
 itorious penal obedience is purely a double absurd- 
 ity, for penalty is neither obedience, nor is it mer- 
 itorious. Or, if it is, then of necessity gehenna is 
 full both of merit and obedience. 
 
 6. The penal theory, in the hands of most of its 
 advocates, teaches that Christ substitutionally 
 obeyed the law, both actively and passively act- 
 ively in keeping its precepts and passively in en- 
 during its penalty; and that this active and passive 
 obedience constitutes the atonement. 
 
 The non-penal objects, and affirms that a passive 
 obedience is a contradiction in the adjective equiv- 
 '3
 
 194 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 alent to a passive activity; it also affirms that 
 Christ's ante-crucifixion life was only such as per- 
 sonal obligations required it to be, and constituted 
 no part of the obedience by which he became ' ' the 
 Lord our righteousness. ' ' Hence, in the Scriptures 
 he is never represented as saving us by his ante-cru- 
 cifixion life, but only by his suffering, by his blood, 
 his cross, his post-resurrection life. 
 
 Romans v. 18, teaches not that it was through 
 many, but ' ' through one act of righteousness the 
 free gift came unto all men to justification of 
 life." 
 
 The penal theory, when even thus imperfectly 
 contrasted with the non-penal, seems to be impossi- 
 ble and utterly incapable of a rational defense. It 
 has the support neither of reason nor revelation. 
 
 SECTION II. The obedience of Christ in what 
 sense he obeyed the law. 
 
 Christ was born of a woman, born under the 
 law to redeem them that were under the law. The 
 law under which he was born is the great moral 
 law, which is conservative of the harmony and 
 happiness of the moral world. ' ' Thou shalt love 
 the Lord thy God with all thy heart, . . . and thy 
 neighbor as thyself" (Deut. vi. 5; x. 12; Matt. xxii. 
 37-39). The object of his incarnation was to re- 
 deem (save) them that were under the same law, not 
 by destroying the law, but by fulfilling or obeying 
 the law (Matt. v. 17). This he did to the last jot 
 and tittle. He obeyed it unto death and in his 
 death. 
 
 Paul says (Phil. ii. 8) Christ " being found in
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 195 
 
 fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 
 
 This teaches that Christ's death was an act of 
 obedience to the law the "one act of righteous- 
 ness (by which) the free gift came upon all men ' ' 
 (Rom. v. 18), or the one act of obedience by which 
 he becomes the Redeemer of them that are under 
 the law, not by fulfilling the law in their stead, but 
 by making those that trust in him partakers of his 
 own personal obedience, or righteousness. 
 
 This text asserting Christ's obedience unto death 
 is relied upon as authority^ for the doctrine of a 
 passive, in contradistinction to an active, obedience, 
 and also for the doctrine that his death was a penal 
 sacrifice. 
 
 This, I am quite sure, is a misconception, both 
 of the nature and design of that death, and leads 
 by necessary consequence to false views as to- the 
 precise process by which men are redeemed, or 
 saved. As we have seen, it saves men by a penal 
 obedience, or righteousness. 
 
 A different interpretation is therefore required, 
 and the following readily suggests itself as a better 
 one. As before said, a passive obedience is a con- 
 tradiction in terms; so is voluntary penalty an ab- 
 surdity ; for voluntariness and penalty are mutually 
 exclusive. If you pay a fine imposed as punish- 
 ment upon a friend for crime, you are not his sub- 
 stitute. Your payment of the debt is not a penalty, 
 but a benefaction to a friend. Penalty and benefac- 
 tion differ as widely as the poles. 
 
 Christ' s death was voluntary obedience ; therefore,
 
 196 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 neither passive nor penal. This fact is plainly 
 asserted by Christ himself. He says, "I come to 
 do thy* will, O God." Again: 
 
 "Therefore doth my Father love me because I 
 lay down my life for the sheep that I might take it 
 again. No man taketh it from me; I lay it down 
 of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I 
 have power to take it up again " (John x. 17, 18). 
 
 Certainly no act of his ministry was more purely 
 voluntary than was his death, which was in the 
 strictest sense an act of obedience not passive, but 
 active and consequently meritorious, or righteous 
 righteous only because it was active. How a 
 passive act, if such an act was possible, could be an 
 act of righteousness, is inconceivable. Just as well 
 predicate righteousness of the movements of the 
 wind or the waves. 
 
 SECTION III. In what sense was Chris? s death 
 an act of obedience or righteousness f I answer, It 
 was preceptive obedience the $oing purposely, 
 and even joyfully (Heb. xii. 2), just what the law 
 required him to do. The law requires obedience 
 exactly according to ability, or love with all the 
 heart, etc. 
 
 Christ being sinless by nature, was, of course, 
 capable of a deeper and purer love for God on one 
 hand, and for humanity on the other, than even 
 Moses displayed, when on the Mount he prayed 
 in soul-rending agony, ' ' If thou wilt forgive their 
 sin; if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book." 
 If Moses, under a higher degree of mental agony,
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 197 
 
 had died on this occasion, he would have died of 
 love, or obedience; from loving God and his neigh- 
 bor as himself not in their stead, but on their ac- 
 count. 
 
 We know that the human organism is capable of 
 only a limited amount of mental disturbance. Ex- 
 cessive joy and excessive grief often induce death. 
 Christ's sinlessness probably rendered him pre-emi- 
 nently capable of love or obedience unto death 
 from mental suffering. This fact seems evident 
 from his agony in the garden, where his sweating 
 great drops of blood denotes the inception of death. 
 This liability to death, he, of course, had power to 
 overcome. But this was not his purpose. He came 
 to lay down his life for men to give it for men. 
 This life was all he had to give, all he could give. 
 This obedience unto death was just what the law 
 required not a jot more nor less. 
 
 But did the law actually require all this of him ? 
 Could it be satisfied with nothing less ? I answer, 
 the terms of the law required him to love God with 
 all the heart, etc., and his neighbor as himself. 
 His life was the exact measure of ability. You 
 could give your life for his cause, or any other, if 
 necessary, but you can give no more than this. 
 Ability is the exact measure of the obedience re- 
 quired. 
 
 But does the law require such obedience of all its 
 subjects? I answer, the law requires us to love 
 God with all our powers, and our neighbor as our- 
 selves, but it does not require useless sacrifices. 
 The most acceptable sacrifice possible to you or to
 
 198 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 me is to present ourselves, soul and body, ' ' a living 
 sacrifice to God, holy and acceptable, which is our 
 reasonable service." 
 
 Christ teaches (Matt, xviii. 9) when a sacrifice is 
 necessary, the less should be sacrificed for the sake 
 of the greater. Hence, if my soul could be saved 
 only by the sacrifice of my animal life, fidelity to 
 God, and to myself as well, would require the sacri- 
 fice. 
 
 But equal love to my neighbor, would, under the 
 same circumstances, require me to make the same 
 sacrifice for him as for myself. But mere human 
 sacrifices can not sanctify, nor save sinners. Hence, 
 mere men are not required to offer themselves in 
 sacrifice in such a manner and for such a purpose. 
 
 But Christ was not a mere man, but the God- 
 Man. This union of the human with the divine 
 rendered him capable of redeeming humanity by 
 the- sacrifice of himself. This the law required 
 him to do, just as it would require me to sacrifice my 
 body for the sake of my soul, if it could be saved 
 in no other way. 
 
 He, by virtue of the union of the human with 
 the divine, was capable of making such a sacrifice 
 for men as .would sanctify them and render accept- 
 able to God those united to him by faith. This 
 sacrifice of himself the law required him to make. 
 His doing this was his obedience unto death. 
 
 [Obedience to human law is sometimes regarded 
 as a low and menial service a degradation rather 
 than an honor. But obedience to divine law the 
 great law of universal love is the highest merit
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 199 
 
 and honor possible to the subjects of law in heaven 
 and earth. Christ was not dishonored by thus 
 obeying the law even unto the death of the cross, 
 nor did he so deem; but " for the joy that was set 
 before him" he endured the cross, despising the 
 shame. ] 
 
 Paul asserts this obligation of Christ to humanity 
 when he says (Gal. iv. 4): "God sent forth his Son, 
 born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem 
 them who were under the law." 
 
 Christ himself affirms it when he says, after his 
 resurrection (L/uke xxiv. 26):, 
 
 ' ' Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, 
 and to enter into his glory, ' ' and (verse 46) ' ' Thus 
 it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer 
 and to rise from the dead the third day, that repent- 
 ance and remission of sins should be preached in 
 his name among all nations. ' ' 
 
 Heb. ii. 10, teaches the same truth. "For it be- 
 came him for whom are all things, and by whom 
 are all things, in bringing many souls unto glory, 
 to make the captain (author) of their salvation 
 perfect through sufferings." 'The doctrine here 
 plainly taught is not that Christ's sufferings in any 
 sense save men, but by his sufferings he became 
 what he is, namely, the author of salvation. His 
 death (verse 14) did not destroy sin, or the devil, 
 but through his death he became the antidote, the 
 destroyer of sin, as was the brazen serpent the rem- 
 edy, the destroyer of the works of the fiery serpents 
 of the wilderness. 
 
 It is simply impossible to harmonize this text and
 
 2oo NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 its connections with the penal theory without do- 
 ing unpardonable violence to its terms. 
 
 We thus see in what sense Christ was obedient 
 unto death. Certainly it was by keeping the law, 
 meeting the requirements of the law, in loving his 
 neighbor as himself, and not in suffering the penal- 
 ties of a violated law. Obedience implies a law 
 whose precepts are kept in their integrity, and not 
 a law whose penalties are endured. 
 
 If you tell me that your child is loving and obe- 
 dient, and I understand you to mean that your child 
 is actually suffering punishment for disobedience, I 
 certainly put upon your words an unauthorized 
 meaning, and do both you and your child injustice; 
 but a greater injustice is done when Christ's obe- 
 dience unto death is understood and asserted to 
 mean penal suffering. 
 
 SECTION IV. How is Christ" 1 s obedience made 
 available for others ? 
 
 i. But you ask, how comes this loving obedience 
 unto death to be an all-sufficient sacrifice for the 
 sins of the whole brotherhood of humanity? 
 
 I answer, not because it was the act of a 
 mere man, offering his blood or life in behalf of 
 others; nor because it was the act of a divinely ap- 
 pointed priest, commissioned by God as was Aaron, 
 but because it was the act of the God-Man, or God 
 in man, and the grand High-Priest a priest conse- 
 crated forever because a priest in his own right, of- 
 fering his own blood or human life as a sacrifice for 
 the sins of the world, that is to say, the divine in
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 201 
 
 Christ offering the human, or human life in Christ 
 as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity. As God or 
 divine he was holy, and the union or contact of the 
 human with the divine sanctified, made holy the 
 human, and rendered it acceptable to the divine, 
 just as the sanctified altar, which sanctifies every 
 thing that touches it, renders acceptable the sacri- 
 fices placed upon it (i Cor. vii. 14). 
 
 2. Now, this sanctified human nature is offered 
 as a sacrifice for all unsanctified humanity, and be- 
 cause an accepted sacrifice sanctifies that for which 
 it is offered (Heb. ix. 13; Rom. xii. i); all humanity 
 is sanctified, or consecrated 'to God, in such a sense 
 as to render their approach to God possible. 
 
 This is the new and living way which Christ has 
 consecrated for us through his flesh (Heb. x. 19, 
 20). This opening up of the new and living way 
 of access to God is the propitiatory work of Christ, 
 or rather the means by which Christ becomes the 
 propitiation for the sins of the world. 
 
 For the sake of greater distinctness, I recapitulate 
 as follows: 
 
 1. Christ as divine is truly holy, not by divine 
 appointment, as was Moses, nor by formal consecra- 
 tion, as was Aaron, the altar, etc., but because he 
 is God, who is holy of himself. 
 
 2. Christ is as truly human as he is divine, and 
 his humanity is sanctified by its contact or union 
 with the divine; and precisely in this way we have 
 the divine holiness transmitted from God to Christ's 
 human nature, and, hence, into the sphere of hu- 
 manity.
 
 202 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 3. As a priest in his own right, he is adequate to 
 consecrate by sacrificial offerings in a higher sense 
 than Aaron or any other mere human priest. 
 Aaron, by sacrifice, could impart to altars, men, 
 etc., only a ritual and symbolical holiness or sancti- 
 fication. But Christ, because he was a priest in 
 his own right, could, by sacrifice of his humanity, 
 impart a real holiness and his own spiritual life to 
 those whom he sanctifies. (Heb. xii. 10 ; 2 Peter 
 
 i. 40 
 
 4. Whatever is offered in sacrifice by priestly au- 
 thority sanctifies that for which it is offered, so as 
 to render it acceptable to God in either a ritual 
 or real sense. (Hebrews ix. 13; xiii. 12; John 
 xvii. 19.) 
 
 5. Therefore, when the great High-Priest made 
 his soul a sacrifice for sin, he sanctified all humanity 
 in such a sense that God can be just in justifying 
 them that believe in Jesus. God is just in justify- 
 ing such, simply because they by faith are made 
 partakers of Christ's holiness, or nature, or spiritual 
 life, just as the ingrafted scion partakes of the life 
 of the stock into which it is inserted. Because of 
 this ethical and spiritual union with Jhim, he is the 
 Lord, their righteousness. This is salvation by 
 grace, and not by deeds of the law. 
 
 6. But you wish to know the authority for the 
 assertion that Christ by his sacrificial death did 
 sanctify, set apart, or appropriate, humanity to God 
 in such a sense that each individual can come to 
 God by faith in Christ and be accepted and saved 
 through him. This authority is clear and explicit.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 203 
 
 "Wherefore Jesus, that he might sanctify the peo- 
 ple with his own blood, suffered without the gate." 
 (Heb. xiii. 12.) (The expression, "own blood" is 
 here used antithetically to the blood of sacrificial 
 victims used in the Aaronic atonements.) 
 
 7. That this sanctification is not the personal, 
 saving sanctification of believers is proven by the 
 facts that it was accomplished at the time of his 
 death, that it was irrespective of faith, and that the 
 people all nations indiscriminately are the ob- 
 jects of it. 
 
 It was the grand antitype of the atonement made 
 on the great day of the atonement, when the high- 
 priest went into the holy of holies and sprinkled 
 the blood of sacrifice upon the altar and mercy-seat 
 to make atonement for all the people; by virtue of 
 which, and only by which, the individual could 
 daily, or as often as he pleased, during the succeed- 
 ing year, bring his individual sacrifice before the 
 altar for himself and his family as he might desire. 
 Be it remembered that the priest could offer sacri- 
 fices for the individual only through this general 
 atonement made in the interest of all alike, or for 
 one person no more than another. 
 
 In like manner, as this sacrifice made on the 
 great day of atonement sanctified all the Jewish 
 nation, and secured to them the privilege of bring- 
 ing their individual sacrifices before the altar, so 
 this sacrifice made by Christ without the gate sanc- 
 tifies all humanity, or makes propitiation for them 
 so that every man may offer himself and his gifts to 
 God in his own person through Christ. This, I re-
 
 204 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 peat, is the new and living way of access to God, 
 consecrated for sinful humanity. 
 
 SECTION V. But this new and living way, what 
 is it ? It is not an entity or a power of itself. It 
 has no existence apart from the living Christ him- 
 self, for he himself is the propitiation, and the way, 
 the truth, and the life, the resurrection and the life. 
 We do not come to God through atonement or any 
 thing else apart from Christ, but we come to God 
 through Christ He himself is the true and living 
 way. 
 
 Two facts may be here noted in relation to these 
 atonements. 
 
 First, the Aaronic sacrifices sanctified and atoned 
 only in a ritualistic and typical sense; but the Messi- 
 anic sacrifice sanctified really it was the realization 
 of the ideal. 
 
 Secondly, the Jew could offer his individual sac- 
 rifices only by virtue of the great atonement, as no- 
 ticed above. 
 
 But the fact that this great atonement was made 
 for the entire nation, did not compel any Jew to 
 bring his individual offering before the altar. The 
 great sacrificial offering was provided .for him, 
 whether he willed or not. But his individual offer- 
 ing was a matter of his own option. It was a 
 duty which he could refuse a privilege which he 
 could decline. 
 
 So exactly is it of individuals in reference to the 
 sacrifice made by Christ for humanity. Salvation 
 is provided for us independently of our wishes, but 
 whether we avail ourselves of it is not without re-
 
 NON-PENAL, THEORY. 205 
 
 sponsibility to ourselves. It was the complaint of 
 Christ himself to the prejudiced Jew, ' ' Ye will not 
 come unto me that ye might have life." 
 
 For further support of the foregoing view, of the 
 sacrifice and obedience of Christ unto death, and 
 objects of that death, see Heb. ix. 19-26; Ex. xxiv. 
 5-8; xix. 14.
 
 2o6 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SECTION I. No penalty found in atonement, hu- 
 man or divine. 
 
 1. As has been abundantly shown, there is no 
 penalty in atonements among men. Our sins 
 against each other are never atoned for by penalty; 
 atonement and penalty seem quite exclusive one of 
 the other. Penalty aggravates breaches, instead of 
 healing them ; makes men greater enemies, instead 
 of reconciling them. Even where crimes are pun- 
 ished by law, the punishment reconciles nobody, 
 changes no moral relations, repairs no damages, 
 conciliates no bitter feeling. 
 
 2. The atonements made for the holy place, for 
 the altar, etc. , as we know, required no penal suffer- 
 ing on the part of the priests who made them or 
 any one else. These atonements show beyond the 
 possibility of doubt that penalty is not an essential 
 factor in atonement, much less can it be the sum of 
 an atonement as is assumed. 
 
 3. The poll-tax atonement, or the atonement 
 made by the payment of a half shekel into the 
 Lord's treasury, involved no penalty, because obe- 
 dience to the law excludes all penalty. Atonement 
 in this case protects from evil, instead of delivering 
 from evil, just as obedience always excludes the 
 penalties of disobedience.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 207 
 
 4. The irregular atonements made by Moses, 
 Aaron, and Phineas all God's priests all utterly 
 exclude the idea of penalty. As far as I know, no 
 penalist has ever attempted to prove penalty in 
 these cases. Yet it is common to assert that pun- 
 ishment is the indispensable basis of atonement no 
 punishment no pardon is the fundamental dictum 
 of substitutionists. 
 
 5. The Messianic atonement, it is maintained, 
 consists partly of Christ's active, and partly of his 
 passive obedience. But we are not informed as to 
 what per cent, his active and passive obedience re- 
 spectively contributed to it; ^nor why, if his active 
 obedience contributed any part, it could not contrib- 
 ute all that was required. 
 
 Nor have the advocates of the theory ever thought 
 it proper to explain how, if Christ older than Ad- 
 am has obeyed the law preceptively for men, there 
 could possibly be any penalty to endure. Obedi- 
 ence excludes penalty as inevitably as light ex- 
 cludes darkness. To say that a man can keep a 
 law, and yet suffer the penalty of the law he keeps, 
 is to confound obedience and penalty, than which 
 no conceivable things are more different. This pal- 
 pable absurdity of the theory I have seen no attempt 
 to explain. 
 
 It seems too plain to require to be said, that if 
 Christ as a substitute for men actively obeyed the 
 law, then from sheer necessity there could be no 
 penalty for him, or any one else, to endure. Hence, 
 if Christ obeyed the law preceptively, there is no 
 possibility of his obeying it passively or penally,
 
 2o8 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 and, consequently, the atonement is in no sense 
 penal. 
 
 This glaring absurdity, inherent in the theory 
 itself, penalists can not avoid, except by denying 
 either the active or passive obedience, so called. 
 
 But if they deny active obedience, then they do 
 no more than get sinners out of gehenna; they can 
 never get them into heaven a quasi limbo is the 
 best they can do. But if they deny passive obe- 
 dience, or the endurance of penalty, they surrender 
 the theory itself, and there is an end of the conten- 
 tion. 
 
 We have shown at sufficient length that a passive 
 obedience is a contradiction an impossible conceit, 
 a pure scholastic fiction. 
 
 We have also seen that Christ's obedience unto 
 death was in the highest sense active, or voluntary, 
 and for this very reason not penal ; for no voluntary 
 act is penal, and to confound voluntariness and 
 penalty is in this case literally to confound obedi- 
 ence with the consequences of disobedience. 
 
 Christ's death, it has been shown, was in the 
 purest and in the highest sense an act of obedience 
 to the divine law, supreme love to God, and love to 
 humanity as to himself, and ' ' love is the fulfilling 
 of the law." 
 
 Thus far we have been able to find no penalty of 
 any sort in any atonement relating to heaven or 
 earth, to God or to man. 
 
 SECTION II. A few texts that disprove the 
 penal theory briefly considered, 
 
 i. If Christ's sufferings were penal a real pun-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 209 
 
 ishment for sin then we .are required to believe 
 that God, who is love, delights in, takes pleasure 
 in, inflicting penal woe upon the innocent and the 
 good. For we are told (Eph. v. 2) that "Christ 
 hath loved us and hath given himself for us, an 
 offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling 
 savor. ' ' 
 
 How is this? If Christ suffered the pangs of 
 penal woe, if God poured his wrath upon him, and 
 took pleasure in these sufferings, how can he be re- 
 garded as either just or benevolent? How can 
 penal suffering be as a sweet-smelling odor to any 
 being, less than satanic? Yet Christ's sacrifice to 
 God for us was such. The sweet-smelling savor is 
 a form of expression, manifestly suggested by the 
 odor of burning incense. It was by the burning 
 of incense that atonement was made at Baal-Peor 
 which turned away God's anger. This incense was 
 prepared according to a divine recipe, was most 
 holy, was sacred to priestly functions, and the pun- 
 ishment for using it otherwise was death (Ex. xxx. 
 22-38; xxxvii. 29). 
 
 The high-priest dare not, at the peril of his life, 
 approach the mercy-seat, unless it was enveloped 
 in a cloud of burning incense. Nothing in all the 
 tabernacle service was deemed more sacred, and 
 nothing so acceptable to God (Lev. xvi. 12). It 
 was the divinely-appointed symbol of prayer, inter" 
 cession, and praise, and seems to be associated 
 with the prayers of the saints in heaven (Rev. viii. 
 
 3> 4)- 
 
 As was the odor of the holy incense to God in 
 H
 
 2io NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 turning away his anger, so was the sacrifice of 
 Christ a sweet-smelling savor unto God was 
 pleasing to God. 
 
 But Christ's sacrifice for us, we are told, was a 
 penal sacrifice i Therefore, his penal sufferings 
 were as the smell of holy incense well pleasing to 
 God. If penal agonies in the substitute are well 
 pleasing to God, are they not equally so in the 
 principal ? 
 
 God himself protests against this pious blas- 
 phemy. 
 
 "As I live, saiththe Lord God, I have no pleasure 
 in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked 
 turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel xviii. 23; 
 xxxiii. u). 
 
 If God protests with an oath against having 
 pleasure in the death of the wicked, what right 
 have we to say that a penal sacrifice, so called, was 
 to God a sweet-smelling savor ? 
 
 God has no pleasure in the sufferings, even of the 
 wicked. But Christ's sufferings were to him a 
 sweet-smelling savor. Therefore, Christ's suffer- 
 ings were not a substitute for those of the wicked. 
 
 The conception that God, whose nature is love, 
 takes pleasure in the sufferings even of incorrigible 
 sinners is repugnant to the instincts with which 
 God has endowed us. But how much more abhor- 
 rent to our nature is the conception that God should 
 take pleasure in pouring the wrath due to incor- 
 rigible sinners upon his obedient and sinless Son ? 
 
 If, on the contrary, the sufferings of Christ were 
 such, and only such, as come from love and fidelity
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 211 
 
 to God and to men such as the good may experi- 
 ence for the unfortunate and the bad 'then we can 
 see some rational ground for the assertion that 
 Christ's sufferings for humanity were to God as a 
 sweet-smelling savor. This view of his sufferings 
 does not shock nature, nor insult justice, nor con- 
 tradict the facts of the Bible. 
 
 We know that the good often suffer in various 
 ways on account of the unfortunate and the bad. 
 Nor is it unreasonable that these sufferings should, 
 under given conditions, be agreeable or well pleas- 
 ing to the friends of those for whom they are en- 
 dured. , 
 
 Fathers and mothers often rejoice in the self-de- 
 nying and heroic exertions (involving great suffer- 
 ing) of a son. or daughter in the interests of the 
 helpless, and even the undeserving, members of the 
 family. It was very natural that Mordecai should 
 rejoice on account of the self-denial and heroic con- 
 duct of Queen Esther, when she, at the peril of 
 life, approached the Persian monarch in the interest 
 of her people. 
 
 Such heroic suffering commends itself to all that 
 is godlike in humanity is well pleasing to all men 
 who have the common instincts of humanity. 
 
 Knowing that such suffering does commend it- 
 self to all that is divine in men that it is pleasing 
 to men we may very well believe it to be as a 
 sweet-smelling savor to God. That it is so is 
 demonstrated beyond all question by numerous 
 Bible facts. 
 
 Moses' self-sacrificing spirit expressed in his brief,
 
 212 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 pathetic prayer, "If thou wilt forgive; if not, blot 
 me, I pray tkee, out of thy book," commends it- 
 self to men as well as to God. That it was well- 
 pleasing to God to him as a sweet-smelling savor 
 is proved by the fact that God for his sake spared 
 the rebellious people. Moses made atonement by 
 his fidelity to God and his people not by enduring 
 the penalty of the law, but by obeying the law, 
 or because this obedience was well-pleasing to God. 
 
 All the atonements named in the Bible were 
 made by obeying law not by bearing its penalties. 
 Obedience alone is pleasing to God, and it alone 
 atones. Christ's self-sacrificing obedience to the 
 law was acceptable to God was pleasing to God. 
 If punishment is pleasing to God is a sweet-smell- 
 ing savor to him then we must believe that he is 
 equally well pleased with the state of affairs in pan- 
 demonium and in paradise. From this conclusion, 
 there is absolutely no escape, if the fundamental 
 principles of the substitutionary scheme of atone- 
 ment are true. 
 
 2. Every text in the Bible that represents Christ 
 as a voluntary agent, acting in the interest of hu- 
 manity, is a protest against this passive and penal 
 obedience theory, for the sufficient reason that what 
 is voluntary can not be either passive or penal. 
 This has been previously seen and need be here 
 only mentioned; for example: " L,o, I come to do 
 thy will, O God." Christ is here represented as 
 coming with the purpose to do God's will, not to 
 suffer the penalty or consequences of not doing it. 
 It is simply an unpardonable perversion of these
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 213 
 
 plain impressive words to make them mean that 
 Christ did the will of God by dying as a penal sub- 
 stitute for mankind. But the penal .theory requires 
 us to force these words into harmony with this idea. 
 The same absurdity is required in the explanation 
 of all similar texts. 
 
 3. Every text in the Bible that specifies the ob- 
 ject of Christ's mission is a protest against the 
 penal scheme. 
 
 For example. "Jesus came into the world to save 
 sinners." How save them? The penal theory an- 
 swers, By bearing the punishment of their sins in 
 their stead. The answer is unnatural, not to say 
 impossible. 
 
 Christ ' ' appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice 
 of himself." Substitution requires this to mean 
 that Christ came to suffer the punishment of sin as 
 a penal sacrifice. 
 
 ' ' For this purpose the Son of God was manifested 
 that he might destroy the works of the devil. ' ' 
 
 Substitution requires us to say that Christ de- 
 stroys the works of the devil by enduring the pun- 
 ishment of all the sins Satan is able to instigate. 
 This is like saying that physicians destroy disease 
 by suffering the pains that it produces in their pa- 
 tients. 
 
 4. Every text that gives any insight into the char- 
 acter of Christ's feelings or sufferings is a protest 
 against penality. 
 
 We know, if we know any thing of the laws of 
 mind, that obedience and disobedience to law are 
 productive of radically distinct states of feeling.
 
 214 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 The obedient cau not by possibility experience the 
 feeling which is the necessary consequence of dis- 
 obedience; nor can the disobedient experience the 
 feeling which naturally comes from obedience. 
 
 We also know with equal certainty that the feel- 
 ing which comes naturally from obedience is of the 
 nature of reward, and that which comes from dis- 
 obedience is of the nature of punishment. 
 
 The Bible, reason, and universal experience, all 
 concurrently teach these facts, ' ' Whatsoever a man 
 soweth, that shall he also reap. ' ' 
 
 Now, Judas and Christ both died of mental dis- 
 turbance. Judas confessedly died of conscious 
 guilt. " I have sinned in that I have betrayed the 
 innocent blood" (Matt, xxvii. 4). Remorse is the 
 swift avenger of his treachery. Now, was it possi- 
 ble for any innocent man to take Judas' place, and 
 take either his criminality or his punishment? 
 Was it possible for the sinless Christ, whom he had 
 betrayed, to do this? If Christ's sufferings were 
 penal, then they were identical in kind with those 
 of the remorse-devoured Judas; for if they were 
 not the same in kind, then they could not be those 
 of a substitute, for every crime is necessarily de- 
 terminative, both of the kind and degree of pun- 
 ishment consequent upon it. 
 
 To talk of the substitution of one kind of pun- 
 ishment for another in the sphere of divine law is 
 simply to prate nonsense. Just as well sow barley 
 and expect to reap wheat, or to talk of gathering 
 figs of thistles. If Christ died as a substitute for 
 sinners at all, he, of necessity, endured the same
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 215 
 
 punishment in kind with those of Judas, and mill- 
 ions times greater in degree. 
 
 Another ugly feature in the case is this: Christ 
 either died for Judas in the same sense in which he 
 died for other men, or did not so die. To say that 
 he did not would be to make him an actual trans- 
 gressor himself in not loving his neighbor as he 
 loved himself and others, his mission being to re- 
 deem all under the law. This hypothesis makes 
 the sinless Christ not sinless, and must, therefore, 
 be discarded. Hence, it follows that he died for 
 Judas in the same sense in which he died for others. 
 But if he as a substitute suffered the punishment 
 due to those for whom he died, then he and Judas 
 both suffered the same penalty; the penalty was 
 twice inflicted once upon Christ and once upon 
 Judas. 
 
 Now, I feel quite authorized to say that there is 
 not a text in the Bible that identifies Christ's feel- 
 ings as to kind with those of Judas, or any other 
 criminal. Yet, if he was a substitute for men, 
 and every sin determines its own kind and degree 
 of punishment, then he, of course, endured all the 
 different kinds of punishment possible to men, and 
 also an amount equal to all that would be possible 
 to men. But the Bible authorizes no such impos- 
 sible conceits, in regard to the nature or degree of 
 Christ's sufferings. 
 
 On the contrary, it authorizes us to say that 
 Christ's sufferings were radically different from 
 those of the criminal in every sense; as different in 
 kind as those of Judas and the first martyr, the
 
 216 NATURE c:? ATONEMENT. 
 
 heroic Stephen. "I have betrayed tJie innocent 
 blood," is the bitter self-reproach of one. "Lord, 
 lay not this sin (murder) to their charge," ex- 
 presses the forgiving and self-complacent feelings 
 of the other. Note a few texts in point: 
 
 Heb. v. 7-10: "Who in the days of his flesh, 
 having offered up 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 obedi- 
 ence by the things which he suffered; and having 
 been made perfect, He became unto all them that 
 obey him the author of eternal salvation; named of 
 God a high-priest, after the order of Melchizedek. " 
 
 (1) The time here referred to when prayers, etc., 
 were offered up was doubtless the agony and prayer 
 in the garden. 
 
 (2) The prayer was by the humanity to God. 
 
 (3) The object for which the humanity prayed 
 was not the prevention of natural death, but deliv- 
 erance from the dominion of death, or for the res- 
 urrection of the body. (This is not in conflict with 
 Matt. xxvi. 39, the prayer there referring to the 
 sufferings adventitiously imposed upon him by hu- 
 
 man hands. ) 
 
 (4) This prayer was answered for his godly fear 
 or loyalty to God and fidelity to duty. 
 
 (5) Though he was a son, yet this fact did not 
 supersede the necessity of his learning obedience or 
 submission by actual experience in a conflict with 
 sin. 
 
 (6) By this obedience, or conflict with sin, and
 
 NON- PENAL THEORY. 217 
 
 his triumph over it, he was perfected or completed 
 as the author of salvation to them that trust in 
 him. 
 
 (7) Because of this fitness to be the author of sal- 
 vation acquired by the obedience which he learned 
 by the things which he suffered, he is named of 
 God a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek. 
 
 The whole passage teaches that Christ, by the 
 obedience which he learned through what he suf- 
 fered, became our great high -priest, and conse- 
 quent!}' the author of eternal salvation to them 
 that obey him. But it is pertinent to inquire, is 
 penal suffering penal fire ra prerequisite to the 
 priesthood? If it w, then, of course, Christ suf- 
 fered it. If it is not, then Christ did not suffer it. 
 The bare conception that Christ was named of God 
 a priest after the order of Melchizedek, because he 
 endured penal wrath, shocks all reason. Why 
 might not devils become priests according to this 
 theology. 
 
 (8) If the penalist should attempt escape from 
 this monstrous consequence of his doctrine by say- 
 ing that Christ both obeyed the law preceptively 
 and at the same time bore its penalty; and that he 
 by his preceptive obedience becomes our great high- 
 priest, it is a sufficient reply to say that this is im- 
 possible; for it is simply a contradiction to say that 
 any personality can by the same act both obey the 
 law preceptively, and suffer the consequences of 
 not obeying it, or endure its penalty. 
 
 Besides, this method of escape assumes that the 
 sufferings of Christ were duplex in kind first, such
 
 2i8 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 as the innocent may experience through love or 
 commiseration for the guilty; and, secondly, such 
 as the guilty themselves actually experience. Or 
 it assumes that Christ actually experienced a double 
 death one as a preceptive, and the other as a penal, 
 substitute. 
 
 The theory, it seems to me, is hopelessly crushed 
 by its own inherent contradictions.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 219 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SECTION I. Chris? s sufferings like those of 
 Moses. 
 
 You will not fail to observe that Christ became 
 the author of eternal salvation by a process strictly 
 analogous, as to mental states, to that by which 
 Moses became the author of the temporal salvation 
 of his people at Sinai, and -on other occasions, 
 namely: not by suffering as their substitute, but by 
 priestly power, through prayers, supplications, and 
 self-sacrificing love to God and men. 
 
 Before leaving this text it seems proper to say 
 that it teaches in the most explicit manner that 
 Christ is "the author of eternal salvation to all 
 them that obey him." 
 
 This conditions salvation upon obedience; or 
 teaches that men are saved not by the death of 
 Christ, which was for all, but Christ himself saves 
 those that obey him. 
 
 But substitution exactly reverses this order, and 
 teaches that only those obey to whom Christ is the 
 author of eternal salvation. This conditions obe- 
 dience on salvation; or teaches that men obey be- 
 cause they are saved or redeemed. 
 
 The Bible plan requires as its psychological com- 
 plement the doctrine of moral freedom. Substitu- 
 tion requires the doctrine of moral necessity.
 
 220 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 The character of Christ's suffering is unmis- 
 takably indicated by these words (Heb. xii. 2): 
 u Who for the joy that was set before him endured 
 the cross, despising the shame, and hath sat down 
 at the right hand of the throne of God. ' ' 
 
 It is here taught that Christ voluntarily and 
 joyfully encountered death, even the ignominious 
 death of the cross. No man ever voluntarily, much 
 less joyfully, encountered penalty. Penalty is nec- 
 essarily involuntary, for any suffering voluntarily 
 endured in the interest of another is not penalty, 
 but benefaction. 
 
 No joy is set before the criminal, either for him- 
 self or for others. Or, if good comes to any one 
 through penalty endured by a substitute, of course 
 a similar good must come from it when endured by 
 the principal. Can Satan or any other lost soul en- 
 dure spiritual death for the joy set before them ? 
 
 What joy is set before Satan or other lost spirits 
 to enable them exultingly to endure death and de- 
 spise the shame of that condition ? 
 
 Substitutionary suffering is in no way less cheer- 
 less, or hopeless, as we have repeatedly seen. 
 
 SECTION II. Infinite personality. 
 
 We know that penalists tell us that Christ as an 
 infinite personality could suffer an infinite penalty 
 in finite time; that he could, therefore, endure the 
 cross, joyfully anticipating the results of that suf- 
 fering in the salvation of those for whom he en- 
 dured it. 
 
 But we also know that in avoiding the rock they 
 plunge into the whirlpool ; for they make God suf-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 221 
 
 fer the penalty of his own law; also separate effects 
 from their causes, punish crimes before they exist, 
 and involve themselves in other rugged inconsist- 
 encies. 
 
 The text in hand can never be fairly harmonized 
 with the doctrine of substitution. 
 
 On the contrary, if we allow that Christ suffered 
 in the interests of men, and not in the place of 
 men, or as a benefactor, not as a substitute, the text 
 is in itself sufficiently intelligible and highly sig- 
 nificant and in exact harmony with facts of daily 
 human experience. 
 
 Fathers, mothers, friends daily endure suffering 
 and make sacrifices in the interest of others. This 
 they do for the joy that is set before them the joy 
 that comes from benefaction from loving others as 
 they love themselves. 
 
 SECTION III. Chris f s last prayer on the cross. 
 
 Luke xxiii. 34: "Father forgive them, for they 
 know not what they do, ' ' is irreconcilable with the 
 assumption that he suffered penally. 
 
 If substitution is true, Christ by enduring the 
 penalty in the place of sinners did by that act really 
 expiate, pardon, take away the reatits poenfs of 
 those for whom he suffered, and did by that expia- 
 tion or pardon bring God under obligations to re- 
 generate and save them. 
 
 Now if this is true, why this prayer ? Why pray 
 for the doing of a thing that is already done ? Why 
 ask a creditor to forgive a debt that is already paid, 
 and which of course does not exist ? The theory - 
 takes all significance and pertinence out of this
 
 222 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 prayer which when rightly interpreted is a peerless 
 exhibition of moral sublimity and a model for the 
 world. 
 
 The prayer itself teaches by necessary implication 
 that Christ's sufferings did not expiate sin in any 
 sense and that pardon is a matter of grace and not 
 of debt. 
 
 The theory, as you will necessarily perceive, ren- 
 ders all prayer a useless appendage to the plan of 
 salvation; for if Christ's death expiates the guilt of 
 mankind, so that justice requires God to save them, 
 then we may rest assured that all will be saved, for 
 the "Judge of all the earth will do right." 
 
 To say that he conditions the salvation of those 
 for whom Christ died, upon prayer or any thing 
 else, is to say that he makes unjust demands. 
 
 All prayer, according to the penal scheme, is 
 simply asking God to do what justice requires him 
 to do, and what no power less than omnipotent can 
 prevent him from doing. 
 
 Christ's utterances after his resurrection clearly 
 evince thr.t his sufferings wei'2 those of a benefac- 
 tor, not of a substitute. 
 
 To the two bewildered disciples he said (Luke 
 xxiv. 26): "Behooved it not the Christ to suffer 
 these things, and to enter into his glory? " 
 
 His entrance into his glory was the result of his 
 suffering what it behooved him to suffer, or what 
 the law of fraternal love required him to suffer. 
 Glory is the infallible consequence of duty faithfully 
 done. 
 
 But there is absolutely no honor, no glory in
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 223 
 
 bearing penalty. Penalty endured by the principal 
 of a crime is purely infamous, nor could it be less so 
 in the substitute, if penal substitution was possible. 
 
 Duty done is glory won, but penalty endured is 
 infamy itself. 
 
 Penalists can reconcile this text with their theory 
 only by confounding substitution with benefaction, 
 which, as has been shown, is an unpardonable 
 abuse of terms. 
 
 Christ also says (Luke xxiv. 46, 47; see Acts 
 xvii. 3) : 
 
 "Thus it is written, that Christ should suffer 
 and rise again from the dead the third day; and 
 that repentance and remission of sins should be 
 preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem." 
 
 This teaches that Christ's resurrection as well as 
 his death was necessary that repentance and remis- 
 sion of sins might be preached in his name. 
 
 No resurrection, no repentance, no remission, no 
 salvation. If Christ is not risen, then he is in no 
 sense the Savior of the world, (i Cor. xv.) 
 
 But this fact is in bold conflict with the funda- 
 mental principles of substitutionists. For it is not 
 claimed by any that Christ's resurrection consti- 
 tuted any part of the substitutionary penalty which 
 he is alleged to have suffered. 
 
 On the contrary, it is alleged that his death expi- 
 ated the guilt, the reatus poentz, of those for whom 
 he suffered, and that this death, because it is a full 
 satisfaction to justice, brings God under obligation 
 to save them from their moral pollution, or reatus
 
 224 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Hence, according to the theory, the salvatk... of 
 those for whom Christ died is infallibly insured by 
 the death of Christ, and quite independently of the 
 resurrection of Christ. Or, the resurrection of Christ 
 has only an adventitious, and not a vital connec- 
 tion with the plan of salvation. His death secures 
 every thing according to the theory, and his resur- 
 rection and intercession nothing not actually se- 
 cured by his death. Hence, a dead, unrisen Christ 
 would have been just as truly a Savior as is the 
 
 r risen, living, interceding Christ. I repeat with 
 emphasis that the substitutionary theory requires 
 no risen or living interceding Christ. It is not the 
 living Christ that saves, but Christ's death that in- 
 sures salvation. 
 
 If sin is a debt, and Christ has paid the debt, 
 then the payment of itself saves the debtor from 
 his indebtedness, whether Christ is risen or not. 
 
 If sin is a crime, and Christ has expiated it by 
 his death, then the act of expiation saves the crim- 
 inal, whether Christ is risen or not risen. 
 ' If I owe a debt in bank, and my friend pays the 
 debt, that act of itself saves me from all liabilities 
 to the bank, though that friend may die instantly. 
 His survival of the act of payment is not necessary 
 to my release from obligation to the creditor. I 
 am equally exempt, whether he survives or not. 
 
 So it would be if a friend could suffer a penalty 
 in my place. My discharge is in no sense condi- 
 tioned upon his survival of the act, but exclusively 
 upon his enduring the penalty. 
 
 These plain facts show that substitution when
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 225 
 
 held firmly to its fundamental postulates requires 
 no risen Christ, for Christ would be as truly a Sa- 
 vior if dead and unrisen as he is now in his risen 
 and living state. 
 
 Of course substitutionists do not formally deny 
 the necessity of Christ's resurrection; but the 
 charge against them is that they allege principles 
 which make his resurrection an unnecessary factor 
 in the plan of salvation. 
 
 The Bible, on the contrary, conditions the whole 
 scheme of salvation on his resurrection. Christ 
 himself makes it the condition precedent to repent- 
 ance and remission of sins. Paul asserts (Acts xvii. 
 3) the necessity of his resurrection, and tells us (i 
 Cor. xv. 17) that "if Christ hath not been raised, 
 your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. ' ' 
 
 According to substitutionists, Christ's death sat- 
 isfied justice, expiated human guilt, and infallibly 
 insured the salvation of all for whom he died. 
 
 According to the Bible, Christ, by the sacrifice of 
 himself in loving obedience to the law of filial love, 
 and by his resurrection, became the propitiation for 
 the sins of humanity, and the actual Savior of all 
 that believe in him. 
 '5
 
 226 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE TABERNACLE ATONEMENTS PRELIMINARY 
 
 STATEMENTS. 
 
 1. I have now examined, with some care, and at 
 considerable length, various irregular atonements 
 mentioned in the Bible, merely alluding to the tab- 
 ernacle atonements; also considered what is com- 
 monly, but somewhat loosely, called the atoning 
 work of Christ; particularly the facts relating to 
 the nature, or character of his sufferings, or death; 
 also indicated some objections to the penal theory, 
 
 All this I have done for the purpose of enabling 
 us to ascertain, as nearly as possible, just what it is 
 that constitutes the great atonement; or, rather, 
 how Christ himself becomes the propitiation for the 
 sins of the world. 
 
 2. We thus far have no instance in which atone- 
 ment was made by bearing the penalty, either by 
 the principal offender, or by a substitute. We have 
 found no case of substitution with its double impu- 
 tation no change of places between the innocent 
 and the guilty. 
 
 3. On the contrary, in every instance in which 
 atonement is said to be made in the interest of sin- 
 ful men, the atoner acted the part of a benefactor, 
 not of a substitute. 
 
 The atoner in no case suffered the penalty of a
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 227 
 
 broken law, but suffered as the good can and do 
 suffer for the bad, the just for the unjust, in obe- 
 dience to the preceptive side of the law, which re- 
 quires us to love our neighbor as ourselves. 
 
 4. In no case did atonement clTect, or in any way 
 change, the legal or moral state of those for whom 
 it was made. 
 
 SECTION I. No penalty in tabernacle atone- 
 ments. 
 
 But penalists claim that the regular atonements 
 of the tabernacle service both illustrate and prove 
 that all atonement rests on penalty, or that there is 
 no pardon without punishment. 
 
 But, if I have not greatly deceived myself, the 
 facts connected with these tabernacle atonements 
 are strongly adverse to the notion of penality. They 
 may be enumerated as follows: 
 
 1. The sacrificial victim must be perfect of its 
 kind without fault or blemish. 
 
 2. In sacrifices for individuals, the worshiper 
 must bring the victim to the altar. 
 
 3. The hands of the worshiper must be laid upon 
 the head of this victim. 
 
 4. The victim must be killed by the officiating 
 priest. 
 
 5. Its blood must be sprinkled upon the altar, 
 which sanctified it and made it acceptable to God, 
 or propitiatory in the interest of the worshiper. 
 On the great day of atonement, when the sacrifice 
 was made for all the people indiscriminately, the 
 blood must be sprinkled by the high-priest upon
 
 228 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 the ark of the covenant, or mercy-seat in the holy 
 of holies (see Lev. xvi.). 
 
 These are the facts. How are they to be ex- 
 plained? 
 
 In this manner, according to the penal theory: 
 
 1. The faultless victim is a type of Christ, and is 
 also the ideal substitute for the sinful worshiper who 
 brings it to the altar. 
 
 2. The sinner, in laying his hands upon its head, 
 has his sins and guilt transferred to the victim, 
 which thereby becomes putatively guilty, and a fit 
 subject for a penal death, or for gehenna. 
 
 3. The victim, thus substitutionally guilty, is 
 now delivered to the officiating priest, who kills it. 
 In its death agonies, it is in gehenna, or is suf- 
 fering the punishment due to the sins of the of- 
 ferer. 
 
 4. The priest sprinkles its blood upon the altar, 
 which sanctifies whatever touches it. 
 
 5. Justice having received plenary satisfaction by 
 this penal death, God is propitiated atonement is 
 made, and the worshiper's sins are expiated, or par- 
 doned pardoned, because first punished substitu- 
 tionally in the victim. 
 
 I think no penalist can object to this analytical 
 statement of his theory. If we content ourselves 
 with reading it without thinking, we may be satis- 
 fied with it and blindly accept it as true. But if 
 we dare to think, its absurdities soon unsettle our 
 confidence in it. A rational faith requires some- 
 thing more reliable as its foundation than mere 
 dogmatic assertion.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 229 
 
 SECTION II. Objections to the penal explana- 
 tion. 
 
 I reject this explanation of the tabernacle atone- 
 ment for many reasons. 
 
 i. It makes the sacrificial kid represent two con- 
 tradictory things at the same time, viz. : the holi- 
 ness and innocence of Christ, and the unholiness 
 and guilt of the sinful worshiper. 
 
 The victim is the type of the highest purity 
 possible; and yet, marvelous to tell, it is a fit sub- 
 ject of penal wrath made so by the magic power 
 of substitution, or double imputation. 
 
 Of course this guilt and its punishment were real, 
 and not merely ideal; that is, the innocent became 
 actually guilty by the transfer to it of the sins of the 
 worshiper; for its death, or punishment, was real, 
 and of necessity its guilt, which was the cause of 
 death, was real; or, real effects imply real causes. 
 Or, if we say that the death, the punishment, was 
 real, but the guilt was only ideal, then we have a 
 real effect with only an ideal cause, or rather, a gen- 
 uine effect without a cause. 
 
 Of course the penalist will not admit that the 
 guilt of the kid was real this would be too severe 
 a shock to common sense; but let him explain, if 
 he can, how there can be a real penal death without 
 a crime to be punished. 
 
 But if substitution is competent to furnish real 
 punishments without real sins to be punished, can 
 it not furnish sins wholly exempt from punishment ? 
 If it can separate causes and effects, and make them 
 independent of each other so as to give us real ef-
 
 230 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 fects without causes, it certainly can give us causes 
 without effects; and by this means banish all penal 
 suffering from the moral world. 
 
 2. Though the sacrificial kid was a symbol of the 
 sinless Christ, yet, if it " bore the sin of the offerer 
 and died in his stead," as Dr. Hodge affirms (p. 
 506), then, of course, there is no causal connection 
 between sin and punishment, and the doctrine of 
 moral retribution admits of no rational or scientific 
 statement or defense. 
 
 If the moral government is sufficiently pliable to 
 allow a kid, incapable of guilt in any sense, to 
 bear the sin of the offerer and to die in his stead, 
 then we have a penal death without sin; and why 
 might we not have sin without a penal death? 
 The penalist, I think, can not answer. 
 
 Such are some of the logical consequences of 
 making the death of the kid substitutionary, or 
 penal. 
 
 (As a matter of fact, the momentary sufferings 
 of the kid, so far from representing the penal an- 
 guish of lost souls, was of itself not of the slight- 
 est significance in the ritual service. Not the suf- 
 fering of the kid, but its blood its life was what 
 was required. If its blood its life could have 
 been taken without any pain at all, it would have 
 been just as effective as if it had endured a thou- 
 sand-fold more suffering than it really did.) 
 
 3. The bare idea that the momentary sufferings 
 of the slaughtered kid symbolizes eternal death 
 would be scouted as ridiculous, if it had not been
 
 NOX-PENAL THEORY. 231 
 
 made respectable by the patronage of illustrious 
 names. 
 
 If we drop the type, and give attention to the 
 antitype, we find it as hard to believe that Christ 
 was a penal substitute for sinners as to believe 
 that the sacrificial kid was such a substitute. 
 
 We can find no penality in the sacrificial victim, 
 and if we find none in the type, we are not author- 
 ized to assume any in the antitype. 
 
 Moreover, the very thought of penal substitution 
 is so repugnant to reason and to the noblest in- 
 stincts of our nature that it is never admitted in 
 human law. 
 
 Christ could not suffer the punishment due to 
 sin and guilt unless he himself first became guilty. 
 This is conceded by penalists themselves. God, 
 they admit, could not punish the innocent, because 
 it would be unjust. But he can impute guilt to 
 the innocent, and then punish him for this fictitious 
 imputed guilt. Christ thus, by this marvelous fic- 
 tion, becomes guilty, and is justly punished for 
 millions of sins that he never committed. 
 
 Dr. Hodge says (p. 504) : ' ' To bear sin is to bear 
 the guilt and punishment of sin." "He bore the 
 guilt of our sins and endured the penalty in our 
 stead." 
 
 Omnipotence himself could not inflict penal 
 wrath upon him without first converting him into 
 an actual rebel and filling his heart with hatred to 
 God, or else by reversing the respective conse- 
 quences of obedience and disobedience, which he 
 himself has established. It is too obvious to need
 
 232 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 elaboration, that it is simply impossible for the in- 
 nocent, for any cause, or by any means, to take, or 
 be made to take, the guilt and punishment of the 
 disobedient, and the guilty to take the innocence 
 and the felicity of the obedient. 
 
 If the theory of substitution, with its double im- 
 putation, is true, then there is 110 guaranty that 
 heaven and hell will not change places withotit the 
 knowledge or consent of either. 
 
 If true, there is properly no plan of salvation at 
 all, but a capricious salvation without any plan 
 outside of the secret purposes of the Creator; or, 
 if there is a revealed plan, still it is obviously 
 true that it is wholly irrespective of the laws of the 
 human mind, having no pertinency or adaptation 
 to man's nature as a free moral being, who has as 
 little power over his own destiny as he had over his 
 own creation. But this unrevealed purpose of God 
 in regard to the individual, is no plan to him at all. 
 All the individual can do is to act out the secret 
 purpose of God, and bide his predetermined des- 
 tiny. If Christ took his guilt and suffered its pen- 
 alty, then he should esteem himself fortunate, not 
 virtuous; but if Christ happens not to be his sub- 
 stitute, then he should consider himself unfortu- 
 nate, not criminal; for necessity, which is an indis- 
 pensable correlate of substitution, excludes the pos- 
 sibility, both of virtue and of vice. 
 
 Such are some of the consequences which come 
 logically out of the assumption that the sufferings 
 of the sacrificial kid symbolize the horrors of end- 
 less death
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 233 
 
 SECTION III. The priest becomes an executioner 
 'before he acts the part of Mediator. 
 
 Another reason for rejecting the substitution ist's 
 explanation of tabernacle atonement is that it 
 makes the officiating priest an executioner, rather 
 than a mediator. 
 
 (i) The priest, according to the theory, receives the 
 victim, all covered with substitutionary guilt, at 
 the hands of the offerer, and proceeds to kill it 
 that is, to inflict upon it the penalty due to the 
 offerer. This act of the priest puts the victim 
 symbolically into gehenna or into the same spirit- 
 ual death due to the offerer. 
 
 Thus the priest, by inflicting the penalty, satisfies 
 justice, to satisfy which, we are told, is to satisfy 
 God. 
 
 To do this is certainly all that can be reasonably 
 required in order to salvation angels, I suppose, 
 can do no more than satisfy justice and God. 
 
 It is thus as clear as noonday, that if substitution 
 is true, no priestly functions are required; they are, 
 in fact, quite supererogatory; there is no place for 
 them; an executioner is all absolutely all the 
 theory requires. 
 
 I persistently urge this fact, if substitution is 
 true, then all priestly or mediatorial offices are a 
 useless appendage to the plan of salvation. 
 
 If a debt is fully paid, that fact of itself releases 
 the debtor. No mediator or intervener is neccessary 
 to complete the release; for there is really no obli- 
 gation from which to be released. 
 
 Or, if an executioner has inflicted upon a crim-
 
 234 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 inal the full penalty authorized by law, that fact 
 releases the criminal from all further liability for' 
 the offense. To condition his release upon other 
 offices than those of the executioner by whom the 
 penalty has been inflicted would be a crime against 
 the criminal himself. 
 
 I repeat, the theory requires no priest. An exe- 
 cutioner is the only functionary it requires. This 
 is logically avowed in its fundamental postulate: 
 No punishment, no pardon. 
 
 But penalists know full well that Christ is de- 
 clared to be a priest forever, and that salvation is 
 ascribed to him because of his priestly power. It 
 therefore becomes necessary in order to avoid a pal- 
 pable incongruity between the doctrine of substitu- 
 tion and the priestly offices of Christ, to call his 
 sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world a ' ' pe- 
 nal sacrifice. ' ' A penal sacrifice ? A monstrosity 
 I venture to say the world never saw, and never 
 will; because it is a contradiction in the adjective, 
 and a thing in itself impossible. 
 
 All sacrifices are acts of religious worship. No 
 acts of religious worship are or can be penal. No 
 penalties are or can be acts of religious worship. 
 All acts of worship are voluntary. No penalties 
 are or can be voluntary, as has been shown. Sacri- 
 fice is an act expressive of obedience, reverence, 
 love to God. Penalty is an expression of God's 
 displeasure against the disobedient. A penal sac- 
 rifice / ! Think of it, and explain it, if you can. 
 Shall we say it is an act of religious worship, which 
 has the effect of a penalty ? Then, the less wor-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 235 
 
 ship, the less penalty. Or, shall we say it is a 
 penalty which has the effect of religious worship ? 
 Then Satan and his hosts fare about as well as the 
 worshiping angels. 
 
 If penalists can bridge the chasm between their 
 theory and the priestly offices of Christ only by al- 
 leging the doctrine of penal sacrifices, it seems to 
 me better not to attempt to bridge the chasm at all, 
 for two errors are more difficult of plausible defense 
 than one. Nor does it seem to me possible for 
 human ingenuity to show that the penal theory re- 
 quires or admits any other functionary than an ex- 
 ecutioner. Nor does the character of the execu- 
 tioner seem to be a vital factor in the transaction. 
 if 
 Punishment is what is imperatively required. It 
 
 does not matter upon whom it falls, whether upon 
 principal or substitute, and we hence infer that it 
 could not matter by whom it is inflicted. 
 
 (2) The priest having discharged the duties of an 
 executioner, and put the victim into torment, then 
 sprinkles its blood upon the altar, which sanctifies 
 whatever touches it, and renders it acceptable to 
 God, and the offender whose sins have been pun- 
 ished in the sufferings of the substitute is pardoned 
 and saved. But why this sprinkling of the blood 
 upon the altar? Of what advantage can it or any 
 other priestly performance be to God, or justice, or 
 the worshiper, or his substitute? Justice has re- 
 ceived all it claims, and is satisfied with the suffer- 
 ings inflicted upon the substitute. God is satis- 
 fied because justice is satisfied, and is, of course, 
 r ropitiated; the worshiper having transferred his
 
 236 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 guilt to his substitute is pardoned and saved; and 
 the poor substitute is hopelessly lost, unless a sub- 
 stitute is provided that can relieve it of its imputed 
 guilt and its punishment. 
 
 All the parties, except the substitute, are put 
 into this satisfactory condition by the penal suffer- 
 ings of the substitute, and prior to the sprinkling 
 of the blood upon the altar. It is sun clear that 
 the sprinkling of the blood of the substitute can 
 contribute nothing to justice, which, according to 
 the theory, has received all its demands; nor to 
 God, who is already propitiated, and who can not 
 be more than propitiated; nor to the worshiper, 
 who is already pardoned and saved, and who can 
 not be more than saved. 
 
 Just at this point, substitutionists are hopelessly 
 confused. They can never give any satisfactory 
 account of this sprinkling of the blood upon the 
 altar; or any account at all that is in harmony with 
 their fundamental postulate, no pardon without 
 prior punishment. 
 
 Perhaps the shrewdest thing they can do is to say 
 something about ' ' penal sacrifices. ' ' 
 
 But even if such nondescript things were possible 
 (and we know they are not) they bring no relief; 
 for the atoning, or saving power, according to the 
 theory, is exclusively in the suffering of the substi- 
 tute, and not in the blood at all. 
 
 We have seen that substitution is a very agreeable 
 thing to all concerned, except the substituted vic- 
 tim. This it puts symbolically into eternal spirit- 
 ual death, with no provision for its release.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 237 
 
 (3) Now drop the type, and turn your attention 
 for a moment to the antitype. 
 
 The theory imputes to the sinless Christ the 
 guilt of all for whom he died, and requires him to 
 endure all the punishment due to this measureless 
 guilt, but provides no rational method of escape 
 from that state of guilt and spiritual death. 
 
 I say no rational mode of escape. It is true the 
 theory assumes that he freed himself from this ter- 
 rible state by penal suffering, just as a criminal 
 sent up for ten years frees himself from punishment 
 by remaining within prison walls till the time ex- 
 pires. 
 
 In this, however, substitutionists deceive them- 
 selves by assuming an analogy between human and 
 divine law, which does not exist. 
 
 The penalties of human law may be limited by 
 time, but the penalties of divine law are never thus 
 limited. Their duration is always determined by 
 the duration of the rebellious state. To disobey is 
 to be put under penalty, or to be deprived of the 
 good that CQ.mes from obedience. To return to obe- 
 dience is to be freed from the penalty that comes 
 from disobedience. 
 
 But let me emphasize this immutable truth : , 
 
 The penalty can never remove the disobedience 
 or gtiilt of which it is the consequence. 
 
 It has absolutely no power over its source. The 
 effect can not remove, or in any way modify, its 
 cause. Christ's imputed guilt (which, as we have 
 seen, is according to the theory, not ideal, but real) 
 and his sufferings were related as cause and effect.
 
 238 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 How, then, was it possible for his penal suffering 
 to remove his guilt and release him from the pangs 
 of spiritual death? 
 
 Note. If penal sufferings can offset guilt and re- 
 store the criminal to favor, then of necessity the 
 penal sufferings of Satan and all other lost spirits 
 must offset their guilt and restore them to favor. 
 
 They fully pay as they go always sinning, but 
 always cancelling their guilt by their penal and ex- 
 piatory sufferings. Their debits and credits always 
 form an exact equation; otherwise, justice would 
 be hopelessly defrauded of its dues. For the sin- 
 ner's capacity to suffer never exceeds the measure 
 of his obligation to obedience, in default of which 
 he suffers. Supererogatory obedience and supere- 
 rogatory suffering are equally impossible. Hence, 
 if the sinner's suffering to-day falls short of satis- 
 fying justice, he can never make up the deficit. 
 The conclusion seems fair that if Satan's penal suf- 
 ferings can not free him from guilt, so as to bring 
 him out of condemnation, neither can Christ's 
 penal substitutionary sufferings release him from 
 substitutionary condemnation. There is, I think, 
 no escape from this conclusion. Hence, it follows 
 that if Christ was put into a state of guilt and penal 
 suffering by becoming a substitute for sinful men, 
 then he is either there yet, or Satan and all other 
 sinners, for whom Christ is not a substitute, have 
 their guilt removed by their individual sufferings. 
 
 SECTION IV. Penal righteousness. 
 
 Another offensive feature of this method of re- 
 moving guilt is that it requires us to believe that
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 239 
 
 men are saved by a penal righteousness, if we can 
 conceive of such a monstrosity. 
 
 If Christ satisfies justice or law by enduring the 
 penalty of law, then, of course, the righteousness 
 of this act is nothing more than a penal righteous- 
 ness. 
 
 Note. Such righteousness has the criminal, who 
 has served his term of punishment in the State 
 prison; or, such righteousness has Satan, and all 
 other sinners, who suffer the penalty of the law on 
 their own account. 
 
 Of course, if Christ satisfied the law by enduring 
 its penalty, this act secures to him only penal right- 
 eousness. Now, if this penal righteousnesss is 
 imputed or imparted to us, and we are saved by it, 
 then we are saved by penal righteousness. 
 
 (But if penal righteousness can save, when the 
 penalty is endured by a substitute, of course it 
 must save when the penalty is endured by the prin- 
 cipal, as Satan and all others whose penalties have 
 not been endured by a substitute. ) 
 
 According to the theory justice must have ' its 
 demands, but seems to be as fully satisfied with pe- 
 nal as it is with preceptive righteousness and by its 
 consequences blots out the distinction between the 
 righteousness of the redeemed and that of the un- 
 redeemed. 
 
 Of course even the most rigid penalists do not 
 admit these gross absurdities; nor do I charge them 
 with believing them. But the question is, Do they 
 not inhere in their doctrine of substitution? If 
 they do not, then all reasoning, it seems to me, is
 
 240 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 an illusion, and theories should not be made an- 
 swerable for their consequences. 
 
 SECTION V. Manual imposition. 
 
 The imposition of hands is, I think, egregiously 
 misinterpreted in the penalises account of these 
 tabernacle atonements. 
 
 The theory, in the hands of one of its most as- 
 tute and zealous defenders, says (Hodge, Vol. II., p. 
 
 53) : 
 
 ' ' The hands of the offender were to be laid on 
 the head of the victim to express the ideas of sub- 
 stitution, and of the transfer of guilt. The sin 
 of the offerer was laid upon the head of the vic- 
 tim." 
 
 The penal theory imperatively requires this or 
 an equivalent explanation of the imposition of 
 hands in relation to these tabernacle atonements. 
 It harmonizes admirably with the explanations giv- 
 en of other parts of these tabernacle services. But 
 the calamity is these explanations, as we have just 
 seen, involve consequences too extravagant to be 
 true. This fact throws grave suspicion upon this 
 explanation of manual imposition in these atone- 
 ments. 
 
 The theory assumes that the moral qualities of 
 individuals may be interchanged, and asserts that 
 the imposition of hands expresses the transfer of 
 guilt from one party to the other. No proof is at- 
 tempted. The fact that the explanation harmo- 
 nizes with the scheme of substitution is deemed 
 proof sufficient that is, one assumption is harmo- 
 nized with another. That the explanation is
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 241 
 
 not true will sufficiently appear from the following 
 facts. 
 
 1. I have previously shown that a transfer of 
 guilt from one party to another by substitution is a 
 psychological impossibility. Whatever else an- 
 other may do for me, he can never take my con- 
 science or mental states and make them his own 
 and give me his conscience and mental states in re- 
 turn. As easily could' he impart to me his own 
 personality and take mine. ' ' The soul that sin- 
 neth it shall die." "Whatsoever a man soweth, 
 that shall he also reap." 
 
 2. If manual imposition in this case expresses 
 " the ideas of substitution and of transfer of guilt," 
 then the same rite is used to express two irrecon- 
 cilable things, which is simply incredible. 
 
 The same word may be taken in different senses, 
 but that the same religious rite should be used in 
 the Bible to express two incompatible things would 
 make the Bible a riddle rather than a revelation. 
 What other religious rite sanctioned by Bible usage 
 can be taken to express contradictory things ? 
 
 The generic import of the rite as used in the 
 Old and in the New Testament is benediction. Ja- 
 cob long before the tabernacle ritual existed used it 
 for this purpose, and I hesitate not to say that there 
 is not the slightest evidence that it was ever used 
 for any other and contrary- purpose. 
 
 The imposition of hands is a prayer in gesture, 
 or the accompaniment of prayer for a blessing, and 
 is in fact generally attended with audible prayer or 
 benediction. 
 16
 
 242 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Imposition of hands and lifting up of hands in 
 prayer seem to be substantially the same thing, or 
 are expressive of the same mental states. The dif- 
 ference is formal rather than real. When the wor- 
 shiper prays with uplifted hands, his hands are 
 ideally imposed upon the object for which he prays. 
 When hands are literally imposed, heart and hands 
 have the same object, whether words are uttered or 
 not. 
 
 Mere digital contact, unaccompanied with prayer 
 in word or thought receives nothing, imparts noth- 
 ing, does nothing. If a shock divine is given or 
 received, it comes through the prayer, and not 
 through manipulation. Never is it used for pur- 
 poses of imprecation, or the transfer of evil from 
 the bad to the good, but always for purposes of 
 good to somebody. 
 
 Look into your Bibles and you will readily see 
 that in every instance of its use benediction is its 
 object. 
 
 In view of these facts, what authority have we 
 from the Bible to believe that the Jew when he 
 brought his kid before the altar, and piously put his 
 hands upon its innocent head did, by that act, impre- 
 cate the wrath of God upon it, transferring to it in 
 thought or intention, as his substitute, his guilt? 
 I answer, none whatever. 
 
 The fact that this sacrificial victim was required 
 to be perfect, without any manner of defect, pro- 
 tests against the idea that it must become the object 
 of penal wrath. 
 
 Again, the penal explanation of this sacrificial
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 243 
 
 rite implies malevolence in God as his motive for 
 punishment. We are told (see Num. xv.) that 
 these sacrifices were " a sweet savor unto the Lord." 
 
 If the suffering of the innocent victim represent- 
 ed the suffering of lost souls, how could they be " a 
 sweet savor unto the Lord," who "doth not af- 
 flict willingly," and who hath "no pleasure in the 
 death of the wicked." 
 
 I do not know that Satan rejoices in the suffer- 
 ings of his victims. . The wolf is selfish rather than 
 malicious. So the seducer. The pleasure does not 
 come from the infliction of pain upon others, but 
 from the gratification of selfish desires. 
 
 The bare suggestion that penal suffering is as 
 ' ' a sweet savor unto the Lord, ' ' is repugnant alike 
 to the teachings of the Bible and to the instincts 
 of humanity. It seems to me nothing less than an 
 impeachment of the divine goodness. 
 
 On the contrary, it is in perfect harmony with 
 the divine goodness to suppose these sacrifices to 
 be a sweet savor to the Lord, not because they in- 
 volved suffering, but because they were the appoint- 
 ed expressions of the spirit of loving obedience to 
 God, just as any other act of religious worship put 
 forth according to divine command. It is the obe- 
 dience, and not the penal suffering consequent upon 
 the disobedience, that is "a sweet savor unto the 
 Lord." 
 
 This view enables us to see why the sacrificial 
 kid should be faultless, without spot or blemish, as 
 all acts of worship should be pure in intention, and 
 well pleasing to God as such.
 
 244 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Remember, too, that these faultless victims were 
 the divinely-appointed types of the sinless Christ, 
 " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
 world." 
 
 No Jew, I feel safe in saying, when he brought 
 his victim to the altar, and put his hands upon its 
 head ever intended thereby "to express the ideas 
 .of substitution, and of transfer of guilt;" or that 
 his sin was transferred to the victim to be punished 
 ' ' in his stead. ' ' He rather intended his surrender of 
 the victim to the priest as an act of obedience an 
 act of religious worship and the laying of his 
 hands upon its head was a ritual prayer that the 
 sacrifice might be acceptable and propitiatory. 
 This will be subsequently more fully explained. 
 
 Note. Dr. Hodge represents that the Jews held 
 the penal theory of atonement. He says (Vol. II., 
 p. 500) : 
 
 "Outram quotes from Jewish authorities forms 
 of confession connected with the imposition of 
 hands on the victim. One is to the following effect: 
 ' I beseech thee, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done 
 perversely, I have rebelled, I have done (specifying 
 the offense); but now I repent, let this victim be 
 my expiation.' The design of the imposition of 
 hands was to signify, say these authorities, the re- 
 moval of sin from the offender to the animal." 
 
 Certainly the Jew did believe that his sacrifices 
 did in some way expiate or atone for his sins. If 
 he did not believe this, why should he offer them? 
 
 But to believe this was not necessarily to believe, 
 that his guilt and punishment were literally trans- 
 ferred to the kid.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 245 
 
 If he did not look beyond the type to the anti- 
 type, his common sense would not permit him to 
 believe that the momentary sufferings of the dying 
 kid were ' ' an exact equivalent ' ' of the endless suf- 
 fering of the lost soul. His common sense, more- 
 over, could not fail to teach him that there is no 
 equivalency between mere animal suffering and 
 spiritual suffering between animal death and spir- 
 itual death. 
 
 The Jew could not believe that the kid atoned 
 for his sins by suffering as his substitute the equiv- 
 alent of an endless spiritual death. Such a belief 
 is impossible to 'a sane mind. The Jew, therefore, 
 expected his kid to remove his guilt in some other 
 way than by ' ' equivalent penalty. ' ' 
 
 But, if he looked beyond the type to the anti- 
 type, as his religion required him to do, then he 
 could not believe that the kid typically atoned in 
 one way, and that Christ really atoned in a radically 
 different way; for this would destroy all typal re- 
 lation, or make the type and antitype contradictory 
 one of the other. 
 
 Further, the quotation from Outram furnishes 
 not a particle of proof that the Jews believed the 
 penal theory of atonement, but actually proves the 
 contrary. 
 
 The only word in the quotation that can be made 
 to favor the theory is the word expiation, and this 
 can be done only by a perversion of the word from 
 its etymological and original meaning. 
 
 No old Latin writer, I think, ever used the word 
 expiatio to signify pardon by substitution, with
 
 246 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 double imputation. (The word is elsewhere suffi- 
 ciently noticed.) 
 
 As we have seen, the word expiation does not 
 occur in King James' Bible at all. Nor is there in 
 the Bible a solitary instance of atonement with 
 double imputation. Mark this fact. 
 
 You will also observe that Outram does not say 
 ' ' let this victim be my ' ' substitute, but my ' ' ex- 
 piation." The Jew by such a prayer evidently 
 meant, let this be my propitiation. This puts the 
 prayer in harmony with the Bible, which uses the 
 word atonement, as we have seen, in the sense of 
 propitiation. 
 
 I wish you now to note the fact that all the other 
 significant words of this quotation by their general 
 import exclude the idea of pardon by penalty. ' ' I 
 beseech ... I have sinned . . . have done per- 
 versely . . . have rebelled. . . . Now I repent, 
 . . . let this victim be my expiation" my atone- 
 ment. 
 
 The offering of the victim is accompanied with 
 confession, prayer, repentance, and the Bible teaches 
 us that these are the indispensable conditions of par- 
 don. But confession, prayer, and repentance ac- 
 cording to the penal theory are quite out of place 
 and worthless. If pardon is conditioned upon pun- 
 ishment, then, as we have seen, confession, supplica- 
 tion, and repentance are useless appendages to the 
 plan of salvation. 
 
 Pardon being the exact legal equivalent of pun- 
 ishment, of course justice can demand nothing 
 more without becoming itself unjust. Such is the
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 247 
 
 theory. But the Jew, according to Outram, deemed 
 confession, prayer, and repentance necessary to par- 
 don. The Jew, therefore, was not a substitutionist, 
 Dr. Hodge's allegation to the contrary, notwith- 
 standing. 
 
 Dr. Hodge is not less distinguished for his polem- 
 ic skill than for his learning. We have a right, 
 therefore, to infer that this quotation is the strong- 
 est proof that he has been able to find in all Jewish 
 literature in support of his position. This, as we 
 have seen, is positively against the theory.
 
 248 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SECTION I. The scape-goat considered. 
 
 Lev. xvi. 21, 22 is often appealed to by penalists 
 in proof of their explanation of manual imposition. 
 This discussion would consequently be radically de- 
 fective if I should give no attention to this text. 
 
 "Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head 
 of the live goat and confess over him all the iniqui- 
 ties of the children of Israel, and all their transgres- 
 sions in all their sins, putting them upon the head 
 of. the goat and shall send him away by the hand 
 of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat 
 shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land 
 not inhabited [separation] and he shall let go the 
 goat in the wilderness." (Afidbar, desert, pasture 
 land.) 
 
 Dr. Hodge, whose eagle eye seizes every thing 
 that seems to favor his cause, claims this text as 
 absolute confirmation of his theory of substitution, 
 and of imposition of hands. 
 
 He says (Vol. II. , p. 504) : 
 
 " This renders it plain that the design of the im- 
 position of hands was to signify the transfer of the 
 guilt of the offender to the victim. . . . To bear 
 sin is to bear the guilt and punishment of sin." 
 
 All the commentaries consulted by me agree sub- 
 stantially with Dr. Hodge. 
 
 It may seem presumption or even madness in me
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 249 
 
 to set myself against such high authority. Be it 
 so. But fidelity to my convictions of truth and 
 duty compel me to dissent, and when I have given 
 my reasons for this dissent, you must decide for 
 yourselves. Note the following facts. 
 
 i. This ceremony was a part of the ritual service 
 of the great day of atonement the great annual 
 atonement, when propitiation was made for the 
 whole nation. The salient points only will be no- 
 ticed. 
 
 (i) Two kids of the people were selected. They 
 did not represent sacrificially one person more than 
 another. (Partial atonement was born later.) Lots 
 were cast to determine which should be the sacri- 
 ficial and which the scape-goat (azazel). 
 
 The goat on which the lot fell for the Lord that 
 is, the sacrificial goat, was killed in due form and 
 its blood sprinkled upon the mercy-seat in the holy 
 of holies, which at the time must be filled with the 
 odor of burning incense, which was the divinely- 
 appointed symbol of prayer, without which the at- 
 tempt to sprinkle the blood upon the mercy-seat 
 would have cost the high-priest his life. Thus an 
 atonement was made for all the people. According 
 to the popular theory it was the sufferings of this 
 sacrificial kid that made atonement for the whole 
 nation it was punished as their substitute and 
 they were pardoned. The priestly functions, after 
 the act of killing the goat, such as the sprinkling 
 of its blood upon the mercy-seat, and the burning 
 of intense in the most holy place, were mere unes- 
 sential appendages; for, if the theory is true, the
 
 250 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 atonement was completely made and the sins of the 
 people fully expiated when the kid experienced its 
 last death pang. You can not fail to see the dis- 
 crepancy between the theory and the Bible account 
 of the facts. 
 
 (2) The sacrificial kid having been thus disposed 
 of, and propitiation made for the whole nation, Aa- 
 ron then laid both his hands upon the head of the 
 scape-goat which Dr. Hodge and others say "was to 
 signify the transfer of the guilt of the offender to 
 the victim." 
 
 Now, you will observe that the same sins are 
 twice transferred from the people to the goats, first 
 to the sacrificial goat, and then to the scape-goat, 
 and each transaction is expressly called an atone- 
 ment. But we are told there is no atonement, no 
 pardon, without punishment. Hence, the same 
 sins are twice punished. Justice has twice received 
 plenary satisfaction for the same sins. Thus the 
 penal explanation flatly contradicts itself. Or, to 
 avoid this contradiction, will it be said that the 
 punishment was divided between the goats? But 
 how can you divide the guilt or the punishment, 
 since we are expressly told that all the sins of the 
 people shall be borne by azazel ; and of course by 
 the sacrificial goat also ? 
 
 Dr. Hodge sees this difficulty, but as usual, with 
 one bold dash of his facile pen, brushes it out of 
 his way. He says (p. 504) : 
 
 " The two (kids) constitututed one sacrifice, as it 
 was impossible that one could signify all that was 
 intended to be taught."
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 251 
 
 If the two kids constituted one sacrifice, why 
 were the same sins transferred to both kids? or 
 twice punished ? But, as we shall see, there was in 
 fact but one kid sacrificed. 
 
 Dr. Hodge, or rather the penal theory, utterly 
 fails to give any intelligible and self-consistent ac- 
 count of this double sacrifice, as it is improperly 
 considered. 
 
 2. Other inseparable difficulties inhere in this 
 explanation. 
 
 (1) Imputed guilt and punishment, according to 
 the doctrine, are inseparable, one always involving 
 the other. But the scape-goat was not punished by 
 death, or in any other manner. Therefore, the 
 scape-goat was not in any sense guilty. But priestly 
 hands were laid upon it. Therefore, manual impo- 
 sition does not express the transfer of guilt from the 
 worshiper to the victim. 
 
 There is, I think, no possible escape from this 
 argument. As the point is a vital one, you will 
 allow me to re-state it in a briefer form. Thus, all 
 guilt involves punishment. The scape-goat was not 
 punished. Therefore, it was not guilty in any 
 sense. But priestly hands were imposed upon it. 
 Therefore, imposition of hands does not express a 
 transfer of guilt. Or, the simple fact that the 
 scape-goat was not killed disproves the penal the- 
 ory of manual imposition. 
 
 (2) The theory asserts that atonement always in- 
 cludes both propitiation and reconciliation. Hence, 
 it can never give any intelligible account of these
 
 252 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 two atonements, made one by the sacrificial and the 
 other by the scape-goat. 
 
 (3) Nor can it ever reconcile the atonement made 
 with the scape-goat, with the statement (Lev. xvii. 
 ii ; Heb. ix. 22) that the atonement is in the blood, 
 and "that without the shedding of blood there can 
 be no remission." 
 
 (4) The theory says, "To bear sin. is to bear the 
 guilt and punishment of sin." But the scape-goat 
 did bear all the sins of the Jewish nation. But 
 it did not bear either the guilt or punishment of 
 these sins. Therefore, to bear sins is not necessa- 
 rily to bear the guilt and punishment of sin, as we 
 shall more fully see. Here, again, the theory flatly 
 contradicts the plainest Bible facts, which assures 
 us that the scape-goat was not killed was not pun- 
 ished its blood was not shed, nor have we any 
 authority for believing it was in any way injured or 
 dishonored. Yet it did bear the sins of the whole 
 nation. 
 
 It is, hence, as clear as language can put it, that 
 the scape-goat did actually bear a nation's sins in 
 some sense, and equally clear that it was not killed 
 nor punished in any sense. 
 
 It is equally clear that the nation's sins were in 
 some sense taken away or pardoned, and equally 
 clear tjiat they were not punished in any sense or 
 any form. 
 
 These incontestable Bible facts disprove the fun- 
 damental dicta upon which the whole penal theory 
 reposes that is, they prove that sin may be par- 
 doned, taken away, or destroyed without being
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 253 
 
 punished; also prove that a priest may bear sin 
 without bearing its guilt or punishment. 
 
 These facts, so destructive to the substitutionary 
 scheme, will be much strengthened and actually 
 exemplified by additional facts in the course of the 
 discussion. 
 
 SECTION II. An adverse view of the offices of 
 the sacrificial and the scape-goat. 
 
 The Bible clearly teaches, and it is generally ad- 
 mitted, that two things are indispensable to salva- 
 tion, viz. : first, atonement in the sense of propitia- 
 tion; and secondly, atonement in the sense of rec- 
 onciliation. The first pertains exclusively to God ; 
 the second to men. God is never reconciled, but is 
 propitiated. Men are never propitiated, but are 
 reconciled. Such is the uniform usage of these 
 terms in the New Testament. 
 
 (I have previously noted the confusion in which 
 the penal theory is involved in the use of these 
 terms, sometimes confounding them, and sometimes 
 discriminating them.) 
 
 These atonements are intimately related, but not 
 related as cause and effect, but as condition and 
 event; or, reconciliation is conditioned upon pro- 
 pitiation. Hence, there may be propitiation with- 
 out reconciliation, but no reconciliation without 
 prior propitiation. Atonement by the scape-goat 
 was conditioned upon atonement by the sacrificial 
 goat. The latter propitiates; the former reconciles. 
 In like manner, Christ, as a sacrificial offering, or 
 by the shedding of his blood, or the surrender of
 
 254 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 his life, was made a propitiation for the sins of the 
 world (Rom. iii. 25; i John iv. 10). 
 
 Christ in the garden and on the cross is the atoner 
 in the sense of propitiator as typified by the sacri- 
 ficial goat, on the great day of atonement. But 
 this propitiation of itself takes away no sin. The 
 sacrificial goat did not bear or take away sin. 
 Hence, no sin was imputed to it or put upon it by 
 the imposition of hands. This is evident from the 
 fact that all the sins of the nation were put upon 
 the scape-goat, and by it borne, or carried away, 
 and of course the same sins could not be twice taken 
 away. 
 
 Mark this; fact, that it was not the sacrificial 
 goat, but' the scape-goat that bore, or carried aivay 
 sin. The sacrificial goat propitiates, and thereby 
 renders reconciliation, or the taking away of sin 
 possible, but of itself takes away no sin has no 
 effect upon the legal or moral states of the people. 
 
 In exact analogy with this Christ, by the sacri- 
 fice of himself, made propitiation for the sins of 
 the world. But this sacrifice of itself takes away 
 no sin in no sense changes man's moral or legal 
 condition. Man is as truly morally corrupt and le- 
 gally condemned as he would be without this 
 propitiatory sacrifice. What this sacrifice does for 
 men is this : It renders their reconciliation a 
 change of their moral and legal states possible, not 
 inevitable, as substitutionists wrongfully assert. 
 As it was not the dead but the living kid that bore, 
 or took away the sins of the nation, so it is not the 
 dead or the unrisen Christ that becomes the sin-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 255 
 
 bearer, or sin-destroyer, but the resurrection, or 
 living Christ that bears sin, takes away sin, destroys 
 sin, blots out sin, etc. 
 
 This doctrine pervades the New Testament from 
 beginning to end. It is the living Christ, not the 
 dead, that justifies, that saves. Hundreds of texts 
 might be cited proving this fact. It is sufficient to 
 refer to the following: Rom. iii. 25; iv. 25; 2 Cor. 
 v. 17,18; Isa. xliii. 25; Gal. vi. 14. 
 
 On the contrary, there are no texts that refer our 
 salvation directly to what Christ, as a sacrifice for 
 sin, did or suffered. What he did and suffered is 
 referred to only as the essential conditions by which 
 he became what he really is a living, personal 
 Savior, who justifies and saves by imparting his 
 own nature to those united to him by faith. 
 
 Every reasonable view of the subject seems to 
 require us to attribute salvation to the agency of a 
 living, personal Christ, and not to something that 
 he has done or suffered in the remote past. 
 
 If, when he offered himself as a sacrifice, he took 
 away the sins of the world, then, of course, he does 
 not now take away those sins. If he, as a present 
 living agent now takes away my sins, then he did 
 not in the remote past take away my sins. Substi- 
 tution requires us to believe that he took away and 
 expiated sin when he gave himself a sacrifice for 
 sin. This, as we have seen, seems to supersede 
 the necessity of his resurrection, and of any living 
 personal Christ. It also requires us to believe the 
 absurd proposition that he took away sins before 
 they were committed, or even before those that
 
 256 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 commit them had any existence. The utmost that 
 he could do in this regard would be to take away, not 
 non-existent sin, but the possibility of sin. But 
 this, we know by painful experience, he did not do. 
 
 The facts force us to the conclusion, not that 
 Christ actually put away sin, destroyed sin, blotted 
 out sin, when he made himself a sacrifice for sin, 
 but the object of his mission into the world was 
 to put away, condemn sin, destroy sin, save from 
 sin, and that for this mission, he was prepared by 
 the sacrifice of himself (Heb. ix. 26). 
 
 He is the Lamb of God, not which took, or hath 
 taken away the sin of the world eighteen centuries 
 ago; or, from the foundation of the world, but 
 which now beareth away or taketh away the sin of 
 the world (John i. 29; Matt. viii. 17). 
 
 This distinction between the office of the sacrificial 
 goat and that of the scape-goat or between the of- 
 fice of Christ as propitiator and that of reconciler 
 is clearly indicated by Paul (Rom. iv. 25) when he 
 says Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and 
 was raised again for our justification." 
 
 Christ, we are here taught, was delivered up to 
 death on account of our offenses, but this offering 
 up did not justify, or save us. Hence, to do this he 
 must rise from the dead. 
 
 Now, mark the important fact that it was not his 
 death, nor merely the act of rising from the dead 
 that justifies or saves us; but the object of his res- 
 urrection in relation to men was to justify and save 
 them from their sins, not before, but after they are 
 committed, and when they are repented of.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 257 
 
 If we were justified by the act of his resurrection, 
 then we would be saved from actual sins before we 
 have committed them, which is absurd. 
 
 I repeat, it was not the sacrificial, but the scape- 
 goat that bore the sins of the people. 
 
 It was not the dead Christ that took away sins, 
 but the resurrection, living Christ that bears them 
 away into oblivion. 
 
 Both goats, it is conceded, typify Christ. But it 
 is one of the fatal blunders of the penal theory that 
 it makes both represent the same official relation, 
 confounds propitiation and reconciliation, or makes 
 them inseparable, and involves itself in inexplicable 
 confusion, as we have seen. 
 
 In the light of these facts, we are able to see the 
 relation between the atonement made with the 
 sacrificial and that made with the scape-goat; just 
 the relation between propitiation and reconciliation 
 the first the completed work of the self-sacrificing 
 Christ, the second the uncompleted, but continuous 
 work of the risen living Christ 
 7
 
 258 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 SECTION I. Bible terms and phrases which are 
 assumed to teach the penality of Chrisf 1 s death. 
 The relation of Chrisf s suffering to his propitia- 
 tion. 
 
 The Bible sometimes refers Christ's propitiatory 
 work to his sufferings, and sometimes to his death. 
 When the word suffering is used, it should, I think, 
 be always understood in a metonymical sense; or, 
 as the cause put for the effect, and is equivalent to 
 death, which is the natural effect of suffering. 
 Human beings can bear only a limited amount of 
 suffering, and when the maximum of this capacity 
 is transcended, death is the natural result. When 
 the Bible, therefore, speaks of the sufferings of 
 Christ as the ground of his propitiation, his actual 
 death is intended. 
 
 This fact, rightly apprehended, throws much 
 light upon the much-mooted question as to the 
 amount of suffering Christ actually endured for 
 men. 
 
 What the great moral law, under which Christ 
 was born, required him to do, was to give himself 
 his life a sacrifice for the sins of the world; or, 
 to be obedient unto death, even the death of the 
 cross. This was the highest and most perfect obedi- 
 ence possible. Besides life, he had nothing to give.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 259 
 
 Had his capacity for suffering been a thousand 
 times greater than it actually was, the endurance 
 of all this suffering, apart from his death, would 
 have constituted no propitiation, because it would 
 not have met the full requirements of the law 
 would not have been obedience unto death, or all 
 that he could give. 
 
 On the contrary, any amount which was purely 
 consequent upon obedience unto death, was suffi- 
 cient, because it was all that was possible. 
 
 I will further say that had it been possible for 
 Christ to experience a sacrificial death without suf- 
 fering at all, either bodily or mentally, the propitia- 
 tory sacrifice would have been accepted, because it 
 would have been obedience unto death. 
 
 This, however, was of course, impossible; and I 
 make the statement only to emphasize the important 
 fact that obedience perfect obedience unto death 
 was what the law required, and not suffering or 
 pain as such, and apart from the death to which it 
 was accessory. The sacrifice and the consequent 
 propitiation consisted in the obedience unto death, 
 and not in the amount of suffering involved. 
 
 It was the death the surrender of the victim's 
 blood, or life that the ritual required, and not 
 any definite amount of pain as such. The obedi- 
 ence of Christ unto death was what the law of love 
 required, and not any amount of suffering exactly 
 equated to the sufferings involved in spiritual and 
 eternal death. 
 
 If this view of the sufferings of Christ is even 
 substantially true, then we can see that salvation is
 
 260 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 truly by grace, and not by penal fire, or its equiv- 
 alent as the penal theory requires us to believe. 
 
 We can also see how Christ could become a pro- 
 pitiation for the sins of the whole world without 
 enduring suffering equal in degree, if not also in 
 kind, to the endless death of all mankind. 
 
 It relieves us from the necessity of believing that 
 the blessings that come from benefaction can never 
 exceed the evils endured by the benefactor; or that 
 good and evil, blessing and cursing, form an exact 
 equation no pardon without prior and equivalent 
 punishment! 
 
 The above statements will enable us the more 
 correctly to understand some forms of expressions 
 used in reference to Christ's sacrifice of himself for 
 the sins of humanity. 
 
 SECTION II. Bible texts examined. 
 
 We have both in the Old and in the New Testa- 
 ment various forms of expression, which are as- 
 sumed to prove that Christ actually bore the guilt 
 and punishment due to the sins of thos for whom 
 he died. 
 
 i. From the Old Testament we have the follow- 
 ing (Isa. liii.): 
 
 "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sor- 
 rows was wounded for our transgressions bruised 
 for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace 
 was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 
 The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all 
 for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 
 It pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him 
 to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 261 
 
 for sin he shall see his seed shall see the travail of 
 his soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge 
 shall my righteous servant justify many; for he 
 shall bear their iniquities he hath poured out his 
 soul unto death he was numbered with the trans- 
 gressors and he bare the sin of many and made in- 
 tercession for the transgressors.*' 
 
 2. The New Testament furnishes the following 
 corresponding texts : 
 
 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own 
 body on the tree." (i Peter ii. 24.) 
 
 ' ' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, 
 Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. ' ' (Gal. 
 iii. 13.) 
 
 These are the principal and the strongest texts 
 relied upon to prove that "To bear sin is to bear 
 the guilt and punishment of sin." 
 
 Remarks. However strong these citations from 
 Isaiah liii. may appear, the entire contents of the 
 chapter can never be .harmonized with the penal 
 theory. We consequently are under the necessity 
 of making the prophet contradict either himself or 
 the penal theory. 
 
 This might be shown from a comparison of many 
 expressions in the chapter; but it is sufficient to di- 
 rect attention to the following: 
 
 (1) "When thou shalt make his soul [life] an of- 
 fering for sin." His death was sacrificial and there- 
 fore not penal, for, as we have seen, a penal sacri- 
 fice is a contradiction in the adjective. 
 
 (2) " He shall see his seed " see those to whom
 
 262 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 his own nature is imparted, or who are born of 
 God. If he died a penal death, then he imparts 
 penal righteousness to men, and saints and Satan 
 are clothed in the same garments, as we have pre- 
 viously seen. 
 
 (3) "Shall see the travail of his soul, and shall 
 be satisfied." How can the fruits of penalty be a 
 source of satisfaction to the penalty bearer ? Pen- 
 alty, as we have seen, can not satisfy God, for he is 
 angry with the wicked (the only penalty bearers) 
 every day; nor satisfy justice, which is defrauded by 
 all penalty bearers of its claims to their loving obe- 
 dience; least of all, how can penalty satisfy the 
 penalty bearer, for, having no power to remove its 
 cause, it is neither a satisfaction in itself nor the 
 means of subsequent satisfaction. 
 
 On the contrary, if Christ's travail was such as 
 comes from loving fidelity, then we can very readily 
 see how he can be satisfied with the fruits of that 
 travail. It is like the satisfaction that comes to the 
 generous benefactor, or to the self-sacrificing moth- 
 er, who contemplates with ineffable pleasure the 
 restoration of a sick child which her travail of soul 
 has instrumentally saved from death. 
 
 (4) " By his knowledge shall my righteous serv- 
 ant justify many." If this text read: By his pe- 
 nal sufferings my unrighteous enemy shall justify 
 many, then it would be in harmony with penal 
 substitution. But reading as it does, all the exe- 
 getes and casuists in Christendom can not harmo- 
 nize it with the penal scheme. This nothing but 
 the most defiant dogmatism can do.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 263 
 
 The terms knozvledge, righteous, servant, and 
 justify, each, of itself excludes penality. 
 
 If Christ justifies men by substitutionary suffer- 
 ing, then he does not justify them by his knowl- 
 edge. If he is a penal substitute for sinners, then 
 he is confessedly guilty or unrighteous', and if he is 
 guilty, then he is not a servant in the sense in 
 which Christ is recognized as such; and if he is not 
 preceptively righteous, then he can not be righteous 
 or justify others, except with the penal righteous- 
 ness, with which Satan himself is justified. 
 
 We may not know precisely how Christ by his 
 knowledge justifies many, but we know the fact. 
 We know the fact that the physician by his knowl- 
 edge restores the patient; that the wise man may 
 impart his wisdom to others without being able 
 fully to comprehend the processes. So of Christ's 
 knowledge in justifying many. We know that he 
 ' ' learned obedience by the things which he suffered, 
 [thus] being made perfect he became the author of 
 eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." 
 (Heb. v. 8, 9.) 
 
 By the knowledge thus "learned" he is able to 
 justify or make righteous those that obey him by 
 making them partakers of his own righteousness, 
 etc. (Heb. x. 12; 2 Peter i. 4.) 
 
 (5) ' ' Therefore will I divide him a portion with 
 the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the 
 strong." For his services God "hath highly ex- 
 alted him and given him a name which is above 
 every name." (Phil. ii. 9-11.) 
 
 How could God so honor one for the righteous-
 
 264 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 ness that consists in bearing a penalty ? The idea 
 seems preposterous in the extreme. 
 
 (6) "And made intercession for transgressors." 
 This finds one striking verification in the prayer on 
 the cross : " Father, forgive them, for they know not 
 what they do." (Luke xxiii. 34.) 
 
 I have had frequent occasion to say that if the 
 penal theory is true if pardon is based upon pun- 
 ishment and comes necessarily out of it, as all con- 
 sistent penalists hold, then prayer, intercession, and 
 every other means are worthless. If God has made 
 punishment the condition of pardon, then to inter- 
 cede or pray for pardon is a reflection upon the di- 
 vine integrity. 
 
 Yet Christ prayed for his persecutors. If that 
 has any pertinency or significance in it, and we 
 know it has, then it proves beyond all reasonable 
 question that his sufferings did not offset the guilt 
 and infallibly insure the salvation of all for whom 
 he died, as substitutionists teach. 
 
 These quotations, taken from the fifty-third chap- 
 ter of Isaiah can not be harmonized with the doc- 
 trine of substitution. They, by their logical conse- 
 quences, contradict it. Hence, it follows, if that 
 doctrine is true, the prophet contradicts himself. 
 Or, if he does not contradict himself, he squarely 
 contradicts that doctrine, and penalists egregiously 
 misinterpret the prophet. His language can not 
 mean what they assume it to mean. Let us see 
 what the facts require us to believe.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 265 
 
 SECTION III. To bear sin explained. 
 
 I suppose that it will be readily conceded that 
 these texts all teach by varied forms of expression 
 the same doctrine; also conceded that if one teach- 
 es the penal theory, then they all teach it, and that 
 if all do not teach it, then no one teaches it. 
 
 It would be a more tedious than difficult task, I 
 think, to take these texts, one by one, and show 
 that none of them give any support to the penal 
 scheme. 
 
 If the penal theory was an established fact, it 
 would be possible, I suppose, to harmonize the 
 most of them with that theory, but not possible to 
 harmonize them with those conflicting texts of the 
 same chapter above noticed. 
 
 But the question is not whether they can be har- 
 monized with it, but whether they are intended to 
 teach it and consequently can be harmonized with 
 no other view. 
 
 Let us take the words "he bare the sin of many." 
 I fix on this expression because Dr. Hodge cites it 
 as affording strong and unquestionable proof of pe- 
 nality. Dr. Hodge boldly asserts without qualifica- 
 tion or any sort of limitation, that " To bear sin is 
 to bear the guilt and punishment of sin." From 
 this I dissent, and affirm that the Hebrew word 
 nasa, here rendered "bare," is used in many differ- 
 ent senses in the Bible. Among other things, it 
 sometimes means to suffer, or endure punishment 
 on account of sin. This is the sense attached to it 
 by Dr. Hodge and penalists generally. 
 
 But the word is often used in the sense of to re-
 
 266 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 move, to take away or destroy sin without suffering 
 the penalty of it. I also affirm that the word al- 
 ways has this latter meaning, when it is used of the 
 priesthood, when priests are said to bear the sins of 
 the people, etc. It also sometimes means to suffer 
 on account of others. 
 
 Fix this statement distinctly in your minds. It 
 is a vital issue. If I fail to establish its truth, then 
 I fail to disprove the penal theory. But, if this 
 statement can be proved, then the penal theory re- 
 ceives a crushing blow. 
 
 i. Dr. Hodge makes these words, " He bare the 
 sin of many," thje key to his explanation of the 
 scape-goat atonement, and holds that the scape- 
 goat was somehow punished representatively in the 
 death of the sacrificial kid, both goats constituting 
 one sacrifice. 
 
 It certainly is more logical and safer to interpret 
 Isaiah by the light of the scape-goat atonement, 
 for the prophet certainly knew in what sense the 
 scape-goat bears sin, and would naturally use the 
 same expression in the same sense when speaking 
 of Christ. 
 
 We have previously seen that the scape-goat did 
 bear symbolically the sin of all the people; but it 
 was not guilty, nor punished. Isaiah, knowing 
 that the scape-goat was not killed, nor otherwise 
 punished, and knowing it to be a type of Christ, 
 could not set the type and antitype in array against 
 each other. 
 
 Knowing that the goat bore the sins of the peo- 
 ple, but was neither guilty nor punished, he could
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 267 
 
 not mean to say that Christ, when he bears sin, is 
 both guilty and punished. 
 
 Hence, it is unreasonable to suppose that Moses, 
 in the Ritual, uses the words, * ' bear sin, ' ' in the 
 sense of taking away sin without punishment, and 
 that Isaiah should use the same formula in the sense 
 of bearing the punishment of sin. If the same 
 word, when used of the type, means one thing; 
 and when applied to the antitype means a wholly 
 different thing, then the Bible is an incomprehensi- 
 ble riddle. 
 
 2. I have said the Hebrew word nasa is translated 
 bear in the sense of to be afflicted or suffer on ac- 
 count of the sins of others, but not substitutionally. 
 A remarkable instance of this kind is recorded of 
 the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. iv. 4-6). 
 
 According to this account, this good man and 
 prophet of God did in some sense bear the iniquities 
 of his nation for many years. Not because he, 
 himself, had egregiously sinned, but because his 
 nation had so sinned, this good man was made to 
 endure in common with others the evils that God 
 judicially visited upon the rebellious people. 
 
 You will observe that there was no imputation of 
 the nation's sins to the prophet. He was not in 
 any sense their substitute. His sufferings on their 
 account did not relieve them in any sense, for they 
 bore their own sins and were ' ' consumed away for 
 their (own) iniquity" (v. 17). 
 
 In what sense, then, did this good man bear the 
 iniquities of others ? Manifestly thus : He was 
 afflicted, troubled, grieved by the wickedness of
 
 268 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 his people, and made to suffer the temporal evils 
 or calamities common to his people, just as good 
 men generally are made to suffer in mind and in 
 temporal affairs by the iniquities of their families, 
 communities, and nations. 
 
 It h also observable that when national calamities 
 come upon a people, because of their iniquities, or 
 for any cause, the righteous suffer temporal evils 
 with the wicked, as did Ezekiel. 
 
 But why did EzekiePs sufferings not turn away 
 God's displeasure, and bring pardon to his people ? 
 The same word, nasa, is here used that is used by 
 Isaiah. The obvious reason is that he bore their 
 iniquities, as any good man bears the iniquities of 
 others, and not as an accredited priest. Note this 
 fact: His sufferings, possibly, were as great as 
 were those of Moses at Sinai, when he made atone- 
 ment for his people in the affair of the golden calf. 
 But he was not like Moses, a priest or mediator be- 
 tween God and his people. 
 
 We see in this case how a good man, even a 
 prophet, may bear the iniquities of others without 
 being their substitute, or releasing them from their 
 criminality and punishment. 
 
 It is proper also to observe that Ezekiel suffered 
 evils visited upon his people by special providence 
 alone. He did not bear the natuial retributions of 
 their sins. He did not take their mental states and 
 transmit his mental states to them. 
 
 This case is of special value, because it teaches 
 us in a practical way the peculiar and wonderful 
 power of the priesthood. Ezekiel was not a priest,
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 269 
 
 and therefore could not bear the sins of others, 
 either in the sense of taking them away or by re- 
 moving them by suffering the punishment due to 
 them, or in any other way. 
 
 Dr. Hodge refers to Ezekiel's case as an exem- 
 plification of his dictum : 
 
 "To bear sin is to bear the guilt and punishment 
 of sin. He says, Tke expression ('bearing sin') 
 occurs some forty times in the Bible, and always in 
 the sense of bearing the guilt or punishment of 
 sin " (p. 506). 
 
 According to this bold statement, Ezekiel, the 
 scape-goat, and Christ all bore the sins of others 
 exactly in the same sense that is, all bore the 
 guilt and punishments of others' sins. You will 
 remember that Ezekiel bore the sins of the house 
 of Israel, and yet the people were consumed by 
 their own iniquity. Hence, according to Dr. 
 Hodge, the same sins were twice punished; first, in 
 Ezekiel, the substitute; and secondly, in the people 
 themselves. This fact of itself refutes his rash 
 statement. That his assumption is not true will be 
 made sufficiently plain by other facts. 
 
 3. The vital question in hand is, In what sense 
 does the accredited priest bear the sins of others ? 
 We know the sense in which the unrepentant and 
 unpardoned sinner bears his sins; also, know in 
 what sense Ezekiel and other good men bore the 
 iniquities of their people. But we are now con- 
 cerned to know the precise sense in which the 
 divinely-appointed priests did bear the sins of 
 others.
 
 270 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 The settlement of this vital question will neces- 
 sarily settle every important issue between substitu- 
 tionary and non-substitutionary theories of atone- 
 ment; for Ezekiel, the scape-goat, and Christ did 
 all in some sense bear the sins of others. Hence, if 
 to bear sin is used ' ' always in the sense of bearing 
 the guilt or punishment of sin," then, of course, 
 Ezekiel, the scape-goat, and Christ bore the guilt 
 and punishment of others' sins; and the substitu- 
 tionary theory is unquestionably established.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 271 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 SECTION I. The qtiestion tested by the Bible 
 facts. 
 
 1. We have just seen that Ezekiel bore the iniq- 
 uities of his people; yet his people bore the same 
 iniquities. This fact flatly contradicts substitu- 
 tion. 
 
 2. We have previously seen that the scape-goat 
 bore all the sins of all the people, and yet was not 
 killed, or punished in any way. This fact contra- 
 dicts the dictum, that, " To bear sin is to bear the 
 guilt and punishment of sin." 
 
 3. In Exodus (x. 16, 17) we have the word nasa 
 translated ' ''forgive. ' ' Pharaoh said to Moses : 
 
 "I have sinned against the Lord your God, and 
 against you. Now, therefore, forgive, I pray thee, 
 my sin only this once, and entreat the Lord your 
 God that he may take away from me this death 
 only." 
 
 Moses entreated the Lord, and the locusts were 
 taken away and cast into the sea. 
 
 Here we have sin bearing in the exact sense of 
 sin forgiven, sin taken away, sin blotted out, sin 
 destroyed, but not punished in principal or any sub- 
 stitute. 
 
 Let it not be forgotten that we have the same 
 word here that Moses uses when he prays, " if thou
 
 272 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 wilt forgive their sin, if not, blot me, I pray thee, 
 out of thy book." Also the same word used of the 
 scape-goat, when it bears or takes away sin; also 
 the same word used by Isaiah when he says of 
 Christ that "he bear the sin of many," also when 
 he says, ' ' he hath borne our griefs. ' ' 
 
 Now, it certainly displays more courage than dis- 
 cretion to say that, " To bear sin (in all these cases, 
 or even in any of them) is to bear the guilt or pun- 
 ishment of sin. ' ' Sin was actually borne, or taken 
 away in all these cases, yet there was absolutely no 
 punishment in any of them, unless the case of 
 Christ is an exception, which is contrary to every 
 probability. 
 
 It is worthy of note that Isaiah, when he says of 
 Christ (v. n), "he shall bear their iniquities," does 
 not use the word nasa, as inverse 12, when he says, 
 "he bare the sin of many," but uses the word 
 sabal, the ordinary meaning of which is to " bear, 
 or carry away. ' ' 
 
 4. It may be a matter of some surprise to you in 
 the face of the dictum, that "to bear sin is always 
 to bear its punishment," to be told that the word 
 nasa is often translated forgive. 
 
 You can satisfy yourselves by referring to the fol- 
 lowing texts, in all of which the same word, nasa, 
 is rendered forgive: Gen. 1. 17; Ex. x. 17; xxxii. 
 32; Num. xiv. 19; Josh. xxiv. 19; I Sam. xxv. 28; 
 Psa. xxv. 1 8; xxxii. 5; Ixxxv. 2; xcix. 8; Isa. 
 ii. 9. 
 
 In all these cases the very word used of Christ by 
 Isaiah liii. 4, 12, is used in the sense of pardon
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 273 
 
 without punishment. Dare we then to say that 
 ' ' to bear sin is always to bear the guilt or punish- 
 ment of sin?" 
 
 5. Moses is commanded (Ex. xxviii. 38) to make 
 a plate of pure gold, and engrave upon it the words, 
 " Holiness to the Lord." This was attached to the 
 helmet, and worn by Aaron upon his forehead; 
 that ' ' Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy 
 things which the children of Israel shall hallow of 
 all their holy things, and it shall be always upon 
 his forehead, that they may be accepted before the 
 Lord." 
 
 Remarks, ^i) We are here taught that nothing 
 rational or irrational is holy or acceptable to God in 
 and of itself, or without consecration to him. 
 
 (2) That its iniquity can be borne or taken away 
 only by priestly power. 
 
 (3) The priest, in removing its iniquity or un- 
 cleanness is said to bear its iniquity. 
 
 (4) That for a priest to bear iniquity is not to 
 suffer the penalty of sin, but to take it away 
 blot it out destroy it. 
 
 (5) That whatever is sanctified by an accredited 
 priest, has its iniquity or uncleanness taken away, 
 and is for this reason acceptable to God, and nothing 
 else is acceptable. [Hence, the necessity for atone- 
 ment, or consecration for the holy place, the altar, 
 etc. (Lev. xvi.), for Jewish worshipers (Heb. ix. 
 13), and for Christian worshipers (Rom. xii. i).] 
 
 What becomes of the dictum in the face of these 
 sturdy and indubitable Bible facts? It is simply 
 crushed. 
 18
 
 274 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 6. It is well-nigh superfluous to say the word is 
 used often to express the simple idea of removal 
 without the remotest reference to suffering of any 
 kind. 
 
 Moses uses it to express the removal of the lo- 
 custs by the wind (Ex. x. 19); also in denying that 
 he had taken from the Hebrews any thing improp- 
 erly (Num. xvi. 15). In Daniel (xi. 12), and in 
 Amos (iv. 2), it is correctly translated "take away." 
 
 These facts, it seems to me, utterly disprove the 
 assumptions of penalists that there can be no for- 
 giveness without prior punishment, and that "to 
 bear sin is always to bear the guilt and punishment 
 of sin." They establish, in opposition to these as- 
 sumptions, the fundamental truth that for God's 
 priests to bear sin or make atonement is to take 
 away sin, remove sin, and make it, as to its guilt, 
 or as to its punishment, as if it had never been. 
 Bvery example in the Bible bearing on the issue 
 sustains this position. Penalists can not produce a 
 solitary instance to the contrary. 
 
 Christ was a priest the priest of priests a priest 
 forever in his own right. The Aaronic priests bore 
 or took away sin in a certain sense; so the scape- 
 goat, the type of the living Christ, but did not bear 
 its guilt or punishment. The very same words used 
 in relation to them are used in relation to Christ. 
 What right have we then to say that Christ bore 
 our sins by taking their guilt and punishment upon 
 himself? 
 
 Dr. Hodge was not unobservant of the fact that 
 to bear sin does not always clearly mean to bear its
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 275 
 
 guilt and punishment He disposes of the diffi- 
 culty, however, in his usual cavalier style. 
 He says (p. 506): 
 
 "The expression occurs some forty times in the 
 Bible, and always in the sense of bearing the guilt 
 or punishment of sin. It is hardly an exception to 
 this remark that there are a few cases in which to 
 bear sin means to pardon, as in Ex. x. 17; xxxii. 
 32; xxxiv. 7; Ps. xxxii. 5; (Ixxxv. 3;) for pardon 
 is not the removal of sin morally, but the lifting up 
 or removal of its guilt 
 
 This being the fact, it determines the nature of 
 the sin-offerings under the law. The victim bore 
 the sins of the offerer, and died in his stead. An 
 expiation was thereby effected by the suffering of a 
 vicarious punishment This also determines the 
 nature of the work of Christ. If he was an offer- 
 ing for sin, if he saves us from the penalty of the 
 law of God, in the same way in which the sin-offer- 
 ing saved the Israelites from the law of Moses, then 
 he bore the guilt of our sins and endured the penal- 
 ty in our stead." 
 
 Remarks. Dr. Hodge here displays his usual 
 adroitness in disposing of a formidable difficulty; 
 but in doing so certainly involves himself in nu- 
 merous perplexities. 
 
 i. He says "bearing sin is used always in the 
 sense of bearing the guilt or punishment of sin." 
 Yet he says there are ' ' a few cases ' ' (why did he not 
 say many ?) in which to bear sin ' ' means to pardon, ' ' 
 as in Ex. x. 17; but this "is hardly an exception." 
 
 Here we have what seems to be a palpable con- 
 tradiction. "Always" admits of no exceptions it 
 does not mean in some instances, but in every in-
 
 276 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 stance. Still he specifies five exceptions, and might 
 have specified five times as many. 
 
 But we are told that these instances where to bear 
 sin means to pardon are ' ' hardly an exception ' ' 
 hence, of no consequence. This reminds tne that 
 the righteous are scarcely "hardly" saved, (i 
 Peter iv. 18.) Still they are saved, and there is an 
 immense difference between being scarcely saved 
 and being not saved at all: it is just the difference 
 between heaven and hell. So what Dr. Hodge says 
 "is hardly an exception" is just the fundamental 
 difference between the penal theory of the atone- 
 ment and that of the Bible. For the " few cases" 
 referred to by Dr. Hodge and many others like 
 them in which to bear sin means to pardon are 
 clearly decisive of the exact sense in which God's 
 priests bear sin. It was not convenient for Dr. 
 Hodge to recognize this fact it would be fatal to 
 his theory to do this. Hence, the summary manner 
 in which he sets these cases aside. 
 
 2. In putting these "scarcely" exceptional cases 
 out of his way, he says, "for pardon is not the re- 
 moval of sin morally, but the lifting up or removal 
 of its guilt." 
 
 As an isolated proposition this is true in relation 
 to civil crimes, also in relation to judicial penalties 
 in the sphere of divine law, but in relation to the 
 ordinary or natural penalties of sin, it is not true; 
 for, as we have elsewhere seen, it involves the ab- 
 surd ideas of punishing sin before it exists, of sep- 
 arating effects from their causes, and of saving men 
 in their sins and not from their sins.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 277 
 
 Men may be pardoned or released from judicial 
 punishment through priestly interposition, as was 
 often done among the Hebrews, without moral ren- 
 ovation, or the removal of sin morally; but this is 
 deliverance from temporal evils only, and in no 
 sense deliverance from the natural retributions of 
 sin. To pardon sin, in such a sense as to save the 
 soul, is not to release it from punishment without 
 moral renovation, but to renew regenerate, new 
 create the soul itself. This done, the penalty ceases 
 as pain subsides when the disease which causes it is 
 removed. . 
 
 3. Dr. Hodge admits that u there are a few cases 
 in which to bear sin means to pardon ' ' without 
 punishment; but knowing this admission to be fatal 
 to his theory, says, ' ' they are hardly exceptions ' ' to 
 his dictum that to bear sin is always used ' ' in the 
 sense of bearing the guilt or punishment of sin," 
 and proceeds in his argument on the assumption 
 that these few exceptions are in fact not exceptions 
 to his universal dicttim, 
 
 The only reason he is pleased to give for thus 
 setting aside these cases is in the words, ' ' for par- 
 don is not the removal of sin morally, but the lift- 
 ing up or removal of its guilt. ' ' This statement, 
 if it has any pertinence at all, is pertinent only to 
 extraordinary temporal punishments, and not the 
 ordinary and natural punishments of sin, which we 
 have just seen can be pardoned or removed only by 
 the removal of their causes. 
 
 If we are at liberty to deal thus with the Bible, 
 setting aside what does not suit us, then we are at
 
 278 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 liberty to set it all aside and believe whatever may 
 happen to gratify our whims. 
 
 You should not forget that in all these exception- 
 al cases, so cavalierly set aside by Dr. Hodge, and 
 in all cases in which priests are said to bear sin, 
 there was absolutely no guilt and no punishment 
 endured by them. 
 
 4. Dr. Hodge, having dashed away with a stroke 
 of his pen these Bible texts which literally crush 
 the whole penal theory, very easily reaches the con- 
 clusion that Christ "bore the guilt of our sins and 
 endured the penalty in our stead." 
 
 The dictum that to bear sin is used always in the 
 sense of bearing the guilt or punishment of sin 
 once accepted as true, then it follows of necessity 
 that those exceptions are apparent and not real ; that 
 Moses was in some way punished for the sin of Is- 
 rael in the affair of the golden calf ; in the taking 
 away of the locusts; that all priests in bearing the 
 sins of others were actually guilty and punished as 
 substitutes; that the scape-goat was actually pun- 
 ished; that Christ was actually guilty by substitu- 
 tion, and "bore the guilt of our sins, and endured 
 the penalty in our stead. ' ' 
 
 The dictum granted, no sane man dare deny the 
 conclusion. But in accepting the dictum, we re- 
 ject by necessary consequence the teaching of every 
 text in the Bible that sheds any light on the nature 
 of priestly atonements. 
 
 I hope you will not condemn this statement as 
 rash or arrogant until you can produce at least one 
 instance in which atonement was made by one
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 279 
 
 party taking the guilt and punishment of another 
 party. 
 
 But the dictum, as has been shown, from many 
 considerations is not true. It is a gratuitous fig- 
 ment, impossible in the nature and order of things 
 which God has established. 
 
 5. Now, it may be safely assumed that Isaiah, an 
 intelligent and pious Jew, understood the terminol- 
 ogy of the Hebrew Scriptures; knew the exact 
 sense in which Pharaoh's sin was taken away, 
 or forgiven through the priestly prayer of Moses; 
 in what sense atonement was made for Israel at 
 Sinai ; in what sense Aaron bore or took away the 
 iniquities of the holy things offered to the Lord; in 
 what sense the scape-goat bore or carried the sins 
 of the nation; in fine, the prophet certainly knew 
 the exact sense in which God's priests always bear 
 or take away the sins of others. 
 
 How then could he, with all these and many 
 other accordant facts before him, with not a solitary 
 adverse case in the Bible, teach, or mean to teach, 
 that Christ, a priest forever in his own right, liter- 
 ally bore or took away the sins of the world by tak- 
 ing the guilt and actually bearing the pains and 
 penalties of these sins? That he intended so to 
 teach simply defies the possibility of rational faith. 
 
 Moses and Aaron were both priests and acknowl- 
 edged types of Christ. They could bear or take 
 away sin through intercessory prayers by virtue of 
 their priestly power. But the God-Man, a priest 
 forever, could take it away only by taking its guilt 
 and enduring its penalty? This, the theory re-
 
 280 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 quires us to believe, but Bible facts compel me to 
 dissent. 
 
 SECTION II. Fiirther proof that to bear sin is 
 not to take its guilt. 
 
 Additional proof that Isaiah does not mean to 
 teach that Christ, in bearing sin, actually took upon 
 himself the guilt of the world, and suffered all the 
 punishment this guilt was capable of producing, 
 seems to be supererogatory. 
 
 But, as old and popular prejudices are hard to 
 overcome, and long-cherished opinions difficult to 
 replace with new ones, it will not be out of place to 
 lay before you additional proof. 
 
 i. The Old and the New Testament are mutually 
 interpretative, one of the other. Many things in the 
 Old are made more easy of comprehension by the 
 New, and many things in the New would be simply 
 unintelligible without the Old. In fact, very much 
 of the terminology of the New was manifestly sug- 
 gested by that of the Old. This is especially true 
 of the terms relating to the mediation of Christ, 
 his priesthood, his sacrificial death, etc. 
 
 If the Old Testament teaches the doctrine of sub- 
 stitution, we should reasonably expect the New to 
 teach it with equal or greater clearness. If the Old 
 does not authorize us to believe that for God's ac- 
 credited priests " to bear sin is to bear the guilt and 
 punishment of sin," then we have no right to be- 
 lieve that the New teaches any such doctrine. 
 
 We have just seen that the Old does not teach 
 it. Now, let us see what the New requires us to 
 believe.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 281 
 
 
 
 2. Matthew is presumed to understand the teach- 
 ing of Isaiah, as Isaiah is presumed to understand 
 Moses and the tabernacle service. 
 
 This New Testament writer, when he saw Christ, 
 the great sin bearer, taking away the ills of hu- 
 manity the sins and diseases of the people was 
 reminded of what Isaiah had said. 
 
 He says (Matt. viii. 14-17) : 
 
 "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, 
 he saw his wife's mother laid and sick of a fever, 
 and he touched her hand and the fever left her, and 
 she arose and ministered unto them. And when 
 evening was come, they brought unto him many 
 possessed with devils, and he cast out the spirits 
 with his word, and healed all that were sick, that it 
 might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah, the 
 prophet, saying himself took our infirmities (asthe- 
 nia], and bore our diseases, sickness (nosos)." 
 
 This text furnishes us with an infallible clew as 
 to how Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah in 
 bearing or taking away human infirmities diseases 
 and sins. Matthew, with his own eyes, saw him 
 bear, or take away human diseases and iniquities 
 by a power inherent in himself, and not by a power 
 which he had acquired by satisfying abstract justice 
 as the penal substitute of those whose iniquities he 
 bore away. There is no substitution with its inva- 
 riable double imputation. He gave the sufferers 
 health, but he did not take their diseases. He re- 
 lieved them of the devils, but he did not receive 
 them into himself. What he did for them was not 
 by an interchange of equated suffering, but by his
 
 282 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 
 
 word, a mere expression of his will, just as he qui- 
 eted the raging winds and waves. 
 
 3. Certainly there was no substitution here; no 
 bearing of penalty for others, no transfer of guilt 
 from one party to another, and yet, Matthew being 
 judge, it was an actual, literal fulfillment and ex- 
 emplification of the prophecy of Isaiah when he 
 says " he bore the sin of many." 
 
 Matthew being judge, Christ bears sin, not by 
 taking its guilt or punishment, but by taking it 
 away. Physical evils are removed by physical 
 power, and moral evils by moral power. But 
 Christ has equal power over both. But he takes 
 away neither by suffering their pains and penalties, 
 but by a power inherent in himself. 
 
 But suppose it should be granted that he took, 
 bore away in his ante-mortem ministry only phys- 
 ical evils, this brings no relief to the theory. 
 
 It is, doubtless, true that a very large per cent, 
 of the patients whose maladies Christ took away 
 brought these diseases upon themselves by their 
 sins. 
 
 When Jesus healed the man who had an infirmity 
 thirty and eight years, he said, " Behold, thou art 
 made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come 
 unto thee." 
 
 This clearly teaches us that his affliction was the 
 natural outgrowth of his sin, and the sin and its 
 resultant disease were both taken away at the same 
 time and by the same power. Many other examples 
 might be given from the New Testament. 
 
 The moral and the physical, though distinct, are
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 283 
 
 so intimately related that I can not conceive of two 
 wholly different modes of removal one by a ple- 
 nary satisfaction of justice, and one by a word, an' 
 act of will. 
 
 Now, I feel quite sure that even the most zealous 
 advocate of substitution would not be willing to 
 say that Christ, the great sin bearer, did actually 
 take into his own body all the diseases of which he 
 relieved the afflicted that came to him. Yet Isaiah, 
 Matthew, and others expressly say that he did liter- 
 ally bear them. Then it is clear as noon that he 
 did not bear them by taking their punishment upon 
 himself, but by destroying them. 
 
 Certainly we have no more authority from the 
 word of God to say that Christ did really take our 
 sins and guilt into his own consciousness, and did 
 accordingly endure the punishment of them, than 
 we have to say that he actually took into his own 
 body the pains consequent upon physical maladies. 
 
 Isaiah, Matthew, and others of equal authority 
 being judges, he did bear them both the physical 
 and the moral and bear them both exactly in the 
 same sense. 
 
 Hence, if he took away one by a "penal satisfac- 
 tion," he in like manner took away the other. If 
 he took away one by his word a simple act of will, 
 as he cast out devils, calmed the winds and waves, 
 raised the dead, etc. then in like manner did he 
 take away the other. 
 
 The former is simply preposterous and impossible. 
 
 The latter is feasible and possible, and is without 
 doubt the true method.
 
 284 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 It was announced in Eden that Christ should 
 bruise the serpent's head (Gen. iii. 15). It is also 
 'said, "The God of peace shall bruise (or tread) 
 Satan under your feet" (Rom. xvi. 20). It is also 
 said that Christ was incarnated, " that through death 
 he might destroy him that had the power of death, 
 that is, the devil" (Heb. ii. 14), and, "For this 
 purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he 
 might destroy the works of the devil" (i John 
 iii. 8). 
 
 Of course the serpent, Satan, and the devil all 
 denote the same power, whose works Christ came 
 to destroy. Satan, it is allowed, instigates all 
 human sin. That he had the power of death is 
 demonstrated by the fact that he beguiled Eve into 
 rebellion and spiritual death. 
 
 Then sin and spiritual death are the works of the 
 devil, which Christ came to bear, lake away, de- 
 stroy. 
 
 The vital question at issue is, How does he de- 
 stroy sin, or the works of the devil ? 
 
 i. Does he do it as would a surety destroy the 
 indebtedness of his principal, simply by paying it? 
 or as one man would relieve another from legal 
 punishment by bearing the punishment himself, if 
 any law tolerated such a thing? Is taking away 
 sin by such methods to destroy sin, or to honor, 
 magnify, and exalt it? If the physician removes 
 disease from his patient by transferring it to him- 
 self and suffering all its consequences, does he in 
 any proper sense destroy the disease ? He, it might 
 be said, saves the patient, but it can not be said
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 385 
 
 that lie destroys sin, for sin destroys him; or, Satan 
 actually gets all he desires. If Satan instigates sin 
 for his own gratification, it is not presumed that he 
 is any more scrupulous as to who suffers the conse- 
 quences of it than is abstract "justice" which the 
 penal theory requires us to believe is just as well 
 pleased with suffering in a substitute as in a princi- 
 pal. It is also presumable that Satan is just as well 
 satisfied with equivalent penalty as is justice. 
 
 Hence, it is clear as noon that if Christ endured 
 the penalty of sin in our stead, then sin is not de- 
 stroyed at all, but transferred from one party to an- 
 other. The creditor does not lose his money when 
 it is paid by a surety; nor Satan his pleasure in sin 
 when its penalty is endured by a substitute. Satan 
 and justice, it seems, are equally well pleased with 
 this method of destroying the works of the devil. 
 
 2. Again, the absurdity of destroying sin by en- 
 during its penalty, is further apparent from this 
 logical consequence, viz. : If to endure the penalty 
 of sin is to destroy sin, then, of necessity, to enjoy 
 the reward of virtue is to destroy virtue. No man 
 of any logical acumen can deny this conclusion. 
 If one 'proposition is true, then the other is neces- 
 sarily so. For penalty sustains to sin exactly the 
 same relation that reward does to virtue. 
 
 Hence, we see that the very principle by which 
 substitution proposes to destroy sin, vice, moral 
 evil, also destroys virtue, and moral good; or the 
 principle, universally applied, would destroy all 
 vice and all virtue, and blot both heaven and 
 hell out of existence. Hence, if there is no other
 
 286 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 method of destroying sin than by suffering its pen- 
 alties, then the destruction of sin is simply an im- 
 possibility. But Christ "was manifested that he 
 might destroy (sin) the works of the devil," and 
 this we know he did not do by his passion on the 
 cross, or elsewhere; for sin fearfully abounds to- 
 day, and sinners are suffering its penalties for them- 
 selves. 
 
 But Christ, true to his mission, is to-day destroy- 
 ing it, delivering men from its love and dominion. 
 This he does by a power in him as a living, quick- 
 ening spirit, and thus brings men from a state of 
 spiritual death to spiritual life (Eph. ii. 1-6). He 
 destroys it, not by taking its penalties on himself, 
 but by destroying sin itself, or by freeing men from 
 sin, as disease is destroyed when the patient is freed 
 from it (Rom. vi. 1-7, 18; i Cor. vii. 22; John viii. 
 36, and parallels). 
 
 This view of the subject brings us down from the 
 dreamy heights of scholastic conjecture and cl 
 Priori conclusions into the sphere of intelligibility, 
 releases us from the necessity of saying that sin 
 was destroyed before it was committed of saying 
 that Christ took the punishment of the sins of men 
 who, we see, are suffering the punishment of their 
 own sins every day a fearful fact which can never 
 be explained in haifcnony with the penal theory. 
 This view of the subject puts the plan of salvation 
 in beautiful harmony with universal nature. 
 
 As we look to God, as a living power in nature, 
 for food, and raiment, and shelter, which are given 
 to us largely through our own activity, so we look
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 287 
 
 to the same beneficent God in Christ for spiritual 
 food and deliverance from sin. 
 
 On the contrary, if the penal theory in its only 
 consistent form is true, then what should we do ? 
 
 The only answer the substitutionist can consist- 
 ently return to this question is, Nothing. But why 
 this answer? Simply because if Christ has borne 
 the penalty of our sins in our place, then we can 
 not but be saved. Nothing pertaining to our spir- 
 itual state and destiny is conditioned. If we will 
 to be saved, it is only because we can not but will 
 it. Our destiny is in no sense conditioned upon 
 what we do, but what we do is conditioned upon 
 and determined by our predetermined destiny.
 
 288 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 SECTION I. Christians bearing one another's 
 burden. 
 
 " Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the 
 law of Christ" (Gal. vi. 2.) 
 
 If you examine this text in the Greek, you find 
 the verb bear to be the same used by Matt. viii. 17. 
 These burdens which we are here commanded to 
 bear are such as are common to Christians, through 
 temptation, mental infirmities, poverty, persecu- 
 tions, and faults, or sins. (See context. ) 
 
 Now, in what sense can Christians bear these 
 burdens for one another? You can not take my 
 temptations, my infirmities and faults, and make 
 them your own my remorse of conscience or what- 
 ever pains or penalties may come on me from them. 
 You can not by possibility take my place in law 
 and as my substitute bear my burdens while I am 
 set free and released from them. Nor can the Al- 
 mighty himself do this without changing personali- 
 ties. The utmost you can do is to give me your 
 moral support, your sympathy, your love, your coun- 
 sel, and your prayers. 
 
 One friend might sacrifice ease and comfort, and 
 even die of sympathetic love for another, but can 
 not take his place or suffer in his stead. To bear 
 one another's burdens, then, is not to bear them
 
 XGN-PEXAL THEORY. 289 
 
 substitutionally, or one in the place of another, but 
 in the interest of another. 
 
 Now I wish you to make special note of the fact, 
 that by bearing one another's burdens in this, the 
 only possible method, we, Paul being judge, do 
 fulfill the law of Christ. "Bear ye one another's 
 burdens, and so (in this way) fulfill the law of 
 Christ." Now, what is this law of Christ which 
 Christians are required to fulfill ? 
 
 I can conceive of no law of Christ that Christians 
 can fulfill, except his example of self-sacrificing 
 love. 
 
 He says: "This is my commandment, that ye 
 love another as I have loved you." (John xv. 12.) 
 And Paul says: "Husbands, love your wives as 
 Christ also loved the church and gave himself for 
 it." (Eph. v. 25.) 
 
 Observe that the comparison in these texts is one 
 of kind, and not of degree. Now, husbands may 
 suffer deeply through love, in the interest of their 
 wives; but never can suffer in the room or place of 
 their wives. 
 
 
 
 These texts certainly destroy the supposed penal 
 significance of the word bear. 
 
 SECTION II. Another text relied upon by pe- 
 nalists. 
 
 i Peter ii. 24 is considered, perhaps, the most fa- 
 vorable to substitution of any text in the New Tes- 
 tament. It, therefore, requires attention. It reads 
 thus: 
 
 "Who his own self bare ouj sins in his body
 
 290 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 t 
 
 upon the tree, that we, having died unto sin, might 
 live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were 
 healed." 
 
 Remarks. i. If we may interpret this text in 
 the light of those previously considered, then we 
 know that Christ did not bear our sins as our sub- 
 stitute, or by enduring the penalty of them in our 
 stead. For the Bible must be allowed to be con- 
 sistent with itself, and of course does not teach con- 
 tradictory doctrines concerning the manner in which 
 Christ bears sin. 
 
 But suppose we are not at liberty thus to explain 
 scripture by scripture, and are required to test every 
 text bearing on the subject by the force of its own 
 terminology in the light of its own context; still, 
 I am quite sure that this text, under these restric- 
 tions even, can never be made by any fair exposi- 
 tion to sustain the penal theory. 
 
 2. Let us first consider it in the light of its con- 
 text. No text having a logical connection with its 
 context, can be safely interpreted except in accord- 
 ance with that context; otherwise we may stultify 
 the author. 
 
 The text itself is an illustration, and an enforce- 
 ment of the duty of patience, which is urged by 
 Peter upon Christian bond-servants. In verse 18, 
 Peter says: "Servants be subject to your masters 
 with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but 
 also to the froward." 
 
 Here the duty of reverent and patient subjection 
 is distinctly enjoined. The following verses give 
 the reasons for this patience:
 
 NON- PENAL THEORY. 291 
 
 4 ' For this is thank-worthy, if a man, for con- 
 science toward God, endure grief, suffering wrong- 
 fully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffetted 
 for your faults, ye take it patiently? but if when ye 
 do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is 
 acceptable with God." 
 
 Peter here antithesizes deserved and undeserved 
 punishment, and teaches with utmost distinct- 
 ness: 
 
 1. That there is no merit nothing praise- wor- 
 thy, nothing acceptable to God in suffering for ill- 
 doing, or in enduring penalty. 
 
 2. But that to suffer for well-doing is meritorious 
 or acceptable with God. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to say that to suffer for 
 wrong-doing is to suffer penalty, and to suffer for 
 right-doing is not to suffer penalty, but for right- 
 eousness' sake; and that these two kinds of suffer- 
 ing are in their mental aspects as diverse as it is 
 possible for*the human mind to experience. 
 
 Let this vital truth be emphasized, viz. : that 
 penal suffering, Peter being judge, is void of all 
 merit, is not acceptable with God, and is in no sense 
 the ground of his complacent love or favor. 
 
 On the contrary, the divine blessing is unspar- 
 ingly pronounced upon those that suffer for well- 
 doing that is, suffering which is involved in well- 
 doing. (Matt. v. n, 12.) 
 
 It deserves to be indellibly impressed upon your 
 minds, that the Bible from beginning to end, and 
 in various forms, identifies as to kind the mental 
 sufferings of Christ, and the mental suffering of
 
 292 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 his followers. They differ in degree and merit, but 
 not in kind. 
 
 But no good man ever suffered penally or vicari- 
 ously for another. These well-attested facts can 
 not be reconciled with the substitutionary scheme 
 of atonement. Let me repeat them briefly : 
 
 1. There is, Peter being judge, absolutely no 
 merit in penal suffering; but suffering for well- 
 doing is meritorious or acceptable to God. If 
 these statements are true in reference to the prin- 
 cipals, they must be so of their substitutes, if they 
 have any. 
 
 But there was merit in the suffering of Christ, or 
 rather in the sufferer. His death was to God as a 
 sweet-smelling savor. Therefore, his sufferings were 
 neither substitutionary nor penal. 
 
 2. The mental suffering of Christ and of his foU 
 lowers are identical in kind. But no man ever suf- 
 fered substitutionally for another. Therefore, Christ 
 never so suffered for sinners. 
 
 In verse 21, Peter informs those servants that 
 they were called to suffer for Christ's sake, "be- 
 cause Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an 
 example that ye should follow his steps." 
 
 Here we are taught that Christ suffered for us, 
 and that we must suffer for his sake. If he suffered 
 substitutionally for us, then we are taught that our 
 sufferings for his sake are also substitutionary; oth- 
 erwise, we do not follow his steps as we are required 
 to do. To follow his steps in suffering is to suffer 
 in kind with him, but if his sufferings were vica- 
 rious, then for us to follow in his steps in this re-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 293 
 
 spect is simply impossible, for no man ever did or 
 can thus suffer. 
 
 But if Christ's suffering for us was such as comes 
 from love and not from penalty, and our suffering 
 for him such, and only such, as comes from love to 
 him, then we can see clearly enough how we in this 
 respect may follow in his footsteps as we are required 
 to do. 
 
 Again, the sufferings which Christ endured for 
 us were purely voluntary, as previously stated. 
 But no voluntary suffering is penal, for the bare 
 idea of voluntariness excludes the possibility of 
 penalty. 
 
 Whatever suffering one man may voluntarily 
 undergo in the interest of another, is not penalty 
 but pure benefaction. If one man should, at his 
 own request, be hung in the place of another, it 
 would not be penalty, but pure benefaction. No 
 voluntary suffering is penal. Christ's suffering was 
 voluntary, hence, not penal. 
 
 Such are the teachings of the context with some 
 of its logical correlates. Let us now consider the 
 text itself, and see what it requires us to believe. 
 
 i. The terms of the text, as well as does the con- 
 text, excludes the idea of substitution. 
 
 The word which chiefly determines the nature of 
 Christ's suffering is anaphero, here properly enough 
 translated bear; " who his own self bare our sins in 
 his body on the tree, ' ' or cross. 
 
 This word is used ten times in the New Testa- 
 ment, but never in the sense of bearing punishment 
 of any kind, either by a principal or a substitute.
 
 294 NATURE OF ATONEMENT 
 
 In Matthew xvii. i, it is rendered "bringeth" 
 " bringeth them up into a high mountain " 
 
 In Mark ix. 2, it is rendered " leadeth up" 
 " leadeth them up into a high mountain." 
 
 In Luk'e xxiv. 51, it is rendered " carried up" 
 "carried up into heaven." No substitution, no 
 penalty here. 
 
 In every other instance it is used of priestly 
 functions, or to express the offering up of sacrifice. 
 
 In Hebrews vii. 27, it is rendered "offered up" 
 when he offered up himself;" also, " to offer up" 
 sacrifice. 
 
 In Hebrews ix. 28, it is rendered " to bear" "to 
 bare the sins of many. ' ' 
 
 In Hebrews xiii. 15, it is rendered " let us offer" 
 "let us offer the sacrifice of praise." 
 
 In James ii. 21, it is rendered "when had offered" 
 "when he had offered Isaac, his son." 
 
 In i Peter ii. 5, it is rendered " to offer up" "to 
 offer up spiritual sacrifices." 
 
 In the text, i Peter ii. 24, it is rendered ' ' bear ' ' 
 "bear our sins in his body on the tree." 
 
 In the light of these facts, the obvious meaning 
 of the text is that Christ offered himself his life 
 when his body was on the cross, a sacrifice for the 
 sins of the world. Or, that he bore our sins in the 
 only sense in which priests can bear the sins of 
 others by making propitiation for them and ren- 
 dering their actual removal possible. 
 
 We have just as much Bible authority to say that 
 Isaac was offered as " a penal sacrifice "as to say 
 that Christ was offered as such a sacrifice; or, to
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 295 
 
 say that Christians offer penal satisfaction to justice 
 when they ' ' offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable 
 to God, by Jesus Christ;" or, to say that all re- 
 ligious worship in heaven and on earth is penal. 
 
 2. Other terms of the text taken in their logical 
 connection are irreconcilable with the penal theory. 
 
 The words "that we being dead unto sin might 
 live unto righteousness," express not a necessary, 
 but a possible result of Christ's propitiatory sacri- 
 fice; or, they express the actual result of his suffer- 
 ing to believers, and to no others. 
 
 Penalists teach that the death of Christ actually 
 makes all for whom he suffered dead to the reatus 
 poence of sin, thousands of years, it may be, before 
 the sins are committed; but they are compelled to 
 admit that the elect are not made dead to this reatus 
 c^llp^ until sin is actually committed. Conse- 
 quently, that those for whom Christ died are both 
 dead to the penal consequences of their sins, and at 
 the same time alive to sin as to their love, practice, 
 and guilt of sin. The elect, therefore, according 
 to this scholastic scheme, though actually dead to 
 sin as to its consequences, yet actually live unto 
 unrighteousness, or in the love, practice, and guilt of 
 sin. 
 
 Such is substantially the only explanation the 
 theory can give of the words, "that being dead 
 unto sin we might live unto righteousness. ' ' 
 
 As we have previously said, this reverses the 
 order of nature, separates cause and effect, and re- 
 duces the plan of salvation int a jumble of hard 
 incongruities.
 
 296 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Peter, however, teaches us that ' ' we, being dead 
 to sins, should live unto righteousness," or that, 
 living unto righteousness is the natural and sure 
 consequence of being dead to sins; and Paul (Rom. 
 vi. 2, 7) regards it as an impossible thing to be dead 
 to sin, and yet to live in sin. u How shall we that 
 are dead to sin live any longer therein ? " " For he 
 that is dead (to sin) is freed from sin. ' ' Paul did 
 not believe it possible to be dead to sin and yet live 
 in sin. 
 
 The doctrine of the text obviously is that Christ 
 having died for our sins as a sacrificial offering, and 
 having arisen from the dead, became a quickening 
 spirit, who imparts his own death unto sin (Rom. 
 vi. i-n), and becomes, "the author of eternal sal- 
 vation to them that obey him." 
 
 3. "By whose stripes ye were healed. ' ' 
 
 We can not get substitution with its invariable 
 double imputation out of these words. Try it, if 
 you wish, to your own satisfaction. Christ did not 
 become even for a moment what sinners are, for 
 whom he was wounded ; nor did they ' ' ipso facto ' ' 
 instantly become in law or in morals what he 
 was. 
 
 Rejecting the idea of substitutionary suffering, 
 the text presents no difficulty. 
 
 The words, " by whose stripes ye were healed, " 
 are used metonymically what the dying Christ suf- 
 fered is put for what the risen Christ actually does 
 viz. : heals us, or saves us. This is a figure of 
 speech frequently used in reference to Christ as the 
 author of salvation, and which finds its reason or
 
 NON- PENAL THEORY. 297 
 
 justification in the obvious facts that if he had not 
 suffered he could not have died; if he had not died, 
 he could not have risen from the dead; if he had 
 not risen from the dead, he could not have become 
 a quickening, life-giving spirit; if he had not be- 
 come such a spirit, he could not impart his spiritual 
 life, his holiness, or righteousness, to others. 
 
 Hence, why it is that salvation in the Bible is 
 variously attributed to his suffering, to his blood, to 
 his death, to his resurrection, to his holiness, to his 
 righteousness, to his post-resurrection life, to his 
 intercession, etc. Any one of these terms, when 
 it expresses the source of salvation, implies all the 
 others. 
 
 They are related very much as that group of terms 
 used by the Scriptures to express the various states 
 experienced by the human mind in its transition 
 from death unto life, such as repentance, faith, 
 sanctification, regeneration, justification, adoption, 
 a sealing unto the day of redemption and salvation. 
 Any one of these terms implies the whole. 
 
 Hence, it may be pertinently said that by his 
 stripes all that are spiritually united to him were 
 healed. 
 
 SECTION III.- Christ a ransom for many. 
 
 I suppose this review of texts, relied upon to 
 support substitution, would be considered radically 
 defective if I should fail to notice Matthew xx. 28, 
 and Mark x. 45, which are identical in form, and 
 which assert that Christ "came not to be minis- 
 tered unto, but to minister andjo give his life a 
 ransom for many"
 
 298 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 The last part of the text, which I have under- 
 scored, is the part in which penalists claim to find 
 the proof of their doctrine. The Greek is, kai 
 dounai ten psukin auton lutron anti polton. The 
 decisive word is lutron, a ransom supplemented by 
 anti. In view of what has been said, but little is 
 here required. 
 
 This word hitron is used but twice in the New 
 Testament, and is appropriately translated. The 
 corresponding verb, hw, is used over forty times, 
 but is never translated to ransom, or to deliver by 
 the payment of an equivalent. An examination of 
 the word will satisfy you that it is never used to 
 express the idea of deliverance or salvation by en- 
 during a penalty of any sort. In fact, the engross- 
 ing idea of ransom is deliverance, and the word 
 itself is indifferent to the means by which the de- 
 liverance is made. It may be by almost any means 
 whatever except by "penal satisfaction," which, 
 of course, were it possible, would not be ransom, or 
 deliverance from the evil, but the endurance of the 
 evil by a substitute. 
 
 Again, the word for (anti\ it is suggested, re- 
 quires us to believe that there is a commercial value 
 between the so-called penal sufferings of Christ and 
 the souls of the ' ' many. ' ' 
 
 To this I reply that there is no known standard 
 of valuation between penal suffering and the souls 
 of men. The penal explanation of the text in- 
 volves two assumptions which render it worthless 
 first, that the death was penal and substitutionary; 
 and secondly, that penal suffering actually ransoms,
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 299 
 
 or saves. If these gratuitous assumptions are true, 
 then of course gehenna is, or will become, ' ' a land 
 uninhabited." 
 
 On the contrary, if we reject the idea of a penal 
 ransom, then we readily see how Christ, by giving 
 his life in the interest of humanity, becomes the 
 ransomer of all that obey him, as previously ex- 
 plained. 
 
 SECTION IV. Christ redeems us by his blood, etc. 
 
 Penalists rely with much confidence upon those 
 texts in which the words redeem and redemption 
 occur, such as : 
 
 1. (Rev. v. 9) "For thou wast slain and hast 
 redeemed us to God by thy blood." 
 
 2. (Gal. iii. 13) "Christ hath redeemed us from 
 the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for 
 it is written, ' cursed is every one that hangeth on 
 a tree.' " 
 
 3. (Titus ii. 14) ' ' Who gave himself for us that 
 he might redeem us from all iniquity. ' ' 
 
 4. (i Peter i. 18, 19) "Forasmuch as ye know 
 that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, 
 as silver and gold, . . . but with the precioiis blood 
 of Christ as a lamb without blemish and without 
 spot." 
 
 These texts are all claimed as supporting the 
 commercial and the penal theory of the atonement. 
 I feel free to say, however, that they teach neither 
 commerciality nor criminality in the death of 
 Christ. I need not examine these texts seriatim. 
 A few general statements will serve the interests of 
 truth as well.
 
 300 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 i. Three different words, all translated ' ' redeem, ' ' 
 are used in these texts, (i) The first, agorazo, is 
 generally used in a commercial sense, but to this 
 there are many exceptions (see i Cor. vi. 20; vii. 
 23; 2 Peter ii. i; Rev. iii. 18; xiv. 3, 4). 
 
 In all these instances the word is used in a non- 
 commercial sense, or means to procure or secure 
 without commercial value, and of course without 
 penal suffering. 
 
 . The second word, exagorazo, is used but four 
 times, and never in a commercial sense. It is twice 
 used of time (Eph. v. 16; Col. iv. 5) "redeeming 
 the time." 
 
 The other instances of its use (Gal. iii. 13; iv. 5) 
 have been sufficiently noticed. 
 
 The third is lutroo, which is used but three times 
 (Titus ii. 14; i Peter i. 18; Lukexxiv. 21), and never 
 in a commercial sense, or a penal sense. 
 
 (Luke xxiv. 21) u But we hoped that it was he 
 which should redeem Israel." 
 
 The Jews, of course, understood their own 
 tongue. Did they expect Christ to redeem Israel 
 commercially, or by other means than the literal 
 payment of a price? The Jews expected their 
 Messiah to redeem them temporally without money 
 and without price. And in like manner Paul 
 (Titus ii. 14) teaches us that Christ "gave himself 
 that he might redeem us from all iniquity," and 
 Peter (i Peter i. 18) "Ye were not redeemed with 
 corruptible things as silver and gold, . . . but with 
 the precious blood of Christ. ' ' 
 
 Query. How could the blood of Christ be prop-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 301 
 
 erly accounted precious if it was the blood of a 
 criminal by imputation; for, according to the the- 
 ory, imputed guilt is not less odious or less real in 
 the substitute than in the principal, for Adam's 
 guilt, it is held, makes us as truly guilty as was 
 Adam? Is the blood of a criminal precious to 
 God? 
 
 My next general statement is that these words, 
 when applied to Christ or to God as the redeemer, 
 always exclude the idea of commerciality, of equiv- 
 alent value, and of "penal satisfaction." The bare 
 notion that God, the Father of Mercies, can be 
 ' ' compensated ' ' by penal suffering, or by any other 
 means possible to men or angels, good or bad, 
 would be regarded as a blind superstition if it did 
 not have the support of the good and great. 
 
 You should never cease to remember that when 
 God or Christ, is the redeemer, deliverance comes, 
 not by equivalent value or ' ' penal satisfaction, ' ' 
 but by some other means more honorable to God 
 and better adapted to the nature and needs of men. 
 I might, but need not, cite you to scores of texts 
 in attestation of this proposition. With concord- 
 ance in hand you can easily satisfy yourselves. 
 
 Perhaps you may desire some further explanation 
 of Gal. iii. 13 : 
 
 " 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." 
 
 i. In what sense did Christ become -a curse for 
 us ? The Greek here is katara, and means literally
 
 302 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 "a prayer against," an execration, and, hence, 
 comes to mean punishment, or the endurance of 
 suffering or death. 
 
 Every one that hung or died upon a tree for any 
 cause whatever was called accursed. (Deut. xxi. 
 23.) Christ died for us upon the cross, and, there- 
 fore, it is said he became a curse for us. His death 
 was by his persecutors intended as a punishment 
 for blasphemy; but by himself it was intended as a 
 propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and was accepted as 
 such. 
 
 2. But how does Christ, having been a curse for us 
 in this sense, redeem us from the curse of the law? 
 
 (1) The curse of the law is the curse or evil of 
 disobedience in not loving God with all the heart, 
 etc., which no fallen creature is able to do. 
 
 (2) Christ having perfectly obeyed this law even 
 unto death and being raised from the dead, "dieth 
 no more, ' ' so that ' ' death hath no more dominion 
 over him. ' ' He thus becomes a quickening spirit, 
 (i Cor. xv. 45) who quickens into newness of life 
 all that are united to him by f.uth. "And you did 
 he quicken when you were deed in your trespasses 
 and sins." (Eph. ii. i.) 
 
 ' ' But God, . . . when we were dead through our 
 trespasses, quickened us (gave to us spiritual life) 
 together with Christ (or in Christ) ; (by grace are ye 
 saved), and raised us up (from spiritual death) with 
 him and made us to sit with him in heavenly places 
 in Christ Jesus, . . . for by grace have you been 
 saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it 
 is the gift of God " (Eph. ii. 4-6, 8).
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 303 
 
 Thus by faith in Christ we are unified with 
 Christ are made partakers of his death unto sin 
 die unto sin with him, rather in him. (Rom. vi. 8, 
 ii.) But to be dead in Christ unto sin is to be 
 alive unto God in him. (Rom. vi. n; Gal. ii. 19.) 
 Thus it is that by union with him, or by being 
 made partakers of his righteousness, Christ re- 
 deems (delivers) us from the curse of the law, or 
 from our state of spiritual death under the law. ' ' Ye 
 also are made dead to the law through the body of 
 Christ." (Rom. vii. 4; Gal. ii. 19. This is "the 
 law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which 
 makes (all united to Christ by faith) free from the 
 law of sin and death. ' ' (Rom. viii. 2. ) 
 
 This is a sufficient answer to the question as to 
 how Christ redeems delivers us from the curse 
 of the law, "having become a curse for us." You 
 can not fail to see the utter insufficiency of the sub- 
 stitutionary method of freeing us from the curse of 
 the law. The subject will be further considered in 
 another connection. 
 
 SECTION V. The prepositional argument. 
 
 Prepositions are not very substantial things upon 
 which to found an argument. Certainly they do 
 not make good corner-stones for massive super- 
 structures. They are often too equivocal, too am- 
 biguous, too indefinite, to be implicitly relied upon 
 for the solution of intricate aud complex ques- 
 tions. 
 
 Still they have their exegetical and logical value 
 in determining propositions. 
 
 Substitutionists sometimes invoke aid from this
 
 304 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 source, and so manipulate them as to claim support 
 from them. 
 
 I think they lose rather than gain by their en- 
 deavors. L/et us see whether this is not so. 
 
 There are several prepositions used to express the 
 relation of Christ's death to us or our sins, etc.; as 
 anti, dia, huper. 
 
 Of these, anti is thought to be most favorable to 
 substitution, because it is often used in a commer- 
 cial sense ; or to express equivalence of value. It is 
 assumed that when dia and huper are used, that 
 they should be taken as synonyms of anti. The 
 argument though somewhat specious, is essentially 
 spurious. 
 
 1. Anti is used about twenty times, and in only 
 three instances does it have reference to Christ's 
 death : Matt. xx. 25; Mark x. 45 (which have been 
 previously noticed); and Heb. xii. 2 "Who for 
 (anti) the joy that was set before him endured the 
 cross, despising the shame," etc. 
 
 In this text, as you can not fail to see, anti ex- 
 presses Christ's motive in enduring the cross, and 
 not any equivalency between the value of his suf- 
 fering and the glory set before him. 
 
 We have above seen that both the other instances 
 of its use exclude the idea of redemption from sin 
 by an equivalent value of penal suffering. 
 
 2. The argument is improbable from its very ex- 
 travagance. The word dia is used in reference to 
 the objects of Christ's death but few times. ''Rom. 
 iv. 25; i Cor. viii. n.) 
 
 Huper is the preposition which is used generally
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 305 
 
 for the purpose in question. It is so used near for- 
 ty times. 
 
 Now, observe that this word huper is not used to 
 express the idea of equivalency of value, or com- 
 merciality. Though it is used over one hundred 
 and fifty times, I call to mind no instance of its use* 
 in this sense. 
 
 With these facts before us, does it not seem an 
 extravagant assumption to say that huper, when it 
 refers to Christ' s passion, must be taken as a syno- 
 nym of anti in its commercial sense ? Whether is 
 it more reasonable to suppose that huper, out of one 
 hundred and fifty instances of its use, should be 
 taken forty times out of its usual non-commercial 
 sense; or that anti, out of the twenty instances of 
 its use, should be three times taken in its non-com- 
 mercial sense ? The only excuse for such improb- 
 able assumptions is that the exigencies of the the- 
 ory require them. 
 
 But, after all, the word anti, is utterly unable to 
 serve the ends for which it is invoked. It may ex- 
 press equality of position or equivalency of value, 
 but can never give us substitution with its invaria- 
 ble double imputation. 
 
 Take Matt. ii. 22: "Archelaus did reign in Ju- 
 dea in the room of (anti] his father, Herod. ' ' The 
 son succeeds the father on the throne, but they did 
 not change places or conditions. "An eye for 
 (anti} an eye." This is retaliation, not substitu- 
 tion. To take your neighbor's eye is not to give 
 him yours; there is no exchange of conditions as 
 substitution requires. 
 20
 
 306 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Taken in a strictly commercial sense, the word 
 still fails to support the theory. If you give a dol- 
 lar for a book, there is presumed to be an exchange 
 of equivalent values, but no interchange of quali- 
 ties, either between the book and the dollar, or be- 
 'tween you and the salesman. In fact, it is because 
 there is no such exchange of qualities that you buy 
 the book you get what suits you better. 
 
 Substitution, without double imputation is of 
 no value; but double imputation is a conception 
 impossible of realization in the sphere, either of 
 matter or mind in physical, commercial, or moral 
 law. 
 
 Having indicated many of the radical defects of 
 the penal theory of atonement, and having present- 
 ed the fundamental principles of a different scheme 
 and answered the objections to which it may be ad- 
 judged obnoxious, I propose now to consider such 
 questions as experience in the class-room has taught 
 me are likely to arise in the minds of students who 
 are more or less embarrassed by their previously 
 formed opinions and prejudices in faver of sub- 
 stitution. 
 
 This plan of procedure will involve some repeti- 
 tion. But this repetition, while it may be consid- 
 ered a defect, simply because it is a repetition will, 
 nevertheless, be more than compensated by the ad- 
 vantages of having the subject presented in differ- 
 ent forms, and with more fullness of detail.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 307 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 SECTION I. Some special questions concerning 
 atonement. 
 
 It is often asked, Do atonements have any influ- 
 ence upon the divine mind ? 
 
 1. It is asserted by many that what is called the 
 great atonement has no influence upon God or the 
 relations of men to him; that it expends its force 
 upon the human mind in the way of example, 
 Christ being only an exemplar yet perfect exem- 
 plar whom all men should follow. 
 
 This, I hesitate not to say, is an unscriptural view 
 of the subject Christ's exemplary life, though 
 perfect in itself, is no atonement for men in any 
 intelligible sense; nor does it constitute any part of 
 atonement. 
 
 2. We know that human atonements, made by 
 confession of faults, reparations of injuries, do have 
 an effect upon the minds of aggrieved parties. In 
 fact, the propitiation consists in this effect; if this 
 effect is not produced, no propitiation, no atone- 
 ment is made. 
 
 3. We also know that all the atonements to which 
 I have referred, even those made for the "holy 
 place and the altar," and " the holy things offered 
 to the Lord" had some sort of influence produced
 
 308 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 some change in the relations of the things for 
 which they were made. 
 
 4. Those atonements made by Moses, Aaron, and 
 Phineas, as also those ritual atonements, regularly 
 made by the Aaronic priesthood, are distinctly rep- 
 resented as turning away the wrath of God. To 
 say that these atonements had no influence upon 
 the divine mind would be to say that the Bible is a 
 book of shams, rather than of realities. 
 
 SECTION II. If atonements imply an influence 
 upon the divine mind, it is asked, What is the 
 nature of that influence ? 
 
 1. The Bible says, "God is love." But we 
 know by experience that love and anger, indigna- 
 tion, displeasure, etc., are not incompatible things. 
 
 Love is an essential attribute of God persistent, 
 immutable. But indignation, anger, pleasure, and 
 displeasure as applied to the deity are not attributes, 
 but states of the divine mind, which may vary ac- 
 cording to the conduct of men. Hence, God is 
 said to be angry with the wicked, yet so loved 
 them, as to give his only begotten Son to save 
 them. 
 
 2. No atonement changes the attributes or nature 
 of God. All atonements made by merely human 
 priests for immaterial things, as the altar, etc. , only 
 formally changed his relation to them; those made 
 for men in accordance with the tabernacle service 
 symbolically changed his relation to those for whom 
 they were made ; those made on extraordinary occa- 
 sions, as by Moses, Aaron, and Phineas, changed 
 his emotional relations so as to abate his just indig-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 309 
 
 nation, and induce him to spare the seditious of- 
 fenders whom he might justly have destroyed. 
 
 3. You should distinctly observe that in these 
 cases God did not spare the offenders because of 
 repentance, or any other proper conduct on their 
 part, but purely and exclusively for the sake of the 
 fidelity the loving fidelity and zeal of his accred- 
 ited priests. 
 
 4. You should also remember these atonements 
 saved the rebels only from extraordinary and tem- 
 poral evil a judicial and exemplary death and 
 not from the natural retributions of their sins. 
 
 5. In this respect these atonements differ essen- 
 tially from the propitiation made by Christ, which 
 relates to all sin and its natural retributions. 
 
 By the former, the offenders were not released 
 from their sins, but only from the judicial and tem- 
 poral consequences of their seditions. But by the 
 latter, men are not necessarily released, but may 
 be released from their sins themselves, which, of 
 course, releases them from the natural retributions 
 of their sins. This deliverance from sin itself is 
 effected, as we have seen, by the impartation of 
 Christ's holy nature his spiritual life to those 
 united to him by faith, and who are consequently 
 saved by him, and for his sake. The spiritual life 
 that they now live, they live by faith in him 
 (Gal. ii. 20), or they live because Christ lives (John 
 xiv. 19). 
 
 6. God, therefore, recognizes those that believe 
 in Jesus as righteous, simply because they are made 
 partakers of Christ's righteousness not imputed,
 
 310 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 but imparted to them. Christ is literally the Lord, 
 our righteousness ( Jer. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 26). 
 
 7. The effect of the sacrificial death upon God is 
 different from that of other atonements mentioned 
 in the Bible, yet, like all others, it propitiates in 
 some sense, so that God can be merciful without 
 being unjust can pardon without punishment, so 
 that salvation is purely a matter of grace, and not 
 of penalty. 
 
 8. The sacrificial death of Christ seems to propi- 
 tiate, because it was an act of perfect obedience 
 obedience unto death which, as a sacrifice, was to 
 God a sweet-smelling savor, and which furnishes 
 an expedient by which justice and mercy fully con- 
 cur in the salvation of believers and all the prerog- 
 atives of God as universal Father and Governor 
 are fully honored that is, we are saved by grace, 
 not by law, nor in violation of law, but in accord- 
 ance with law. 
 
 SECTION III. But how can atonement produce 
 such effects ? This question is often put. 
 
 i. The form of the question betrays some misap- 
 prehension. Atonement is itself an effect produced 
 upon the divine mind by the acts, or rather the 
 mental states, of which the external acts are only 
 the sensible expression. 
 
 (This last named fact explains how the Son of 
 God, though crucified less than two thousand years 
 ago, was the great atoner from the foundation of 
 the world.) 
 
 The real point intended by the question is, How
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 311 
 
 can the acts or mental states of one mind produce 
 such propitiatory effects upon another. 
 
 Omniscience alone, I suppose, could answer the 
 question. To know a fact, and to understand why 
 it is a fact, are essentially different things. 
 
 If you were asked, Why the confession of an of- 
 fense tends to take away the indignation of the 
 offended party, you probably would reply that you 
 do not know, or that God has so constituted the 
 human mind as to make confession the natural and, 
 therefore, the sufficient reason for pardoning an of- 
 fense. 
 
 What God has made an indigenous law of the hu- 
 man mind and a rule of human conduct is, perhaps, 
 a characteristic of his own mind, and a rule of his 
 own administration. 
 
 If He who knows all things was pleased to accept 
 the sacrificial death of Christ and make it a pre- 
 requisite to the pardon of human sin, by imparting 
 his righteousness to those that believe on him, we 
 need not object, because we can not comprehend 
 how one mind acts upon another. (John iii. 8.) 
 
 SECTION IV. It has been asked, whether Christ's 
 propitiatory work has any influence upon the human 
 mind ? 
 
 I should say it has no effect upon the mind itself 
 does not affect either its legal or moral states. 
 This fact will be made sufficiently plain. 
 
 But as Christ was ' ' delivered for our offenses, 
 and was raised again for our justification " (Rom. 
 iv. 25), it is presumed that what he did had an im- 
 portant effect upon man's relations to God mak-
 
 312 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 ing him a prisoner of hope and procuring for him 
 a salvable state. This, I think, is what the Bible 
 teaches. 
 
 Substitutionists, you know, would dissent from 
 this, and affirm that Christ's death of itself, and of 
 necessity, did actually change the legal state of all 
 for whom he suffered, releasing them from all lia- 
 bility to punishment, and make it a matter of 
 sheer justice that God shall (at his own pleasure) 
 change their moral state by taking away their mor- 
 al corruption. 
 
 These positions have been shown to be both un- 
 reasonable and uuscriptural. It seems to be suffi- 
 cient here to say : 
 
 (1) That the death of Christ did not change the 
 moral condition of men did not destroy their en- 
 mity to God, or cause them to love him supremely, 
 and their neighbor as themselves. This moral 
 change, though possible only through the death of 
 Christ, is not the necessary legal effect of that 
 death. God is not bound by infinite justice to save 
 all or any for whom Christ died ; else he would not 
 condition their salvation upon spiritual union with 
 Christ, or upon faith, or any thing else. 
 
 (2) Nor does the death of Christ " ipso facto" re- 
 lease from punishment those for whom he died; for 
 "he that believeth not is condemned already" 
 (John iii. 18, 36), and he that is condemned is not 
 exempt from punishment. 
 
 Nor is the salvation of any man assured by the 
 simple fact that Christ died for him. (Rom. xiv. 
 15; i Cor. viii. u.)
 
 NON- PENAL THEORY. 313 
 
 Hence, it is certainly true, the Bible being the 
 test, that the unbeliever is as truly corrupt and as 
 truly condemned, though Christ died for him, as he 
 could be if Christ had never died for him. 
 
 Having seen what the death of Christ does not 
 do for men, let us see what it does actually secure 
 to men. 
 
 1. It secures all needed illumination, as to God 
 and to himself, so as to enable him to repent of his 
 sins (Luke xxiv. 46) and come boldly to the throne 
 of grace, obtain mercy, and find grace to help in 
 time of need. (Heb. iv. 16.) 
 
 2. The mediation of Christ furnishes objective 
 ground, and the only objective ground of faith that 
 God will avouch to us a gracious , pardon of our 
 sins. These two points are of vital importance, 
 and will receive further notice in the next section. 
 
 SECTION V. The question is often put with, 
 great emphasis and earnestness, If the Bible imper- 
 atively requires confession or repentance, as a con- 
 dition precedent to pardon, and God is faithful and 
 just to forgive all that repent (i John i. 9), then, 
 why is any atonement necessary at all? Confes- 
 sion or repentance, it is alleged, is a sufficient 
 ground for forgiveness among men, and God re- 
 quires us to forgive one another on this ground 
 alone. Then, why is not repentance of itself a 
 sufficient ground of forgiveness of sins against 
 God? 
 
 This is one of the most important and, withal, 
 one of the most difficult questions connected with 
 the whole subject of atonement.
 
 314 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Looking at the subject in the light of this objec- 
 tion, thousands of honest men have rejected the 
 doctrine of atonement as unreasonable and super- 
 erogatory. In my own experience with classes, 
 I have found it exceedingly difficult to satisfy 
 some students that any propitiation at all is 
 necessary. 
 
 The question, therefore, seems to demand some 
 careful attention. 
 
 1. Ijt does not follow that because repentance is a 
 sufficient ground of forgiveness between man and 
 man, that it is therefore a sufficient ground of for- 
 giveness between man and God. 
 
 Between man and man there is equality of nat- 
 ure. Hence, their disagreements or enmities are in- 
 cidental, not constitutional and necessary. Hence, 
 no change of their nature is necessary to their rec- 
 onciliation, but only a change of an adventitious 
 state of mind. Hence, bare confession of a fault is 
 a sufficient ground of forgiveness. This forgive- 
 ness requires only a change of feeling, and not a 
 change of inborn characteristics of mind. 
 
 2. On the contrary,, what is required in order to 
 deliverance from sin against God is not a mere 
 change of an accidental state of the passions, but a 
 change of the heart from an inborn constitutional 
 bias to evil a natal enmity to God and insubordi- 
 nation to his will. This change involved in for- 
 giveness of sin is .represented as a regeneration, a 
 renewal by the Holy Spirit, a new creation, a being 
 born from above, or of God. 
 
 3. No repentance is sufficient ground for so radi-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 315 
 
 cal a change. In fact, repentance is no part of its 
 ground at all, but only its condition. 
 
 The objection assumes that repentance is possible 
 without the mediation of Christ, or that men could 
 repent of sin as effectually without this mediation 
 as with it. This, however, is a fatal error; for it is 
 this mediation that renders repentance itself possi- 
 ble. (Ivuke xxiv. 46, 47; Phil. ii. 6-n.) 
 
 Repentance is the grant of Christ, the quickening 
 spirit, without whose influence repentance unto life 
 is impossible. (Acts xi. 18.) 
 
 All divine and saving influence is avouched to 
 men by the mediation of the risen Christ. (John 
 xvi. 7*-n; i Cor. xii. 1-13.) 
 
 4. But even if repentance, independent of this 
 divine influence, was possible, it could not be ac- 
 cepted as a ground of forgiveness; for nothing ab- 
 solutely nothing is acceptable to God, which is 
 not sanctified or separated unto him. But, what- 
 ever is sanctified or appropriated unto him is accept- 
 able to him. (Rom. xii. i; Heb. ix. 13.) Nor can 
 any other than a divinely-consecrated priest sanctify 
 or offer acceptable sacrifices. 
 
 This fact is fearfully exemplified by Saul's at- 
 tempt to offer sacrifices without priestly authority, 
 which cost him his kingdom, (i Sam. xiii. 9-14.) 
 Also by the attempt of Korah, and the two hun- 
 dred and fifty men of renown to burn incense, 
 which was a function of the priesthood alone. 
 You will observe that the burning of incense by 
 these men not consecrated to the priestly office, 
 provoked God's anger and cost them their lives;
 
 316 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 but the same act performed by Aaron, the high- 
 priest, turned away God's auger and saved the na- 
 tion. (Num. xxv.) 
 
 Why this difference? Because, and only because, 
 Aaron had been consecrated to the priesthood, but 
 Korah had not. 
 
 Nor does God accept even what is sanctified from 
 unsanctified hands. This fact is strikingly illus- 
 trated by his indignant rejection of the incense of- 
 fering made by Korah and those allied with him. 
 The incense, and the censers in which it was 
 burned were sanctified, yet Korah' s act was regard- 
 ed and punished as sacrilege. 
 
 The reason of this rejection of whatever is un- 
 sanctified, and the acceptance of whatever is sancti- 
 fied seems to be simply the fact that there is no 
 congruity, nothing in common, no fellowship be- 
 tween the holy and the unholy. What communion 
 hath light with darkness ? And what concord hath 
 Christ with Belial ? (i Cor. vi. 14-18.) 
 
 God is holy, but the sinner is unholy is of him- 
 self out of fellowship with God, because not sanc- 
 tified or consecrated to God. 
 
 If he could, by an act of will, put himself into a 
 state of thorough consecratedness, then he would 
 be his own sanctifier, atoner, and savior. But even 
 to will to thus consecrate himself to God is impos- 
 sible without divine aid, as we have seen. God 
 works in him (not the will) but " to will" (Phil, 
 ii. 13.) 
 
 This divine aid comes only through the media- 
 tion of Christ, the quickening spirit.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 317 
 
 The sinner can not, therefore, sanctify himself, 
 for none but the sanctified can sanctify none but 
 the holy can make holy. To require a man un- 
 sanctified to sanctify himself is to require an im- 
 possibility. We might as well expect the Ethi- 
 opian to change his skin or the leopard its spots. 
 
 Hence, the unsanctified sinner could never sanc- 
 tify himself, or make propitiation for himself, or 
 repent, or do any thing acceptable to God, even if 
 he could know just what is necessary to his recon- 
 ciliation to God. 
 
 The sanctuary, the holy place, the altar, the holy 
 things offered in religious worship among the Jews, 
 all required propitiation to be made for them by 
 priestly consecrations. 
 
 If these things, without moral qualities, required 
 to be consecrated, in order to be acceptable to God, 
 we can very readily see why sinful humanity needs to 
 be sanctified or consecrated to God before he could 
 accept them or any acts of worship at their hands. 
 
 Hence, the absolute necessity of the sanctifica- 
 tion of humanity by a priest in his own right, who 
 gave ' ' himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to 
 God for a sweet-smelling savor." 
 
 We are accordingly expressly told (Heb. xiii. 10 
 12) that u Jesus, that he might sanctify the people 
 with his own blood, suffered without the gate. ' ' 
 
 This sanctification of all humanity (Jews and 
 Gentiles) is indicated by his suffering without the 
 gate. 
 
 By virtue of this one sacrificial offering all hu- 
 manity is so sanctified that every man may bring
 
 318 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 his offerings before the mercy-seat, or to Christ, his 
 great high-priest, and find acceptance. This is the 
 new and living way. 
 
 You should note the important fact that this 
 sanctification of all humanity by this sacrificial of- 
 fering does not affect the moral or the legal condi- 
 tion of men. The atonement made for the altar 
 did not affect the altar itself, but only its relation 
 to God. The great atonement for humanity was 
 as truly made independently of human volition as 
 was the atonement for the altar made independently 
 of the altar. But as the atonement made for the 
 altar rendered it acceptable to God, so every human 
 being is rendered so far acceptable to God that he 
 may consecrate himself to God through Christ, 
 "who is the end of the law for righteousness to 
 every one that believeth." 
 
 Hence, the sinner's confession, repentance, etc., 
 do not constitute the grounds of his acceptance 
 with God at all. Hence, he is not accepted for 
 the sake of his prayers, repentance, or any thing 
 else possible to him, but for Christ's sake alone. 
 
 This method of coming to God through Christ is 
 beautifully illustrated by the tabernacle service. 
 The atonement made by the high-priest on the 
 "great day of atonenent" was made with victims 
 taken from among the people and for all the people 
 for one no more and no less than another. By 
 virtue of this great propitiation, each individual 
 could bring for himself his own sacrificial victim 
 to the tabernacle, and having put his hands upon 
 its head in benediction, that it might be accepted,
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 319 
 
 turned it over to the priest, by whom its blood its 
 life was put upon the holy altar, which sanctified 
 it and rendered it acceptable, as an act of worship, 
 through the great atonement made by the high- 
 priest. These individual sacrifices, which were 
 accepted through the great atonement, were in- 
 tended as ritual supplications for divine favor, and 
 were absolutely so regarded by the Jews. Saul 
 actually identifies them with "supplication," and 
 Abraham as worship (i Sam. xiii. 12; Gen. xxii. 5.) 
 The whole service symbolized the worshiper's 
 consecration to God, through Christ, who is the 
 propitiation for sin. 
 
 Let it be distinctly noted that these and all other 
 individual sacrifices were made allowable and effect- 
 ive only by virtue of the great atonement made by 
 the high-priest. This atonement was the true sym- 
 bol of the mediation of the crucified and risen Christ 
 the life-giving spirit. 
 
 Hence, the individual sacrifices among the Jews 
 sustained to the great atonement exactly the same 
 relation that our religious worship prayers, thanks- 
 giving, and offerings of all kinds, public and private 
 sustain to Jesus Christ, our atoning sacrifice and 
 priest. He is our altar (Heb. xiii. 10-15) upon 
 which we lay ourselves and our offering, and which 
 sanctifies even- thing that touches it and renders it 
 acceptable to God (Rom. xii. i.). 
 
 Faith, which implies repentance, confession, and 
 supplication, is the hand by which we lay ourselves 
 upon this altar; but only that which is laid upon 
 it is consecrated and accepted.
 
 320 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 By this contact through faith with Christ, his 
 nature is imparted as the altar imparts its holiness 
 to whatex r er touches it, and he thus becomes ' ' the 
 Lord our righteousness," or "the end of the law 
 for righteousness to every one that believeth." 
 
 In the face of these facts we see clearly enough 
 that what is called atonement of Christ is essentially 
 more than a mere exemplification of the highest 
 human virtue, the bare following of which, some 
 suppose is sufficient to save humanity. It is Christ 
 himself that saves, and not his mere example. 
 
 We also clearly see the insufficiency of repent- 
 ance as a ground of acceptance with God, even if 
 it was possible to us without the mediation of 
 Christ and the influence that comes from him. 
 
 All needed influence to enable us to come to 
 Christ is avouched to us through this gracious me- 
 diation. 
 
 I have previously said that an atonement is nec- 
 essary as an objective ground of faith, hope, etc. 
 We know both from experience and observation 
 that the human mind nee.ds some object outside of 
 itself in which to trust for deliverance from evils, 
 both subjective and objective. 
 
 Every man, whatever may be his creed, is sensible 
 of his dependence on some thing above and mightier 
 than himself is sensible of his responsibilities to 
 such a power, and feels the need of propitiating 
 that power. If he has not put out his eyes with 
 his sophistries, and seared his conscience with his 
 vices, he has a sense of his sin and condemnation, 
 from which he can not free himself. He feels that
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 321 
 
 he has offended against a power upon whom he is 
 dependent, and whom he ought to propitiate. 
 
 If I offend you willingly, I instinctively feel that 
 I ought to make reparation that I really have no 
 right to expect your forgiveness and favor unless I 
 make confession. This confession then becomes 
 an objective ground of faith that you will forgive 
 me. But when we believe that we have sinned 
 against a righteous and omnipotent God, who ab- 
 hors all sin, we feel that something must be done to 
 secure his favor. But we can not persuade ourselves 
 that a bare confession of our sins is of itself a suf- 
 ficient ground for believing that he will forgive. 
 
 We may confess our sins with the deepest contri- 
 tion, and yet have the impression that something 
 more is needed. Hence, we often put ourselves 
 upon a sort of penance- work to propitiate God. 
 Realizing so deeply a sense of our unworthiness, 
 we feel as if it would scarcely be less than sacrilege 
 and presumption to expect him to save us in our 
 present state. 
 
 Seekers may remain in this distressing state of 
 mind for years; nor can they be relieved from it, 
 until they come to recognize Christ as the all-suffi- 
 cient ground of pardon and acceptance with God. 
 They then rejoice in the freeness and fullness of his 
 gracious salvation, regarding their own works as 
 worthless. 
 21
 
 322 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 SECTION I. Was Christ, as to his humanity, 
 bound by the same divine law that binds all other 
 men to love God with all the heart, and their neigh- 
 bors as themselves, and did he literally fulfill all 
 the requirements of that law ? 
 
 I answer that Christ came under this law just as 
 all others come under it. He was ' ' born under the 
 law, that he might redeem them which were under 
 the law, that we might receive the adoption of 
 sons" (Gal. iv. 4, 5). As God, he was not under 
 law at all. Who can impose law upon God ? That 
 Christ, as God, came under some sort of compact 
 or covenant stipulations to redeem a part of man- 
 kind by penal substitution, is a pure theological 
 figment, which is as unscriptural as it is unreason- 
 able. Christ as divine was the author of law, and 
 not a subject. As human, he came under law as 
 do all other men was born under the law. 
 
 Being without sin, he was able to fulfill this law 
 which no other man, born of woman, could do. 
 
 Note. How Christ, born of a sinful woman, 
 could be without sin, is a question which has re- 
 ceived various and conflicting answers. I have 
 seen none that were free from objections. 
 
 The true solution, I think, is found in the perfect 
 passivity of the Virgin Mother. There can be no
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 323 
 
 sinfulness without voluntariness, and no propaga- 
 tion of a sinful nature when there is no volition, 
 connected with the conception. In these respects 
 the virgin was as passive as the dust of which 
 Adam was made. Hence Christ, though born of 
 a sinful woman, was himself without sin. 
 
 He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; 
 not to abrogate, relax, or in any way to modify it, 
 but literally to meet all its requirements. He was 
 "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 
 More than this, the law could not require, and less 
 than this could not meet its demands. Hence, he 
 did exactly what the law required. 
 
 SECTION II. Did Christ, it is often asked, obey 
 the law in the place of those for whom he died? 
 
 I answer with the utmost decision, No. The 
 terms of the law of themselves exclude the possi- 
 bility of such an obedience. To this question, 
 however, many of our most learned theologians 
 return an affirmative answer. One of the most 
 adroit defenders of substitution says (Hodge, Vol. 
 II. , p. 494): 
 
 "The work of Christ was, therefore, of the nat- 
 ure of a satisfaction to the demands of the law. 
 By his obedience and suffering, by his whole right- 
 eousness, active and passive. He, as our represent- 
 ative and substitute, did and endured all that the 
 law demands. 
 
 Those, who by faith receive this righteous- 
 ness and trust upon it for justification, are saved; 
 and receive the renewing of their whole nature 
 into the image of God. Those who refuse to sub- 
 mit to this righteousness of God, and go about to
 
 324 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 establish their own righteousness, are left under the 
 demands of the law; they are required to be free 
 from all sin, or having sinned, to bear the pen- 
 alty." 
 
 I will not here attempt to refute all the errors 
 contained in this quotation; will only briefly note a 
 few of its incongruities. 
 
 1. If Christ obeyed the law actively for himself, 
 then of course there was no penalty to endure on 
 his own account. For obedience of necessity ex- 
 cludes penalty. A man who obeys the law is not 
 liable to its penalty. 
 
 2. If Christ did actively obey the law, as otir 
 substitute^ then of necessity there could be no pen- 
 alty to endure on our account ; for active or precep- 
 tive obedience inevitably excludes penalty. Hence, 
 to assert that Christ obeyed the law in our stead, and 
 at the same time, or at any time, endured the pen- 
 alty in our stead, is to assert a palpable impossi- 
 bility, because it makes him obey the law, and yet 
 suffer the consequences or penalty of riot obeying 
 it. Just as well say a man eats, and yet suffers the 
 consequences of not eating; or, that a man does 
 right, and yet suffers the consequences of doing 
 wrong. 
 
 3. If Christ rendered an active obedience to the 
 law in our stead, and also rendered a passive obedi- 
 ence in our stead, then he rendered a double obedi- 
 ence in our stead. If justice requires all this, it 
 requires more than its due, and what, as we have 
 just seen, is impossible. 
 
 4. If Christ has twice obeyed the law for us
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 325 
 
 actively and passively how happens it that any 
 for whom he has rendered this double obedience 
 ' ' are left under the demands of the law ... to bear 
 the penalty for themselves ? ' ' 
 
 According to our author, a two-fold obedience is 
 rendered for all that are saved, and a three-fold obe- 
 dience is rendered in reference to those not saved 
 (if Christ died for all); first, by Christ's active obe- 
 dience; secondly, by his passive obedience; and 
 thirdly, by the passive obedience (so called) of the 
 sinner himself. These are only a part of the incon- 
 gruities contained in this quotation. 
 
 Now, in opposition to this and much other high 
 authority, I affirm that Christ obeyed the law for 
 himself simply did what it required him to do, not 
 as a substitute, but as an individual subject. This 
 obedience, of course, relates both to God and to all 
 humanity; or, it consisted in love to God and to 
 his neighbor, so that God is honored and his neigh- 
 bor is benefited by it. If I do my whole duty to 
 my neighbor needing help, I thereby honor God 
 and become a benefactor to my neighbor, but I in 
 no sense become his substitute. I do not obey the 
 law in his stead, but do my duty to him. Consider 
 the following facts : 
 
 i. The terms of the law utterly exclude the pos- 
 sibility of vicarious obedience. "Thou shalt love 
 the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . and thy 
 neighbor as thyself (Luke x. 27). 
 
 Love is what is required; love is the fulfilling of 
 the law (Rom. xiii. 10); love to the full extent of 
 ability with all the heart.
 
 326 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 If the law required a specific amount of obedience 
 a "half shekel" of silver then we could con- 
 ceive it possible for one man to pay for himself, and 
 also for a poor neighbor. But in this case the 
 rich man would not be a substitute, but a bene- 
 factor. 
 
 But this is manifestly not the nature of the obe- 
 dience required. Obedience according to ability is 
 what is demanded. 
 
 This simple fact makes it impossible for one to 
 obey in the place of another. This obvious fact 
 excludes the possibility of any supererogative obe- 
 dience on the part of Christ or of obedience in 
 excess of his individual obligation which can be 
 set to the credit of the disobedient. No redundance 
 or overflowing surplus in the case is possible. Ac- 
 cording to ability is the demand. 
 
 Thus it is as clear as light itself that if Christ's 
 ability to love God and men was a thousand-fold 
 greater than that of all other beings combined, it 
 can not exceed the demands of the law. 
 
 This fact cuts up by the root the whole doctrine 
 of supererogatory or redundant obedience and the 
 scheme of substitution falls with it. 
 
 It brings no relief to say that Christ was an in- 
 finite personality, and as such could yield "an 
 infinite suffering" in a finite time; for if this ab- 
 surd notion was true, still it remains true that his 
 love, obedience, suffering, or whatever the law 
 requires, can never exceed the requirements of the 
 law, which is according to ability. Even infinite 
 ability can not exceed the law's demands.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 327 
 
 And because the law requires perpetual as well 
 as full obedience, he must render this infinite obe- 
 dience strictly on his own account at every instant 
 through infinite duration. Hence, we can not fail 
 to see that supererogatory and vicarious obedience 
 is an impossible thing. 
 
 2. The nature of the obedience required excludes 
 the idea of substitution. The law explicitly re- 
 quires love, of which external obedience is the 
 appropriate expression. "This is the love of God 
 that ye keep his commandments" (i John v. 3). 
 
 While mind remains mind, it will be true that 
 one mind can not love or obey in the place of an- 
 other. Even if a change of personalities was pos- 
 sible, still one could not love in the place of 
 another; for in every possible condition each per- 
 sonality would have its own state, called love. 
 
 3. Nor would it be of any conceivable advantage 
 to have a substitute to love or obey in our stead; 
 or to do our loving for us. On the contrary, 
 if such was possible, it would be a grievous calam- 
 ity instead of a favor; for God has purposely so 
 constituted the human mind, and all created minds, 
 as to make their crowning excellence and highest 
 blessedness consist in loving. Not to love is to be 
 miserable. This is an admitted psychological truth. 
 I suppose the chief difference* between heaven and 
 hell is that the former is full of love, the latter of 
 hate. You may love my friends as much or more 
 than I do, but I am glad you can not love them in 
 my place. If you should happen to do so strange 
 a thing, you would wrong me grievously by depriv-
 
 328 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 ing me of the pleasure that comes from loving them 
 myself. 
 
 If any good or pleasure comes from thinking, or 
 from loving my neighbors, or from loving or obey- 
 ing my precious Savior, I certainly do not wish any 
 substitute to take these pleasures from me. 
 
 I ought to be profoundly grateful to the blessed, 
 loving Christ, not for doing what he did not do, 
 nor for doing what he could not do, nor for doing 
 what, if done, would be the greatest of all calam- 
 ities to me, but for obeying the law in his own 
 place even unto death, arid being raised up from the 
 dead by the glory of the Father, and thus made a 
 quickening spirit, who can impart to me his own 
 death unto sin and life unto God, and thus enable 
 me to love God and my neighbor for myself. 
 
 His mission was not to love God in the place of 
 rebellious and miserable sinners, and also endure the 
 penal wrath of God in their stead, but to enable 
 helpless sinners to love God for themselves, and 
 thus avoid the consequences of disobedience by a 
 return to obedience as a patient is released from pain 
 by restoration to health. 
 
 4. If Christ as a substitute by his active obedience 
 fulfilled the law for humanity, and if the atonement 
 is older than Adam, as it avowedly is, how was it 
 possible for sin to 'affect humanity or enter our 
 world at all ? 
 
 Christ, having from the foundation of the world, 
 fully met by his active obedience all the claims of 
 law in the place of humanity, the possibility of sin 
 seems to be effectivelv excluded; for obedience
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 329 
 
 and disobedience are mutually exclusive one of the 
 other. 
 
 But sin actually exists. It can not, therefore, be 
 true that Christ did by his active obedience fulfill 
 the law in the place of all humanity ; or even any 
 part of it, for all men are sinners. Or, Christ having 
 perfectly obeyed the law for all, the law has never 
 been disobeyed at all, and hence, sin does not 
 exist. This exposes the weakness of the theory. 
 
 5. Again, if Christ suffered the penalty in the 
 place of all men, then by what principle of law 
 can any be required to suffer the penalty for them- 
 selves ? I know it is sometimes said that they are 
 punished for not accepting Christ. 
 
 But this is contradictory; for if Christ atoned for 
 all the sins of humanity, then he, of course, atoned 
 for the sin of rejecting Christ as really as for any 
 other. 
 
 Now, I desire you to examine for yourselves 
 whether these and all similar perplexities are not 
 effectually avoided by allowing that Christ fulfilled 
 the law only in his own place; and by his sacrificial 
 death and resurrection became a quickening spirit, 
 who saves all that obey him. 
 
 This view of the subject enables us to understand 
 how it is that the sinner is strictly under law 
 and as truly condemned as he could be, if no 
 atonement had been made for him; how it is that 
 his justification is conditioned upon faith, though 
 ample atonement has been made for him; also, how 
 it is that there is no possibility of a double obedience 
 to the law, and no double penalty; no payments of
 
 330 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 debts partly by penalty and partly by dignity; 
 no commutation of one kind of penalty for an- 
 other; no need for a rule by which to equate the 
 value of penal suffering with the holy obedience 
 required by the law or between penal fire and rev- 
 erential love; no necessity for the relaxation of law 
 claims, or acceptillation of any sort; no need for 
 asserting the unscriptural and absurd doctrine of 
 penal sacrifices, or of saving merit in a penal death, 
 or the strange figment of passive and penal right- 
 eousness. 
 
 SECTION III. The question is often put by the- 
 ologues, How are we saved by the mediation of 
 Christ? 
 
 I will first answer according to the penal theory, 
 and then give a different method. 
 
 1. Adam's sin or guilt is imputed to his posterity, 
 and thus becomes the sin of humanity. 
 
 2. This common sin of humanity is in some 
 way imputed to Christ, and becomes really his sin 
 or guilt. 
 
 3. Christ endured the punishment of this sin and 
 all the sins of the elect, and thus satisfies punitive 
 justice, and by this means creates a fund of right- 
 eousness penal righteousness it would seem 
 which takes away all liability to punishment from 
 those for whom he suffered keeps them out of ge- 
 henna, but does not give a qualification for heaven. 
 
 4. Christ obeyed the law preceptively, or by act- 
 ive obedience, and this gives a legal title to heaven, 
 but no qualification, but insures such qualification 
 before or at death.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 331 
 
 5. This complex righteousness is imputed, ac- 
 cording to some, to all for whom Christ died; ac- 
 cording to others, to all that believe in Christ. 
 
 6. According to most limitarians, all for whom 
 Christ suffered the penalty of the law are uncondi- 
 tionally regenerated, faith and repentance being 
 the natural and necessary consequence of this re- 
 generation. Hence, all such are justified by the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ. 
 
 According to libertarians, all that believe in 
 Christ are justified by this imputation 'unto them, 
 and being thus justified are regenerated and saved. 
 
 A briefer statement is as follows: The sin of 
 Adam is imputed to humanity; the sin of humani- 
 ty is imputed to Christ; the righteousness of Christ 
 is imputed to those for whom he died. 
 
 This seems plausible, because of its simplicity. 
 This plausibility, however, arises in part out of 
 ambiguity of terms, rather than out of a real har- 
 mony of the facts involved. 
 
 i. The word impute is ambiguous and deceptive. 
 It sometimes means to attribute to a person what 
 is real, as to attribute goodness to God; sometimes 
 to attribute what is not real, as the Jews attributed 
 to Christ a devil. Now the word impute is used in 
 both these radically different senses in the above 
 given plausible statement. The imputation of 
 Adam's sin to humanity, and that of humanity to 
 Christ are held to be intensely real, and not in any 
 sense ideal; but the imputation of Christ's right- 
 eousness to men is held to be not real but ideal 
 that is, Christ's righteousness does not make those
 
 332 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 to whom it is imputed really, but only putatively 
 righteous. Hence, God deals with them not as 
 really righteous, but u as if they were so." 
 
 This reduces the righteousness or justification of 
 those to whom the imputation is made to a pure 
 legal fiction, having no necessary corresponding 
 moral state of the mind or heart. 
 
 This, I think, is not the Bible view of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 2. This subordinates the moral to the legal, the 
 greater to the less. It proceeds on the assumption 
 that man is corrupt because he is condemned, and 
 not condemned because he is corrupt, which is 
 alike contrary to the Bible and to the order of nat- 
 ure. 
 
 According to the theory, the work of reconciling 
 men to God begins in the sphere of law, and works 
 from the outer to the inner or from forensic justi- 
 fication to regeneration. The reverse process is 
 true. (Rom. viii. 28-30.) 
 
 It seems proper here to say, that in this method 
 of applying the atonement to the individual, as it 
 is expressed, the penal theory is consistent with it- 
 self. In fact this method of saving the individual 
 seems to be a necessary theological correlate of the 
 theory itself. 
 
 3. This method of justifying and saving the indi- 
 vidual deals with pure abstractions as if they were 
 veritable realities. It conceives of the righteous- 
 ness of Christ as if it was something achieved, or 
 wrought out by Christ, and, hence, as an entitive 
 product, distinct from Christ as is a piece of cloth
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 333 
 
 distinct from the cloth maker, with which one may 
 be clothed, or as a sum of money which may be set 
 by one party to the credit of another. This is un- 
 adulterated realism. 
 
 We often deceive ourselves by the use of ab- 
 stract terms, such as virtue, vice, sin, righteous- 
 ness, etc. , assuming them to be some kind of enti- 
 ties, and not the 'mere attributes or qualities of 
 things. 
 
 But, we should remember that righteousness, like 
 sin, is an abstract term, which we use to express 
 our conception of a quality of a moral agent, and 
 not of something having existence independent of 
 such agent. 
 
 Hence, there can be no such thing as sin, apart 
 from a sinful mind. So it is of the righteousness 
 or merit of Christ. It has no such existence as a 
 piece of cloth or bank deposit. It exists only as a 
 quality or attribute of Christ, If Christ were to 
 cease to be, his righteousness would also cease to 
 be, for a quality can not exist independently of the 
 entity of which it is a quality. 
 
 When we justify the individual, therefore, by im- 
 puting to him the righteousness of Christ, as some- 
 thing different from Christ, we justify him by a 
 pure abstraction to which there is no corresponding 
 reality. 
 
 The very first thing necessary in order to estab- 
 lish this mode of justification is to prove beyond 
 th possibility of doubt that realism is true, or that 
 righteousness, sin, etc. , do exist as entities apart 
 from the "agents which originate them.
 
 334 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 It may, or may not, surprise you when I affirm 
 without qualification that there is absolutely no 
 such thing as the righteousness of Christ, or merit 
 or holiness of Christ, apart from the living Christ 
 himself. 
 
 Such expressions mean only the righteous, the 
 meritorious, the holy Christ. The righteousness 
 of Christ and the righteous Christ are equivalent 
 expressions mean precisely the same thing the 
 first being the abstract, and the second the concrete 
 form of the same idea. 
 
 The righteousness then which justifies is not 
 something wrought out or fabricated by Christ 
 which, apart from Christ, is imputed to us, or set 
 to our credit, because of which we are treated 
 as if we were righteous, while, in fact we are not. 
 
 The plan of salvation does not rest upon realism; 
 nor does it deal in shams or legal fictions. Nor is 
 it an immense commercial institution, having as its 
 basis an infinite fund of righteousness or merit, 
 purchased by the penal death of an infinite person- 
 ality, which has been on deposit, in some inconceiv- 
 able part of the moral government, from the foun- 
 dation of the world, to be set to the credit of a 
 select portion of mankind of all nations and all 
 ages, whose salvation is infallibly insured by this 
 deposit made in their individual and special 
 interest. 
 
 On the contrary, Christianity or the gospel is a 
 divine power God in Christ 'reconciling the world 
 unto himself. Hence, it is not what he did eight- 
 een hundred years ago, or from the foundation of
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 335 
 
 the world, that saves men, but what the living 
 Christ does now that saves men. The bare making 
 of the brazen serpent healed none, but made the 
 healing possible to all, inevitable to none, but sure 
 to every one that looked upon it. 
 
 What you are now doing does not persuade sin- 
 ners to come to Christ, but will enable you to per- 
 suade them to come to him. Preparation to do a 
 thing and the doing of it, are certainly different 
 things. 
 
 So, while Christ's death and resurrection of 
 themselves save none nor render the salvation of 
 any necessary, they make him the Savior of all 
 men, especially of those that believe, (i Tim. 
 iv. 10.) 
 
 Hence, we are never commanded to trust in 
 Christ's sufferings, or in his blood, or in his death, 
 but in Christ himself. 
 
 Paul says: u We both labor and suffer reproach 
 because we trust in the living God, who is the 
 Savior of all men, especially of those that be- 
 lieve." 
 
 Paul did not say to the jailer, " Believe in what 
 Christ has done and suffered;" but, "Believe in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." 
 
 On the contrary, the substitutionary scheme re- 
 quires us to believe that the death of Christ was a 
 "penal satisfaction to justice," and that it necessi- 
 tates the salvation of all for whom Christ suffered; 
 or, that it is his death that satisfies justice and ex- 
 piates guilt, and insures salvation. Hence, a dead 
 or unrisen Christ would be as truly a Savior as a
 
 336 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 risen Christ. We know that a title deed is as 
 valid after the death of the author as before that 
 death. 
 
 The validity of a legal obligation depends in no 
 sense upon the survival of either party. If the 
 death of Christ expiates human guilt, by satisfying 
 justice, and brings God under obligation to regen- 
 erate and save, then the resurrection of Christ can 
 have no effect upon the question of the sinner's sal- 
 vation. 
 
 According to the theory, justice is satisfied, the 
 sinner's guilt expiated, and his salvation assured, 
 whether Christ is risen from the dead or not. 
 
 Christ, it would seem, rose from the dead on his 
 own account, and in no respect in the interest of 
 the sinner's justification and regeneration. Not 
 even for their resurrection from the dead are the 
 elect indebted to a risen Christ, for there is to be a 
 resurrection of the unjust, or reprobate, as truly as 
 of the just or elect. Of course the substitutionist 
 would not be willing to admit these conclusions, 
 nor do I charge him with believing them. But they 
 seem to be logically involved in the fundamental 
 principles of his theory. 
 
 But, according to the Bible, the death and the 
 resurrection of Christ of themselves save none, but 
 were the indispensable means by which he became 
 the Savior of those that believe. 
 
 Had he not risen from the dead, he would be no 
 Savior at all. Hence, the immense importance 
 that the Bible attaches to his resurrection. Paul 
 sets this fact in a very strong light. He says :
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 337 
 
 (Rom. iv. 25): "He was delivered for our offenses, 
 and was raised again for our justification." 
 
 (i Cor. xv. 14-17): If "Christ be not risen, then 
 is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain, 
 and ye are yet in your sins." 
 
 Hence, a living Christ alone can save. 
 
 This fact that it is Christ and not his death that 
 saves sinners, cuts the whole substitutionary scheme 
 out of root. 
 
 Having indicated what are to me formidable 
 objections to the common method of bringing the 
 sinner into a state of justification, I will now briefly 
 outline a different method, which I think is more 
 in accordance with the Bible, human reason, and 
 Christian experience. 
 
 (i) Adam, having corrupted his moral nature by 
 his disobedience, transmitted this corrupted nature 
 by natural heredity to his posterity. 
 
 His sinful act is not in any proper sense imputed 
 to us, but his vitiated moral nature is transmitted 
 to us by a natural process, as is his animal and in- 
 tellectual nature. This natal depravity is spiritual 
 death, and creates the necessity for the special 
 mediation of the God- Man, who, by his obedience 
 unto death, and his resurrection, becomes a quick- 
 ening spirit, who imparts his own holy nature and 
 righteousness to those that trust in him for salva- 
 tion. 
 
 Hence, we are expressly informed (Jer. xxiii. 6) 
 that he should be " called the Lord our righteous- 
 nes^T" We can not, without very largely supple- 
 menting this text, get out of it the idea of substi- 
 
 22
 
 338 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 tution with double imputation, etc. The natural 
 inference seems to be that the Lord is just simply 
 our righteousness, and this is what I assert. We 
 have a similar statement (i Cor. i. 30): 
 
 ' ' But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was 
 made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, 
 and sanctification, and redemption." 
 
 All these things are related to us and come to us 
 in the same way. Hence, if righteousness is im- 
 puted to us, sanctification and redemption are also 
 imputed to us, and if we are only accounted and 
 treated as righteous, while we are not really so, 
 then it follows that we are not really sanctified and 
 redeemed or saved, but only treated as if we were 
 so. 
 
 It is also said (2 Cor. v. 21): 
 
 ' ' Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin (a sin- 
 offering) on our behalf, that we might become the 
 righteousness of God in him." 
 
 In what sense or how are we made the righteous- 
 ness of God? The word righteousness is an ab- 
 stract word, and the expression, "made the right- 
 eousness of God in him," is equivalent to being 
 made partakers of God's righteousness by virtue 
 of our union with Christ, or because we are "in 
 him." 
 
 Three lessons are distinctly taught : 
 
 (1) That Christ knew no sin, personal or im- 
 puted. 
 
 (2) That he was made or became a sin-offering 
 then, of course, not a penal sacrifice.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 339 
 
 (3) That those in him become partakers of ' ' the 
 righteousness (of God) which is of faith." (Rom. 
 ifi. 22; ix. 30; x. 6.) 
 
 Hence, it is clear that we are justified, made 
 righteous, and saved by having the righteousness 
 of God, received by faith, or by being in Christ. 
 
 The uniform teaching of the Bible is that we are 
 made righteous by partaking of Christ's righteous- 
 ness, or by being in him who is our righteousness. 
 
 If this is true, then justification or righteousness 
 is not something imposed upon us from without by 
 imputation, but is the divinely-appointed sequence 
 of ethical union with Christ, or being made one 
 with Christ. 
 
 If this is true, then the righteousness of the 
 believer is not ideal, but real. Certainly it is not 
 a self-originated, but a derived righteousness, but 
 none the less real on this account. The magnetism 
 of the mariner's compass is not primal, but derived 
 from the natural magnet, but is real, nevertheless. 
 The life of the ingrafted branch is real, though 
 derived from the stock with which it is united, 
 and the life of one is the life of the other. This 
 will more fully appear from what follows. 
 
 SECTION IV. But it is asked, how is this unifi- 
 cation with Christ brought aboiit, or secured? 
 
 This is a vital question, and merits some special 
 attention. I answer, it is brought about "through 
 sanct^fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 
 
 Note. I do not use the word sanctification in the 
 sense of morah purity or sinlessness, but in the strict
 
 340 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Bible sense, viz. : separateness from worldliness and 
 appropriation to God and sacred uses. 
 
 Sauctification on the human side is the voluntary 
 element of saving faith. By this mental act we 
 take hold on Christ, or give ourselves to him, or lay 
 ourselves upon him as our altar, or mercy-seat. 
 But this act on our part is not the real sanctifica- 
 tion of the Spirit, or what is imparted by the quick- 
 ening spirit, but is only the means, or antecedent, 
 upon which this sanctification is conditioned. The 
 conditioning act is in a sense ours; the divinely- 
 ordained sequent of this act is the sanctification 
 that comes from Christ, our altar, or mercy-seat, 
 which sanctifies whatever touches it, and renders it 
 acceptable to God. The divinely-ordained order, as 
 we have seen, is sacrifice, sanctification, and accept- 
 ance with God (Rom. xii. i; Heb. ix. 13). 
 
 The process is suitably illustrated by the taberna- 
 cle service. 
 
 An important difference between the old and the 
 "New and living way" which Christ has opened 
 up for us, is that in the latter no mediating human 
 priest is required. 
 
 Christ, having suffered without the gate, that he 
 might sanctify the people (all humanity) with his 
 blood, every man becomes his own priest in such a 
 sense that he may lay himself and all his offerings 
 upon Christ, his mercy-seat, by whom he is sancti- 
 fied and made partaker of Christ's holiness (Heb. 
 xii. 10; i Cor. ix. 10); is made partaker of Christ, 
 or with Christ (Heb. iii. 14); is made partaker of 
 the divine nature (2 Peter i. 4).
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 341 
 
 In these texts we are expressly told that those 
 who give themselves to Christ, or trust in Christ, 
 are made partakers of the altar that sanctifies all 
 that touches it; or are made partakers of Christ's 
 sanctification; partakers of the divine nature of 
 Christ himself. 
 
 Now, in this impartation of Christ's holiness, 
 Christ's righteousness, Christ's nature, and of 
 Christ himself to those who consecrate themselves 
 trustingly to him, we can scarcely fail to see how 
 we become partakers of Christ's holiness, and how 
 Christ becomes the "Lord our righteousness," and 
 ' ' the end of the law for righteousness to every one 
 that believe th" (Rom. x. 4), how believers become 
 dead to sin and have their lives hid with Christ in 
 God (Col. iii. 3), how "ye are not under the law, 
 but under grace '' (Rom. vi. 14), and in fine, how 
 Christ becomes the " author of eternal salvation to 
 all them that obey him" (Heb. v. 9). 
 
 This sanctification, insured by faith, or spiritual 
 contact with Christ, is illustrated by the marital 
 relation in which twain are made one. 
 
 Paul teaches (i Cor. vii. 14) that the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife, and 
 the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; 
 else were your children unclean, but now are they 
 holy." (This, of course, is ritual sanctification.) 
 Unification by the marital relation, in which two 
 become one, is a favorite mode of illustration by 
 the sacred writers. Christ is represented as the 
 Bridegroom and the Church believers as the bride, 
 and they are ethically and in law recognized as one
 
 342 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 and identical. Christ recognizes this union when 
 .he says, "because I live ye shall live also 1 ' (John 
 xiv. 19). 
 
 Paul pronounces this union between Christ and 
 believers a great mystery. Nevertheless, he affirms 
 it to be real, and the ground of salvation (Eph. v. 
 
 22-33)- 
 
 In this vital union, the spiritual life of the be- 
 liever is represented as coming wholly from Christ, 
 as illustrated by the dependence of the branch upon 
 the vine whence it derives its life. 
 
 Also, by the life and sustenance of the body upon 
 the nutritious material upon which it feeds. " Ex- 
 cept ye eat the flesh of the Sou of man and drink 
 his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth 
 my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life " 
 (John vi. 53, 54). The scion lives by partaking of 
 the flesh and blood, so to 'speak, of the stock into 
 which it is ingrafted. 
 
 In the light of Scripture facts, we readily see 
 how believers are put into Christ and sanctified by 
 that relation, or made partakers of his holiness. 
 
 Now, I wish you to make a special note of the 
 fact that sanctification and righteousness, though 
 essentially distinct, are, nevertheless, absolutely 
 inseparable. They are, in fact, simply different 
 aspects of the same event. 
 
 Paul so connects them (i Cor. i. 30): 
 
 "Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who is made 
 unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and 
 redemption. ' '
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 343 
 
 Hence, to affirm one of these things, as the result 
 of being in Christ, is by consequence to affirm all. 
 Hence, it is plain that the sinner, in being united 
 to Christ by faith, is made partaker of Christ's 
 sanctification and righteousness. 
 
 If Christ obeyed the law in his own place, and 
 not in the place of others, how could this perfect 
 personal obedience avail for the salvation of 
 others ? 
 
 The persistency with which this question is put 
 betrays the impression that somehow the obedience 
 of Christ constituted an immense fund of merit 
 apart and distinct from Christ himself, which is set 
 to the credit of individuals as occasion requires. 
 The following seems to be a sufficient answer: 
 
 Suppose it should be asked: If Adam disobeyed 
 the law on his own account, how could his personal 
 disobedience or unrighteousness involve others .in 
 unrighteousness ? Did his act of disobedience cre- 
 ate an immense fund of unrighteousness, a definite 
 portion of which is charged up against each one of 
 his posterity ? 
 
 This is an intensely realistic view of the subject 
 It assumes the existence of sin or unrighteousness 
 as possible, independent of a sinful mind, and 
 which somehow becomes a possession of the infant 
 mind independently of the law of heredity. Hence, 
 that a corrupt nature is comiminicated to such a 
 mind, both by a natural and a supernatural provi- 
 dence or process. 
 
 A more simple, a more rational, and, withal, a 
 more scriptural view is, that the first Adam did, by
 
 344 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 disobedience, corrupt his moral nature, and did im- 
 part that corrupted nature to his posterity by the 
 divinely- established law of heredity, just as he 
 transmitted his other natural characteristics. 
 
 Now, if the first Adam did actually transmit his 
 personally unrighteous nature or spiritual death by 
 natural generation only, then are we not required by 
 the typal relation between the first and the second 
 Adam to believe that the latter does by regenera- 
 tion actually transmit his own personal righteous- 
 ness to all that believe in him? 
 
 If the spiritual death of the first Adam, who is 
 of the earth earthy, or natural, could be actually 
 transmitted by generation, why should not the spir- 
 itual life of the second Adam, who is the Lord from 
 heaven, and the ' ' life-giving spirit, ' ' be imparted 
 to those who obey him ? This is possible, reasona- 
 ble, and biblical.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 345 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 SECTION I. Sufficiency and redundancy of merit 
 in Christ. 
 
 Is there a bare sufficiency, or a redundancy of 
 merit in Christ ? 
 
 This question has been much debated by substi- 
 tutionists, but no definite answer has been reached. 
 To those holding the theory, the question seems 
 pertinent and important. To those rejecting the 
 theory it is about equivalent to asking whether 
 God has too much or too little power to govern the 
 world. 
 
 The prevailing notion seems to be that Christ's 
 sufferings were infinite, and, therefore, more than 
 an offset to the demerit of humanity, which is less 
 than infinite. Still his merit is not available to all 
 because not intended for all. 
 
 It seems proper to say, that if there is any merit 
 in penal suffering, then of course the degree of pe- 
 nal suffering ought to exactly equal the sufferings 
 due to those for whom he suffered no more, no 
 less. 
 
 But why should Christ endure infinite suffering 
 to neutralize a finite measure of guilt ? Why suffer 
 more than a bare sufficiency ? By enduring infinite 
 suffering he rendered to justice more than what was 
 due; and the excess was equal to the difference be-
 
 346 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 tween finity and infinity. Is it not as grievous an 
 injustice to receive too much as too little? 
 
 The difference between finity and infinity is, I 
 should say, itself infinite. Now, would it not be a 
 less wrong for justice to remit a finite degree of de- 
 merit, than to receive an infinite amount of suf- 
 fering ? 
 
 This would save all the world with less injustice 
 than is done in rendering to justice an infinite de- 
 gree of suffering for finite demerit. 
 
 Again, it is manifestly impossible for Christ, even 
 if he suffered as an infinite personality, to endure 
 infinite suffering " in finite time." This he could 
 not do, unless his sufferings were absolutely with- 
 out beginning and without end. Suffering may be 
 without end, but is not infinite unless it also is 
 without beginning. It is no relief to say that suf- 
 fering may be limited as to time, but infinite in 
 degree; for the infinite admits of no limitations. 
 
 This view of the sufferings of Christ puts the 
 divine nature under the penalty of the divine law 
 which assumes that God punished himself. Penal- 
 ists are driven into these and a host of other absurd- 
 ities by the unscriptural assumption that propitia- 
 tion consists in suffering as such, and not in obedi- 
 ence unto death. 
 
 To support this egregious error, the text, "with- 
 out shedding of blood there is no remission ' ' (Heb. 
 ix. 22), is often quoted. To use this text for this 
 purpose is a palpable perversion of its terms, which 
 sets it in array against its context. The text does 
 not say nor imply that without penal suffering
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 347 
 
 there is no remission, as penaljsts understand it. 
 The text means just what it says. The life is in 
 the blood. To shed the blood is to give the life, or 
 constcrate it to God, without which there is abso- 
 lutely no remission of sin. The context and the 
 terms of the text itself attribute no efficacy to suf- 
 fering as such, but attribute all efficacy to the blood, 
 or the surrender of the life to God. 
 
 There is, therefore, no pertinency in questions 
 concerning the degree of Christ's sufferings, as to 
 whether they were finite or infinite, for, as I have 
 often said, there is absolutely no merit in penalty of 
 any kind. 
 
 We might just as pertinently perplex our- 
 selves with the impracticable question as to how 
 much suffering a physician must endure to give 
 him the right to cure his patient; or how much 
 suffering a father must experience to give him the 
 right to reform and save a fallen child. 
 
 It is not a question of right acquired by substitu- 
 tionary suffering but a question of power to adapt 
 means to given ends. 
 
 There is, therefore, no limit to the saving power 
 of Christ, or of God in Christ, any more than there 
 is a limit to divine power in nature. Though this 
 saving power or righteousness may be imparted to 
 millions upon millions, it can never become less. 
 
 If humanity continues to,be propagated for mill- 
 ions of centuries, Adamic depravity will continue 
 to involve all in sinfulness; for it is not an entity 
 in itself capable of exhaustion, but a quality in hu- 
 manity which is necessarily coeval with humanity.
 
 348 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 So it is of the saving righteousness of Christ. It 
 is not a fund of merit, finite or infinite, nor the 
 equivalent of penal, sufferings, finite or infinite, 
 which can be increased or diminished, but is sim- 
 ply a divine power which is capable neither of in- 
 crease nor decrease. 
 
 We have just as much authority for limiting 
 God's creative power in the physical world as we 
 have for limiting his saving power in Christ. In- 
 stead of being like an immense banking fund, to be 
 put to the credit of certain individuals, and which 
 of course may be diminished, it is rather like knowl- 
 edge which may be imparted to others without any 
 decrease. 
 
 If you impart to others a knowledge of a given 
 fact, known only to yourself, this importation does 
 not take away nor diminish your knowledge of it; 
 nor is the quantiim of knowledge increased in the 
 slightest degree by the impartation of it to others. 
 The only change produced by the impartation is, 
 that it becomes the property of a greater number. 
 The same knowledge, you will perceive serves 
 equally well all those to whom it is imparted. 
 
 Exactly so is it of the sanctification or saving 
 power of Christ. This sanctification and righteous- 
 ness by impartation become the property of all that 
 believe in Christ an innumerable multitude. But 
 if this righteousness was imparted to every human 
 being, it would save all without diminishing his 
 own righteousness. 
 
 This righteousness, etc., imparted to believers, 
 makes them righteous exactly in the same sense in
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 349 
 
 which Christ is righteous. It is of course available 
 for their acceptance with God in the same sense in 
 which Christ's sanctified humanity is accepted of 
 God. They being in him are accepted because he 
 is accepted, are righteous because he is righteous. 
 
 He is not their substitute in any proper sense. 
 Or, if he is, then may we say the parent, whose nat- 
 ure is imparted to his child, is a substitute for his 
 child, or a tree the substitute for the fruit it bears. 
 
 Hence, the sinner is not saved as a bankrupt is 
 saved, by having the amount of his indebtedness 
 set to his credit, as substitution assumes. This 
 plan does not impart holiness, but only transfers it, 
 as the money of the surety is actually taken from 
 him and set to the credit of his defaulting prin- 
 cipal. 
 
 This assumes that Christ's saving power is a com- 
 modity something apart from himself just as the 
 surety's money is a commodity, apart from the 
 surety himself, and has the same commercial value 
 whether the surety lives or dies. 
 
 Hence, according to substitution, an unrisen 
 Christ is just as adequate to save those for whom he 
 died as a risen Christ. 
 
 According to the theory, every sinner saved 
 diminishes this fund of saving righteousness as 
 surely as the abstraction of a dollar from a bank 
 diminishes the sum on deposit. 
 
 (It is a scholastic conceit that the number re- 
 deemed is exactly equal to the number of the fallen 
 angels. A later authority affirms that the number 
 is definitely fixed beyond the possibility of increase
 
 350 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 or diminution, and that provision is made for these 
 and no others.) 
 
 This is consistency. Hence, the penal sufferings 
 of Christ are adequate for this number; no mo- and 
 no less. For, if there is less, then, of course, some 
 elected to salvation will fail of realizing it; if more, 
 then there will remain a surplus in the treasury after 
 the last draft has been honored. This is commend- 
 able for its consistency, but censurable on other 
 grounds. 
 
 But what those penalists who make a grand 
 flourish about the "infinite sufferings" of Christ 
 propose to do with this infinite surplus merit, I 
 have not learned, nor can I imagine. A vast fund 
 of penal righteousness locked up in the treasury 
 vaults of the moral world, which, however much 
 needed by reprobates, can never be put to any 
 use, is a realistic conception that borders on in- 
 sanity. 
 
 SECTION II. The typal relation between Adam, 
 and Christ. 
 
 (Rom. v. 12-20.) Adam, \vho is called a type of 
 Christ, possessed in himself entire human nature, 
 and imparted that nature in its completeness to 
 each of his posterity, without any divarication or 
 diminution of his own complete humanity. Hav- 
 ing by disobedience corrupted his moral nature, 
 and become spiritually dead, he imparted that spirit- 
 ual death, along with all other characteristics of his 
 nature, to his posterity. 
 
 Mark, he did not impart what he did the act of 
 sinning but the sinful nature acquired by sinning.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 351 
 
 This sinful nature spiritual death he transmitted 
 by natural generation, just as he transmitted his 
 other human characteristics. 
 
 In like manner Christ, the second Adam, having 
 through obedience unto death, and being raised to 
 newness of life, became a life-giving spirit, or 
 source of spiritual life, imparts his spiritual life 
 without any divarication or diminution of his own 
 life to all that believe on him. 
 
 . As it was not Adam's act of disobedience that 
 imparted his spiritual death to others, but the im- 
 partation of his own corrupt nature by generation; 
 so it is not Christ's obedience unto death that, of 
 itself, brings spiritual life unto others, but the im- 
 partation of his own holy nature in regeneration, or 
 spiritual birth. 
 
 Hence, as the first Adam, by disobedience, be- 
 came spiritually dead, and imparted that death by 
 generation to his posterity; so the second Adam, by 
 obedience unto death, becomes a life-giving spirit, 
 who imparts in regeneration his own spiritual life 
 to those that trust in him. Or, as all men are spir- 
 itually dead, because they are partakers of the fall- 
 en nature of the first Adam; so, all believers are 
 made spiritually alive, or relieved from spiritual 
 death, by becoming partakers of the spiritual life of 
 the second Adam. 
 
 But you may quite pertinently inquire whether 
 this imparted righteousness of Christ is adequate 
 to meet the claims of the divine justice or law. I 
 answer, It is. 
 
 This personal righteousness of Christ imparted
 
 352 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 to men fulfills the law in their behalf to the very 
 letter; for Christ is literally the end (fulfillment) of 
 the law for righteousness to every one that believes. 
 (Rom. x. 4.) 
 
 There is absolutely no abrogation, relaxation, or 
 modification of the law. It is literally fulfilled in 
 every "jot and tittle." For if the law could and 
 did actually sanction the impartation of Adam's 
 corrupt nature, out of which condemnation comes 
 to all men, then of sheer necessity it can and does 
 permit and sanction the actual not fictitious im- 
 partation of Christ's righteousness to even* one that 
 believes. This is exactly the sense in which Adam 
 is a type of Christ. (Rom. v. 12-20.) 
 
 Note the analogy, and also the contrast between 
 them. 
 
 1. By Adam sin and spiritual death entered the 
 world ; so by Christ spiritual life is brought to light 
 in the gospel. 
 
 2. If by the trespass of the one the many died, 
 much more did the grace of God, and the gift by 
 the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto 
 the many. 
 
 3. The judgment came of one (offense) to con- 
 demnation (of all); but the free gift came of many 
 trespasses unto justification. 
 
 4. If by the trespass of one (man) death reigned 
 by one, much more shall they that receive the 
 abundance of grace -and of the gift of righteous- 
 ness, reign in life through one, even Jesus Christ. 
 
 5. As through one trespass condemnation came 
 unto all men; even so through one act of righteous-
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 353 
 
 ness (Christ's obedience unto death) the free gift 
 came unto all men to justification of life. 
 
 6. As through the one man's disobedience the 
 many were made sinners; even so through the 
 obedience of the one shall the many be made right- 
 eous. 
 
 In these statements we have the analogy between 
 the first and the last Adam. It shows with suffi- 
 cient precision the method by which condemna- 
 tion comes upon all men through one act of diso- 
 bedience by the first Adam; and the method by 
 which justification (righteousness) comes to believr 
 ers through the obedience not penal, but precep- 
 tive of the second Adam. 
 
 The two processes are absolutely identical in 
 kind, but reverse in order; the first being from dis- 
 obedience unto spiritual death and condemnation; 
 and the second from obedience unto spiritual life 
 and justification. 
 
 If one process is in the most rigid accord with 
 justice and law, so is the other. If one violates 
 justice, or law, or propriety, so does the other. If 
 one is true, so is the other. If one is capable of 
 defense on scientific grounds, so is the other. 
 
 This is Paul's plan of salvation as nearly in a 
 nut-shell as I can put it. 
 
 We may now see exactly what is meant in 
 the Bible by the remission or pardon of sin. It is 
 not abrogation or relaxation of law, nor the waiv- 
 ing of penalty, nor the substitution "of Christ's 
 sufferings and death for the penalty due to the sin- 
 ner. " nor treating as righteous those that are not 
 33
 
 354 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 really so; much less is it releasing the guilty by in- 
 flicting penalty upon an innocent substitute. 
 
 On the contrary, it is simply deliverance from 
 penalty by deliverance from guilt; just as deliver- 
 ance from physical suffering is secured by the re- 
 moval of its cause. 
 
 To remove the cause is to destroy the effect. To 
 take away sin is to pardon it. 
 
 Sin is as truly a malady of the soul as palsy, 
 plague, or fever is of the body. Of this soul-mal- 
 ady Christ is the only healer. Hence, he is repre- 
 sented as the great physician, who heals both soul 
 and body (Mark ii. 17). 
 
 SECTION III. Relation of believers to the law. 
 
 Let it be deeply fixed in mind that salvation is 
 exclusively of grace. 
 
 "By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that 
 not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of 
 works, lest any man should boast. For we are his 
 workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
 works, which God hath foreordained that we should 
 walk in them" (Eph. ii. 8-10). 
 
 Paul in this text sharply distinguishes between 
 grace, faith, and works. These, though intimately 
 related, are specifically different. Grace saves, 
 faith conditions salvation, and good works are the 
 appropriate fruit. Saving grace is the righteous- 
 ness of Christ imparted to every believer who "is 
 created in Christ unto good works. ' ' Good works, 
 then, are the fruit of this creation in Christ Jesus. 
 Of course the fruit does not change the character 
 of the tree that bears it.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 355 
 
 But you ask, is not the Christian's salvation con- 
 ditioned upon his fidelity or good works ? 
 
 I think not. His fidelity is rather conditioned 
 upon unification with Christ. "If a man love me 
 he will keep my word " (John xiv. 23). As the tree 
 is, so the fruit. 
 
 But does not the Bible say, "Be thou faithful 
 unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life?" 
 
 Certainly the crown, or reward, is conditioned 
 upon fidelity. But life and a crown of life are not 
 identical. Spiritual life is the gift of God. The 
 crown comes through fidelity, or good works. We 
 are saved by grace, but rewarded according to our 
 works (2 Cor. v. 10; Rev. xxii. 12). 
 
 Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to 
 every one that believeth. Hence, those in Christ 
 are not under the law as a rule of judgment, but 
 under grace (Rom. vi. 14). 
 
 Personal righteousness, on the contrary, is radi- 
 cally defective; is "as filthy rags;" has no power 
 to justify or save. It does not condition salvation 
 at all; has no power over the righteousness of 
 Christ, either to increase or diminish it. If it had 
 such power, then it would supplement the right- 
 eousness of Christ. 
 
 Good works, on the contrary, simply condition 1 
 the rewards of the believer; have power over the 
 states of the heart, and determine the measure of 
 enjoyment here and hereafter. 
 
 We are saved by grace, but rewarded according 
 to our works.
 
 356 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION IV. The question is often asked, if 
 Adam's state of spiritual death, consequent upon 
 his disobedience, is imparted to all men, why are all 
 not delivered from that death by the obedience of 
 Christ? To tljis I reply : 
 
 1. If deliverance from spiritual death was as 
 irrespective of our voluntary action as is our nat- 
 ural birth, then we should expect all men to be 
 delivered from spiritual death by the obedience of 
 Christ. 
 
 But such a method of deliverance would blot out 
 all distinction between necessity and freedom, and 
 destroy even the possibility of morality and re- 
 ligion. 
 
 2. If Adam had rendered a perfect obedience, this 
 obedience would have saved none but himself; for 
 one mind can not possibly obey or love God in 
 the place of another mind, and only those that obey 
 are blessed. 
 
 Hence, though we are born in a state of spiritual 
 death without our consent, yet, from the necessary 
 character of a moral government, we can not be 
 delivered from spiritual death without our consent. 
 Hence, only those that trust in Christ are saved. 
 
 3. To be born in a state of fitness for heaven is 
 impossible, because it presupposes a concreated 
 righteousness, which is a contradiction. Adam 
 was not created in such a state, but only with the 
 possibility of attaining it. 
 
 To be born incapable of sin is impossible, be- 
 cause it denies to us all freedom, and consequently 
 all accountability.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 357 
 
 4. In view of our relations to the second Adam, it 
 is no injustice to be born in a state of spiritual death 
 on account of the disobedience of the first Adam. 
 
 Indeed, it is far better to be born ip. a state of 
 spiritual death, with effectual deliverance at our 
 option, than to be born, not in a state of spiritual 
 death, but liable to it at every moment, with no 
 possible deliverance, if it should be incurred. 
 
 5. None ever could have been saved by Adam's 
 obedience, even if it had been perfect and perpet- 
 ual. On the contrary, none ever were, or will be 
 lost on account of his disobedience; for the reason of 
 our condemnation is not that we are born in a state 
 of spiritual death, but our voluntary rejection of 
 spiritual life in Christ (John iii. 19). Millions 
 more of human souls, I doubt not, will be saved 
 through the gracious mediation of Christ, than 
 would have been saved, if every man was required 
 to stand upon his personal obedience. 
 
 This seems a sufficient answer to the question. 
 
 Christ himself the atonement: 
 
 Christ, through obedience unto death and his 
 resurrection, becomes the propitiation, or medium, 
 through whom God, or the Holy Spirit, operates 
 upon men-, and through whom men have access to 
 God. " He is the propitiation for our sins, and not 
 for ours only, but also for the whole world " (i John 
 ii. 2; iv. 10). 
 
 His propitiation has its inception in his obedient 
 and sacrificial death, and its completeness, or life- 
 giving power in his ministrations as the living 
 Christ.
 
 358 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 "I am (literally) the way, and the truth, and the 
 life; no one cometh unto the Father but by me" 
 (John xiv. 6), u the new and living way which he 
 hath consecrated for us through ... his flesh" 
 (Heb. x. 2o) 
 
 This mediation of Christ conditions and insures 
 all needed influence of the Holy Spirit, a manifesta- 
 tion of which is given to every man to profit withal 
 (i Cor. xii. 7); or to guide us into all truth (John 
 xvi. 13-16). 
 
 SECTION V. The Scriptures teach a non-penal 
 scheme of salvation, and condemn substitution. 
 
 Paul's plan of salvation, as outlined above, is in 
 full accord with the Scriptures. Many texts, as we 
 have seen, teach it. Not one condemns it. It 
 harmonizes with every other correlated doctrine of 
 the Bible. If this is so, it must be true; for this 
 is as near demonstration as is possible in the case. 
 
 In these respects it stands in bold contrast with 
 the substitutional theory. No text teaches this 
 scheme, nor can be made to teach it without sup- 
 plementation, or perversion. Moreover, it stands 
 in irreconcilable conflict with hundreds of plain 
 Bible texts. Many of these have been noticed to 
 name -all would be a needless labor. .To classify 
 them will answer as well. 
 
 It is well known by all that have carefully con- 
 sidered the subject, that substitution, including 
 double imputation (and nothing else is substitution 
 in a theological sense), involves the doctrines either 
 of universalism or partial atonement, also of a par- 
 tial influence of the Holy Spirit, of "irresistible
 
 NOX-PEXAL THEORY. 359 
 
 grace," of unconditionality in the plan of salva- 
 tion; also, of moral necessity. These doctrines 
 all stand or fall together. If substitution in its 
 only true or real sense is true, then of necessity all 
 these doctrines are true. If these are not true, 
 then substitution is not true. 
 
 1. Thus, if Christ, as a substitute, bore the pen- 
 alty of the law in the place of all, then all must be 
 saved; otherwise, the penalty is twice inflicted in 
 reference to those not saved once upon the substi- 
 tute, and once upon the principal. Hence, univer- 
 salism must be true. But if universalism is not 
 true, it is only because Christ did not die for all, 
 for substitution infallibly saves all for whom Christ 
 died. Hence, a partial atonement. 
 
 2. Again, if penal atonement saves all for whom 
 it is made, then the doctrine of irresistible grace 
 must be true; otherwise, some for whom Christ 
 died might not be saved, and the decree of election 
 would consequently fail. 
 
 3. Again, if substitutionary atonement infallibly 
 saves all for whom it is made, then salvation is nec- 
 essarily unconditioned upon faith, or any thing else 
 possible to men. Their salvation is conditioned 
 exclusively upon the death of Christ, as their sub- 
 stitute. If they repent or believe, it is only because 
 "irresistible grace" compels them. 
 
 4. Again, if any or all of these doctrines are true, 
 then the doctrine of moral necessity must be true 
 that is, men are free to do as they do, but not other- 
 wise, or free just as the heart is free to beat, but not 
 free not to beat.
 
 360 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Hence, any text in the Bible that condemns uni- 
 versalism, or partial atonement, or the doctrine of 
 "irresistible grace," or unconditional salvation, or 
 moral necessity, does of necessity condemn substi- 
 tutionary atonement. To affirm any one of these 
 doctrines, and to deny any one of them, is to affirm 
 a proposition, and yet deny its necessary implications 
 or affiliated doctrines. It consequently follows: 
 
 1. That all texts that deny universalism, or deny 
 that Christ died for a part only, do by necessary 
 consequence disprove substitutionary atonement. 
 
 2. That all the texts that deny the doctrine of 
 "irresistible grace," do by necessary consequence 
 disprove substitution. 
 
 3. That all those texts that teach that salvation 
 is conditioned upon faith, or any thing else, dis- 
 prove substitution. 
 
 4. That all the texts that teach the doctrine of 
 human freedom with an alternative, disprove sub- 
 stitution. 
 
 We know that the Bible teaches that men for 
 whom Christ died may be lost this is explicitly 
 taught (Rom. xiv. 15; i Cor. viii. n) and implied 
 in numerous other texts then penal substitution 
 can not be true. 
 
 We know the Bible teaches that men may resist 
 the Holy Spirit, then penal substitution can not be 
 true. 
 
 We know the Bible conditions salvation upon 
 faith; then penal substitution can not be true. 
 
 We know the Bible lays imperatives upon the 
 human will, and holds men accountable for their 
 conduct; then substitution can not be true.
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 361 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 SECTION I. Libertarian substitution. 
 
 I know there are many who call themselves sub- 
 stitutionists that reject utterly universalism, limited 
 atonement, unconditionality, and moral necessity. 
 All such are involved in serious trouble. 
 
 The plain facts of the Bible can no more be made 
 to quadrate with substitution in any form than can 
 the facts of astronomy be made to harmonize with 
 the Ptolemaic theory. If we admit that Christ as 
 our substitute fulfilled the law in any sense by 
 active or passive obedience (so called), then it fol- 
 lows irresistibly that the law, in whatever aspect he 
 fulfilled it, can have no further claims upon us, and 
 universalism follows. 
 
 i. I know it is said that, though Christ fulfilled 
 the law in our place, yet God leaves us free to ac- 
 cept or reject his obedience, and that if we by faith 
 receive it, we will be saved, but if we reject it, we 
 must be lost. 
 
 Then it follows that the penalties of the law are 
 twice inflicted in relation to all that are not saved 
 once upon the substitute and once upon the prin- 
 cipal. Hence, if penalty "compensates" justice 
 or law, then it is twice compensated in the case of 
 all the lost. 
 
 If sin is a debt, and a surety pays it, the creditor
 
 362 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 has no right to demand repayment of the principal. 
 If sin is a crime, and the penalty has been fully 
 endured, it can not be again inflicted upon substi- 
 tute or principal. There is no escape from these 
 plain, hard facts. 
 
 2. Again, I have heard it said that Christ obeyed 
 the law in our stead, and now holds us under obli- 
 gations to himself, and proposes to pardon us on 
 condition of faith in him. This is sometimes 
 made quite plausible; but the calamity is that 
 Christ, according to this view, is a substitute for 
 God, and not for man. So the lawyers will tell 
 you. 
 
 This is not substitution at all, in a theological 
 sense. But this method obviates no difficulty, for 
 the penalty is first endured by Christ, and then re- 
 inflicted upon all unbelievers. 
 
 3. Others, calling themselves substitutionists, 
 hold that the atonement is governmental, and not 
 strictly retributive that Christ suffered to satisfy 
 rectoral justice, not retributive justice, or suffered 
 in the interest of the moral government, and not to 
 satisfy divine justice. According to this theory, 
 the necessity of the atonement is founded in the 
 exigencies of the moral government, and not in 
 the divine nature. Christ's death, consequently, 
 is purely exemplary, and not expiatory of guilt. 
 Christ suffered to show God's abhorrence of sin, or 
 his respect for his law. His sufferings were in the 
 interests of the moral government, much as the 
 punishment of a criminal by civil law is intended 
 by its example to protect and benefit the public,
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 363 
 
 and not to gratify the governor, or actually repair 
 the injuries the criminal has done. 
 
 This theory is not upon its face incompatible 
 with a general atonement, human freedom, etc., 
 but is incumbered with other fatal objections, among 
 the. more obvious of which are the following: 
 
 1. Why should exemplary punishment be inflicted 
 upon the innocent, and not upon the guilty ? If 
 some person must suffer as an expression of God's 
 hatred of sin, and as an example to evil-doers, why 
 should not the guilty, rather than the innocent, 
 suffer ? 
 
 God is always revealing his hatred to sin, and 
 making examples of sinners, even in natural provi- 
 dence, and has often done this in a marvelous and 
 most signal manner, as in the deluge, the destruc- 
 tion of Sodom and the Canaanites, etc. 
 
 But I know not a solitary instance, either in the 
 sphere of natural or supernatural providence, where 
 he has punished the innocent in the place of the 
 guilty, or for their sake. 
 
 Besides, the moral effect of such a rule of admin- 
 istration would be only evil. It paralyzes incentives 
 to virtue and dissuasives to vice. 
 
 Suppose the plan of family and of civil govern- 
 ment was to punish the innocent in the place of 
 the guilty, what would be the result ? With so 
 high a premium set on vice, virtue would be impos- 
 sible. 
 
 2. But pretermitting this objection, still another 
 presents itself, viz. : that just to the extent in which 
 Christ was punished in the place of sinners, just to
 
 364 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 that extent is punishment twice inflicted. This 
 no one can fail to see, and this fact of itself requires 
 the total rejection of the scheme. Other objections, 
 less obvious, but not less real, lie against the theory, 
 but will not now b* named. 
 
 Upon the whole, it relieves substitution of some 
 of its troubles, but creates others, perhaps equally 
 fatal. 
 
 Having briefly referred to different forms of 
 substitution, as held by libertarians, and having 
 indicated some objections to them, I dismiss this 
 topic with this general statement, viz. : All theories 
 that make Christ a substitute for sinners, or his 
 sufferings a substitute for the penalty due to sinners, 
 involve by necessary consequence a double infliction 
 of the penalty itself, or the infliction of the penalty 
 and the substitute for the penalty. No scheme that 
 does this can be relieved from the charge of ab- 
 surdity. 
 
 SECTION II. The impartation of spiritual life 
 not in conflict with natural law. 
 
 God reigns supreme in all departments of his 
 creation in the realms both of matter and of mind. 
 Though these two departments are widely distinct, 
 one from the other, yet we know that there are 
 many striking analogies between them. We are, 
 therefore, not authorized to believe that God, in the 
 physical world, is in conflict with himself in the 
 spiritual world; or, that he rules in the physical. by 
 law, and in the spiritual without law. We are 
 rather authorized to predicate law of both, and of 
 one no more than of the other; also, to expect the
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. - 365 
 
 utmost harmony between law in the physical and 
 law in the spiritual world. 
 
 This reasonable expectation is not disappointed; 
 for the Bible abounds with analogies between the 
 facts of the physical and those of the spirit world. 
 
 The sacred writers generally, and Christ himself, 
 often appeal to the facts and laws of the physical 
 world to illustrate and enforce the truths of the 
 spiritual world, showing that the laws of the latter 
 are not in conflict with the laws of the former, and 
 that Christianity itself is not the "Great Excep- 
 tion," or something without law and order. 
 
 Even the impartation of Christ's spiritual life to 
 believers has many analogies and illustrations in the 
 physical world. We find these analogies both in 
 inorganic and organic matter. Among these the 
 following may be noted : 
 
 Inorganic, i. We know that the natural magnet 
 or loadstone imparts its magnetic property to the 
 needle, and permanently magnetizes it without losing 
 its own magnetic power. We know also that this 
 impartation is conditioned upon proximity, or actual 
 contact. We know just as little how the magnet 
 imparts its property to the needle as we know how 
 Christ imparts his spiritual life to believers. In 
 both cases we know something of the law or condi- 
 tions of the change, but nothing of the manner of 
 the change. 
 
 2. We have a similar phenomenon in chemical 
 science, when one substance by "catalytic force" 
 changes the state or condition of another substance. 
 This change is secured by mere proximity and with-
 
 366 . NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 out actual contact. Still, it is conditioned, and 
 human agency may supply the conditions, but God 
 in nature does the work. Surely we do not contra- 
 dict God in nature when we affirm that he can and 
 does, on given conditions, change the spiritual state 
 of the human mind regeneration is not abnormal, 
 but has its analogies even in inorganic things. 
 
 3. Organic matter. In the vegetable kingdom we 
 have in the vine a beautiful analogy illustrating 
 the impartation of Christ's spiritual life to those 
 united to him. 
 
 Christ says, " I am the vine, ye are the branches." 
 Paul often uses the same illustration. As the 
 branch, or ingrafted scion, receives its life from the 
 vine, so believers receive their spiritual life from 
 Christ. This is both illustration and proof conclu- 
 sive that Christ saves by imparting his own spir- 
 itual life to those united to him by faith. The 
 impartation of life is as real in one case as in the 
 other. 
 
 4. In animate nature we also have striking simili- 
 tudes in various forms. 
 
 (1) In the relation of parent and progeny, the 
 animal life of the former is imparted to the latter. 
 Therje is no division of nature, for nature is as com- 
 plete in one as in the other. Entire humanity 
 becomes the common possession of parent and 
 progeny. In like manner, those born of God are 
 made partakers of the nature of the regenerating 
 agent. 
 
 (2) In the process of injecting healthy blood into 
 the veins of an invalid, whose life is thereby more
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 367 
 
 or less prolonged, we have an impartation of ani- 
 mal life "the life is in the blood " from one ani- 
 mal organism to another. In like manner spiritual 
 life is an impartation from Christ. 
 
 (3) By the assimilation of food, the animal life is 
 sustained. We live by the assimilation of what we 
 feed upon. Hence, our bodies partake of the char- 
 acter of the food upon which we subsist. 
 
 Christ says, "Except ye eat my flesh and drink 
 my blood, ye have no life in you." This strong 
 language teaches us that we become partakers of 
 spiritual life by assimilating the spiritual life of 
 Christ. 
 
 5. We also have in the domain of moral and 
 spiritual things a similar impartation of nature 
 from parent to progeny. Adam, as w r e have seen, 
 corrupted himself, and by natural generation his 
 corrupted nature his state of spiritual death is 
 imparted to all his posterity. 
 
 Paul, as we have seen, makes Adam a type of 
 Christ, and the first the source of spiritual death, 
 and the second the source of spiritual life. The 
 relation between the type and the antitype is suffi- 
 cient proof that men are saved by becoming par- 
 takers of Christ's righteousness, and not by having 
 the merits of a penal death imputed to them, which 
 would antagonize the plan of salvation to all God's 
 methods of administration in all other departments 
 of his dominions. (Has substitution any analogies 
 in nature ?) 
 
 Certainly we can not know how Christ imparts 
 his spiritual life. "We hear the sound of the
 
 368 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 wind, but can not tell whence it cometh nor 
 whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of 
 'the Spirit." But we know as little as to how the 
 magnet imparts its property to the needle, or the 
 vine its life to the ingrafted scion, etc. As to 
 mystery, it confronts us everywhere, and in one 
 sphere no less than another. 
 
 What is possible is not to comprehend God, or to 
 understand how he acts, but to ascertain the law or 
 order of his acting. This is the utmost hoped for 
 in reference to the physical world; also in reference 
 to the spiritual world. To do this is the sole mis- 
 sion of science, and just so far, and only so far, as 
 this is done do we have scientific knowledge of any 
 given subject. 
 
 We know that the physical and moral are in 
 many instances so intimately related as to be insep- 
 arable. The same course of conduct that purifies 
 and elevates a man's spiritual and moral condition, 
 will generally, if not invariably, improve his phys- 
 ical condition. 
 
 The same vices that debauch a man's moral and 
 spiritual state have a strong tendency to produce 
 disease, and premature decay, and death. It is a 
 natural retribution rather than a fiat visitation, 
 that "The wicked shall not live out half his days." 
 The physical and the moral largely overlap each 
 other. 
 
 It is a highly significant fact that Christ in his 
 earthly ministry dealt with the physical and spir- 
 itual infirmities of men in the same summary man- 
 ner. It is true his action was, in relation to both,
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 369 
 
 on what seems to us a supernatural plane; but this 
 by no means implies that he deals with the phys- 
 ical after a uniform method, and with the spiritual 
 without any method at all. The summary manner 
 in which Christ dealt with physical and spiritual 
 evils, rather implies that both are subject to simi- 
 lar conditions, both alike under the dominion of 
 natural law, and both subject to supernatural inter- 
 positions, or what to us seems to be such. 
 
 In view of all the facts known to us, we have, I 
 think, no right to assume that deliverance from the 
 spiritual maladies of human nature, through the 
 mediation of Jesus Christ, as the great sin bearer, 
 the great sin destroyer, the great physician, is the 
 4 ' Great Exception. ' ' . 
 
 This is to exclude the very idea of law and order 
 from the plan of salvation, and to create antago- 
 nism between the physical world and the spir- 
 itual. 
 
 Substitution in every proper sense is abnormal to 
 law, is absolutely subversive of law, and seems to 
 me to render forever impossible any coherent and 
 scientific statement of the plan of salvation. 
 
 The Bible teaches the same conditionality in 
 relation to our spiritual well-being that it teaches 
 in relation to those physical blessings that come 
 through human activity. Whatsoever a man sow- 
 eth that shall he also reap, is just as true in the 
 sphere of morals and religion as it is in the sphere 
 of agriculture. 
 
 Every command laid upon the human will, and 
 the Bible is full of them, presupposes that there is a 
 24
 
 370 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 fixed and uniform connection between acts and their 
 consequences. 
 
 Just so far as we understand these relations be- 
 tween consequences and their antecedents or condi- 
 tions and are able to classify them do we have a 
 scientific knowledge of the plan of salvation. But 
 how is it possible to acquire this knov/ledge if sins 
 may be punished in a substitute thousands of years 
 before they are committed ? The very conception 
 defies the possibility of any scientific statement of 
 the doctrine of retribution, for it denies all nec- 
 essary connection between acts and their conse- 
 quences, both as to what the consequences shall be 
 and as to who shall suffer them. 
 
 Again, we, know that, as free agents, we have 
 power over our own acts, but we have no power 
 over the consequences of our actions; for the rela- 
 tion between our acts and their consequences is a 
 causal or necessary relation. He that believeth 
 not is condemned already, though he may wish 
 not to be condemned ; and he that believes is nec- 
 essarily saved, even if he could will not to be. 
 
 We have absolutely no control over the conse- 
 quences of our faith or unbelief. A man's condem- 
 nation or punishment inheres in his unbelief, as the 
 effect inheres in its cause. 
 
 This admits of rational apprehension. But to 
 say that the condemnation or punishment which 
 inheres in a sinner's unbelief was endured a thou- 
 sand years ago is not only contradictory of the plain 
 teachings of the Bible, but defies rational belief. 
 
 There is, I feel quite sure, no hope of a scientific
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 371 
 
 statement of the plan of salvation, if we make sub- 
 stitution its corner-stone. 
 
 But, if we reject the unscriptural and unphilo- 
 sophical doctrine, with all its legal fictions, and 
 allow that the sinless Christ, by obedience unto 
 death and the sacrifice of himself through the 
 eternal spirit, having arisen from the dead, became 
 the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, to 
 whom all may come and be made partakers of his 
 righteousness, then a scientific plan of salvation I 
 think is possible. 
 
 To God in nature we look for all secular good, 
 and by the use of appropriate means we seek to 
 acquire that good. In like manner we look to God 
 in Christ for all spiritual good, and by the use of 
 the means God has ordained we seek the attainment 
 of that good. 
 
 We do not incumber our theories of physical 
 science with fictions, nor should we our theology, 
 otherwise Christianity must ever remain the "Great 
 Exception."
 
 372 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 SECTION I. The Anselmic and the Pelagian 
 soteriology compared. 
 
 These schemes are the utmost extremes of the 
 doctrine of salvation by works; both literally save 
 by works. Both are strictly monergistic; the first 
 referring every thing to the divine will, and the 
 second, every thing to the human will. 
 
 The first saves strictly by the works of the divine 
 law, rendered exclusively by a substitute; the sec- 
 ond saves strictly by works rendered exclusively by 
 men themselves. 
 
 Both assert a purely legal salvation, or a salvation 
 earned by obedience to the divine law. Hence, 
 they both save exactly in the same way that is, 
 both by works, neither by grace ; for what is of 
 works is not of grace. (Rom. iv. 4.) 
 
 The only difference between them is that in one 
 case the obedience to the law is rendered by a sub- 
 stitute, and in the other by men themselves. This 
 is an incidental, not a vital difference; for works 
 rendered by a substitute and the same works ren- 
 dered by a principal are of exactly equal value. 
 Both have exactly the same power to save, and 
 save legally or by deeds of the law; and both alike 
 exclude salvation by grace. 
 
 If it is said that the sinner can not render perfect
 
 NOX-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 373 
 
 obedience to the law, this is readily granted. 
 But the question is not whether either scheme is 
 possible; for neither is so; but whether both do not 
 propose to save men by the deeds of the law, in- 
 stead of by grace. This they certainly do. 
 
 But if Christ, as a substitute for sinners, obeyed 
 the law, and his obedience is set to their credit, 
 are they not saved by grace ? 
 
 I answer, By no means; for, what is of law is not 
 of grace. 
 
 If salvation by substitution were possible, it would 
 be purely a legal salvation, and not a gracious sal- 
 vation. 
 
 If A is imprisoned for debt, and B pays the debt 
 in his interest, then A is released by the deeds of 
 the law; it is purely a legal transaction, or he is re- 
 leased by law, or justified by works, as truly so as 
 if he had paid the debt himself. 
 
 Certainly we might say that kindness prompted 
 the act on the part of B to pay the debt in the in- 
 terest of A. But that is nothing to the point; for 
 it was not B's kindness, but .his legal act that 
 released A from prison. Hence, he is saved purely 
 by a legal righteousness. Hence, it is clear as 
 noon that substitution saves men exclusively by 
 deeds of the law as really so as does Pelagianism. 
 
 If it should be said that it was a gracious act in 
 Christ to pay the penalty, this may be granted; 
 still it is true that he paid it with a legal equiva- 
 lent. 
 
 But the Bible teaches us in the most explicit man- 
 ner that salvation is not bv the deeds of the law or
 
 374 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 by legal righteousness, but by grace, or by the 
 righteousness that is received by faith; it is by 
 grace, and of faith that it might be by grace. It is 
 too plain to require further argument that substitu- 
 tion as literally saves sinners by a legal righteous- 
 ness as does Pelagianism; also equally plain that 
 both are in direct conflict with the Bible. 
 
 Of course all schemes that condition salvation 
 partly upon Christ's substitutionary work, so called, 
 and partly upon human works, save sinners by a 
 mixed, or duplex, legal righteousness. In all such 
 cases the work of Christ and that of the sinner 
 supplement each other. The sinner, it seems, 
 partly saves himself and is partly saved by Christ. 
 
 But according to the Bible, salvation is exclu- 
 sively of grace, and in no sense by works performed 
 either by principal or by substitute; nor partly by 
 one and partly by the other. 
 
 Now, the plan that I have attempted to present 
 is radically opposed to all schemes of salvation by 
 works of the law or legal righteousness, whether 
 rendered by principal or substitute. 
 
 Regeneration into spiritual life is as literally 
 without works as is generation into natural life. 
 Salvation is all of grace, "but of faith that it might 
 be by grace.' ' 
 
 It is no more and no less than being made par- 
 takers of Christ's righteousness, "who is the end 
 of the law for righteousness to every one that be- 
 lieveth." 
 
 This honors to the utmost justice, law, and God, 
 because it is Christ's righteousness. The difference
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 
 
 375 
 
 between salvation by works or legal righteousness 
 and salvation by grace is exactly the difference 
 between the legal heirship and heirship by the 
 grace of adoption. The legitimate child is an heir 
 by law, and not by grace ; but the adopted child is 
 an heir by grace not by law, but not in violation 
 of law. One relation as truly satisfies law as the 
 other, though the legitimate child is made an heir 
 by law, and the adopted child by grace. 
 
 Legitimate heirship is a matter of law. Adoptive 
 heirship is a matter of will, or grace. All the spir- 
 itual children of God are heirs by adoption, and 
 not by law or works (Gal. iv. 1-7 ; Eph. i. 5). 
 
 The doctrine that it was necessary for God to 
 punish the innocent in order to make it possible to 
 pardon the guilty is so abhorrent to our natural 
 instincts, or sense of natural justice, that those who 
 are skeptically inclined can readily persuade them- 
 selves that that religion of which it claims to be an 
 indispensable part, is itself false, and as such ought 
 to be rejected. 
 
 In the hands of such the doctrine becomes a pow- 
 erful weapon against Christianity in every form. 
 For nothing is easier than to show its unreasonable- 
 ness, its injustice, its tendency to destroy all incen- 
 tives to virtue, or remove all restraints from vice 
 and general lawlessness. To paralyze this natural 
 tendency to lawlessness, its advocates find it neces- 
 sary to make it the Great Exception in the admin- 
 istration of the world. 
 
 It is, perhaps, the most vulnerable part of every 
 scheme of theology of which it forms a part
 
 376 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 It is the most effective argument used by skeptics 
 against Christianity. They use it with great force. 
 It is their most effective argument, simply because 
 it is absolutely unanswerable. I do no not hesitate 
 to say that all their other arguments admit of ready 
 and rational answers. But as to this one, the best 
 reply is that it forms the u Great Exception," which 
 is no answer at all. 
 
 Many persons reject Christianity, not because of 
 what it is in itself, but because of what creed makers 
 represent it to be. The false representation is igno- 
 rantly misapprehended for the truth, which is accord^ 
 ingly rejected. By this means Christianity is made 
 to suffer on account of the false theories, as well as 
 the false practices of its friends. 
 
 SECTION II. Substitution an incubiis to Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 There is something repulsive to the human mind 
 in the very idea of punishing the innocent in the 
 place of the guilty; especially that God should 
 concentrate upon his sinless Son all the suffering 
 due to all humanity through all eternity. 
 
 Dr. Hodge recognizes this fact. He says (Vol. 
 II., p. 506): 
 
 "He bore the guilt of our sins, and endured the 
 penalty in our stead. We may not approve of this 
 method of salvation. The idea of the innocent 
 bearing the sins of the guilty, and being punished 
 in his stead, may not be agreeable to our feelings or 
 to our modes of thinking, but it can hardly be de- 
 nied that such is the representation and doctrine of 
 the Scriptures."
 
 XOX-PEXAL THEORY. 
 
 377 
 
 Is it not unreasonable that the beneficent Creator 
 should endow the human mind with an instinctive 
 sense of right, and then himself shock that sense 
 of right by punishing the innocent in the place of 
 the guilty ? Can we not permit the Creator to be 
 consistent with himself? Did he purposely set the 
 natural instincts of humanity in array against his 
 own administration ? Has he purposely set subject- 
 ive and objective law in opposition to each other? 
 Must we assert to be true what we intuitively know 
 is not -true, because a mere theory requires us to do 
 so ? Dr. Hodge is certainly right when he admits that 
 to punish the innocent in the place of the guilty 
 ' ' may not be agreeable to our feelings or to our 
 modes of thinking;" and for this all-sufficient 
 reason the doctrine of substitution is a serious im- 
 pediment to the progress of the gospel. Its tend- 
 ency is to repel, not to attract. It causes many to 
 doubt and hesitate, and many others to reject the 
 gospel outright. 
 
 The modern Jew denies that the doctrine is 
 taught in the Hebrew Scriptures, and assigns as one 
 reason for rejecting Christianity that this doctrine 
 of substitution is held by Christians. 
 
 Dr. H. Pereira Mendes says (North American 
 Revierv, June, 1887, p. 606): 
 
 " No man can save another by suffering for him 
 (in his place). ' The soul that sinneth it shall die.' 
 ' He who sins against me I will blot out of my 
 book,' was the divine answer to Moses, who sought 
 to be the vicarious atonement for his sinful people. 
 No man can intervene, for not even Moses was ac- 
 cepted to die to save men."
 
 378 NATURE OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 This learned Jew makes atonement consist in 
 obedience to the preceptive side of law not in suf- 
 fering its penalty. In this he is thoroughly right. 
 No atonement was ever made by suffering a penal ty. 
 The fatal error of the Jew is in assuming that every 
 man can make atonement for himself. It is not at 
 all probable that this Jewish writer would accept 
 Christianity even if substitution had never been 
 held by any professing the Christian faith. The 
 doctrine, however, furnishes him with a powerful 
 argument against Christianity, with which, it has 
 been largely, but falsely identified; for probably 
 ninety-nine out of a hundred intelligent and un- 
 prejudiced men would accept the Jewish idea of 
 atonement by personal obedience in preference to a 
 penal and substitutionary atonement. 
 
 Christianity is thus made to suffer on account of 
 the false theories of its friends. 
 
 SECTION III. All fiction excluded. 
 
 The plan which I have presented greatly simpli- 
 fies the plan of salvation releasing it from all 
 fictions and legal shams, and brings the sinner into 
 direct contact by faith with the present loving 
 Christ, who is willing and able to save to the 
 utmost all that trust in him. 
 
 It takes away from the individual all doubt and 
 apprehension as to whether Christ died for him ; it 
 removes alike all ground for despair on one hand, 
 and of presumption on the other. It makes salva- 
 tion available to all, independently of all ritualistic 
 observances and priestly offices by human hands. 
 Contact by faith of the individual soul with the
 
 NON-PENAL THEORY. 379 
 
 living, loving Christ insures salvation. Hence, its 
 perfect adaptation to all rational minds in all possi- 
 ble conditions and emergencies. 
 
 The blessed, loving Christ is always present with 
 the sinner, able and willing to afford him all need- 
 ful grace, and to save him at one time and place no 
 more, no less, than another; for the ever-present 
 now is the day of salvation. 
 
 Salvation is conditioned, but is conditioned only 
 on the states and activities of the mind itself, and 
 upon nothing external to the mind. All faith and 
 hope founded on penance, fastings, prayers, good 
 works, ritualistic observances, sacraments, and 
 priestly manipulations, or any thing else that is 
 interposed between the soul and Christ, is not only 
 worthless, but illusive. Christ has no representa- 
 tives, no substitutes, no vicegerents commissioned 
 to do his work. He alone can save. 
 
 This plan, I fully believe, is sustained by the 
 sacred Scriptures is not in conflict with a single 
 Bible fact, nor with any known scientific truth in 
 the realm of matter or of mind. Its own self-con- 
 sistency and its harmony with all known facts is a 
 self-affirmation of its truth, and entitles it to uni- 
 versal acceptance.
 
 PART III. 
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 [The arguments founded upon express declarations of the Holy 
 Scriptures for and against a limited atonement, are for sufficient 
 reasons omitted in this discussion ] 
 
 SECTION I. Argument founded on the humanity 
 of Christ. 
 
 The fact that Christ did die for sinners is not in 
 question, this being conceded. The only issue is 
 whether he died for some or for all men. I affirm 
 the latter. 
 
 i. I base the first argument upon the incarnation 
 and its design. 
 
 ' ' God so loved the world that he gave his only 
 begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 
 iii. 16). 
 
 " When the fullness of time had come God sent 
 forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 
 that he might redeem them which were under the 
 law, that we might receive the adoption of sons " 
 (Gal. iv. 4, 5).
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 381 
 
 For the accomplishment of his mission the Son 
 took to himself, not the nature of angels, but the 
 seed of Abraham (Heb. xi. 16). 
 
 He took to himself our common humanity in its 
 wholeness. As every man possesses all the essen- 
 tials of humanity, so Christ took to himself the 
 humanity common to every other man; for he 
 could not take humanity at all without taking the 
 common property of every man. The apostle 
 distinctly states (a) the manner of Christ's incarna- 
 tion (born of a woman); () his subjection to the 
 law (made under the law); (c) the object of his 
 incarnation (that he might redeem them which 
 were under the law). Hence, becoming as truly 
 human as was Abraham, or David, or any other 
 man, he became of sheer necessity the brother of 
 every man by consanguinity. All are the offspring 
 of God (Acts xvii. 28). All men constitute one 
 great brotherhood, and Christ is an essential part 
 of that brotherhood. Apart from tribal relation- 
 ship, he is as truly the brother of one man as an- 
 other. No person admitting the unity of the human 
 race will question these facts. 
 
 Now, let it not be forgotten that Christ, as human, 
 "was without sin." As such he knew nothing of 
 those alienations, selfishness, indifference possible to 
 sinful man. He could not, from the nature of the 
 case, fail to love his neighbor, every member of 
 the one common brotherhood, as he loved himself. 
 If there ever has been one human being, or ever 
 shall be such, whom he does not love as he loves 
 himself, then he can not be sinless; for such love
 
 382 EXTENT OF ATONKMENT. 
 
 the divine law under which he was born impera- 
 tively requires (Matt. xix. 19). 
 
 Such love only is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 
 xiii. 1 8). How much bodily pain and mental afflic- 
 tion may a man be required to endure for the sake 
 of the salvation of his soul ? What shall a man 
 give in exchange for his soul ? If the salvation of 
 the human soul was purchasable or procurable by 
 the sacrifice of the body, would not fidelity to the 
 soul to self require it? And would not a true 
 self-love make the sacrifice? Certainly; and the 
 salvation would be cheaply purchased at such a 
 cost. If the sinless soul of Christ could have been 
 put in peril of endless death, and then could have 
 been released from that peril by the sacrifice of 
 natural life, would not fidelity to his soul have re- 
 quired this sacrifice, and would not true self-love 
 have made the sacrifice? Certainly no one who 
 understands the value of the immortal soul will 
 deny this. Now, just what any man would be 
 required to do for himself, the law requires him to 
 do for his brother. 
 
 Christ's own soul being sinless is not endangered, 
 but the souls of his brethren are in peril of endless 
 death, and just what he would do for himself in 
 like peril, the law of fraternal love requires him to 
 do for his imperiled brethren. This the law does 
 not require for some, but for the absolute all. If 
 it is not done for all for e.very one the law is 
 not fulfilled, is not magnified and made honorable, 
 and he could not be sinless before the law. If it 
 should be said that this presentation of the subject
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 383 
 
 puts the Savior of men too much on equality with 
 men, I reply that, notwithstanding his immense 
 superiority to men in some respects, yet he truly is 
 a man, and as such was-required to obey the law as 
 other men. 
 
 It is true this assumption of humanity was vol- 
 untary and gratuitous; but having voluntarily as- 
 sumed it he was as much bound as any other man. 
 
 It is one of the glories of Christ, and one of the 
 excellencies of the plan of salvation, that the Son 
 of God, under the promptings of immeasurable 
 love, voluntarily assumed humanity. Put himself 
 under the law as to his humanity for the purpose 
 of redeeming the brotherhood who are under the 
 law by the sacrifice of himself for them. Christ 
 himself, after his resurrection, taught the necessity 
 of his own sufferings. 
 
 ' ' O foolish men and slow to believe all that the 
 prophets have spoken, Behooved it not the Christ 
 to suffer these things to enter into his glory " (Luke 
 xxiv. 25; xxvi. 46; Acts xvii. 3; Phil. ii. 4-8). 
 
 There are different kinds of necessity : 
 
 (a) Necessity having its grounds in the relation 
 of means to an end, as 'the necessity of food to sup- 
 port life. 
 
 (b) Necessity having its ground in the relation 
 between a prediction and its fulfillment, the event 
 is necessary to the fulfillment of the prediction. 
 
 (c) A necessity having its ground in the inherent 
 nature of things, as the sympathy of a loving 
 parent for a suffering child the necessity of an 
 irrepressible spontaneity.
 
 384 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 In what sense was the sufferings of Christ neces- 
 sary ? I answer : 
 
 (a) It was necessary as a means to an end the 
 remission of sin, "for without the shedding of blood 
 there is no remission " (Heb. ix. 22). 
 
 () His suffering was necessary to fulfill the 
 prophecy; this, however, was only an adventitious 
 necessity, and furnishes no part of the reason of 
 Christ's sufferings, but a ground of faith in him as 
 the Christ. 
 
 (c) Was there not also a necessity for his suffer- 
 ings grounded in his humanity in the relation of 
 universal brotherhood? Certainly I can not prove 
 that this doctrine is intended to be taught in the 
 text just cited, though I suspect that it is. I am con- 
 fident that the contrary can not be made to appear. 
 I am also confident that the idea which I have sug- 
 gested is plainly involved in the doctrine of the in- 
 carnation and its designs. 
 
 The law requires us to love others as ourselves, 
 even our enemies (Matt. xix. 19; v. 44). Paul 
 enjoins the Christian to love or account others bet- 
 ter than themselves; to look not on their own 
 things, but on the things of others; to have in 
 them the mind which was in Christ, "Who, being 
 in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God or counted it not a prize to be 
 equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the 
 form of a servant being made in the likeness of 
 men, and being formed in fashion as a man. He 
 humbled himself, and became obedient unto death. 
 Yea, even unto the death of the cross" (Phil. ii.
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 385 
 
 4-8). The beloved disciple says : ' ' Hereby perceive 
 we the love of God because he laid down his life 
 for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the 
 brethren " (i John iii. 16). 
 
 All these biblical utterances are in strict accord 
 with the law. ' ' Love thy neighbor as thyself. ' ' 
 Christ, as has been seen, was born under the law, 
 and as a man was really required to fulfill it as any 
 other man. If men are required, if an occasion 
 requiring it should arise, to lay down their natural 
 lives for the salvation of their fellows, it is perti- 
 nent to inquire if Christ, as man, was not required 
 by virtue of his being a man, to lay down his life 
 for his brotherhood, even though they were his 
 enemies? 
 
 Men, like the angels, are of necessity under this 
 law, irrespective of their own volitions. Christ 
 is under it by his own choice, but the volition 
 which puts him under it is his consent to become 
 man, to take to himself humanity, or the seed of 
 Abraham..^ Humanity assumed, it is not then a 
 matter of choice whether he keeps the law. The 
 law, he being able to redeem the brotherhood, 
 imperatively requires him to lay down his life, not 
 for some, but for all mankind, for every man, and 
 as before remarked, if any one of the race is ex- 
 cluded the law is not fulfilled. 
 
 The law requires me to love all men, even my 
 enemies, and if the sacrifice of my natural life will 
 save their souls, and nothing else could save them, 
 then the law requires the sacrifice. Should I refuse 
 to make the sacrifice, then I would not fulfill the 
 2 5
 
 386 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 law, because I would not love my neighbor as my- 
 self. Or, if I should love half, and make provision 
 for them, and leave all others unprovided for, I 
 would not obey the law, but be guilty before the 
 law. 
 
 Christ is both sinless and divine. He only, of all 
 men, is able to keep the law, and to offer an accept- 
 able sacrifice for sinful humanity. This he did, 
 and by so doing retained his sinlessness as a man, 
 and magnified the law, honored the law, by its ful- 
 fillment. But if there ever was or ever will be a 
 human being, or one of the great brotherhood for 
 whom he did not give himself as a sacrifice unto 
 God, it is plain that he has not kept the law or 
 honored it. "If ye love them which love you, what 
 reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the 
 same ? ' ' 
 
 In the light of these facts, what becomes qf the 
 dogma of a limited atonement ? That Christ died 
 for some, and not for others, that he died unequally 
 for the elect and the reprobate? It is simply swept 
 to the winds, and utterly demolished. In the light 
 of these facts, it is perfectly certain that the Savior 
 could make atonement only for all or for none. 
 
 SECTION II. Argument founded tipon the Fa- 
 therhood, or tJie divinity of Christ. Facts con- 
 nected with the divine side of Christ ^ s character 
 disprove a limited atonement. 
 
 Having considered in a brief way the bearing of 
 the incarnation, or human side of the God-Man, 
 upon the extent of the atonement, let us look briefly 
 at the adverse side.
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 387 
 
 God is revealed to us in the. sacred Scriptures, 
 not less as our Father, benefactor, and friend, than 
 as our Creator, ruler, and judge. These charac- 
 teristics are in no sense incompatible, but subsist in 
 the utmost harmony (Ps. cxix. 75; Sam. iii. 35). 
 He is repeatedly declared to be "love," without 
 any qualification. His tender mercies are said to 
 be over all his works to endure forever. But 
 divine love and mercy no true love is incompatible 
 with justice, or authority, or with chastisement, or 
 punishment, or with anger; justice is the rule of 
 the divine administration in the interests of God's 
 benevolent purposes. Punishment is identical with 
 chastisement, except in the case of the absolutely 
 incorrigible, and is always administered in the in- 
 terests of those upon whom it falls (Ps. cxix. 75; 
 Sam. iii. 33). 
 
 What rational inferences do these facts authorize 
 in relation to God's purposes concerning his creat- 
 ures and the means necessary to their well-being ? 
 If the great Creator is love, if he is the Father of 
 all men, all being his offering in the same sense, as 
 he necessarily is; if he is infinite in every perfection, 
 and inexhaustible in resources, standing in no sort 
 of dependence for his own happiness, is it rational 
 to infer that he has created some for the purpose of 
 everlasting bliss, and others for the purpose of 
 everlasting woe? Such, indeed, is the monstrous 
 presupposition of Calvinism; for this doctrine in its 
 last analysis, whether considered in its supralapsa- 
 rian or infralapsarian form, leads us by legitimate
 
 388 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 logical sequence to the conclusion that God created 
 some men for heaven and some men for hell. 
 
 This idea, it is true, is quite abhorrent to the 
 minds of many, who rejoice to call themselves Cal- 
 vinists. The idea, however, is plainly involved in 
 the "horrible decree." See Calvin's Institutes, 
 III., xxi. 3; xxiii. 7; xxiv. 12, 13. This conclu- 
 sion, I hesitate not to say, is unreasonable in itself, 
 is abhorrent to the moral instinct of every rational 
 being, even of those who entertain the idea; hence, 
 Calvin himself denominates it a " horrible decree." 
 
 Natural religion not only authorizes, but requires 
 us to teach that all men sustain to the Creator the 
 same natural relation, and that all are created for 
 the same end, and all accordingly are the ob- 
 jects of the same beneficent solicitude, and all 
 the provisions are made for the happiness of all 
 (Read Ps. xix. 1-4; also Rom. i. 19, 20). These 
 are facts of natural religion, and they so far reveal 
 God as the proper object of faith and worship, as to 
 leave men without excuse. 
 
 But the principal lessons of natural religion are 
 to be drawn from the study of man himself, who is 
 not a creature of God, as are the physical heavens, 
 the earth, and all irrational things thereunto per- 
 taining, but who is in strict propriety of terms the 
 child of God, made in his image and likeness. 
 
 Nowhere else can the invisible and only partially 
 revealed parent be so appropriately and effectually 
 studied as in the child. All the distinctive charac- 
 teristics of the parent may not be found to exist in 
 all their plenitude in the child; but all the essen-
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 389 
 
 tial attributes of the child are presupposed to exist 
 in the parent. It is, consequently, the high prerog- 
 ative of natural religion to reason from the less to 
 the greater, or from man to God; to interpret the 
 divine by the universally recognized facts of human 
 nature. What do reason and instinct concurrently 
 teach concerning the parental relationship? 
 
 (1) In answering this question it seems almost 
 superfluous to say that the instinctive love of off- 
 spring, even in lower animals, is stronger than the 
 self-preservative and instinctive fear of danger, and 
 even death. The wild bear will face death rather 
 than desert her cubs. In human parents this in- 
 stinctive love and sacrificing devotion are' equally 
 strong and irrepressible. 
 
 (2) This instinctive love is commended and 
 strongly supported by reason, and the moral intui- 
 tions of the rational mind. Hence, in all ages and 
 climes, however perverted in judgment, and de- 
 based in moral feeling, parents have ever deemed it 
 one of the plainest dictates of common sense, and 
 one of the first imperatives of conscience to protect 
 and provide for their children. Hven where a 
 blinding superstition, the form of a false religion, 
 or mistaken economy, or economic reasons have 
 sanctioned or enjoined infanticide and human 
 sacrifice, the imperative duty of child protection is 
 not denied or ignored. In such cases, what was 
 deemed a less duty was only subordinated to what 
 was deemed a greater one. Such cases furnish no 
 exception to the rule. 
 
 Parental obligation is the universal rule, as re-
 
 390 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 vealed by natural religion; and this plain teaching 
 of natural religion is supported by the highest 
 sanctions of revealed religion. These instincts, or 
 rational intuitions of the parental heart, are the 
 authoritative utterances of God speaking in nature, 
 and are everywhere in revelation affirmed as a radical 
 characteristic of humanity. (Read Matt. vii. 9-11.) 
 
 We have in this beautiful passage d fortiori ar- 
 gument a distinct recognition of parental benefac- 
 tion as a lineament of the divine image. In this 
 respect the fundamental characteristics of the 
 human and divine parentage are identical, differing 
 only in degree, not in kind. 
 
 The parent who would wantonly and purposely 
 disregard the welfare of his child, or deliberately 
 plan its ruin, would be deemed a monster, and 
 would receive the mental execration of savages, as 
 well as of civilized men. 
 
 How dare Calvinists impute to the divine Father 
 of all, "in the horrible decree of reprobation," a 
 cruelty of which men in the deepest state of sav- 
 agery are incapable ? 
 
 The infliction of physical torture and death is 
 the utmost that human savagery can do, but these 
 compared with the eternal death of the soul, are 
 less than the invisible grain of sand compared with 
 the physical universe. 
 
 Natural religion God speaking in nature with 
 her multitudinous tongues enters an indignant pro- 
 test against Augustinian limitarianism, and of 
 course against a limited atonement, and proclaims 
 in countless ways his good-will to all his creatures.
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 391 
 
 As well might we be restricted by divine decree 
 from the air we breathe, or the fecundity of nature, 
 which furnishes all living things with food, as to 
 limit by decree the good-will of the Father of all 
 to a select few, as the unique objects of a "peculiar 
 and discriminating love. ' ' 
 
 "If ye then being evil know how to give good 
 gifts unto your children, how much more shall 
 your Father which is in heaven give good things 
 unto them that ask him." 
 
 Let it be noted that in this utterance Christ an- 
 nounced a universal fact of natural religion, viz. : 
 that parental love and benefaction are the common 
 attributes of human and divine parentage. If it is 
 an innate and irrepressible attribute of sinful men, 
 how much more irrepressible is it in the unerring 
 and unselfish Father of all ? 
 
 The Augustinian can avoid the force of these 
 facts only by lifting revealed religion quite out of 
 the sphere of natural religion, and creating an un- 
 reconcilable conflict between them. This of neces- 
 sity makes God in revelation contradict himself in 
 nature. 
 
 In explanation of this and a hundred other texts, 
 Calvinists can, and often do, resort to a species of 
 special pleading, unworthy alike of their intelli- 
 gence and the gravity of the subject. 
 
 The Calvinist can say as Dr. Hodge, that the 
 justification of even the elect is conditioned upon 
 faith, meaning nothing more than that the several 
 divine acts in bringing the elect to glory sustain to 
 each other the relation of antecedent and sequence,
 
 393 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 leaving the unsuspecting reader in utter bewilder- 
 ment, or in a state of misapprehension. In refer- 
 ence to the text in hand, he can evasively say, 
 ' ' none but the elect ever earnestly ask "bread or a 
 fish, and to these the divine Father gives in his own 
 good time the good things pertaining to salvation." 
 In like manner he disposes of all the conditions 
 with which salvation is connected, as prayer, re- 
 pentance, faith, etc. 
 
 Thus reversing the divine order, making all such 
 antecedents and conditions the necessitated se- 
 quences of the effectual and irresistible call, or 
 regeneration. 
 
 In regard to this method of interpretation, I will 
 make three statements : 
 
 1. It is pure sophistry a petitio principii what 
 is required to be proved is taken for granted. 
 
 2. It changes what is divinely intended as the 
 antecedent into its consequent, thus turning theol- 
 ogy, and common sense as well, upside down. The 
 condition, or means, and the giving, is the sequence 
 and end. But in the light of Calvinism, the giving 
 is both the end and antecedent, and the asking is 
 the sequence. 
 
 Take another example: "He that believeth on 
 the Son hath everlasting life" (John iii. 36). In 
 the judgment of common sense, everlasting life is 
 conditioned upon believing, and hence, that he who, 
 or all that, or whosoever believes in Christ has ever- 
 lasting life. But in the light of Calvinism, he who, 
 or all that, or whosoever has everlasting life, be- 
 lieves on Christ.
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 393 
 
 3. This method of interpretation is the result of 
 a studied effort to force the plainest texts of the 
 Bible into harmony with the wild conceits of Au- 
 gustinianism. It is simply wholesale Bible perver- 
 sion, and Augustinians would not dare take such 
 liberty with any other language than that of the 
 sacred Scriptures. 
 
 If a Calvinist says to his child: "Son, if you 
 will bring me your book, I will teach you your les- 
 son;" both understand the proposition in a com- 
 mon sense way.. The father does net mean, nor 
 does the child understand him to mean, that if the 
 father teaches the child the lesson, then it will 
 bring him the book. Yet when Christ says, 
 4 ' Come unto me . . . and I will give you rest, ' ' Cal- 
 vinism requires it to mean: "If I give you rest, re- 
 generate you, save you, then you will come unto me.' ' 
 
 By this perverse interpretation, antecedent and 
 consequent are made to change places; condition- 
 ality is swept from the Bible, human freedom is 
 ignored, and the Bible forced into an illusive har- 
 mony with limitarianism, and a limited atonement 
 of course. 
 
 But the whole scheme, as we have seen, over- 
 reaches the divine veracity by arraigning natural 
 religion and revealed religion against each other, 
 and therefore can not be true. 
 
 Having considered the bearing of the human and 
 also of the divine side of Christ's character, upon 
 the extent of the atonement, I propose now to in- 
 quire whether there is any thing in human nature 
 itself that favors the idea of a partial atonement.
 
 394 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 i. If, according to the concessions of Calvinists, 
 all men have a common origin or nature were all 
 alike created in the image or likeness of God have 
 common characteristics, have the same attributes 
 mental, physical, and moral; whatever differences 
 come to exist among them are properly referable to 
 adventitious circumstances and individual self-de- 
 termination, and not to any thing in their original 
 characteristics. 
 
 As the whole race existed ideally in the divine 
 purpose anterior to the creation? all sustain the 
 same relation to the Creator. All these ideal hu- 
 man beings were equally meritorious and demerito- 
 rious. 
 
 That some of these ideal human beings should 
 have actual existence with the inevitability of end- 
 less life, and others with the inevitability of endless 
 death, is certainly a conception which no rational 
 mind ever spontaneously conceived. 
 
 Nothing but a remorseless logic, founded on false 
 premises, could force such an idea into a rational 
 mind. The false premises are found in the Augus- 
 tinian ^assumption of absolute foreordination of all 
 things;* or, which is the same thing in another 
 form, viz. : that all the events of time are only the 
 executions of the decrees of eternity. The omnipo- 
 tent Creator had the power to create some men and 
 angels for heaven, and others for hell, if he willed 
 so to do. But the idea of pretemporal election ,and 
 reprobation is in any sense preposterous; for, ac- 
 cording to the theory, the decree of election was 
 anterior to the creation. There consequently was
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 395 
 
 nothing from which to choose but the ideals of the 
 divine mind, and those were just what the divine 
 idealizer chose to make them. 
 
 The divine volitionis not put forth in choosing 
 between existing things, but in determining to 
 what end or destiny non-existent things shall be 
 made. 
 
 But, while there can be no ground or reason for 
 a choice between non-existent creatures, there is, 
 so far as human sagacity knows, no reason in the 
 divine mind for creating some men for eternal life, 
 and others for eternal death. Indeed, while human 
 intelligence can assign no such reason, the noblest 
 emotions of the human soul recoil at the idea. 
 
 Nothing but the gratuitous Augustinian assump- 
 tion that all the events of time are purely the exe- 
 cution of the decrees of eternity could reconcile 
 Augustinians to the hard doctrine of their theory, 
 a limited atonement, etc. 
 
 2. God in nature is consistent with himself. He 
 makes no mistakes in adaptation of means to ends. 
 He invests none of his creatures with organs and 
 susceptibilities unsuited to the ends of their exist- 
 ence. The law of parsimony, so far as we can con- 
 ceive, is characteristic of all his works, while noth- 
 ing is deficient in organs and instrumentalities, 
 nothing is burdened with a wasteful redundancy. 
 If we sometimes encounter in plants or animals or- 
 gans and susceptibilities whose uses we do not under- 
 stand, this furnishes us no evidence that they are 
 useless. It only indicates our ignorance of their 
 use.
 
 396 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we find individuals who are 
 wanting in some things common to the species, 
 they do not disprove the rule, but as exceptions to 
 the rule only prove it. Hance, every organ and 
 susceptibility of the body presupposes an end, to 
 which it sustains the relation of an appropriate 
 means. 
 
 The eye presupposes the existence of objects, 
 which may become known through its instrumen- 
 tality. So it is of all the senses. If there were no 
 external objects, to which these organs are correlat- 
 ed, and a knowledge of which is acquirable through 
 them, then these eyes, ears, etc., are useless appen- 
 dages. But their very existence presupposes these 
 objects. 
 
 So it is of the physical appetites and desires. 
 Their very existence presupposes ends of which 
 they are the appropriate means, and conditions 
 e. g. : Hunger presupposes bodily susteiitation or 
 preservation as an end, and also implies the exist- 
 ence of food as a means to that end. The hunger- 
 ings of the nursing child presupposes an end, and 
 implies the existence of a nursing mother as the 
 appropriate means to that end. 
 
 What we find to be true in the sphere of the phys- 
 ical and perishable, is supposed to be true in the 
 sphere of t the spiritual and imperishable. The 
 power of thought presupposes knowledge as an 
 end, and implies the possibility of means or instru- 
 mentalities for its attainment. The sensibilities 
 presuppose happiness as an end, and implies the 
 possibility of its acquisition. The faculty of will
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 397 
 
 presupposes its achievements as an end, and im- 
 plies the probability of the accomplishment of this 
 end. 
 
 The proofs of the immortality of the soul, apart 
 from the Bible, rest exclusively upon this kind of 
 evidence in the presupposition of ends, and the 
 implication of the possibility of their attainment 
 from the susceptibilities, yearnings, and aspirations 
 of the human soul. 
 
 The soul recoils at the idea of annihilation, and 
 longs and yearns for continuity of being. This 
 aversion to extinction of being, and yearning for 
 continuity of existence is a divine implantation, and 
 presages the immortality of the soul. Immortality 
 is a presupposition of the soul, without which many 
 of our mental states admit of no rational explana- 
 tion. 
 
 Among these mental phenomena may be noted 
 the sense of accountability, the intuition of right- 
 ness or wrongness, or of moral distinctions, of the 
 rectitude of human motives, of the duty of self- 
 restraint, a feeling of dependence upon a power 
 outside of ourselves, a deep longing for help and 
 sympathy and protection from something which we 
 invest with divine attributes and pray to, believe in, 
 rely upon, and worship as God. 
 
 These mental phenomena are not the products of 
 education, of habit, or of adventitious circum- 
 stances; but are indigenous to the human mind. 
 Hence, they have a sway co-existent or co-exten- 
 sive with humanity. They are a fundamental part 
 of the mind itself.
 
 398 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Education, prejudice against forms of religion 
 in which they are prominently recognized, and the- 
 ories of universal doubt may so far hold them in 
 abeyance as to prevent any visible or external man- 
 ifestation; but nothing short of omnipotence can 
 obliterate them from the soul. They are indige- 
 nous to the mind itsfelf, and to exterminate them 
 would be to extinguish the light of the soul. But 
 as in the physical, so in the spiritual world, these 
 hungerings after immortality, which is the future 
 good, presupposes the possibility of the attainment 
 of that good. 
 
 Unless this is true, we must suppose that nature 
 is not true to itself, or rather that God has inspired 
 nature with false hopes and tantalizing aspirations 
 and expectations, made incapable of realization by 
 a divine decree. 
 
 Man, by the play of his own imagination, may 
 awaken within himself desires, and may fondly 
 cherish expectations which he can never realize; 
 but this is because he misreads the characteristics 
 of his own nature, or surrenders himself to the do- 
 minion of fancy, rather than to the law of God 
 within himself. 
 
 But God's book of nature is true to the letter. 
 No false promises are there recorded, and no illu- 
 sive hopes inspired. All promised is faithfully 
 promised and is assuredly capable of realization. 
 These facts of natural religion may be summed up 
 in a clear and conclusive argument after this fash- 
 ion: 
 
 All that is presaged or foretokened in the origi-
 
 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 399 
 
 nal constitution of the human mind is by the Crea- 
 tor made attainable; otherwise humanity is in it- 
 self a contradiction. But all mind in its normal 
 and unsophisticated state, desires and hopes for a 
 happy future, a blissful immortality. The irresist- 
 ible conclusion, therefore, is that God created all 
 men for such a state, and that its attainment in 
 some stage of every person's life is possible. 
 
 If this argument is fallacious, I have not been 
 able to detect its unsoundness. But if the doctrine 
 of pretemporal election and reprobation, and of a 
 limited atonement, as advocated by Calvinists, is 
 true, then it is true that there never was a period in 
 the history of the reprobate when the attainment 
 of this desire was a possibility. And all his thirst- 
 ings and longings for such a state convict his God- 
 given nature of falsehood. 
 
 Or God, in the natural desires and longings of 
 their nature, gave them a guaranty of the possibil- 
 ity of eternal life, but in the meantime recorded it 
 in the book of sacred decrees, that they should suf- 
 fer eternal death. It thus appears very clear that 
 if pretemporal reprobation and its technical correl- 
 ative limited atonement are true, then the fun- 
 damental facts of natural and revealed religion are 
 in hopeless conflict. 
 
 If it should be said that this argument might be 
 used in relation to mankind in a normal state, but 
 that the introduction of sin into the world has so 
 sadly changed the order of things that the argu- 
 ment loses all its pertinency and force, I reply that 
 according to Calvinism, the destiny of the repro-
 
 400 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 bate was fixed long anterior to the creation of the 
 earth and the fall of man. It might also be said 
 that according to a true theology the sin of Adam, 
 considered in connection with the mediation of 
 Christ, has not compromised the salvation of a sin- 
 gle soul, or rendered the destruction of a single 
 soul necessary. 
 
 I see no method by which this argument in favor 
 of an atonement for every human being can be set 
 aside or weakened. I accordingly feel authorized 
 in saying that the natural desires in every unso- 
 phisticated human breast for eternal life is the voice 
 of God in the soul proclaiming its attainment pos- 
 sible. It should not be forgotten, however, that 
 the possible is not the inevitable. Salvation, as we 
 have had occasion to state, is conditional. Man is 
 free and may never comply with the conditions, 
 and consequently may never be saved. 
 
 The possible and the necessary are separated by 
 certain things called conditions, and it is only when 
 the "conditions" are supplied that the possible be- 
 comes the necessary. 
 
 Salvation to the rational mind is conditioned 
 upon faith, or a trustful surrender to Christ. 
 
 Not until this is done, does the sinner's possibil- 
 ity of salvation become a real salvation.
 
 A 000 054 191 2