, K:fi 
 
cr, 
 oc 
 
 C5 
 
 C.7 
 
 LI BRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 GIKT OK 
 
 , tyr- 1 
 Received 
 ^J ccessions No. &3L f.. 0> 
 
 Shelf No 
 
o. 
 

MEDIUM THEORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ATONEMENT, 
 
 AND 
 
 REVIEW OF DR. BURNEY'S SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 BY REV. G. H. SHELDRAKE, 
 
 MAYFIELD, KENTUCKY. 
 
 Without shedding of blood is no remission. Paul. 
 Ye must be 
 
 ;NN.: 
 
 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE. 
 
 1888. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1888, 
 
 BY REV. G. H. SHELDRAKE, 
 In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
TO THE 
 
 HONORABLE LUCIEN ANDERSON, 
 
 OF MAYFIELD, KENTUCKY, 
 
 TO WHOM IS DUE MUCH FOR WARM PERSONAL 
 
 FRIENDSHIP, AND WHO FOR YEARS HAS 
 
 BEEN A MOST ZEALOUS AND 
 
 CONSECRATED MEMBER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN 
 
 CHURCH, UPHOLDING HER DOCTRINE 
 
 AND SUPPORTING HER CAUSE, THIS MODEST 
 
 ATTEMPT TO GIVE FORM AND EXPRESSION 
 
 TO HER MEDIUM THEOLOGY 
 
 IS MOST 
 
 RESPECTFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY 
 DEDICATED. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE vi. 
 
 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 SEC. 1. Theories of the Atonement 2 
 
 2. Historical Sketch 7 
 
 3. Definitions 14 
 
 PART I. THE NECESSITY FOR AN ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER II. THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD ....;.. 25 
 
 SEC. 1. God a Spirit, Not Material 25 
 
 2. Mental Conceptions of God Inadequate .... 27 
 
 3. God Not Limited 29 
 
 4. Bible Representations Real 30 
 
 5. The Holiness of God 31 
 
 6. The Righteousness of God 35 
 
 7. The Jealousy of God 37 
 
 III. SIN AND PENALTY 40 
 
 SEC. 1. Sin as Depravity 40 
 
 2. Sin as Transgression 50 
 
 3 Consequence and Penalty 52 
 
 4. Death 54 
 
 IV. RESTITUTION OR RETRIBUTION 71 
 
 SEC. 1. Restitution the Ground of Penalty 71 
 
 2. God's Vengeance and Penalty 77 
 
 3. God's Judgment and Penalty 79 
 
 4. Penalty a Positive Infliction 80 
 
 PART II. THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE PERSON OF CHRIST 84 
 
 SEC. 1. The Humanity of Christ 86 
 
 2. The Divinity and Penalty 91 
 
 3. The Divinity and Righteousness 97 
 
 VI. THE SPIRIT BAPTISM 103 
 
 SEC. 1. What is the Spirit Baptism? 104 
 
 2. What are the Results of It ? 109 
 
 VII. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT 115 
 
 SEC. 1. Propitiation .120 
 
 2. Substitution 126 
 
 VIII. THE OFFERINGS . , . 134 
 
 SEC. 1. The Burnt-offering 138 
 
 2. The Peace-offering 145 
 
 3. The Sin-offering 147 
 
 4. The Trespass-offering 151 
 
 IX. THE BLOOD 157 
 
 SEC. 1. Abel's Sacrifice 157 
 
 2. The Offering of Isaac 159 
 
 3. The Blood . .... . . 160 
 
vi CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER X. REDEMPTION 170 
 
 SEC. 1. The Year of Jubilee 170 
 
 2. The Goel, or Redeemer 172 
 
 3. The Firstling of an Ass 174 
 
 4. Redemption by Purchase 176 
 
 5. Redemption by Power 180 
 
 6. The Passover and the Sea 181 
 
 PART III. THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. ELECTION 185 
 
 SEC. 1. The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh of Romans . . 187 
 
 2. Predestination 192 
 
 3. Election and Spirit Baptism -198 
 
 XII. DIVINE INFLUENCE 202 
 
 SEC. 1. Inability 203 
 
 2. Saving Faith 206 
 
 XIII. THE NEW BIRTH 214 
 
 SEC. 1. Born of the Flesh 217 
 
 2. Born of the Spirit 219 
 
 3. The Two Natures in Conflict . * 222 
 
 4. The Nature of the Change 228 
 
 XIV. FEET WASHING 233 
 
 SEC. 1. Eph. v. 26 233 
 
 2. John xiii 234 
 
 3. Confession 24o 
 
 XV. SONSHIP ..'.... 248 
 
 SEC. 1. Who are Sons? 243 
 
 2. An Eternal Relation 245 
 
 3. Founded on Birth 246 
 
 4. A Loving Relation 251 
 
 5. Heirship 252 
 
 XVI. PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS 254 
 
 SEC. 1. Arminian Texts Examined 255 
 
 2. Spirit Baptism and Perseverance 263 
 
 PART IV. REVIEW OF DR. BURNEY ON SOTERIOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. BURNEY ON LAW -266 
 
 XVIII. BURNEY ON PENALTY 279 
 
 XIX. BURNEY ON NATURAL AND BIBLE ATONEMENT . . . 287 
 
 XX. BURNEY ON THE OFFERINGS 320 
 
 XXL BURNEY ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 333 
 
 XXII. BURNEY'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTITUTION 352 
 
 XXIII. BURNEY ON THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE TRINITY. 366 
 
 XXIV. MISCELLANEOUS 383 
 
 SEC. 1. Burney on the Prodigal Son 383 
 
 2. Burney on the Offering of Isaac 385 
 
 3. Bnrney on the Prayer of Jesus on the Cross . 388 
 
 4. Burney on Contrast of Penal and Non-penal 
 
 Theories 391 
 
 5. Burney on Salvation of Infants 396 
 
 6. Burney, Non-penal Theory in Harmony with 
 
 Science .402 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 For many years past there has been a revival of Bible 
 study throughout Christendom, going hand in hand 
 with earnest work for the salvation of men. Largely 
 through the work of the Young Men's Christian 
 Association, and prominent evangelists, such as Moody 
 and Whittle, this movement to make the Bible better 
 understood is growing in power. Conferences for 
 Bible study have been held, attended by eager crowds. 
 " Bible Readings " have become general in the churches, 
 and as the movement advances, the rich spiritual treas- 
 ures of the Word are being unfolded, so that many 
 thousands are led to love the Scriptures as never be- 
 fore. 
 
 This book is an effort to give more formal expres- 
 sion to the great Bible truths that have been unfolded 
 in the progress of this movement. Truths that are 
 being proclaimed from hundreds of pulpits in almost 
 every denomination, and that are sung wherever 
 "Gospel Hymns" are used. 
 
 Having for years read all books, tracts, and " Reports 
 of Bible Conferences " that throw light upon " the 
 truth," it would be difficult to give due credit for expo- 
 sitions of Scripture that may be found in this book that 
 have been advanced before. But we claim for the the- 
 ory of the atonement, as such, that it is new. 
 
 We submit it to Bible students as an effort to 
 present from a Bible stand-point a view of the atone- 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 ment free from the objections of the past. We trust 
 it will lead to a greater unity in the church, and the 
 removal of many obstacles in the way of honest in- 
 quirers. 
 
 We had finished the manuscript of the three first 
 Parts when Dr. Burney's book was published. We 
 have reviewed this in Part IV., as by so doing it makes 
 the work more complete. 
 
 The Christian world has been divided into three 
 great divisions, or schools of thought. These, in mod- 
 ern days, are known as Calvinist, Arminian, and 
 Socinian. 
 
 Dr. Burney's theory is a medium theory, but it occu- 
 pies (theologically) ground mid-way between Armin- 
 ianism and Socinianism. It is, really, semi-Socin- 
 ianism. 
 
 The theory of this book is medium as between Cal- 
 vinism and Arminianism. A medium Evangelical 
 theory of the Atonement. 
 
 While the whole work is essential to the full develop- 
 ment of the theory, Chapters III., V., VI., VII., and 
 X., present what is distinctive. 
 
 And now this bark, which was built and freighted 
 in an atmosphere of prayer, is launched with the ear- 
 nest petition that the great Head of the Church will 
 use such truth as it may contain for his own glory and 
 the extension of his kingdom. 
 
 G. H. SHELDRAKE. 
 August, 1888. 
 
ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The doctrine of the atonement is the great cen- 
 tral truth of the Bible, around which all other 
 truths revolve, as our solar system does around the 
 sun. 
 
 It certainly can not be regarded as a matter of 
 indifference what we believe about it, because it 
 affects the question of the divine attributes, the 
 Person of Christ, the nature and result of the fall, 
 the character of law and penalty, the conditions of 
 salvation, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Un- 
 soundness as to the atonement leads to error in all 
 the vital doctrines of the Bible, and in exact pro- 
 portion to the unsoundness. It seems to be the 
 opinion of some that it matters but little what 
 "theories" are held, so long as Christ is looked to 
 as the Savior. But this is to ignore things of the 
 first importance. Error as to the atonement may 
 be so great as to be utterly incompatible with 
 salvation, leading men to self-reliance and the re- 
 jection of a Savior. Thus it may lead directly to 
 the soul's loss. This is not true, however, of any 
 * ' theory ' ' that leads or requires men to trust in 
 2 
 
2 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Christ. But it may, and does, lead indirectly to the 
 ruin of the souls of men, by robbing the preaching 
 of the cross of its spirituality and power. 
 
 It is true that in every age the men who have 
 been largely instrumental in leading men to Christ 
 have preached strongly the doctrine of a vicarious 
 atonement. The simple story of Christ's love in 
 suffering the just for the unjust has been the 
 power of God to salvation. To modify, or render 
 unmeaning, the preaching of the cross, is infallibly 
 to lessen its vitality and attractive power. So that, 
 indirectly, error may be fatal to the welfare of souls. 
 Indifference to error, here, is criminal. 
 
 Again, the connection between a man's doctrine 
 and walk is such that all error tends to destroy 
 spirituality and weaken the testimony of the Church. 
 
 In this work we shall discuss the atonement from 
 the Bible stand-point mainly, the Bible being our 
 standard of authority. We believe that it sets forth 
 a vicarious atonement, that from Genesis to Revela- 
 tion this is the one glorious truth that gives beauty 
 and vitality to its teaching. 
 
 Before entering upon our argument we will pre- 
 sent in this chapter an outline of the principal the- 
 ories of the atonement, a brief historical sketch of 
 the development of these theories, and some defini- 
 tions. 
 
 SECTION I. Theories of the Atonement. 
 
 It does not come within the scope of this work to 
 enter upon an examination of all the theories that 
 have originated in the fertile brains of men for the 
 last nineteen centuries. Many of them have long 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 since died a natural death, like the theory of Mar- 
 cion, who held that Christ's sufferings were divine, 
 but not real. 
 
 As most of the early fathers combat the heresy of 
 Marcion, some even writing extensive treatises 
 against him, we have a full exposition of his theory. 
 He denied that the Incarnation was real, holding 
 that Christ was manifested in appearance only. 
 
 " Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh 
 of Christ, denied also his nativity, because, of 
 course, he was afraid that his nativity and his flesh 
 bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since 
 there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh with- 
 out nativity At all events, he who repre- 
 sented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was 
 equally able to pass off his nativity as a phantom; 
 so that the virgin's conception, and pregnancy, and 
 child-bearing, and then the whole course of her in- 
 fant, too, would have to be regarded as putative." 
 (Tertullian, "On the flesh of Christ," Chapter I.) 
 
 It follows, that his body being unreal, his suffer- 
 ings and death existed in appearance only; the 
 whole being but a symbolic representation that men 
 must die to earthly life to be redeemed, hence the 
 extreme aesthetic character of the life he demanded 
 of his followers. 
 
 Omitting such theories as these, and dealing only 
 with those that are current in our day, we would 
 group them into three great divisions : The Moral 
 Influence, Governmental, and Vicarious. There are 
 various modifications of these, but practically they 
 may be so classified. 
 
 The Moral Influence theory represents the work 
 
4 ATONEMENT. 
 
 of Christ as affecting the sinner alone. It denies 
 that the work of Christ in any way influenced God, 
 its design being to reconcile man to God, not God 
 to man. 
 
 The Governmental theory also holds that the 
 atonement affects the sinner, and not God, but 
 teaches, in addition, that it was demanded by the 
 needs of moral government. As failure to enforce 
 law leads to anarchy, while punishment deters from 
 crime and strengthens the government, the death 
 of Christ was demanded by this governmental 
 need. 
 
 The Vicarious theory, which has been, and is, 
 the almost universal faith of Christendom, teaches 
 that while the death of Christ influences the sinner 
 and strengthens government, it first of all was nec- 
 essary to meet the demands of God against the sin- 
 ner. Its advocates teach that until that demand 
 was met and satisfied, man could not be saved. 
 They hold that Christ meets and satisfies this de- 
 mand for us in our place as our substitute, so 
 that God can "be just and the justifier of him 
 which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 All theories that limit the effect of the atonement 
 to the sinner may be classed as Moral Influence the- 
 ories. All that hold, in addition, that it was re- 
 quired by the needs of moral government alone, as 
 Governmental. All that hold that it substitu- 
 tionally met demands arising from the divine nat- 
 are, as Vicarious. 
 
 The advocates, both of the Governmental and 
 Moral Influence theories, agree in denying that 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 there is any such principle as vindicatory justice in 
 God (that is, that there is a demand in the divine 
 nature that wrong should be punished), but the 
 Governmental teaches that justice in God "is to be 
 referred to a general governmental rectitude, based 
 upon a benevolent regard for the highest ultimate 
 and most general well-being of the subjects of his 
 moral government." 
 
 The advocates of the Moral Influence theory hold 
 that the single ultimate principle that determines 
 God in the great work of redemption is benevolence. 
 They also hold that the sole object of the life and 
 death of Christ is to produce a moral effect upon 
 the sinner, and thus reconcile him to God. They 
 may be divided into two schools as to the character 
 of this effect : 
 
 First, the Natural Moral Influence theory. This 
 makes it an influence that subdues the heart and 
 will of the sinner by the natural influence of love, 
 thus bringing the life into harmony with God's 
 will. It does not recognize the necessity of the 
 inner work of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Second, the Supernatural Moral Influence theory. 
 This school emphasizes the need for a divine work 
 to be done in the soul; and while holding that the 
 work is moral and not legal, still maintains a true 
 regeneration, and deliverance from sin by a vital 
 union with Christ, or an imparted life. 
 
 Besides holding the views as to justice already 
 indicated, the advocates of the Governmental theory 
 agree : 
 
6 ATONEMENT. 
 
 " i. That law is a product of the divine will, and 
 therefore relaxable. 
 
 2. God's sovereign prerogative includes the right 
 of pardon. 
 
 3. But the governmental rectitude ... in view 
 of the fact that indiscriminate pardon would en- 
 courage the violation of law, determines God to 
 condition the pardon of human sinners upon an im- 
 posing example of suffering in a victim so related 
 to mankind and to himself, as effectually to demon- 
 strate his determination that sin shall not be in- 
 dulged in with impunity." 
 
 The advocates of a Vicarious atonement may be 
 divided into two great schools : 
 
 First, the Calvinistic. This teaches that the suf- 
 ferings of Christ were an exact equivalent for those 
 of the saved, fully meeting the demand of law and 
 of the divine justice. It pays the debt in full. 
 
 Second, the Arminian. This teaches that the 
 sufferings of Christ, while vicarious, were not a 
 full equivalent, but that God was pleased to accept 
 them in the place of those that the sinner would 
 have to endure. 
 
 The Arminian theory was largely elaborated by 
 Limborch, its distinctive feature being that the 
 death of Christ was a sacrificial offering. While 
 holding the idea of relaxation, it differs from the 
 Governmental theory in that it recognizes a demand 
 in the divine nature, as well as that which arises 
 from the needs of government. While holding 
 that Christ's sufferings were penal, Arminians deny 
 that they were an exact equivalent. They took the 
 place of the penalty, having the same effect in rec- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 onciling God. They were not a substituted penalty 
 (which must be an exact equivalent), as Calvinists 
 teach, but a substitute for the penalty (which may 
 be of inferior worth). 
 
 SECTION II. Historical Sketch. 
 
 It is claimed that the theory of a vicarious atone- 
 ment was unknown to the church before Anselm, 
 who, it is said, was the author of the theory of sub- 
 stitution. It is true that Anselm was the first to 
 set forth the doctrine of a vicarious atonement in 
 its full, clear, scientific form, just as the Moral In- 
 fluence theory was first elaborated by Abelard, and 
 the Governmental by Hugo Grotius; but that a 
 vicarious atonement was not the faith of the church 
 before Anselm' s time, we can not admit, because 
 the reverse is true. 
 
 As to the Apostolic Fathers (those who lived 
 during the life of the apostles), their language 
 was that of the Bible; and therefore they taught, 
 as we confidently believe, a vicarious atonement. 
 
 As examples of their teaching, we give the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 u Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, 
 and see how precious that blood is to God, which 
 having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace 
 of repentance before the whole world. ' ' (First Epis- 
 tle of Clement, Chapter VII.) 
 
 1 ( Let us then continually persevere in our hope, 
 and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus 
 Christ, ' who bore our sins in his own body on the 
 tree,' 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in 
 his mouth,' but endured all things for us, that we 
 
8 ATONEMENT. 
 
 might live in him." (Epistle of Polycarp, Chap- 
 ter VIII.) 
 
 ' ' He himself took upon him the burden of our 
 iniquities, He gave his own Son a ransom for us, 
 the Holy One for transgressors, the blameless one 
 for the wicked, the righteous one for the unright- 
 eous, the incorruptible one for the wicked, the im- 
 mortal one for the mortal. For what other thing 
 was capable of covering our sins but his righteous- 
 ness ? By what other one was it possible that we, 
 the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by 
 the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O un- 
 searchable operation! O benefits surpassing all 
 expectation! that the wickedness of many should 
 be hid in a single righteous one, and that the right- 
 eousness of one should justify many transgressors." 
 (Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter VIII.) 
 
 u For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up 
 his flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified 
 through the remission of sins, which is effected by 
 his blood of sprinkling. For it is written concern- 
 ing him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly 
 to us; and [the Scriptures] saith thus : * He was 
 wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our 
 iniquities: with his stripes we are healed.' " (Epis- 
 tle of Barnabas, Chapter V.) 
 
 u Become the imitators of his sufferings, and of 
 his love, wherewith he loved us when he gave him- 
 self a ransom for us, that he might cleanse us by 
 his blood from our old ungodliness." (Epistle of 
 Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VIII.) 
 
 From the time of these Fathers until the eleventh 
 century the church was occupied with the discussion 
 as to the PERSON of Christ, giving but little attention 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 to his work. Yet we find repeated statements that 
 present the idea of a vicarious atonement : 
 
 ' ' Having become the ' Mediator between God 
 and men;' propitiating indeed for us the Father 
 against whom we had sinned, and cancelling our 
 disobedience by his own obedience; conferring also 
 upon us the gift of communion with, and sub- 
 jection to, our Maker. For this reason also he 
 taught us to say in prayer, 'and forgive us our 
 debts;' since indeed he is our Father, whose debt- 
 ors we were, having transgressed his command- 
 ments." (Irenaeus against heresies, Book V., Chap- 
 ter XVII. , Sec. I.) 
 
 ' The first and principal ground of the Logos 
 becoming man was the condemnation of the law by 
 which we are burdened with guilt and eternal pun- 
 ishment, might be removed by the payment of the 
 penalty. ' ' 
 
 ' The death of the incarnate Logos is a ransom 
 for the sins of men." 
 
 " Laden with guilt, the world was condemned by 
 law, but the Logos assumed the condemnation, and, 
 suffering in the flesh, gave salvation to all." (Atha- 
 nasius contra Arianos, I. 45-60.) 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, John of Damascus, 
 and others, use similar language. 
 
 Augustine writes but little of the work of Christ, 
 although he taught a vicarious atonement. He 
 seems to have held, however, the opinion that pre- 
 vailed largely before Anselm, that Christ was offered 
 as a ransom to Satan, who held men by right of 
 conquest, for he says : 
 
 "It would have been injustice if Satan had not 
 
io ATONEMENT. 
 
 had the right to rule over the being whom he had 
 taken captive." 
 
 Gregory the Great is more direct than those we 
 have quoted. He says : 
 
 * ' Guilt can be extinguished only by penal offer- 
 ing to justice, . . . hence a sinless man must be 
 offered. . . . Hence the Son must be born of a vir- 
 gin, and become man for us. He made himself a 
 sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners his own 
 body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by 
 virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, 
 upon grounds of justice." (Moralia in Jobum, 
 xvii. 46.) 
 
 So far, therefore, as the period before Anselm 
 was concerned, while we have no formal discus- 
 sion of the doctrine, it was plainly held by the ma- 
 jority of the Fathers; and in their writings we find 
 all the features that enter into the later and more 
 scientific statement. 
 
 In the eleventh century there appeared a man of 
 sterling worth, ripe scholarship, and possessed of a 
 mind of remarkable clearness and depth, who was 
 to turn the thought of Christendom from the con- 
 sideration of the person to the work of Christ. 
 
 Anselm was born in Piedmont in the year 1033. 
 After his mother's death, and because of his father's 
 harshness, he left his home and made his way into 
 France. Here he became a monk, at the age of 
 twenty-seven, in the monastery of Bee, and three 
 years later became its friar. He soon made it the 
 foremost seat of learning in Europe. In 1092 he 
 crossed into England, and in the following year was 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 1 
 
 elected Archbishop of Canterbury, which position 
 he held until his death in 1109. His writings made 
 a profound impression in his own age, and perhaps 
 more than those of any man influenced the theo- 
 logical opinions of the entire church as to Christ's 
 work. 
 
 He has been called ' ' the first scholastic philoso- 
 pher and theologian." 
 
 ' ' In his great work, Cur Deiis homo, he under- 
 takes to make plain, even to infidels, the rational 
 necessity of the Christian mystery of the atonement. 
 The theory rests upon three positions; that satisfac- 
 tion was necessary on account of God's honor and 
 justice; that such satisfaction can be given only by 
 the peculiar personality of the God-man; that such 
 satisfaction is really given by the voluntary death 
 of this infinitely valuable person. The demonstra- 
 tion is in brief this : All the actions of men are 
 due for the furtherance of God's glory; if, then, 
 there be sin that is, if God's honor be wounded, man 
 of himself can give no satisfaction ; and as an insult 
 to infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction 
 must be infinite that is, it must outweigh all that is 
 not God. Such a penalty can only be paid by God 
 himself, and as a penalty for man, must be paid 
 under the form of man. Satisfaction is only pos- 
 sible through the God-man. Now this God-man, 
 as sinless, is exempt from the penalty of sin; his 
 passion is therefore voluntary, not given as due. 
 The merit of it is infinite; God's justice is thus 
 appeased; and his mercy may extend to men." 
 
 We believe that while Anselm in many ways pre- 
 sents clearly the doctrine of substitution, his phi- 
 losophy has some serious defects. The most seri- 
 ous is the making sin committed on earth to be in- 
 
12 ATONEMENT. 
 
 finite demerit. This is part of the Calvinistic the- 
 ory of substitution; and while it is held by some 
 who are not Calvinists, it is always at the expense 
 of logical consistency. 
 
 If the philosophy of Anselm as to the demerit of 
 sin be true, we are logically driven either to the re- 
 jection of substitution or the acceptance of a lim- 
 ited atonement. 
 
 Anselm held, and rightly, that unless the atone- 
 ment was demanded by an inherent and necessary 
 attribute of the Godhead, it could never be scien- 
 tifically vindicated. 
 
 The discussion of the theory of Anselm led to 
 the development of that of Abelard. 
 
 Abelard, when but twenty years of age, went to 
 the celebrated school of Notre Dame at Paris, be- 
 coming a pupil of William of Champeau, who was 
 then teaching the doctrines of Anselm. Possessed 
 of a brilliant intellect and seeing the weak places 
 in the philosophy of Anselm, he soon entered into 
 a dispute with his master, and history says, over- 
 came him in debate. He seems then to have em- 
 barked in a career of disputation, traveling exten- 
 sively, and overcoming all opposition. In 1115 he 
 occupies the chair at Notre Dame, and thousands 
 of students flock to his school. His connection 
 with Heloise, which constitutes one of the great 
 romances of the Middle Ages, led to his downfall; 
 and after a stormy life, he died in 1142. 
 
 As to the atonement, he begins and ends with 
 the benevolence of God; which is separated from, 
 and not limited by, his holiness. He denied that 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 there was any thing in the divine nature that neces- 
 sitated satisfaction, holding that the object of Christ's 
 work was to produce sorrow in the human soul and 
 reconcile man to God. 
 
 The theories of Anseltn and Abelard held posses- 
 sion of the field for over four centuries, until the 
 time of Hugo Grotius. It may be said that u in 
 the annals of precocious genius there is no greater 
 prodigy on record than Hugo Grotius." Born in 
 the Low Countries in 1583, he made good L,atin 
 verses at nine, was ready to enter the university at 
 twelve, and at sixteen received the degree of Doctor 
 of I^aw at L,eyden, and began the practice of law. 
 His aspirations, however, were for authorship, his 
 writings being very numerous. His contributions 
 to history, politics, and poetry are valuable, and 
 show the versatility of his genius. His contribu- 
 tions to law gave him a world-wide fame, it being 
 said that he had almost created a new science, that 
 of international law. In theology he stands pre- 
 eminent, chiefly as the first to formulate the govern- 
 mental theory of the atonement. He held that God 
 accepted the satisfaction of Christ, not because it 
 possessed a strictly infinite value, but because, in 
 his benevolence, he is willing to accept it as satis- 
 faction, just as the creditor may discharge the 
 debtor, by part payment, or by none. 
 
 Regarding law and penalty he taught : 
 
 U A11 positive laws are relaxable. Those who fear 
 that if we concede this we do injury to God, because 
 we thereby represent him as mutable, are much de- 
 ceived. For law is not something internal in God, 
 
14 ATONEMENT. 
 
 or in the will of God, but it is a particular effect or 
 product of his will. But that the effects or pro- 
 ducts of his will are mutable is very certain. More- 
 over, in promulgating a positive law which he might 
 wish to relax at some future time, God does not ex- 
 hibit any fickleness of will. . . . It is objected 
 to this view that it is naturally just that the wicked 
 should be punished with such a punishment as cor- 
 responds to their crime, and therefore that pun- 
 ishment is not a matter of optional choice, neither 
 is it relaxable. In answer to this objection, it is to 
 be noticed that it does not always follow that in- 
 justice is done when justice is not done 
 
 Furthermore, a threat to punish is not like a prom- 
 ise to reward. For from the promise to reward there 
 accrues a certain right or claim on the part of him 
 to whom the promise is made, but the threat of 
 punishment only declares the transgressor's desert 
 of penalty and the right to punish on the part of 
 him that threatens." 
 
 Relaxation, instead of satisfaction, is the theory 
 of Grotius. But the question arises, if God can 
 relax at all, why not entirely ? Where is the neces- 
 sity for the sufferings of Christ? Grotius replies 
 that, so far as God's nature was concerned, he could 
 have done this; but he could not relax entirely with 
 safety to the created universe. To maintain his 
 government was, therefore, the ground upon which 
 an atonement was required, and not any thing in 
 the nature of God. The theory of Grotius is ex- 
 emplary, not expiatory, or retributive. It was made 
 to prevent future sin, not to atone for that which 
 was past. 
 
 SECTION III. Definitions. 
 
 Definitions are properly in place in this introduc- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 tion, although the meaning of the words used that 
 are scriptural, are, in reality, part of the argument 
 itself. 
 
 First. ATONEMENT. 
 
 The word as now used by theologians has the 
 same sense that the word u satisfaction " had in the 
 seventeenth century and the word ' ' redemption ' ' 
 still later; it is used to designate the entire work 
 that Christ has done for us. It is so used when we 
 speak of "theories of the atonement." This is 
 never its Bible meaning. The moral influence and 
 governmental are theories of Christ's work; but in 
 the Bible sense of the word atonement, they are, in 
 reality, denials of the atonement. 
 
 The etymology insisted upon by Socinians of 
 at-one-ment is a very doubtful one, probably sug- 
 gested by the spelling. Any argument that is 
 founded upon this doubtful etymology must be 
 faulty, because it can not be made from the word 
 used by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 "J5 (kaphar) the verb, has the root meaning 
 ' ' to cover, ' ' and is denned by Gesenius : 
 
 u i . To cover over sin, to hide, spoken of God as 
 the offended party that is, to forgive, to pardon 
 sin 
 
 2. Spoken of the offender or his representative, 
 to cover sin, to hide that is, to do away by some expi- 
 atory act, to purge, so that he may be pardoned; 
 hence (a) to expiate an offense, fault, to atone for 
 . . . . (b) to make expiation or atonement for an 
 offender, to free him from guilt . . . . (c) to ap- 
 pease, to placate the person offended .... So of 
 
1 6 ATONEMENT. 
 
 impending evil that is, to avert by expiation." 
 The corresponding noun DH|D (kippurim) Gese- 
 nius defines: "Expiations, atonement" 
 
 They are the only Hebrew words translated 
 "atonement," and it is worthy of note that while 
 the root meaning is " to cover, ' ' the words are never 
 so translated. Kaphar is translated by other words 
 than "atonement," an examination of which will 
 help us to see the Bible meaning of the word. 
 
 Gen. vi. 14, "Pitch it." 
 
 Gen. xxxii. 20, "Appease." 
 
 Ex. xxi. 20, "Ransom." 
 
 L,ev. xvi. 20, "Reconciling." 
 
 Num. xxxv. 31, 32, "Satisfaction." 
 
 Num. xxxv. 33, "Cleansed." 
 
 Ps. Ixxix. 9, "Purge away." 
 
 Kzek. xvi. 63, "Pacified." 
 
 How suggestive that the word for atonement has 
 for its root meaning "to cover." It will always 
 be true that we did commit the sin. It may be 
 blotted out of the book of God's remembrance, cast 
 behind his back, removed from us as far as the east 
 is from the west, but it can not be undone. But 
 while it can not be undone, by the grace of God it 
 may be covered over by the blood; hidden away, 
 blotted out. 
 
 "Blessed is the man whose transgression is for- 
 given, whose sin \& covered" Psalm xxxii. i. Rom. 
 iv. 7. 
 
 The word atonement occurs only once in the New 
 Testament, and then incorrectly, as a translation of 
 the Greek word Karatta^ (katallagee). The Revised 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 Version translates this properly ' ' reconciliation. ' ' 
 The Greek word translated "propitiation" is the 
 word used in the Septuagint to translate the He- 
 brew word for "atonement." Atonement in the 
 Old Testament and propitiation in the New are 
 synonymous words. 
 
 Second. PROPITIATION. 
 
 Webster defines this : 
 
 u i. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating 
 the favor of an offended party, the act of making 
 propitiation. 
 
 "2. (Theol.) (a) The influence or effects of the 
 death of Christ in appeasing the divine justice, and 
 conciliating the divine favor, (b) That which pro- 
 pitiates, atonement or atoning sacrifice. ' ' 
 
 Three forms of the Greek word are used in the 
 New Testament, an examination of which will give 
 the Scripture meaning. 
 
 First, the verb LZaaxofjiat (hilaskomai}. 
 ( To appease, render propitious; in New Testa- 
 ment to expiate, make an atonement or expiation 
 for Heb. ii. 17; ihwdrpt (hilastheeti\ be gracious, 
 show mercy, pardon. L,uke xviii. 13." Bagster. 
 'To be propitious or merciful, favor, befriend; 
 to atone, make atonement for, "expiate." Groves. 
 
 This word is used twice in the New Testament, 
 translated ' ' be merciful ' ' and ' l make reconcilia- 
 tion for." 
 
 ' ' Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be 
 made like unto his brethren, that he might be a 
 merciful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to 
 3 
 
i8 ATONEMENT. 
 
 make reconciliation for the sins of the people." 
 Heb. ii. 17. 
 
 Here the idea of expiation can not be left out. 
 Making reconciliation for the sins of the people, or 
 more literally, as given by the Revised Version, u to 
 make propitiation for the sins of the people," was 
 part of Christ's priestly work in things which had 
 a bearing iipon God (r TT^OC rov 6eou ta pros ton 
 the on). 
 
 " God be merciful to me a sinner." lytike xviii. 
 
 *3- 
 
 Standing in the court of the temple, within sight 
 
 of the brazen altar with its blood, instructed as to 
 the meaning of that blood, the publican says, 
 u God be propitious to me the sinner " (rco hpaprcofao 
 too hamartooloo the sinner). Or, ' ' God make 
 propitiation for me the sinner," evidently on the 
 ground of the expiation made by the blood. 
 
 Second, lXaap.6s (hilasmos). 
 
 " Propitiation, expiation; one who makes expia- 
 tion. ' ' Bagster. 
 
 "A propitiation, atonement, reconciliation; a 
 sacrifice, sin-offering. ' ' Groves. 
 
 This word is used twice in the New Testament, 
 translated "propitiation." 
 
 And he is the propitiation for our sins." i 
 John ii. 2. 
 
 " Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 
 he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation 
 for our sins." i John iv. 10. 
 
 The texts are plain, showing that Christ himself 
 is the propitiation for our sins. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 Third, daartfpta* (ilasteerion). 
 
 * ' Propitiatory, invested with propitiatory power. ' ' 
 Bagster. 
 
 "A propitiatory thing; a propitiation, atonement, 
 expiation; the lid or covering of the ark, the mercy- 
 seat. ' ' Groves. 
 
 This word also occurs twice and is translated 
 ' ' propitiation ' ' and ' ( mercy-seat. ' ' 
 
 "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing 
 the mercy-seat ; of which we can not now speak 
 particularly." Heb. ix. 5. 
 
 The mercy-seat was the place where the blood 
 was sprinkled on the day of atonement. The mercy- 
 seat was properly a propitiatory. 
 
 ' 'Whom God hath set forth a propitiation through 
 faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for 
 the remission of sins that are past, through the for- 
 bearance of God." Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 The Greek word here used is the one used in the 
 Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word for 
 "mercy-seat." If we retain that translation it 
 ought to be so rendered here, which points out more 
 exactly Paul's thought. Propitiatory would, how- 
 ever be a more literal translation, and should be 
 substituted for "mercy-seat" both in the Old and 
 New Testaments. 
 
 By this examination it is seen that the classic 
 meaning of the words is evidently their Bible mean- 
 ing. There is nothing in the context to indicate a 
 new meaning, and in the absence of this, we are 
 justified by every principle of sound exegesis in 
 
20 ATONEMENT. 
 
 saying that propitiation is to make God favorable 
 by an expiation. 
 
 Third .EXPIATION. 
 
 Theologians distinguish between propitiation and 
 expiation. As both are expressed by the Greek 
 word, it is better to distinguish them as that which 
 makes God favorable, and God's being favorable. 
 When we speak of God as being propitiated, we 
 mean that he has been made favorable. When we 
 speak of Christ as the propitiation for our sins, we 
 mean that which makes God favorable. Expiation 
 is limited to this last thought the cause. Propiti- 
 ation includes both the cause and the effect. 
 Webster defines expiation : 
 
 u i. The act of making satisfaction for an offense; 
 atonement; satisfaction. 
 
 2. The means by which atonement for crimes is 
 made; atonement. 
 
 3. An act by which the threats of prodigies were 
 averted among; the ancient heathen." 
 
 Fourth. REDEMPTION. 
 
 This means to bring from a state of bondage into 
 liberty; to set free. This can be done in two ways. 
 First, by piirchase that is, by the payment of a 
 price or ransom. Secondly, by power, as when 
 God gave freedom to Israel from the captivity of 
 Egypt This twofold manner of redemption is a 
 very important distinction. 
 
 Fifth. PENAL SATISFACTION AND DEBT. 
 
 Dr. A. A. Hodge makes the following distinction 
 following in this the celebrated Swiss theologian 
 Turretin : 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 ( ' The distinction between a penal and & pecuniary 
 satisfaction. The first concerns crime and person, 
 the other concerns debt and things. They differ 
 (a) In crime the demand terminates upon the person 
 of the criminal; in debt upon the thing due. (b) 
 In crime the demand is for that kind, degree, and 
 duration of suffering that enlightened reason dis- 
 cerns to be demanded by justice; in debt the de- 
 mand is precisely and only for the thing due, an 
 exact quid pro quo. (c) In crime a vicarious suffer- 
 ing of the penalty is advisable only at the absolute 
 discretion of the sovereign; and the consequent re- 
 lease of the criminal is a matter of grace; in debt 
 the payment of the thing due, by whomsoever 
 made, ipso facto, liberates; and its acceptance and 
 the release of the debtor is no matter of grace." 
 
 This is defective. The distinction points out, 
 however, the ground of the substitution according 
 to Calvinists. 
 
 Dr. Hodge starts wrong, as a "distinction be- 
 tween a penal and pecuniary satisfaction ' ' is not 
 what is meant; but the distinction between a penal 
 satisfaction and debt. The law recognizes many 
 offenses that are punishable with a fine. Where will 
 Dr. Hodge place them ? If under the head of 
 "penal," where they belong, the whole distinction 
 gives way. If under the head of "pecuniary," 
 then a pecuniary satisfaction concerns more than 
 debt and things. 
 
 Again, what is meant by crime? If it includes 
 all offenses against the law, Dr. Hodge's proposi- 
 tions break down. If it means those offenses pun- 
 ishable by imprisonment or death, it lays a founda-. 
 tion for the objection that a penalty can not be 
 
22 ATONEMENT. 
 
 borne by a substitute without bearing the criminal- 
 ity; in other words, it gives a false meaning to the 
 word penal. 
 
 Again, Dr. Hodge leaves out a very important 
 factor that in a vicarious bearing of the penalty or 
 payment of a debt, the consent of the criminal or 
 debtor would have to be obtained. 
 
 We venture the following as a substitute for Dr. 
 Hodge r s distinctions: 
 
 The distinction between a penal satisfaction and 
 debt The one is a demand arising from a viola- 
 tion of law, the other a demand arising from per- 
 sonal obligation. 
 
 1. In penal satisfaction the demand is on the per- 
 son of the criminal to suffer ; in debt the demand is 
 on the person of the debtor to pay. 
 
 2. ( ' In penal satisfaction the demand is for that 
 kind, degree, and duration of suffering that enlight- 
 ened reason discerns to be demanded " as an expia- 
 tion for the offense; "in debt the demand is pre- 
 cisely and only for the thing due, an exact quid pro 
 quo." 
 
 3. In penal satisfaction a vicarious suffering is 
 only admissible when the demands of justice can be 
 met without the criminality being assumed by the 
 substitute; in debt a vicarious payment can be made 
 with the consent of the debtor. 
 
 Substitution is always of grace, whether it be the 
 vicarious bearing of a penalty or payment of a debt. 
 Not grace on the part of law or justice, but grace 
 to the one who is benefited, shown by the one who 
 suffers or pays. Thus it is the ' c grace of our Lord 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 Jesus Christ," and as Christ is God, it is the " grace 
 of God." 
 
 Sixth. SUBSTITUTION. 
 
 u i. The act of substituting or putting one 
 person or thing in the place of another; as, the 
 substitution of an agent, attorney, or representative, 
 to act for one in his absence; the substitution of 
 bank notes for gold and silver as a circulating me- 
 dium 
 
 5. (Theol.) The doctrine that Christ suffered 
 vicariously, being substituted, as it were, for the 
 sinner, and that his sufferings were expiatory." 
 Webster. 
 
 Some press the thought of Christ being a substi- 
 tute until it is no longer substitution that is meant 
 but identification. To put a person or thing in the 
 place of another is all that is meant; and that with- 
 out reference to what is substituted, or why. A 
 merchant in filling a bill of goods substitutes one 
 article in the place of another. They may be 
 totally dissimilar, yet if one is sent in the place of 
 another, it is substituted for it. Bank notes are a 
 substitute for coin, yet totally dissimilar. If, then, 
 Christ died for us, and by that death satisfied a de- 
 mand that was against us so that God is propitiated, 
 then his death was that of a substitute, and that 
 irrespective of the character or duration of his suf- 
 ferings. 
 
 Seventh. VICARIOUS. 
 
 " i. Of, or pertaining to, a vicar, substitute, or 
 deputy; deputed; delegated; as, vicarious power, or 
 authority. 
 
24 ATONEMENT. 
 
 2. Acting or suffering for another; as vicarious 
 agent or officer. 
 
 3. Performed or suffered in the place of another; 
 substituted; as a vicarious sacrifice; vicarioiis pun- 
 ishment. " Webster. 
 
 Substitution and vicarious are words used synony- 
 mously to express what is meant by the words, ' ' in 
 the place of" This is all that the words them- 
 selves express when applied to the sufferings and 
 death of Christ. If they were in the place of ours, 
 then they were vicarious, and Christ is a substi- 
 tute. 
 
PART I. 
 
 THE NECESSITY FOR AN ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS AS TO THE DIVINE 
 NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 Defective views as to the Godhead and of the 
 atonement go hand in hand. Most of the objections 
 that are urged against substitution have their root 
 here. It is important, therefore, that we be re- 
 minded of certain fundamental principles as to the 
 Godhead, and that we contemplate those attributes 
 we are in danger of forgetting. 
 
 SECTION I. We must banish our material con- 
 ceptions when we contemplate the Deity. 
 
 It has been the belief of the great body of Chris- 
 tians that the language that speaks of God as having 
 body, parts, and passions, is used only in an accom- 
 modated sense. 
 
 Words being the signs of ideas, it follows that in 
 the formation of language that which can be con- 
 ceived of only gets its name from that which is 
 represented to the senses. Thus there is always, 
 even when describing states that are purely mental, 
 
26 ATONEMENT. 
 
 a material conception in the words we use. More, 
 that which is beyond the range of our senses and of 
 our consciousness, can not be conceived of at all; 
 and can only be presented to our minds by words 
 that express ideas we already have. 
 
 We find, by examination, two distinct classes of 
 phenomena that can never be attributed to the 
 same substance. Thus we have thought, feeling, 
 and will, known to us through consciousness on the 
 one hand, and extension, inertia, etc., known through 
 the senses on the other. 
 
 What is matter ? To this question no direct an- 
 swer can be given, because the substance we call 
 matter is in itself unknown, and perhaps unknow- 
 able. We can only answer indirectly by describing 
 its properties. Thus we say, that matter is that 
 substance which possesses the properties of impene- 
 trability, extension, figure, divisibility, inertia, etc. 
 These general properties belong to matter in every 
 form known to science. It is only by these prop- 
 erties that matter is known. Who can conceive of 
 matter, in itself, apart from them ? And who, with 
 these fully manifest to our senses, can deny its ex- 
 istence ? 
 
 What then is spirit ? As in the case of matter, 
 no direct answer can be given; we can only reply 
 by describing its properties, as these are known to 
 consciousness. Spirit is that substance that knows 
 and feels and wills. As these properties differ from 
 those that belong to matter, and differ also in their 
 mode of manifestation, being known through con- 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 27 
 
 sciousness and not the senses, they must belong to 
 another substance. 
 
 The Bible affirms that " God is a Spirit." Not 
 that he is spiritual, but spirit. God is not a mate- 
 rial being, for the properties of matter can not be 
 predicated of him. We can not speak of God as 
 possessing impenetrability, extension, or figure, be- 
 cause he is omnipotent. We can not regard God as 
 material, because the properties of matter manifest 
 themselves to the senses, and our senses have 
 never apprehended God. 
 
 u No man hath seen God at any time." (John 
 i. 18.) 
 
 "Whom no man hath seen, nor can see." (i 
 Tim. vi. 16.) 
 
 All our material thoughts must be excluded when 
 we contemplate the Deity. How otherwise would 
 the doctrine of the Trinity be other than an ab- 
 surdity ? 
 
 SECTION II. We must exclude from our ideas 
 of God all our mental conceptions, as well as 
 our material, so far as they are the result of limita- 
 tion. 
 
 We can not measure the infinite by the finite, the 
 perfect by the imperfect, the immutable by the 
 changeable. To illustrate a danger take the fol- 
 lowing from B. F. Underwood's lecture on "Mate- 
 rialism : ' ' 
 
 "Christianity assumes the existence of a God, 
 infinite in presence and duration, yet he is a personal 
 being, notwithstanding the fact that personality 
 implies limitation in space and time. He is an in- 
 
28 ATONEMENT. 
 
 telligent being, although intelligence the only in- 
 telligence of which we have any knowledge im- 
 plies limited faculties, such as reason, memory, 
 imagination, ideality, calculation, benevolence, 
 etc., which can exist only in a being confined to 
 locality, finite in knowledge, and subject to imper- 
 fection. 
 
 If God reasons, he must compare objects or ideas 
 and deduce conclusions; but conclusions arrived at 
 by a process of ratiocination can not have been 
 known to him prior to such reasoning. If he pos- 
 sesses memory, the faculty of recalling past events, 
 a knowledge of things present at one time is absent 
 at another. If he has imagination, something must 
 be invisible to him for the ideal objects of this fac- 
 ulty exist in the realm of the unseen. If he has 
 hope, his knowledge must surely be limited, and his 
 feelings variable, for hope is made up of uncertainty 
 and desire. If he designs, he must be finite both 
 in knowledge and power, for to design is to calcu- 
 late, to cogitate, to decide, and then to use inter- 
 mediate agencies to accomplish certain ends, which 
 are directly unattainable. If he is benevolent, he 
 can not be perfectly happy, for benevolence implies 
 sympathy with the objects of its efforts, and there- 
 fore feelings in common with the party needing aid. 
 These faculties and powers, together with others 
 that might be named, can be conceived as existing 
 only in a being confined to locality, limited in time, 
 finite in knowledge, and subject to infirmities. 
 Does God possess them ? If he does, he is a finite 
 being. If he does not, then he is a being without 
 memory, without calculation or design, without 
 hope, without benevolence; and a being without 
 these mental qualities or powers is a being without 
 intelligence. ' ' 
 
 Reduced to syllogistic form, this amounts simply to : 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 29 
 
 Man's intelligence is limited in every direction. 
 
 All intelligence is like man's (because we know 
 no other). 
 
 Therefore God is finite, or without intelligence. 
 
 This is a qniet assumption of the whole question 
 at issue ; for when the Christian affirms that God is 
 a pure intelligence, infinite in all his attributes, he 
 affirms that all intelligence is not like man's. 
 
 It well illustrates the danger of taking the phe- 
 nomena of spirit, as manifested to us with the lim- 
 itations inseparable from the finite, and rigidly 
 applying them to God. It will, of necessity, lead 
 to contradictions, difficulties, and absurdities. 
 
 SECTION III. We must avoid all ideas of lim- 
 itation ivhen contemplating God. 
 
 God can not be limited, either in space, time, 
 knowledge, or power. With us, time presents itself 
 with the relations of past, present, and future. 
 This is the necessary result of limitation in a finite 
 being. We can not believe such limitation to 
 apply to God. Known unto him is the end from 
 the beginning. Infinite in his perfections, he is 
 always the ' ' I am. ' ' 
 
 " Before Abraham was, I am" (John viii. 58.) 
 
 The doctrine of the Eternity of God teaches that 
 he never had a beginning, and will never have an 
 end; that his thoughts, purposes, and acts, are 
 without succession, and are never past, present, or 
 future, as it regards himself. The thought of God 
 being angry and being propitiated implies change 
 and succession from our time stand-point. 
 
 Some have from this reasoned that they can have 
 
30 ATONEMENT. 
 
 no real existence, and are therefore only modes of 
 thought in presenting the work of Christ to us. 
 The objection has no weight, however, when we 
 remember the eternity of God; and would apply as 
 against creation, providence, or prayer, as much as 
 against the atonement. The whole work of redemp- 
 tion, and all it implies, is, from God's stand-point, 
 one and indivisible. 
 
 SECTION IV. 7^he Bible statements of the nature 
 and attributes of God, while made in accommodated 
 language, are real. 
 
 In what we have said of the nature and attributes 
 of God, we do not wish to be understood as taking 
 the extreme ground that the Bible 'representations 
 of God do not correspond to the reality. Some 
 have held that these representations of God give us 
 no real idea of him. 
 
 ' ' Being sufficient to guide our practice, but not 
 to satisfy our intellect, which tell not what God is 
 in himself, but how he wills that we should think 
 of him." , 
 
 This, however, undermines the foundations of 
 all religion; for if we are to regard our conceptions 
 of God as unreal, we are left without any certainty 
 that he exists at all. If there is not back of all 
 Bible representations an objective reality, fitly and 
 truly presented by these, then all ideas of duty and 
 religion founded upon them are built upon the 
 sand. 
 
 Man being made in the image of God, we must 
 believe that when the Bible represents God as 
 knowing, feeling, or willing, there is a real knowl- 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 31 
 
 edge, feeling, and will, the same in kind as ours, 
 but without our finite limitations. So, when it 
 speaks of God as merciful, as just, as good, and as 
 true, we must believe that these are real qualities, 
 only without the limitations and the imperfections 
 that they are associated with in men. 
 
 SECTION V. The Holiness of God. 
 
 The divine holiness is perhaps the most difficult 
 to express of all the attributes. Dr. A. A. Hodge, in 
 his classification of the attributes, places it by itself, 
 and defines it : 
 
 u The holiness of God is not to be conceived 
 of as an attribute among others; it is rather a gen- 
 eral term representing the conception of his con- 
 summate perfection and total glory. It is his 
 infinite moral perfection crowning his infinite intel- 
 ligence and power. There is a glory of each attri- 
 bute, and a glory of the whole together. The intel- 
 lectual nature is the essential basis of the moral. 
 Infinite moral perfection is the crown of the God- 
 head. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned. ' ' 
 
 This seems to identify holiness and glory, mak- 
 ing holiness the united glory of all the attributes; 
 nor does it fully appear what he means by glory. 
 Does he mean that it is the moral quality of each 
 attribute? Then, as the moral 'quality of justice is 
 justice, and of truth is truth, it would simply mean 
 that holiness is the union of all the attributes. 
 This would confound holiness with the divine 
 nature or essence. Does he mean a moral quality 
 in each attribute distinct from it? Then his defi- 
 nition is no definition. Does he mean the glory 
 
32 ATONEMENT. 
 
 that comes from the manifestation of the divine 
 perfections ? Is this what he means by glory ? If 
 so, we can hardly accept it as a definition of holiness. 
 
 Oehler's definition is by far the best, the most 
 scientific and complete. Starting with the word 
 itself, ^'["Jj^ (kadosJi), he traces the development of 
 its meaning in the Old Testament. 
 
 " Etymological ly, the root meaning of kadosh 
 can not be exactly defined." Oehler, Baudissin, and 
 others agree in giving to the word as its funda- 
 mental etymological signification the idea of ' ' sep- 
 aration. ' ' 
 
 Gesenius derives it from Hp T (kadastt), " to be 
 pure, clean." But this is the developed meaning 
 of the root, as Oehler points out. The weight of 
 evidence is in favor of the primary idea being that 
 of ' ( separation. ' ' 
 
 The word holiness does not convey the idea of 
 moral purity as its essential meaning, but separa- 
 tion; and is, therefore, applied to animals and things 
 as well as to man and God. When the word is used 
 of men, animals, places, or things, the essential 
 meaning is that they are set apart, separated from a 
 common to a sacred use, to the service of God. 
 Other ideas are developed from this, so that from 
 the idea of that which was set apart being cere- 
 monially clean or holy, it expresses that which was 
 intrinsically so. 
 
 When the term holiness is applied to God and 
 given the sense of "moral purity" or "freedom 
 from all sin," it logically leads to the search for an 
 ultimate rule, the discussion pertaining thereto being 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 33 
 
 so prominent in moral philosophy. Unless words 
 are unmeaning, to define God's holiness as moral 
 purity implies a standard for God as well as man. 
 
 If the etymological signification is that of sepa- 
 ration, what element in the divine nature does it 
 denote ? Oehler says : 
 
 "As the designation of a divine attribute, there 
 evidently lies in it primarily a negative element, 
 by which it designates a state of apartness, God's 
 raising himself above all others. So Jehovah, as 
 the Holy One, stands first in opposition to the other 
 imaginary gods, Ex. xv. n : 'Who is like thee 
 among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in 
 holiness ?' And, then, also in opposition to all that 
 is of the creature, or, more generally expressed, to 
 all that is not he himself, Isa. xi. 25 : 'To whom 
 will ye compare me that I may be like ? saith the 
 Holy One.' In other words, as the Holy One, God is 
 he who is raised absolutely above the world. Com- 
 pare Ps. cxix. 2-5, where God's elevation above all 
 people is connected with his holiness ; Isa. v. 16, 
 in which the truth that the holy God sanctifies him- 
 self in justice corresponds to his being exalted in 
 judgment. (Compare ii. 17). Accordingly this divine 
 elevation is God's absolute uniqueness (i Sam. ii. 2:) 
 ' There is none like Jehovah, for there is none but 
 thee.' The positive expression for God's absolute 
 elevation and uniqueness would be, that in his 
 transcendence above the world, and in his apartness 
 from the creature, God is he who ever preserves his 
 own proper character, maintaining himself in that 
 being which is distinct from every thing created" 
 4 
 
34 ATONEMENT. 
 
 We thus see in what sense the idea of separation 
 applies to God. This idea is still further developed, 
 for as Schmeider says : 
 
 "Holiness would not be holiness, but exclusive- 
 ness, if it did not presuppose God's entrance into 
 multifarious relations, and thereby the revelation 
 and communication of himself." 
 
 Hence, Oehler adds another element : 
 
 "This element is found in the fact that the divine 
 holiness contains not only the divine self-main- 
 tainance, but also the divine self-disclosure since 
 God as the Holy One does not remain in himself, 
 but gives effect to his holiness out of himself, by 
 instituting a separation in the world, for his own 
 aims, electing a people out of the mass of the 
 nations of the world, accepting them as his property 
 and impressing on the ordinances which he gives 
 to this people, and on the historical providence by 
 which they are guided, the stamp of this separation 
 from worldliness, and of this specific relation to 
 himself. See as to the principal passage, Lev. xx. 
 26 : ( I am holy, and so I have separated you from 
 among the nations to be mine.' " 
 
 These are the fundamental ideas that underlie the 
 Bible presentation of the holiness of God, but we 
 see it still further developed; and again we quote 
 Oehler : 
 
 " I^et us consider what sort of fear it is that seizes 
 man when God is revealed as the Holy One. It is 
 evidently not simply the feeling of creature weak- 
 ness, but predominantly and specifically the feeling 
 of human sinfulness and impurity (Isa. vi. 5, and 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 35 
 
 others). Hence, it follows that the divine holiness, 
 even if, as absolute perfection of life, it involves the 
 negation of all bonds of creature finitude (from 
 which passages like Isa. xl. 25, are explained), 
 is nevertheless mainly separation from the impurity 
 and sinfulness of the creature, or, expressed posi- 
 tively, the clearness and purity of the divine nature, 
 which excludes all communion with that which is 
 wicked. In this sense the symbolical designation 
 of the divine holiness is light (compare Isa. x. 17)." 
 Men are fond of proclaiming that "God is love,'' 
 but the other thought that " God is light" is in 
 danger of being overlooked. Yet it is as true that 
 God is light, and in the same application, as that 
 God is love. 
 
 SECTION VI. The Divine Righteousness. 
 
 Righteousness and justice are in the Bible synon- 
 ymous words, being translations of the same He- 
 brew word. 
 
 The root is plV (tsadaq) " to be right, straight. " 
 Gesenius defines p^ (tsaddiq) : 
 
 " i. Just, righteous that is, doing justice, spoken 
 of a judge or king who dispenses justice and de- 
 fends the right. 1 ' 
 
 It is translated u just" and "righteous." Oehler 
 
 says : 
 
 4 ' The word p*?S (tsaddiq, righteous) expresses 
 what is straight and right, in the sense that God in 
 his government always does what is suitable ; name- 
 ly, first, what answers fully to his aim ; and second- 
 
36 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ly, what answers to the constitution of the object 
 of the divine action. Specially, but not exclusively, 
 the sphere in which the HD^V (fsedaqah, righte- 
 ousness) manifests itself is the judicial activity of 
 
 God According to Gen. xviii. 25, Jehovah 
 
 is judge of all the earth, and as such he will do 
 right, and not permit the lot of the godless to fall 
 upon the righteous. ' ' 
 
 This is sufficiently clear, and points out an ele- 
 ment of justice that is important that of action by 
 rule and measure. 
 
 Theologians distinguish justice in various ways. 
 Thus Dr. Hodge says : 
 
 u The absolute justice of God is the infinite moral 
 perfection or universal righteousness of his being. 
 
 The relative justice of God is his infinitely 
 righteous nature, viewed as exercised in his rela- 
 tion to his moral creatures, as their moral governor. 
 
 This last is called rectoral, when viewed as exer- 
 cised generally in administering the affairs of his 
 universal government, in providing for and govern- 
 ing his creatures and their actions. It is called 
 punitive or vindicatory, when viewed as demand- 
 ing and inflicting the adequate and proportionate 
 punishment of all sin, because of its intrinsic 
 demerit. ' ' 
 
 If Dr. Hodge means that the demand is inherent 
 in the justice, so that without any legal penalty, 
 justice itself demands and inflicts punishment, we 
 must dissent. It is the law that makes the demand 
 in human governments, justice inflicts the penalty. 
 In the divine government there is the administra- 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 37 
 
 tive demand of the law, and also the demand that 
 arises from the holiness of God. 
 
 God's justice, -whether exercised in rewarding or 
 punishing, is always the same. The theological 
 distinctions tend to confuse. 
 
 SECTION Mil. The Jealousy of God. 
 
 The Bible very fully presents the idea of God's 
 jealousy. 
 
 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." 
 Ex. xx. 5. 
 
 " For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even 
 a jealous God." Deut. iv. 24. 
 
 " Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we 
 stronger than he?" i Cor. x. 22. 
 
 See also Ex. xxiv. 14; Deut. vi. 15; xxix. 20; 
 xxxii. 16; Josh. xxiv. 19; Ps. Ixxviii. 58; Ixxix. 5; 
 Rev. ii. 4, etc. 
 
 As to God's jealousy Oehler says: 
 
 u This divine zeal is the energy of the divine ho- 
 liness It turns itself avengingly against 
 
 every violation of the divine law. In virtue of his 
 HSOp (kinah, jealousy), the holy God extirpates 
 all that sets itself in opposition to him. God's 
 jealousy turns especially against idolatry, by which 
 the divine uniqueness is assailed, see, e.g., Deut. 
 xxxii. 21, and generally against all sin by which 
 God's name is desecrated." 
 
 As light is the appropriate symbol of God's holi- 
 ness, fire "a consuming fire" is the symbol of 
 his jealousy. And again, it is as true that God is 
 
38 ATONEMENT. 
 
 a consuming fire, as it is that God is love. By a 
 comparison of the verses that speak of God as holy, 
 it will be seen that it is closely connected with the 
 thought of his anger or wrath. 
 
 Oehler says : 
 
 u The inner essential connection of wrath with 
 the divine holiness is made especially clear by the 
 passage (Isa. x. 17) : ' The light of Israel becomes a 
 fire, and his Holy One a flame, which burns and con- 
 sumes his thorns and briers. ' Because wrath is a 
 manifestation of divine holiness, the occasion for 
 its outburst (as Ritschl and Diestel have rightly 
 urged) does not lie in a capricious divine humor or 
 natural malignity, as the gods of the heathen fell 
 into a passion, but wholly in the person smitten by 
 it. If a man denies and rejects the testimony of 
 the holy God which was given to him, justice must 
 be exercised upon him in his resistance to God's 
 will, which alone is right, by his being reduced to 
 his own nothingness." 
 
 Of course when the Bible uses such terms as 
 anger, wrath, indignation, and vengeance, as ap- 
 plied to God, the idea of malice, hatred, or vindic- 
 tiveness can have no place. In us anger partakes 
 of the feelings of our fallen nature; and hence 
 anger, as experimentally known, and the ideas grow- 
 ing out of this experience, can not be applied to 
 God. Yet there must be something in the divine 
 nature a reality back of these expressions, that 
 is more fitly represented by these terms than by any 
 others. 
 
NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 39 
 
 Wrong-doing, assailing as it does the divine holi- 
 ness, arouses the divine jealousy (the zeal of holi- 
 ness against all that opposes it), and enkindles the 
 divine anger against the sinner. This anger, being 
 real, the Deity must be appeased, propitiated, be- 
 fore man can be saved. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 SIN AND PENALTY. 
 
 In the Bible sin is presented under two aspects. 
 
 First, as a nature. 
 
 Second, as transgression. 
 
 These are important distinctions and are funda- 
 mental if we are to have intelligent conceptions of 
 the atonement. 
 
 The fact that sin exists as depravity, or nature, 
 is abundantly taught in the Scriptures, as will be 
 seen by a study of such passages as Gen. vi. 5, 6; 
 Ps. li. 1-5; Rom. i. 21-25; i. 28-31; iii. 9-18; Jer. 
 xvii. 9; Keel. ix. 3, etc. 
 
 Among theologians the distinction is made of 
 sin as actual and original. By actual sin is meant 
 a violation of a known rule of duty, by original 
 sin the pollution or depravity of the nature. The 
 term "original sin" is ambiguous and misleading; 
 we shall therefore substitute sin as depravity and 
 sin as transgression. 
 
 SECTION I. Sin as Depravity. 
 
 In defining what is meant by depravity, the fol- 
 lowing points are presented by Dr. A. A. Hodge : 
 
 U A11 men, without exception, begin to sin as 
 soon as they enter upon moral agency. ' ' 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 41 
 
 This being simply a question of fact will not be 
 denied. 
 
 ' ' They are all born with an antecedent and pre- 
 vailing tendency in their nature to sin. ' ' 
 
 This is depravity. It has been recognized by 
 men, apart from revelation. It was taught by the 
 old philosophers notably by Plato. We read that 
 after Adam's fall he begat a son in his own image; 
 and as like produces like, fallen humanity can only 
 bring forth a depraved offspring. Depravity is the 
 result of the law of heredity by which the corrup- 
 tion is reproduced in the offspring. 
 
 u This innate tendency is itself sin in the strict- 
 est sense. It is inherently ill-deserving, as well as 
 polluting and destructive, and without any reference 
 to its origin in Adam, it fully deserves God's wrath 
 and curse, and except when expiated by the blood 
 of Christ is always visited with that curse." 
 
 This statement we can not receive. It shows 
 confusion of thought as to the nature of Christ's 
 work, and exposes the doctrine of a vicarious atone- 
 ment to unanswerable objections. 
 
 Sin as nature always leads to actual sin; and on 
 the ground of this tendency, unfits for heaven. 
 Unless provision is made to remove this unfitness, 
 no man can be saved. This provision is made by 
 the resurrection of Christ, and not by his death and 
 sufferings. 
 
 Corruption of nature brings certain results, such 
 as separation from God, and consequent suffering 
 and sorrow; but these results are not the penalty of 
 sin, but its inevitable consequence. As logical 
 
42 ATONEMENT. 
 
 consequences, having the relation of cause and 
 effect, they can never be borne by a substitute, any 
 more than one man can drink poison and another 
 receive the effect. The only way we can be saved 
 from the consequences is to be redeemed from the 
 depravity itself. 
 
 Sin as transgression, however, exposes to a pen- 
 alty; and between this penalty and the sin there is 
 no such infallible connection, otherwise substitu- 
 tion would be impossible. 
 
 A consequence is not a penalty; hence we distin- 
 guish between them, one standing connected with 
 sin as nature, the other with sin as transgression. 
 God's provision for the one is the expiation of 
 Christ, and for the other his resurrection life. 
 
 "Who was delivered for our offenses, and was 
 raised again for our justification." Rom. iv. 25. 
 
 While we believe that this depravity is of the 
 nature of sin, and unfits for heaven, we do not be- 
 lieve that it can be expiated. Expiation for deprav- 
 ity, a logical part of the Calvinistic scheme, leads 
 to innumerable theories about the nature and 
 origin of depravity itself. Of these the principal 
 are : 
 
 First. That of the pre-existence of souls, who, 
 having actually apostatized in some former exist- 
 ence, are justly exposed to the penalty of the law. 
 Dr. B. Beecher held that these pre-existent spirits 
 were the angels who kept not their first estate, 
 born as men in order that they might be saved. 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 43 
 
 Second. That all souls were created simultaneously 
 with that of Adam, and in some way consented to 
 his sin, so as to be justly exposed to its penalty. 
 
 Third. That all souls were in Adam that is, they 
 were created at the time Adam was, and were in 
 him potentially and actually, and propagated from 
 him to his descendants. 
 
 Fourth. The doctrine of Realism that the spirits 
 of men are not separate substances, but that human- 
 ity is one single substance, the souls of individuals 
 being but its manifestations through their bodily 
 organs. This universal soul having fallen and 
 sinned in Adam, its manifestations in each individ- 
 ual are corrupt. 
 
 Fifth. The dogma that Adam was constituted the 
 Federal Head, or representative, of the race, and 
 that, therefore, God imputes to us the guilt of 
 Adam's sin. This is the Calvinistic theory. Dr. 
 A. A. Hodge thus presents this dogma of imputa- 
 tion : 
 
 "Imputation ... is simply to lay to one's 
 charge as a just ground of legal procedure, whether 
 the thing imputed antecedently belonged to the 
 person to whom it is charged, or for any other rea- 
 son he is justly responsible for it." 
 
 "The imputation that is, the judicial charging 
 of Adam's sin to us is rather to be considered as 
 contemplating the race as a whole, as one mortal 
 body, than as a series of individuals. The race was 
 condemned as a whole, and hence each individual 
 comes into existence in a state of just, antenatal 
 forfeiture. . . . The imputation of the guilt of 
 Adam's apostatizing act to us in common leads 
 
44 ATONEMENT. 
 
 judicially to spiritual desertion in particular, and 
 spiritual desertion leads, by necessary consequence, 
 to inherent depravity." 
 
 This theory of imputation and the dogma of the 
 Federal Headship of Adam, of which it is a part, 
 carries with it the logical consequence, that all men 
 are damned before they are born, unless by a sover- 
 eign act of mercy God elects some of them to eter- 
 nal life. This is a consistent part of a system that 
 teaches that God has from all eternity fore-ordained 
 some to eternal damnation. 
 
 The doctrine of the Federal Headship of Adam 
 teaches that Adam was placed in the garden in 
 a state of probation, not only for himself, but for 
 the race. To this probation it is taught that the 
 following principles applied : 
 
 1. That every moral agent was created holy, 
 
 2. Yet in a state of instable moral equilibrium; 
 
 3. Hence, confirmation in a state of holiness is a 
 divine gift, not included in the natural endowments 
 of any creature, 
 
 4. Always suspended upon conditions of perfect 
 obedience during a period of probation. If Adam 
 had obeyed he would have been confirmed and 
 made impeccable. 
 
 The reasons given why Adam's probation was 
 also that of his descendants, are : 
 
 1. God had a right to order as he pleased. 
 
 2. Probation was thus ordered in the very best 
 condition for it, as Adam had no infancy, no evil 
 surroundings, influences, etc. 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 45 
 
 3. Adam's natural relation to his descendants 
 made him the proper person to represent them, be- 
 cause of the organic unity of the race. 
 
 4. The headship of Adam lays a foundation for 
 the headship of Christ. 
 
 According to this theory heaven was promised to 
 Adam and his descendants on the ground of his 
 obedience, while the entire race are justly con- 
 demned to eternal despair for his disobedience. 
 
 As the logical counterpart of this, Christ frees from 
 the penalty of sin by his vicarious sufferings and death 
 and gives us a title to heaven on the ground of his 
 law keeping, which is imputed for righteousness. 
 
 The dogma of the Federal Headship of Adam 
 teaches that we are justly condemned for a sin com- 
 mitted by another before we were born, and in 
 committing which we had no part and exercised no 
 volition. It makes Adam our representative, but 
 gives us no choice in electing him as such. It is 
 from first to last arbitrary. If this be just, then 
 logically it is also just to elect some to eternal life 
 and "pass by" the rest. The principle is the 
 same in either case the sovereign good pleasure of 
 God. Our condemnation for the sin of another is 
 in conflict with those ideas of right common to the 
 race; hence, it can only be defended on the ground 
 of God's sovereignty. "It is just because God 
 willed it." If we accept this, the doctrine of a 
 limited atonement can be received also, as it rests 
 upon the same principle. The dogma of a limited 
 atonement really necessitates that of the imputation 
 of Adam's sin. 
 
46 ATONEMENT. 
 
 To reject a limited atonement and still hold the 
 dogma of the Federal Headship of Adam results 
 logically in Universalism. If we recognize any 
 rights of man, if we abandon the ground that all is 
 of God's sovereign will without any reference to 
 the creature, then we can not be held justly con- 
 demned for one man's sin without receiving the 
 benefits of the obedience of the one man. The one 
 should be as general as the other. The only con- 
 sistent logical conclusions from the dogma of "im- 
 putation" would be either a limited atonement, or 
 Universalism, as we recognize or not any rights 
 in man. 
 
 We do not believe this dogma of imputation, be- 
 cause it is foreign to the Scriptures. 
 
 Adam was a type of Christ, "the figure of him 
 that was to come," but the first Adam was not the 
 expression of God's thought and purpose for the 
 race. That is found in the second Adam, not the 
 first. Here is the great mistake of the schools; 
 making the first Adam the expression of God's pur- 
 pose for the race, they bring in Christ to restore 
 and gain for us what Adam should have done. 
 This fails, ignobly fails, to comprehend the scope, 
 the grandeur, and the glorious extent of Christ's 
 work. 
 
 To put Adam under the moral law to win heaven 
 for himself and his posterity, to find eternal issues 
 in the rewards and penalties of the Old Testament, 
 is the great root of error in the church, especially 
 as to the atonement, and has well-nigh reduced 
 the doctrine of substitution to an absurdity. 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 47 
 
 Adam was never told of heaven, nor was its pos- 
 session promised him on the ground of his obe- 
 dience. All this is man's thought, not God's. As 
 we will show, the death penalty was corporeal, and 
 nothing more; and his obedience was the ground of 
 his continuance in the garden, but not of his title 
 to heaven. 
 
 Never in any age was heaven ever promised on 
 the ground of obedience; even under the law it was 
 "This do and them shalt live," but never "This 
 do and thou shalt have a place in heaven." The 
 consistent thought of the Jew was always of bless- 
 ings on this earth, as an examination of the Old 
 Testament will abundantly show. 
 
 The great absurdity of a double substitution 
 grows out of error in respect to Old Testament pen- 
 alties. 
 
 We hold the theory of the Natural Headship of 
 Adam, rejecting the Federal. The name is of very 
 little importance, but as the dogma to which it be- 
 longs has become thoroughly identified with the 
 name, we prefer calling our theory the natural. 
 Discarding the doctrine of imputation as in conflict 
 with both reason and revelation, we still believe 
 that Adam was truly the representative of the race, 
 because the divinely constituted head of it. As the 
 first man, from whom all others have come, he of 
 necessity stood charged with the interests of man- 
 kind. But this representative character was 
 founded upon natural law that of heredity a law 
 that is distinctly recognized by science as among 
 the facts of nature. By virtue of this law, a cor- 
 
48 ATONEMENT. 
 
 rupt nature, and all that it implies, came upon 
 Adam's descendants. In this there is nothing but 
 what is in harmony with reason, science, and reve- 
 lation, which last indicates the principle when it 
 says : 
 
 ' i How can he be clean that is born of a woman ? ' ' 
 Job xxv. 4. 
 
 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." 
 John iii. 6. 
 
 The distinction between the Natural and Federal 
 theories of the Headship of Adam are, briefly : 
 
 First. While both agree that a depraved nature 
 has been transmitted from Adam to his posterity, 
 the dogma of imputation makes this a judicial in- 
 fliction (see Hodge above), the other makes it the 
 necessary result of the law of heredity. 
 
 Second. The Federal theory includes in the cov- 
 enant of works made with Adam the destiny of his 
 descendants, Adam's probation being theirs. The 
 Natural theory makes the covenant to involve only 
 his own title to life, and not that of his descend- 
 ants. 
 
 What was this covenant (if we call it such) ? 
 
 ' c Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely 
 eat: 
 
 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and 
 evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day that 
 thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. 
 ii. 16, 17. 
 
 Not one word here about his descendants, not 
 even a promise for obedience, but simply a penalty 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 49 
 
 for disobedience. The whole record shows that 
 there is entire silence as to any such tremendous 
 issues being involved as the federal theory de- 
 mands, and the story shows that Adam was ignorant 
 of them. 
 
 If Adam had raised children in the garden, their 
 personal obedience would have entitled to life, and 
 their disobedience would have wrought only per- 
 sonal ruin. 
 
 The Bible does not teach any thing as to the sin 
 of Adam, but the fact that depravity and all that it 
 implies comes to us as the result, not the penalty, of 
 Adam's sin. 
 
 The difference between the two theories is brought 
 out by a comparison of the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith with that of the Cumberland Presbyterian 
 Church. We quote from the Confession as adopted 
 by the founders of the church and from the Revised 
 Confession adopted in 1883. Cumberland Presby- 
 terians hold the " Medium Theology." 
 
 For convenience in making the comparison we 
 place them in parallel columns : 
 
 WESTMINSTER CON- CUMBERLAND ORIG- CUMBERLAND OF 
 FESS1ON. INAL. 
 
 "They being the "They being the "They being the 
 
 root of all mankind, root of all mankind, root of all mankind, 
 
 the guilt of this sin by their sin all were sin entered into the 
 
 was imputed, and made sinners, and world through their 
 
 the same death in sin the same death in act, and death by sin, 
 
 and corrupted nature sin, and corrupted and so death passed 
 
 conveyed to all their nature, conveyed to upon all men." Sec- 
 
 posterity, descending all their posterity, tion xviii. 
 
 from them by ordi- descending from 
 
 nary generation." them by ordinary 
 
 Chapter vi. Section generation." Chap- 
 
 iii. ter vi. Section iii. 
 
50 ATONEMENT. 
 
 WESTMINSTER CON- CUMBERLAND ORIG- CUMBERLAND OF 
 FESSION. INAL. 
 
 "The first cove- "The first coven- "The first coven- 
 
 nant made with man ant made with man ant made with man 
 
 was a covenant of was a covenant of was a covenant of 
 
 works, wherein life works, wherein life works, wherein life 
 
 was promised to was promised to was promised to 
 
 Adam, and in him Adam, and in him Adam upon condi- 
 
 to his posterity, upon to his posterity, upon tion of perfect and 
 
 condition of perfect condition of perfect personal obedience." 
 
 and personal obedi- and personal obedi- Section xxii. 
 
 ence." Chapter vii. ence." Chapter vii. 
 
 Section ii. Section ii. 
 
 The Bible teaching is set forth in the following 
 texts: 
 
 u For as by one man's disobedience many were 
 made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall 
 many be made righteous." Rom. v. 19. 
 
 ' ' Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the 
 world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon 
 all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. v. 12. 
 
 " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
 all be made alive." i Cor. xv. 22. 
 
 We believe these verses present fully all that the 
 Bible teaches as to the connection of his descendants 
 with Adam's sin. They embody nothing but what 
 is implied in the Natural Headship of Adam. Cer- 
 tainly the theory of imputation is not contained in 
 them. This will be more fully shown when we 
 come to consider death as a penalty. 
 
 SECTION II. Sin as Transgression. 
 
 Sin as transgression differs from sin as depravity. 
 The one exists as an inseparable part of man's 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 51 
 
 nature, and altogether apart from his own control; 
 the other requires an action of the will choosing in 
 opposition to a known rule of duty. 
 
 It is because of this last element that we deny 
 that sin as transgression, and purely as such, is fol- 
 lowed by suffering as a logical necessary conse- 
 quence. For. example, if a man commits theft, 
 what suffering follows the act as cause is followed 
 by effect f Absolutely none. If the person robbed, 
 or the government under which he lives, inflicts 
 punishment, it must be inflicted by them, if in- 
 flicted at all. This is a penalty, not a consequence. 
 Many a man has committed theft without suffering 
 for it in this life. There is not, and in the nature 
 of things, can not be, such suffering following 
 transgression as effect follows cause. If there were, 
 all punishment by law would be unjust. 
 
 That men sometimes suffer from their transgres- 
 sions is true; but it is an accident, not a necessary 
 consequence. Thus, disease sometimes follows 
 adultery, but this is the result of the physical condi- 
 tion, not of the sin. The same result follows from 
 the physical condition in honorable marriage. 
 
 Of course, some sins are violations of physical 
 laws, and this brings suffering; but for that very 
 reason it becomes a sin. There is no sin in eating, 
 but a vicious habit of eating to excess violates the 
 laws of health, and brings suffering. It then, but 
 not till then, becomes the sin of gluttony. 
 
 Cause and effect are immutable and inseparable. 
 There is no suffering in the experience of our race 
 that is inseparable from transgression. 
 
52 ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION III. Suffering as Consequence and as 
 Penalty. 
 
 It is important that we give a definite meaning 
 to the word penalty, as it is often used so loosely 
 as to become ambiguous. Webster defines it : 
 
 "i. Penal retribution; punishment for crime or 
 offense; the suffering in person or property which 
 is annexed by law or judicial decision to the com- 
 mission of a crime, offense, or trespass. 
 
 2. The suffering to which a person subjects him- 
 self, by covenant or agreement, in case of non-ful- 
 fillment of stipulations; forfeiture; fine." 
 
 A penalty is suffering, or loss, threatened for the 
 violation of a known rule of duty; and when en- 
 forced is always a positive infliction. 
 
 A penalty must never be confounded with a con- 
 sequence. Here is the fruitful source of confusion, 
 as it is often used in both senses by writers and 
 speakers without any discrimination. 
 
 A penalty and a consequence differ : 
 
 First. A consequence has the relation of effect to 
 cause; a penalty has no such relation. 
 
 Second. A consequence always follows the act; a 
 penalty may or may not. 
 
 Third. A consequence follows the act without 
 any intervention; a penalty requires the intervexi- 
 tion of an intelligent agent for its infliction. 
 
 Fourth. A consequence is inseparable from its 
 cause, and therefore can not be set aside or remitted ; 
 a penalty is separate and distinct, and may or may 
 not be remitted. 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 53 
 
 Fifth. A consequence can never be suffered vica- 
 riously, because cause and effect are inseparable; a 
 penalty may be borne vicariously, because it is pos- 
 sible to remit it. 
 
 Sixth. A man can only be saved from a conse- 
 quence by being saved from its cause, which is al- 
 ways a matter of power and not of grace ; a penalty 
 may be set aside, on just grounds, by the lawful 
 authority, and is always an act of grace. 
 
 .Sili as nature is followed by certain 
 .sill as transgression exposes to 
 
 Depravity and transgression are so closely joined 
 in our experience, that we shall find the suffering 
 connecting itself with depravity, so interwoven in 
 our experience with our sinful acts, that it will be 
 hard to recognize it as only a consequence of de- 
 pravity. 
 
 Before we leave this subject we may refer to the 
 use of the word punishment. In many ways it is 
 synonymous with penalty, but underlying it is the 
 thought of personal demerit linked with the suffer- 
 ing. For this reason it has been reprobated by 
 many of the best thinkers. Rev. Joseph Cook uses 
 the word "chastisement" instead of punishment 
 when speaking of the sufferings of Christ; but 
 chastisement is for the good of the person suffering, 
 and is, therefore, inapplicable to the sufferings of 
 Christ. 
 
 Penalty is the best word we can use, as it does not 
 express in itself the thought of personal demerit. 
 You can not truly punish an innocent man, but you 
 can execute upon him fat penalty of the law. A 
 
54 ATONEMENT. 
 
 punishment can not properly be borne vicariously; 
 a penalty may, as it indicates more the suffering 
 without reference to the demerit. A man who gets 
 drunk is fined ten dollars, this being the penalty for 
 the offense. A friend pays the fine, thus meeting, 
 or satisfying, the demand of the law vicariously 
 without any transfer of personal demerit. Penalty 
 is the word we have chosen. 
 
 SECTION IV. Death. 
 
 As this word is so closely connected with sin, it 
 demands a separate examination. It is presented 
 under three aspects in the Bible : 
 
 1. Physical Death. 
 
 2. Spiritual Death. 
 
 3. The Lake of Fire. 
 
 The central thought in every use of the word is 
 that of separation. 
 Physical death is the separation of soul and body. 
 
 "Let this child's soul come into him again. And 
 the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of 
 the child came into him again, and he revived" i 
 Kings xvii. 22, 23. 
 
 ' ' Willing rather to be absent from the body, and 
 to be present with the Lord." 2 Cor. vi. 8. 
 
 u Having a desire to depart and to be with Christ. ' ' 
 Phil. i. 23. 
 
 ' ' The time of my departure is at hand. " 2 Tim. 
 iv. 6. 
 
 Spiritual death is an immutable necessary con- 
 sequence of 3in. "God is light," and it is only in 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 55 
 
 the light that we can have communion with him. 
 (i John i. 5-7.) How can God sanction or have 
 fellowship with wrong-doing? It is simply impos- 
 sible. Sin, therefore, of necessity separates from 
 God. The divine holiness, which is u mainly sep- 
 aration from the impurity and sinfulness of the 
 creature, or expressed positively, the clearness and 
 purity of the divine nature, ' * excludes all commun- 
 ion with that which is sinful, and thus of logical 
 consequence sin separates. 
 
 " Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." 
 James i. 14. 
 
 This is the key to another difficulty the fact of 
 eternal punishment. Nowhere in the Bible is it 
 taught that eternal punishment is the penalty of sin 
 that is, it is nowhere said that if a man tell a lie 
 or is guilty of any other offense he will be punished 
 forever for it To insist that eternal punishment is 
 the penalty, involves us in hopeless confusion and 
 innumerable difficulties regarding the nature of 
 Christ's work for us. 
 
 Those who teach that eternal punishment is the 
 penalty of sin are driven to one of two positions in 
 defense of it, in order to avoid making the penalty 
 out of all proportion to the offense. 
 
 First. That sin being against an infinite God be- 
 comes infinite in demerit, and deserves, for that 
 reason, infinite suffering. 
 
 This fiction of infinite demerit is rank nonsense, 
 utterly unknown to the Scriptures and indefensible 
 at the bar of reason. It is usually coupled with 
 the explanation that Chrga-Sufeings were infinite 
 
56 ATONEMENT. 
 
 in degree, in the place of ours, which would have 
 been infinite in duration. 
 
 From any stand-point this is objectionable and but 
 serves to aid the enemies of religion to find argu- 
 ments against the truth. 
 
 (a) As it was only the human nature of Christ 
 that suffered, how could he as man have endured 
 suffering infinite in degree? The infinite has no 
 bounds. God would have had to work a miracle to 
 constitute his humanity equal to divinity before it 
 would be possible. 
 
 Anselm said : 
 
 " Such a penalty can only be paid by God him- 
 self, and as a penalty for man, must be paid under 
 the form of man. ' ' 
 
 This is logically sound, as it could only be paid by 
 God himself. If the words mean any thing they teach 
 that it was God who suffered, but this has been re- 
 jected by the church in all ages. The doctrine that 
 Christ's sufferings were infinite, logically carries 
 with it the necessity for God himself to endure the 
 suffering. 
 
 (ft) If sin is infinite demerit, to meet the claim a 
 divine person must die for every sinner. That is, 
 on the ground of an exact equivalent. If the sin 
 of each individual merits infinite suffering, as 
 Christ's sufferings can not be more than infinite, 
 they can only avail for one individual. 
 
 (c) If the demand is for infinite suffering, the 
 punishment must be infinite both in degree and du- 
 ration. The infinite knows no bounds. Infinity 
 and eternity are two very different things. 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 57 
 
 (d) The theory is in opposition to the Bible doc- 
 trine of degrees of punishment, which it logically 
 denies. 
 
 A finite being can never do any thing that merits 
 infinite punishment, that would be to reason that 
 the finite can produce the infinite. 
 
 Second. Others, to account for such a penalty as 
 eternal punishment, speak of the sinner as eternally 
 sinning, and, therefore, as eternally punished. This 
 also is without Bible authority and out of harmony 
 with the final triumph of right there revealed. 
 
 We believe that as the saved are raised above the 
 possibility of sin, the lost are sunk below it; and 
 that in hell God's power will be supreme, and 
 ' ' every knee shall bow. ' ' 
 
 All these difficulties are avoided when we see 
 that the eternity is no part of the penalty, but one 
 of the inevitable results of sin as nature. While a 
 sinful nature remains forever, sin as transgression 
 will cease. The eternity stands connected with the 
 nature as its consequence, because if it unfits for 
 heaven, the unfitness remains as long as the deprav- 
 ity endures. As God's provision for man's redemp- 
 tion has been rejected, and the depravity can not 
 be otherwise removed, the depraved nature eternally 
 separates from God. The penalty of sin is another 
 thing, admitting of degrees, the "many stripes" 
 or "the few." 
 
 There are usually very undefined views as to the 
 relation of physical death to law and penalty, 
 largely due to a failure to apprehend dispensational 
 truth. 
 
58 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The first penalty is found in Gen. ii. 17, and sug- 
 gests the question, What death is meant ? Those 
 who deny that it is corporeal, reason that Adam did 
 not die physically the day that he sinned. This, 
 however, overlooks the most precious lesson of the 
 fall. It was in Eden that the great truth of substi- 
 tution first appears. 
 
 The first effect of sin was that Adam saw that he 
 was naked; and we find him making for himself a 
 garment of fig-leaves. But when the voice of God 
 is heard, Adam is afraid; for he says : 
 
 "lam naked." 
 
 Yes, naked even with his fig-leaves. Fig-leaves 
 did well enough until he was called to go into God's 
 presence, and then he sees their worthlessness. ' ' I 
 am naked." Then comes the judgment in the 
 garden; but mingled with this judgment is the 
 precious promise of a Savior. No sooner does sin 
 appear than atonement is proclaimed. The seed of 
 the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, but it 
 shall bruise his heel. Victory gained by the Savior, 
 but victory through suffering, his heel will be 
 bruised. The heel only the lower part a sug- 
 gestion of the sufferings of his humanity. No 
 sooner is this blessed proclamation made than 
 Adam's faith grasps it; for we read that at once he 
 called his wife, as the mother of this promised seed, 
 Havvah (Eve) that is, ' ' life, " or " living.' ' How 
 suggestive all this as following so close upon the 
 promise! And then, as faith appropriates and 
 saves, instantly the Lord made them u coats of 
 skins." To provide these coats of skins, there 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 59 
 
 must have "been the death of the victim, the shed- 
 ding of the blood. Why was this blood shed? 
 Why did God make a coat of skins ? Why did it 
 follow so close upon the proclamation of the gospel 
 and Adam's expression of faith in that promise? 
 Because this blood was shed in the offering of a sac- 
 rifice. Thus, by the death of a substitute the same 
 day, Adam's life is spared. All this is harmonious. 
 If God is to save by a vicarious suffering, this would 
 be proclaimed in the garden, at least in type; and 
 so we find it in the coat of skins. Adam fell, but 
 the same day a Savior is preached to him; and 
 while he is banished from the garden, by faith in 
 that Savior he leaves it saved by the grace of God. 
 Substitution removes the difficulty, arising from 
 the fact that Adam did not die that day. 
 
 We hold the penalty threatened in the garden 
 was corporeal death. That it meant more we do 
 not believe the Bible teaches. Not one word can 
 be found that points beyond. Not one sentence 
 that to Adam was presented any other future than 
 life in Eden. It is purely an invention of the 
 schools. That corporeal death was meant is seen 
 in many Scriptures. 
 
 "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re- 
 turn." 
 
 Here in the repetition of the penalty the charac- 
 ter of the death is pointed out in language that can 
 not be misunderstood. 
 
 In the fifth chapter of Romans, Paul, speaking of 
 the fall and its effects on the race, presents three 
 things. 
 
60 ATONEMENT. 
 
 First. u By one man sin entered into the world." 
 
 This is depravity; and as the depraved nature 
 leads to the actual transgression, all sin may be thus 
 traced to its source in Adam. John goes beyond^ 
 tracing it back to the devil, with whom we have 
 the ' ' origin of evil. ' ' 
 
 Second. u And death by sin; and so death passed 
 upon all men, for that all have sinned." 
 
 This was the death he could point to as undenia- 
 bly reigning from Adam to Moses; and as this could 
 be done only of corporeal death, it indicates what 
 death is meant. The universal reign of death from 
 Adam to Moses showed that sin was universal, 
 even though they did not sin "after the similitude 
 of Adam's transgression," having no positive law. 
 
 Third. ( * Judgment was by one to condemnation ' ' 
 " upon all men to condemnation." 
 
 Death proclaimed the universal condemnation of 
 the race. This whole argument is obscure from any 
 other stand-point than that of corporeal death. The 
 truth is still further established by comparison with 
 parallel passages. 
 
 u For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
 all be made alive." i Cor. xv. 22. 
 
 Paul is speaking of the resurrection of the body; 
 that is his theme, and the death that stands con- 
 nected with this all must admit is corporeal. To 
 deny it is to deny the resurrection. 
 
 ' ' For since by man came death, by man came 
 also the resurrection of the dead" i Cor. xv. 21. 
 
 It is objected that corporeal death was in the 
 world before Adam, and for that reason death could 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 61 
 
 not be the result of his sin. But this is a failure 
 to discriminate. Death in the animal and vege- 
 table kingdom there undoubtedly was, for the 
 Bible speaks of Adam as eating fruit^ which im- 
 plies death; while the fossils found in the rocks, 
 even of the oldest secondary strata, tell beyond ques- 
 tion of animal death long before the advent of man. 
 Otherwise there could be no fossils. But the death 
 of an animal is very different from that of a plant. 
 A plant has life, an animal has more a soul. Not 
 an immortal soul, not a soul in the popular sense, 
 but still a soul a nephesh as the Bible often 
 affirms. For this reason the animal has instinct, 
 affection, memory, and will. Then its death is 
 different from that of the plant. Man not only has 
 with the animal a soul, but possesses an immortal 
 spirit. How very different is the meaning of death 
 when used of man because of this immortality and 
 because of what it leads to. There is nothing in 
 the Bible to warrant the assumption that the death 
 that came by man was entailed upon the beast for 
 Adam's sin. 
 
 That Adam was in any sense a different being 
 physically, is not probable, although possible, as 
 we can not tell what influence depravity has on the 
 human organism. The long lives of the antedilu- 
 vians, the sudden appearances and disappearances of 
 the Lord Jesus, indicate some changes, but how 
 great we can not say. It is sufficient to remember 
 that there was special provision needed for earthly 
 immortality as indicated by what is said of the tree 
 of life and the effect of its fruit. 
 
6s ATONEMENT. 
 
 Corporeal death, as the Scriptures quoted show, 
 was the penalty of Adam's sin; and because of that 
 sin, death has come upon the race of mankind. 
 This is all the Bible teaches. 
 
 It is by trying to make this a final sentence in- 
 volving the eternal issues, that theologians have 
 built up the dogma that all our race has been ad- 
 judged to eternal despair because of Adam's sin. 
 
 That this death was a shadow of the second is 
 true, but the second death it can not be, as that is 
 after the judgment. Spiritual death it could not 
 be, as that is never a penalty, but a consequence; 
 and the death threatened was administrative, the 
 governmental award for actual transgression. 
 
 This corporeal death was also provisional in its 
 character, introduced in the carrying out of the 
 final purposes of God for wise and benevolent rea- 
 sons checking the growth of wickedness, as seen 
 in the long lives of the antediluvians, and preparing 
 for the final bringing into the son's place in the 
 redemption of the body. 
 
 This provisional character of death must not be 
 forgotten; and when its mission has been accom- 
 plished, this first death shall come to an end. 
 
 "And death and hell (hades) were cast into the 
 lake of fire." 
 
 Coming to death under the law, it is important 
 that we have in mind the difference in dispensations. 
 The Jews, as such, were the earthly people, called 
 to an earthly inheritance, while the church consists 
 of the heavenly people, who are called to a heavenly 
 inheritance. The two callings are separate and 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 63 
 
 distinct, and give to each dispensation its distinctive 
 character. Nothing but confusion can come, if in 
 our expositions of the Scripture this dispensational 
 truth is overlooked. Long life, freedom from dis- 
 ease and earthly greatness, were promised as re- 
 wards for faithfulness; temporal calamities, disease, 
 and death, being inflicted for disobedience. The 
 passages that teach this are so numerous that it 
 seems needless to quote them. As blessings for 
 obedience, we read : 
 
 * ' If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice 
 of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his 
 
 commandments The Lord shall make thee 
 
 plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and 
 in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy 
 ground, in the land which the Lord sware unto thy 
 fathers to give thee. The Lord shall open unto 
 thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain 
 unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the 
 work of thine hand : and thou shalt lend unto many 
 nations, and thou shalt not borrow." Deut. xxviii. 
 1-14, etc. 
 
 On the other hand, as penalties for disobedience, 
 we read : 
 
 * ' Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the 
 fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the 
 
 flocks of thy sheep The Lord shall send 
 
 upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke 
 
 The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, 
 and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and 
 with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and 
 
64 ATONEMENT. 
 
 with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall 
 pursue thee until thou perish." Deut. xxviii. 
 
 15-68. 
 
 Passages like these can be quoted by the score in 
 proof of our statement as to the penalties and re- 
 wards of the earthly people. 
 
 The earthly character of the calling must not be 
 lost sight of. 
 
 ' c I have been young, and now am old, yet have I 
 not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed beg- 
 ging bread." Ps. xxxvii. 25. 
 
 Apply this, as it is generally done, to believers in 
 the present day, and it will lead to painful uncer- 
 tainty and doubt. It is a notorious fact that thou- 
 sands of the children of Christians have begged for 
 bread. What then of the promises to which the 
 psalmist refers so triumphantly? Their applica- 
 tion was to the Jew, to whom they were and are 
 fulfilled. Although cast off for a season, or rather 
 set aside from their place on the earth 
 
 u The gifts and calling of God are without re- 
 pentance." Rom. xi. 29. 
 
 Hence, they are to be grafted in again. In the 
 meantime in great measure they, as a people, are 
 finding the promises still verified, always so when 
 they are living obedient lives. How rare is it to 
 find a Jewish pauper ! What prosperity attends 
 them in business ! How even now they are lending 
 to many nations ! As the earthly people, they en- 
 joy a freedom from disease that other races are 
 strangers to, and longer lives than other people. 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 65 
 
 Statistics show this. Not to burden our pages with 
 side issues, the ecclesiastical registers of Prussia 
 show that while the average life of the Gentile is 
 thirty-four that of the Jew was forty-six; and this 
 in connection with the fact that the birth rate was 
 greater. 
 
 It is so very important that we distinguish this 
 earthly and heavenly calling, that we would say 
 there can be no sound exegesis without it. 
 
 Bach dispensation has its own distinctive char- 
 acter. That of law was designed to show the evil 
 of sin, and the utter ruin it had wrought. It was a 
 school-master to lead men to Christ. 
 
 v ' Wherefore then serveth the law ? It was added 
 because of transgressions, till the seed should come 
 to whom the promise was made." Gal. iii. 19. 
 
 ' ' Now we know that what things soever the law 
 saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that 
 every mouth may be stopped and all the world may 
 become guilty before God." Rom. iii. 19. 
 
 ' ' We were kept under the law, shut up to the 
 faith which should afterward be revealed* Where- 
 fore the law was our school-master to bring us unto 
 Christ." Gal. iii. 23, 24. 
 
 It was a great teaching dispensation, setting forth 
 in type and symbol man's ruin and sin, proclaiming 
 everywhere the universal condemnation of the race. 
 
 This being the design of the law, we may expect 
 that its rewards and penalties will have the same 
 character. This is the Bible thought, so that Paul 
 speaks of the law as ' 'the ministration of death, ' ' and 
 the "ministration of condemnation." This is obscure 
 6 
 
66 ATONEMENT. 
 
 unless we see that its penalty was physical death. 
 "This do and thou shalt live" not obtain heaven. 
 It was given for the administration of God's govern- 
 ment on the earth in the Theocracy. True, none 
 escaped death, but in this one fact is the great lesson 
 that ' ^ shuts us up ' ' to Christ. The law promised life 
 on the condition of obedience, but as there were no 
 "doers of the law," all died. Thus death con- 
 stantly proclaimed their utter ruin and condemna- 
 tion, and the worthlessness of their own righteous- 
 ness. On this view it was the means of reaching 
 the conscience on the broadest scale and of prepar- 
 ing men for the coming of Christ. 
 
 That the law speaks of the first death, not of the 
 second, is clear. In the very heart of the Ten Com- 
 mandments it is embodied : 
 
 ' ' That thy days may be long in the land. ' ' 
 A promise distinctly to the Jew, to whom u the 
 land " belonged, and the law was given. 
 
 When Moses is exhorting to obedience he urges 
 as a motive: 
 
 "That it may go well with thee and with thy 
 children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong 
 thy days on the earth. Dent. iv. 40; v. 16; vi. 3, 
 18; xii. 25, 28; xxii. 7; Eph. vi. 3, etc. 
 
 All through the Pentateuch, in all that is said of 
 law we find no mention of rewards and penalties 
 that indicate any reference to the eternal issues. 
 
 Such passages as Ezekiel xviii. 20-22 are made 
 plain by this exposition. The Hebrew had no word 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 67 
 
 for the self, hence the word nephesh (soul) was gen- 
 erally used. It is the word most generally trans- 
 lated "person." u Eight souls saved" is synony- 
 mous with eight persons. Soul should be trans- 
 lated "person" in Ezekiel, as a careful^ examin- 
 ation will show. "That soul shall be cut off," 
 means person. So " the soul that sinneth " is " the 
 person .that sinneth." Under law, all failure in 
 obedience incurred death, from which they were 
 saved, on repentance, by a sin-offering. 
 
 That this is the true idea of the penalty of the 
 law is confirmed by the New Testament : 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law, being made a curse for us, as it is written, 
 Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 
 iii. 13. 
 
 It was for this reason that we find death woven 
 and interwoven in every warp and web of the juris- 
 prudence of the Theocracy; and judgment after 
 judgment coming upon individuals and nations; 
 famine, pestilence, and wars are let loose and de- 
 stroy their millions; so that the dispensation was a 
 very carnival of death. All this is easily under- 
 stood if we recognize the true character of the pen- 
 alty of the law. The curse swept over the race, 
 and everywhere was heard the sound of lamentation 
 and woe. 
 
 4 ' The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants 
 thereof ; because they have transgressed the laws, 
 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting 
 covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the 
 
68 ATONEMENT. 
 
 earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: 
 therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, 
 and few men are left" Isa. xxiv. 5, 6. 
 
 The record shows that it was always so. When 
 Moses came down from the mount with the law in 
 his hand, the law that the people had covenanted to 
 obey (Ex. xix.), and finds them worshiping the 
 golden calf, he gives the command to execute the 
 penalty of the law. 
 
 ' ' And the children of Levi did according to the 
 word of Moses : and there fell of the people that 
 day about three iho^t.sand souls. " Ex. xxxii. 28. 
 
 In contrast, when Peter preached u about three 
 thousand ' ' are saved. Why under law do we find 
 death, corporeal death, so often being inflicted when 
 Israel sins, if it is not the penalty of the law ? 
 
 How different now ! 
 
 "Who hath abolished death, and hath brought 
 life and immortality to light through the gospel." 
 
 This does not mean that he has abolished it in 
 such a sense that men will not die, for its provis- 
 ional character still remains; but as penalty, as the 
 curse of the law, it is abolished. The "ministra- 
 tion of death" ceases. No more does it speak to 
 men as under law, while incorruptibility and life 
 have been brought to light made manifest their 
 full meaning proclaimed. The earthly gives place 
 to the heavenly, and the eternal issues are brought 
 into the forefront. 
 
 The penalty threatened in the garden and under 
 law that is, the penalty as specified death, must 
 not be confounded with the consequences of de- 
 
 t 
 
SIN AND PENALTY. 69 
 
 pravity on the one hand, or with those that will be 
 inflicted at the judgment on the other. These re- 
 main the same in every age. 
 
 Spiritual death being the consequence of deprav- 
 ity, all, in every age, experience it. 
 
 The penalties that will be inflicted at the judg- 
 ment are for men in every age, under law, or with- 
 out law. These will not be the infliction of a 
 penalty previously named, but such suffering or 
 loss as will be merited by each individual case, God 
 rendering to every man according to his deserts. 
 Hence, Christ can suffer without bearing either in 
 kind or degree what the sinner would have to bear. 
 Death, literal death, being a specific penalty of law 
 must be specifically borne; but beyond this, sub- 
 stitution only requires a suffering that meets the 
 demands of law, and this in the judgment will .be 
 determined by the lawgiver, and not by the law; 
 otherwise degrees of punishment would be impos- 
 sible. Therefore, the same divine Lawgiver, who 
 will * ' render ' ' to every man according to his deeds, 
 knew what to '''render" to Christ as the sinner's sub- 
 stitute, and in this rendering would estimate the 
 person of the substitute and all that was involved. 
 
 Unless we make this discrimination we have no 
 penalty for those who lived from Adam to Moses. 
 
 While the penalty in the garden and under the 
 law, in its governmental form, was corporeal death, 
 still in every age the eternal issues were involved 
 in the question of sin, and these were seen and ap- 
 prehended. Very dimly, it may be, but still seen, 
 so that death threw its shadow beyond the grave. 
 
;o ATONEMENT. 
 
 What was this shadow? i{ 'After death the judg- 
 ment. ' ' If the eternal issues had not been known, 
 there could have been no "ministration of death," 
 and death would have been simply the penalty of 
 criminal law. 
 
 As to the lake of fire, the second death, it will 
 be the final doom of the unsaved of every age. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 RESTITUTION, OR RETRIBUTION. 
 
 The Bible speaks of the anger and wrath of God 
 as enkindled against the sinner, for which reason 
 God must be propitiated. While we admit that 
 these terms when used of God are accommodated, 
 we insist that they express a reality and not a 
 myth. 
 
 SECTION I. The Reason for Suffering as 
 Penalty. 
 
 The Bible teaches that God's anger leads to the 
 infliction of suffering; which awakens the inquiry, 
 Why is this suffering inflicted ? The answers may 
 be reduced to three if we leave out that which 
 simply refers it to the sovereign good pleasure of 
 God. 
 
 First. That they are inflicted for the reformation 
 of the offender. 
 
 According to this, God's fatherly love leads him 
 to desire the good of his children; and if that good 
 needs suffering to secure it, then his fatherly love 
 will lead him to inflict it. This, of course, means 
 that all suffering is chastisement. Not to dwell 
 upon the question of the fatherhood of God, other 
 than to deny that the Bible ever affirms that rela- 
 
72 ATONEMENT. 
 
 tionship of a sinner, the theory that all punishment 
 is for the good of the offender is open to many 
 objections. 
 
 1. It makes the sufferings of Christ unmeaning 
 and unnecessary. They could not be vicarious, for 
 suffering inflicted on one person could not, as chast- 
 ening, influence another. If they were not vicari- 
 ous, they could not influence sinners. Unmeaning 
 suffering is no evidence of love, any more than sui- 
 cide would be. To require the death of Christ 
 simply for a moral effect upon the sinner, would be 
 an evidence of weakness in God's government. 
 
 2. Chastisement is referred in the Bible to the 
 love of God : 
 
 "Whom the I^ord loveth he chasteneth. " 
 But the penalties inflicted for sin are referred to 
 his anger. Hence, the theory involves a contra- 
 diction. 
 
 3. Chastisement, being for the good of the of- 
 fender, ought to be inflicted, therefore, if penalty 
 is chastisement; remission of the penalty would be 
 an injury, and therefore wrong. 
 
 4. If penalty is chastisement, eternal punishment 
 is impossible, for endless suffering can never be for 
 the good of the offender. As the Bible teaches 
 "eternal punishment," the theory is untenable. 
 
 5. The nature of the punishment precludes the 
 theory of chastisement. How can it be reconciled 
 with the flood and the cities of the plain ? 
 
 6. Suffering, as such, tends to harden the heart. 
 See, for example, the plagues of Egypt. 
 
RESTITUTION. 73 
 
 7. The Bible never affirms that penalty is for the 
 good of the offender. 
 
 Second. That the object is to deter from sin. 
 
 It has been often pointed out that this practically 
 reduces the justice, jealousy, and anger of God to 
 forms of benevolence; and this is in reality the 
 philosophy of its advocates. So also with the ex- 
 planation that it is for the good of the offender. 
 The question resolves itself into this : Is disinter- 
 ested benevolence the whole of virtue ? Dr. Hodge 
 says : 
 
 " i. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, 
 for example, natural paternal affection, are purely 
 instinctive, and have no positive moral character. 
 
 2. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, 
 such as the weak yielding of a judge to sympathy 
 with a guilty man or his friends are positively im- 
 moral. 
 
 3. There are virtuous principles incapable of 
 being resolved into disinterested benevolence, such 
 as proper prudential regard for one's own highest 
 good; aspiration and effort after personal excellence; 
 holy abhorrence of sin for its own sake; and just 
 punishment of sin in order to vindicate righte- 
 ousness. 
 
 4. The idea of oughtness is the essential constitu- 
 tive idea of virtue. No possible analysis of the idea of 
 benevolence will give the idea of moral obligation. 
 This is simple, unresolvable, ultimate. Oughtness 
 is the genus, and benevolence one of the species 
 comprehended in it." 
 
 We regard this as unanswerable, and as showing 
 that the fundamental philosophy of these theories 
 is unsound. 
 
74 ATONEMENT. 
 
 If the object of suffering is to deter others, what 
 of the sufferings of Christ? If there is no real de- 
 mand for them, if they are not vicarious, then they 
 can never strengthen government. It is only when 
 the suffering is known to be justly inflicted that it 
 strengthens. To take an innocent citizen and hang 
 him, when it is known that he is innocent, will 
 never deter from crime. It would be an evidence 
 of weakness destructive to the government, because 
 it would be a failure to recognize moral distinctions. 
 Yet on the governmental theory, this is all that can 
 be made of the sufferings of Christ. He did not 
 suffer for any wrong he himself had done. The 
 sufferings were not to meet any demand in the 
 divine nature. They were then unmeaning. 
 
 Third. That the penalty is the necessary alterna- 
 tive of the demand for restitution. 
 
 All seeming difficulties grow out of the assump- 
 tion that suffering inflicted purely as penalty is 
 wrong. If this is true, all penalty should be abol- 
 ished. Underlying the idea of penalty is the de- 
 mand for restitution, retribution being the only 
 alternative in a moral government when restitution 
 is not made. 
 
 " If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill 
 it or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and 
 four sheep for a sheep. 
 
 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smit- 
 ten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for 
 him. 
 
 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood 
 
RESTITUTION. 75 
 
 shed for him; for he should make full restitution; 
 if he have nothing, then he' shall be sold for his 
 theft. 
 
 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, 
 whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore 
 double."- Ex. xxii. 1-4, etc. 
 
 These and similar texts bring out some very im- 
 portant and fundamental Bible principles, and such 
 as bear directly on penalty. 
 
 1. The general principle of restitution. This all 
 will accept as right. If a man does wrong, all be- 
 lieve he should right the wrong. 
 
 2. That in making restitution, more is required 
 than the simple return of the thing taken or its 
 equivalent. Why is this? The answer can only 
 be that in some way this was necessary to full res- 
 titution. Theft is not only an offense against the 
 individual, but is a menace to the government, a 
 contempt for law, and an interference with the peace 
 and security of society. Therefore, the insult to 
 law must be wiped out, the stability of the govern- 
 ment must be vindicated, and society must be 
 assured that its rights shall be respected. Hence, a 
 demand for restitution. If these last elements are 
 ignored, the man's wrong has not been righted, 
 reparation has not been made. This is the prin- 
 ciple, and we 'find it carried out by Zacchaeus, when 
 he said : 
 
 " If I have taken any thing from any man by 
 false accusation, I restore him fourfold." 
 
76 ATONEMENT. 
 
 3. Where there is failure to make restitution, it 
 exposes to privation and loss. A thief was to be 
 sold. 
 
 Here, and by divine authority, is the foundation 
 of all penalty. Restitution, or retribution, the al- 
 ternatives of law, the only way in which the maj- 
 esty of the law can be vindicated or government 
 sustained. If restitution is not made, to ignore the 
 offense is to consent thereunto, and bring ruin to the 
 government, the only possible alternative being the 
 infliction of a penalty. The denial of this principle 
 is anarchism. 
 
 4 ' Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ? 
 God forbid ; for then how can God judge the world ?' ' 
 Rom. iii. 5. 
 
 Having shown the principle, we are ready to 
 answer the question, Do the Scriptures teach retri- 
 bution ? Is there a penalty for sin distinct from its 
 inevitable consequences, to be inflicted upon the 
 wrong-doer in the future ? 
 
 Before we answer directly, we will investigate a 
 subject bearing upon it, the doctrine that the pen- 
 alty of sin is "remorse of conscience." 
 
 (a) There is no scripture for the theory, neither 
 can Bible statements be harmonized with it. 
 
 (b] Our experiences as to conscience show that 
 the greatest sinner is punished the ^least on this 
 theory. The fact is undeniable that as men increase 
 in wickedness the lashing of conscience becomes 
 less severe, men reaching at last a condition when 
 they are u past feeling," and their consciences 
 
RESTITUTION. 
 
 77 
 
 " seared as with a hot iron." A moral citizen ex- 
 periences more remorse than a hardened criminal, 
 (f) Conscience is not infallible as a guide, and 
 its condemnations and approvals are no criterion of 
 the Tightness or wrongness of an act. Many a man 
 has suffered compunction of conscience for doing 
 what, when more fully enlightened, he has seen to 
 be right. For this reason, if remorse is the penalty 
 of sin, it is often endured by those who are innocent 
 of wrong. If penalty followed as cause and effect, 
 conscience would be infallible as a guide. 
 
 (d) If this is the penalty, it is inflicted after sin 
 has been pardoned, as the experience of believers 
 will show. 
 
 (e) If remorse is the penalty, then hell is not a 
 place, but simply a mental state; and to be turned 
 into hell is synonymous with being turned into 
 one's self. 
 
 Some consequences are immutably connected 
 with sin, such as separation from God; others 
 are not, because they depend upon other factors. 
 Thus, the rule in this life is that as sin increases, 
 conscience is weakened. This is the law in our ex- 
 perience. To have an aroused conscience, God 
 must act by vivifying, as in the case of the 
 awakened sinner; or it must be aroused by the 
 judgments that overtake the wrong-doer. 
 
 SECTION II. That God will avenge Wrong- 
 doing is clearly taught in those Scriptures that 
 speak of his vengeance. 
 
 "Tome belongeth vengeance, and recompense; 
 their foot shall slide in due time : for the day of his 
 
78 ATONEMENT. 
 
 calamity is at hand, and the things that come upon 
 them make haste." Dent, xxxii. 35. 
 
 U O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O 
 God to whom vengeance belongeth, show thyself." 
 Ps. xciv. i (and following verses). 
 
 " For jealousy is the rage of a man; therefore he 
 will not spare in the day of vengeance. " Prov. 
 vi. 34. 
 
 "For the indignation of the Lord is upon all 
 nations, and his fury upon all their armies; he hath 
 
 utterly destroyed them For it is the day of 
 
 the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recom- 
 penses." Isa. xxxiv. 3, 4. 
 
 ' ' I will tread them in mine anger, and trample 
 them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled 
 upon my garments, and I will stain all my rai- 
 ments." Isa. Ixiii. 3, 4. 
 
 "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place 
 unto wrath, for it is written, 'vengeance is mine; 
 I will repay, saith the Lord.' " Rom. xii. 19. 
 
 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities 
 about them in like manner, giving themselves over 
 to fornification, and going after strange flesh, are 
 set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of 
 eternal fire." Jude vii. 
 
 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that 
 know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with 
 everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
 Lord, and from the glory of his power." 2 Thess. 
 i. 8, 9. 
 
RESTITUTION. 
 
 79 
 
 "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recom- 
 pense, saith the L/ord; and again the Lord shall 
 judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into 
 the hands of the living God." Heb. x. 30, 31. 
 
 These scriptures point to a future retribution, a 
 positive infliction of suffering upon the wrong-doer. 
 See also Isa. xxxv. 4; Ivii. 3; lix. 17; Jer. 1. 15- 
 28; li. 6; Ezek. xxv. 14; xxv. 17; Nahum i. 2; 
 Mi call v. 15, etc. 
 
 SECTION III. That God will avenge Wrong- 
 doing on the person of the offender, is taught in 
 those Scriptures that announce a judgment. 
 
 " It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom 
 in the day of judgment, than for thee." Matt. 
 xi. 24. 
 
 "But a certain fearful looking for of judgment 
 and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adver- 
 saries." Heb. x. 27. 
 
 " It is appointed unto men once to die, but after 
 this the judgment." Heb. ix. 27. 
 
 ' To reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, 
 to be punished" 2 Peter ii. 9. 
 
 " Reserved unto fire against the day of judgment 
 and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter iii. 7. 
 
 "And they were judged every man according to 
 their works ... was cast into the lake of fire." 
 ' This is the second death." Rev. xx. 13-15. 
 
 It must be plain from this class of texts, that the 
 Bible teaches a future retribution, a positive inflic- 
 tion of suffering. 
 
80 ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION IV. That God will punish sin, and 
 that this will be a positive infliction, distinct from 
 the consequences of depravity, is taught in many 
 Scriptures. 
 
 (a) It is implied in the language describing the 
 penalty. 
 
 "Cast into hell fire." Matt, xviii. 8. 
 
 "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
 fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matt. 
 xxv. 41. 
 
 "The rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being 
 in torment." Luke xvi. 23. 
 
 (b) It is implied in every text that speaks of delay 
 in punishing. 
 
 ' ' Because sentence against an evil work is not 
 executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons 
 of men is fully set in them to do evil." Keel, 
 viii. ii. 
 
 ' ' Cut it down ; why cumbereth it the ground ? ' ' 
 Luke xiii. 7. 
 
 (c) It is implied in all scriptures which speak of 
 this as a day of grace and not of judgment. 
 
 If sin is punished by inevitable consequence, 
 then it is not grace; but judgment, constantly in- 
 flicting suffering. Grace and judgment are govern- 
 mental terms, and stand connected with those sins 
 that are the result of our free volitions. They 
 would be out of place as connected either with cor- 
 ruption or fitness for heaven, as these are not the 
 result of will. They can only apply where penalty 
 may or may not be inflicted. 
 
RESTITUTION. 81 
 
 (d) It is implied in every text that speaks of the 
 remission of sins. 
 
 If the punishment of sin has the relation of effect 
 to cause, sins committed are always punished. Sin 
 that is punished is never remitted. Sins not com- 
 mitted can not be remitted; that is an absurdity. 
 Deliverance from depravity must never be con- 
 founded with remission, or pardon. There can be 
 no remission where no wrong has been done; and 
 if the wrong has been punished it is not forgiven. 
 We know that this same argument is urged against 
 substitution that if Christ suffered the exact 
 equivalent of the sufferings of the saved, then their 
 sin being punished is not remitted. We admit the 
 force of the objection against the "bargain and 
 sale ' ' theory, but not holding this, it has no force 
 against the substitution advocated in these pages. 
 
 We have not exhausted the argument, but believe 
 that we have established, or rather demonstrated, 
 that there is a retribution for transgression that is, 
 a positive infliction, and from which we may be 
 saved by the work of the L,ord Jesus. 
 
 The Bible uses figurative language, because we 
 can not fully comprehend the nature of the suffer- 
 ings. If they were such as are experienced by 
 men here, the Bible would have so presented them, 
 as there would have been no use for figurative lan- 
 guage. The effort to define the nature of these 
 sufferings always leads to difficulties. The fact is 
 revealed, and that must suffice. 
 
 Much labor has been expended to break the force 
 of these scriptures, an^^TOBii^em that to many 
 7 
 
82 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the infliction of pain, or retribution, is a defect in 
 the divine nature to be apologized for. Such senti- 
 mentality is destructive to all virtue and reverence 
 for God. 
 
 When we recognize that our "God is light," and 
 a "consuming fire," as fully as we recognize that 
 .he is love; when we insist upon a future retribution, 
 as not only possible, but as right, the teaching of 
 'the Bib-e will be more honored by men. Is not 
 just here one of the weaknesses of the modern pul- 
 pit the fruitful source of that lack of reverence 
 and godly fear that is inseparable from a strong 
 'Christian life ? 
 
 From the examination we have thus made of the 
 nature and attributes of God, of sin and penalty 
 .and retribution, we see why atonement was needed. 
 The need was twofold. 
 
 First. Sin as nature, separating as it does from 
 God, and unfitting for heaven, presents an absolute 
 need that must be met before men can be saved. 
 Depravity must be removed, or there can be no 
 heaven for man. This need is met by the imparta- 
 tion of Christ's resurrection life. By this vital 
 union, which is the result of personal faith, we are 
 redeemed from the corruption, and thus from its 
 results. 
 
 Second. Sin as transgression, with a future judg- 
 ment for the deeds done in the body, presents an- 
 other need, no less imperative than the first. Even 
 if redeemed from the evil nature, past sins would 
 have to be atoned for. Paying to-day's debts will 
 not wipe out yesterday's score, nor will honesty to- 
 
RESTITUTION. 83 
 
 day meet the demand of law for the crime of yes- 
 terday. Restitution is still demanded. God's pro- 
 vision for this need is to be found in the death and 
 sufferings of the Lord Jesus. A vicarious sacrifice 
 that fully meets the demands of God, and saves 
 from the judgment and all that it implies. 
 
 The need for an atonement is imperative. 
 
 ' ' For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
 ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." 
 
 ' ' Ye must be born again. ' ' 
 
 That redemption from the sinful nature is suffi- 
 cient for -salvation is only tenable on one of two 
 suppositions. Either that the nature necessitates 
 the transgression, or that the consequences of sin is 
 the penalty. This last we have already considered, 
 and the first is equally untenable. In the judgment 
 God will u render to every man according to his 
 deeds" Nature is never brought into judgment. 
 If sin was necessitated by the nature, judgment 
 would be impossible, unless man was responsible 
 for the nature. 
 
 Every man knows that he need not do wrong, 
 that not to do it is always possible. This con- 
 sciousness of freedom never connects itself with 
 what is necessitated. This conviction of freedom 
 is confirmed by the voice of God and of conscience. 
 It is the universal intuition of the race. 
 
 It is not possible to meet the need on any ground 
 known to reason without atonement. 
 
 "The Son of man must be lifted up." 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 One of the most striking features of Bible teach- 
 ing is the peculiar personality of the L,ord Jesus. 
 He has impressed himself upon the world as no 
 other ever -did. 
 
 All history and philosophy, the rise and fall of 
 nations, the progress and development of the race, 
 stand so connected with him, that he is the Sun of 
 our Race, the Day-star of Mankind. 
 
 What wonder that in the early days of Christian- 
 ity men should be occupied more with the Person 
 than with the work of Christ, especially when we 
 remember that the Bible demands, not that we as- 
 sent to a creed, or believe certain facts or dogmas, 
 but that we have faith in a person ? This has 
 been God's plan of salvation in every age. The 
 truth as to the Person may have been seen but 
 dimly through type and symbol, or fully revealed 
 in the New Testament; but it is the same Person, 
 and the same faith, that saves. As the Lamb 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 85 
 
 slain from the foundation of the world, he has been 
 proclaimed in every land and age, and the eyes of 
 all men have been turned to him for salvation. 
 The old patriarch, Job, in the triumph of this faith, 
 declares : 
 
 " I know that my Redeemer liveth;" 
 while Abraham rejoiced to see his day. 
 
 What is the Bible statement about the Person of 
 Christ? Of course our answer will discuss the 
 question only as it bears upon the atonement. 
 Three points are embraced in the Bible statement. 
 
 First. That he was a perfect man, bone of our 
 bone, and flesh of our flesh, possessing a material 
 body and a rational human soul. 
 
 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and 
 in favor with God and man." Luke ii. 52. 
 
 Second. That he was very God. 
 
 4 ; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God." John i. i. 
 
 Third. That he was but one person. The Bible 
 does not teach that he was God and a man, but that 
 such was the mysterious nature of the union be- 
 tween the two natures that he was one person, the 
 object of faith and worship for his people. We 
 find that between the Father and the Son, a relative 
 and personal distinction exists, indicated by the use 
 of the personal pronoun. No such distinction is 
 ever made between the human and divine nature of 
 Christ. The unity of the person is an essential part 
 of Bible teaching. What bearing has the truth 
 of the Person on atonement ? 
 
86 ATONEMENT. 
 
 i 
 
 SECTION I. The Humanity of Christ. 
 
 The popular idea of the work of Christ is that 
 he came to restore what had been lost in Adam. 
 Thus by bearing the penalty of sin, he meets the 
 demand of justice, and by his law keeping he pro- 
 vides a righteousness for us that entitles us to the 
 reward that Adam forfeited. 
 
 This, of necessity, leads to a view of the human- 
 ity of Christ that obscures the moral glory of his 
 person, and belittles the work he has done for us. 
 If Christ rendered a vicarious obedience, then his 
 humanity must have been like Adam's, fallen or 
 unfallen. 
 
 Some hold that Christ's humanity corresponded 
 to that of Adam before he sinned. But Adam's 
 was a state of innocence. To him, with his expe- 
 riences, the moral law would have been unmeaning. 
 Not having a knowledge of good and evil, his was 
 pure innocency. Christ's humanity differs from 
 this, for he clearly saw the nature and evil of sin, 
 and fully comprehended the meaning of the moral 
 law. Adam would not have stood for one day with 
 the surroundings that Christ had. 
 
 Others, seeing the logical inconsistency of affirm- 
 ing that Christ's human nature existed in the same 
 state of innocency as that of Adam, hold that he 
 was made with all the infirmities and sinful dispo- 
 sitions of Adam's descendants, but without actual 
 sin. This was the doctrine of Irving, who, how- 
 ever, taught that Christ was delivered from this 
 depravity by the inner energy of the Holy Ghost; 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 87 
 
 and, having wrought out his own deliverance, he 
 is able to save others. 
 
 The great objection to either of the above views 
 of Christ's humanity is that they ignore the divin- 
 ity and the unity of his personality. 
 
 Two extremes are to be avoided ; the error of the 
 Nestorians on the one hand, and that of the Euty- 
 chians on the other. The Nestorians divided the 
 persons, thus practically denying the divinity of 
 Christ. To make Christ as man one person, and 
 Christ as God another, throws every thing into con- 
 fusion. The Eutychians, on the other hand, so 
 confused the two natures as to destroy both, making 
 a union that was neither God nor man, but the 
 product of both. The Bible teaching indicates that 
 the truth is midway between the two. 
 
 If there is a real unity between the divinity and 
 the humanity of Christ, in virtue of such union 
 Christ's humanity must have a character distinctly 
 its own. Hence, it was neither innocent nor fallen, 
 but pre-eminently holy. Theologians often speak 
 of Adam as holy, as Dr. Hodge does, in what we 
 have quoted from him about the Federal Headship. 
 But the Bible never affirms that Adam was holy; 
 nor does it of any one but Christ, other than in a 
 ritual sense. In Luke i. 35 we read: 
 
 ' ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee ; and the 
 power of the highest shall overshadow thee : there- 
 fore also that holy thing which shall be born of 
 thee shall be called the Son of God." 
 
 While born of a woman, and thus truly a man, 
 there was a divine action in his birth that distin- 
 
88 ATONEMENT. 
 
 guished him from from all others, and in virtue of 
 which he is that ' ' holy thing. ' ' The ' ' Holy One ' ' 
 is the distinctive title of Christ. 
 
 It is strange that the contrast in the humanity of 
 Christ and Adam is not more clearly seen. 
 
 "The first Adam was made a living soul, the last 
 Adam a quickening spirit" 
 
 "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the 
 second man was the L,ord from heaven. ' ' 
 
 Wonderful contrast ! What glorious blessings it 
 indicates for the Christian ! Paul, quoting the 
 language of an Old Testament saint, says : 
 
 " Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have 
 entered the heart of man, the things that God hath 
 prepared for them that love him." 
 
 And then, as standing upon the top of the mount- 
 ain, with a reach of vision far beyond that of the 
 old prophet, he breaks out : 
 
 * ' God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit. ' ' 
 
 May we be so led by the Savior in this investi- 
 gation that the flood-gates of glory may be lifted 
 and our eyes opened to see how glorious it is to be 
 a Christian ! 
 
 Several consequences follow from the holiness of 
 Christ's humanity. 
 
 First. Being holy, he was not in a state of pro- 
 bation similar to that of Adam. 
 
 Second. Adam in innocence, as the result showed, 
 was liable to fall. No such liability belonged to 
 Christ. 
 
 Third. Therefore, the temptations of Jesus were 
 not tests, as if there were a possibility of his yield- 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 89 
 
 ing, but were for the purpose of manifesting the 
 glory and the holiness of his nature. The popular 
 thought is that because Adam was tempted and 
 fell, Christ must be tempted and under the same 
 conditions. Of course, this is a logical consequence 
 of the theory of a vicarious obedience. It is, to 
 say the least, a very low view of the person and 
 work of Christ. 
 
 The temptations of Jesus bring out the perfec- 
 tions of his manhood; able to meet the demand for 
 a victim "without blemish." This makes plain 
 why ' ' he suffered being tempted. ' ' Not after 
 being tempted, but being tempted. 
 
 To Adam in innocence there was no suffering; 
 but a holy manhood suffers. True, 
 
 u He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet 
 without sin." 
 
 But if the words in italics, supplied by the trans- 
 lators, are left out, it will be seen how carefully the 
 Bible guards this point. Sin as depravity, being a 
 tendency or bias, in the direction of evil, there is 
 always the inner response in our experience when 
 we are tempted. We couple this response or lust 
 with the temptation ; in fact, we never call it temp- 
 tation unless this inner response is there, and are 
 apt to think of Christ (and Adam) as thus tempted. 
 But this is to deny the moral glory of his person. 
 He was tempted that is, tried but it was expressly 
 ' ' without sin. ' ' The Greek reads : 
 
 xa /jtotor/jra 
 
 .^ {pepeiramenon de kata panta kath, 
 homoioteeta chooris hamartias.} Heb. iv. 15. 
 
90 ATONEMENT. 
 
 4 ' But tempted in all things in the same likeness, 
 sin apart, " or, " apart from sin. ' ' 
 
 The thought is that Christ did not have this lust 
 or inner response. Hence he suffered, being tempted, 
 and thus can sympathize with us in our infirmities. 
 His ' ' suffering ' ' (like the cry of agony in the gar- 
 den), was the result of the weakness of humanity. 
 By entering into this he is able to sympathize, not 
 with our sins, nor with our lust God forbid ! But 
 he is able to "be touched with the feeling of our 
 infirmities" Not moral infirmities perish the 
 thought; but bodily infirmities, or weaknesses. 
 (daOsvsea, astheneia, is translated, "infirmities," 
 ( ' weakness, " " sickness, ' ' but is never used in a 
 moral sense.) 
 
 Fourth. There was no necessity of death, his 
 death being purely voluntary. As human, he could 
 die, but that he must die the Bible does not teach. 
 If he only anticipated the natural course of events 
 by his death upon the cross, the force and meaning 
 of that death is largely lost. Thus Jesus says : 
 
 U I have power (ssouaia, right or title) to lay 
 down my life and power to take it again. ' ' 
 
 None but Jesus, and he only as divine, could use 
 such words as these. They imply freedom from the 
 necessity of death, and a voluntary yielding of 
 himself to it. Who but Jesus could in death yield 
 up or dismiss his spirit ? Again in Philippians we 
 read : 
 
 "And being found in fashion as a man, he hum- 
 bled himself, and became obedient unto death, even 
 the death of the cross." Phil. ii. 8. 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 91 
 
 How clearly this shows that he was exempt from 
 the necessity of death. As a man he became 
 "obedient unto death." Obedience implies sub- 
 mission. No other person but Christ ever thus 
 submitted to death. 
 
 Death had no claim upon him; and when, there- 
 fore, he voluntarily submitted to death, he could 
 not be held by it; but breaking the bands of death, 
 he rose triumphant, conquering and to conquer, 
 bringing a "multitude of captives with him." 
 Eph. iv. 
 
 ' Therefore doth my Father love me, because I 
 lay down my life that I might take it again. 
 
 SECTION II. The Divinity of Christ as connected 
 with penalty. 
 
 The divinity of Christ is plainly taught in the 
 Bible in such texts as John i. i, already quoted, or 
 Rom. ix. v. 
 
 "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, 
 who is over all, God blessed for ever." 
 
 This last being one of the strongest and most 
 explicit statements of divine supremacy to be found 
 in the New Testament. 
 
 The divinity of Christ connects itself with atone- 
 ment in two relations, as connected with sin bearing 
 and with righteousness. 
 
 We believe it to be true that in every age the ad- 
 vocates of a vicarious atonement have emphasized 
 the truth of the divinity of Christ, while the ten- 
 dency of other theories has been to deny it. The 
 reason is obvious. On no other theory is there a 
 rational necessity for it. 
 
92 ATONEMENT. 
 
 It is not our intention to define the extent of the 
 sufferings that sin demands or merits (even if pos- 
 sible) other than to say we find no Scripture author- 
 ity for the idea of ' ' infinite demerit " or u infinite 
 sin." 
 
 Ours is a material world. We possess material 
 bodies, and such is the connection between mind 
 and matter that we are limited by our surroundings 
 in every way. God's moral government, so far as 
 we are concerned, stands connected with this limited 
 sphere. The great moral law is administrative, 
 designed to regulate the conduct of men to each 
 other and their treatment of God on the earth. 
 Human laws are but the expression of the great 
 moral law, and the powers that be are ordained for 
 its administration. Human law does not bind the 
 conscience only as it is founded upon divine law, 
 for which reason anarchy is the logical outcome of 
 atheism. Human penalties are founded upon the 
 divine, and so far as the divine are administrative, 
 God may be said in some degree to be punishing 
 sin through human administrations. All this has 
 respect to transgression; depravity and its conse- 
 quences being out of the sphere of the legal and 
 the administrative. 
 
 Eternity will reveal a demerit in sin that we see 
 nothing of, but our accountability can not be meas- 
 ured by it. Limited on every side by our material 
 surroundings, as a logical consequence our sin and 
 our accountability must be limited by it also. If 
 those who sinned without law are to be judged 
 without law, then those who sin without the spirit- 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 93 
 
 ual understanding of another world will be judged 
 by the light they have. Nothing else would be 
 just. The Scriptures do not teach that our respon- 
 sibility, and the penalties that sin will be visited 
 with, are measured by any other standard than those 
 God has given to men. 
 
 u It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Go- 
 morrah, in the day of judgment, than for thee." 
 Matt xi. 24. 
 
 This shows that the degree of light measures the 
 accountability. If so, the idea of infinite suffering 
 can have no place. 
 
 While it is not a subject that the Bible deals 
 with, it is reasonable to suppose that sufferings al- 
 ready endured upon earth, may be considered when 
 the judge shall be rendering to every man according 
 to his deeds. 
 
 We do not believe that the penalties for sin as 
 transgression are eternal, for in the governmental 
 awards of the judgment there will be the "many 
 stripes ' ' and the ' ' few. ' ' But the consequences of 
 depravity go on for ever, because between sin as 
 depravity and a holy God there must be eternal 
 separation. How we can justly suffer forever for 
 what we can not help may seem hard to understand; 
 it is, however, a fact, that a corrupt nature entails 
 upon us suffering here. If we suffer here, this 
 suffering must remain forever unless the depravity 
 is removed. If depravity has been inherited with- 
 out any volition on our part, it must be remembered 
 that provision has been made for its removal with- 
 out our volition also. This provision is as extensive 
 
94 ATONEMENT. 
 
 as the need, so that none need be lost. If any 
 suffer it is not because they must, but because of 
 their willful mad rejection of Christ. 
 
 When we pass into eternity we enter upon other 
 conditions. Is it not because of this difference of 
 surroundings, and, therefore, the difference in the 
 nature and guilt of sin, that while for man salvation 
 is provided, for devils there is none ? A pure spirit, 
 without the limitations of a material body, may sin 
 so that the demerit excludes the possibility of sal- 
 vation; otherwise salvation would be provided for 
 the angels who kept not their first estate. This in- 
 dicates why men must be saved in time and not in 
 eternity. 
 
 It is possible that the sufferings and grace mani- 
 fested in this world may affect spiritual intelligences 
 in all worlds, and add to their adoration of the 
 Godhead. Christ's work may exert an influence 
 on millions of worlds. An influence so vast that 
 God may be glorified even in the lost. 
 
 It may be objected to the position that the pen- 
 alties of transgression are not eternal, that Matt. 
 xxv. 46 says : 
 
 ' ' These shall go away into everlasting punish- 
 ment. ' * 
 
 First. The language does not imply a positive 
 infliction, but a state or condition u go away into." 
 This points to its being a consequence, not a 
 penalty. 
 
 Second. The word translated "punishment" 
 would better express the idea of the suffering re- 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 95 
 
 suiting from depravity than a penalty. The Greek 
 word used is K6hJ.m$ (Kolasis). Liddell and Scott 
 give its meaning as : 
 
 "A pruning; hence a checking, punishing, chas- 
 tisement, correction, punishment." 
 
 Archbishop Trench, in his ( ' Synonyms of the 
 New Testament," thus distinguishes between 
 %0/jlmz (kolasis) and Tiptopta (timooria). 
 
 u ln Ttiuopia, according to its classical use, the 
 vindictive character of the punishment is the prom- 
 inent thought; it is the Latin 'ultio;' punishment 
 as satisfying the inflictor's sense of outraged justice, 
 as defending his own honor and that of the violated 
 law ..... in jo/ttfffc, on the other hand, is more 
 the notion of punishment as it has reference to the 
 correction and bettering of him that endures it." 
 
 The Archbishop, however, shows that in Hellen- 
 istic Greek the word acquires a severer sense, refer- 
 ring to many authors in proof. After a full exam- 
 ination of the word we find that it expresses several 
 ideas, (a) Pruning or cutting off. (b) Checking 
 or restraint, (c) Suffering. It designates, there- 
 fore, the condition of the lost as one of everlasting 
 suffering, in a condition of restraint as separated 
 from God. This is the inevitable consequence of 
 depravity if we enter eternity unredeemed. 
 
 The penalties of transgression are not fixed by 
 any legal enactment, as those of men are by human 
 laws, or as death was the penalty threatened in the 
 garden. The demerit of different lives is not the 
 same; and if God renders to every man " according 
 to his deeds" the demerit of each must receive a 
 
96 ATONEMENT. 
 
 different award. If the penalty, like those of hu- 
 man laws, was legal and specific, then Christ would 
 have to bear the very thing to save us. For this 
 reason, he had to die, because death was the legal 
 penalty of the Mosaic law. He had to endure the 
 hidings of the Father's face, because sin separates; 
 and in taking the sinners' place he had to take this 
 place of separation. Beyond this the Bible is 
 silent. 
 
 It may be that this was all that Christ suffered ; 
 at any rate, we have no scripture for any thing 
 beyond. 
 
 The following are points indicated as to Christ's 
 work for us. 
 
 First. That the ground of the substitution is 
 primarily the sovereign will of God, who, of his 
 own goodness, was pleased to plan and accept it. 
 There is nothing in the nature of law or penalty 
 that allows substitution as a matter of right. 
 
 Nothing, therefore, but the goodness and mercy 
 of God can be asserted as the ground on which it 
 is permitted. The fact can never be known by 
 reason, being purely a matter of revelation and 
 faith. 
 
 Second. The sufferings of Christ are of infinite 
 value, not because infinite suffering was demanded 
 as satisfaction, but of pure necessity, because of the 
 divinity of his Person. 
 
 As no creature can make restitution, because 
 none can do more than fulfill the end of their 
 being, none but God himself could make satisfac- 
 tion. But Christ, as divine, could not have suffered 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 97 
 
 without those sufferings having an infinite value, 
 and hence, instead of relaxation God being pleased 
 to accept a part for the whole they are in reality 
 the substitution of that which has infinite value in 
 the place of finite suffering. It is because of this 
 infinite value, so far beyond the mere commercial 
 idea of an exact equivalent, that God's mercy goes 
 out to all, and untold blessings come upon the un- 
 saved. 
 
 Third. God having of his own sovereign will 
 given Christ to be our substitute, his death necessa- 
 rily involved no criminality. 
 
 Fourth. The ground in justice of this substitu- 
 tion is the vital union of the believers and Christ. 
 This union is such that as one he can die for us, the 
 sufferings being his and the criminality ours. This 
 will be discussed at length in our next chapter. 
 
 Fifth. An unconditional substitution is impos- 
 sible. 
 
 (a) As God must accept it and Christ be willing 
 to suffer, the sinner must accept the Savior. All 
 must be willing. The sinner has the right, if he so 
 desires, to bear the penalty of his own sin. 
 
 (b) The nature of the vital union on which sub- 
 stitution rests, is such, that it can only be estab- 
 lished by faith. 
 
 (c) An unconditional substitution implies that 
 God does not require sinners to be reconciled to him. 
 
 (d) It would ignore the freedom of the will. 
 
 SECTION III. Chrises Divinity as Connected 
 with Righteousness. 
 8 
 
98 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The old idea that Christ's law keeping is imputed 
 to us for righteousness, giving us a title to heaven 
 is part of the old Calvinistic theory of substitution, 
 the logical counterpart of the dogma of the impu- 
 tation of Adam's sin. Rejecting the one, we con- 
 sistently reject the other, holding instead what is 
 the logical counterpart of the Natural Headship of 
 Adam. If Adam was the Federal Head, so was 
 Christ; and either a limited atonement or Univer- 
 salism would be true. If Adam is the Natural 
 Head of the race, so that by vital union with him 
 we become depraved, then Christ is the Natural 
 Head of the new creation, and we are redeemed 
 .from sin in him. 
 
 The chief text relied upon by the advocates of 
 .the imputation of Christ's law keeping is : 
 
 * ' For he hath made him to be sin for us .... 
 that we might be made the righteousness of God in 
 him." 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
 If, however, the Calvinistic theory be true, this 
 should be ' ' that we might be made righteous by his 
 law keeping." But this is just what Paul does not 
 say, but "the righteousness of God in him." 
 
 Neither is it the same word that is translated 
 ' ' made ' ' in the two clauses a significant fact in a 
 true exposition. "He hath made him to be sin 
 (ajuaprtav knotr/aw, hamartian epoieesen) for us, that 
 we might become (jcvto^Oa^ ginoomethd] the right- 
 eousness of God in him." 
 
 We find fault with the theory of a vicarious obe- 
 dience, or law keeping, for many reasons. 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 99 
 
 (a) It involves a double substitution. This is 
 inevitable. But a double substitution either under- 
 values the suffering or the obedience of Christ. 
 
 (b) If Christ was "made under the law," then he 
 as man was required to keep it. It could not, 
 therefore be a vicarious obedience, because rendered 
 for himself. -A vicarious law keeping implies that 
 Christ was not obligated to keep the law for him- 
 self. His death not being obligatory, could be suf- 
 fered or endured for others; this can not be said of 
 his law keeping. 
 
 (c) If Christ obeyed the law for us, then, logic- 
 ally, that releases us from obligation to keep it our- 
 selves, which is Antinomianism. 
 
 (d) If Christ's law keeping is imputed to us for 
 righteousness, then we are justified by the deeds of 
 the law that is, by doing what the law requires. 
 The essence of a vicarious obedience is that we are 
 dealt with as having done what the substitute has 
 done. If, then, Christ's law keeping is reckoned 
 to us as having been done by us, and we are thus 
 justified, we are justified by the deeds of the law. 
 The theory is in conflict with the teaching of Paul. 
 
 If we are saved by the law keeping of Christ, it 
 can never be said that we 
 
 "Are justified by faith, without the deeds of the 
 law." 
 
 The whole theory is necessitated by the mistaken 
 thought that heaven was ever promised to any one 
 on the ground of obedience. 
 
 Men are always trying to climb up into heaven 
 by the ladder of their own works; and in the effort 
 
TOO ATONEMENT. 
 
 to lay a foundation for this, have found in the 
 promise of life conditioned upon obedience, a prom- 
 ise of heaven. As we have already shown, this is 
 not Bible teaching. We re-affirm it. Never in any 
 age, to any people, was heaven ever promised as 
 the reward of obedience. Even its possibility is 
 never asserted. If our law keeping was as perfect 
 as that of Christ's, it would create no title to 
 heaven. No human merit could entitle to so great 
 a blessing. 
 
 That Christ as born of a woman, "born under 
 law," kept it in every jot and tittle, is certainly 
 true; but this was to bring out the glory and per- 
 fection of his manhood as "without blemish." 
 The law was given to manifest the serpent's power. 
 It was a picture in the leprous hand of Moses of 
 what sin is, and by giving a knowledge of sin it 
 showed all the world guilty before God. But in 
 Christ, that which manifested sin in others, but 
 served to bring out the sinlessness and perfection of 
 his manhood. This was far different from a vica- 
 rious law keeping. The Bible teaches: 
 
 "As by one man's disobedience many were made 
 sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be 
 made righteous." Rom. v. 19. 
 
 This shows the bearing of Christ's "obedience " 
 on the matter of salvation, but his "obedience" 
 was far more than law keeping. Thus he says: 
 
 " I came down from heaven, not to do mine own 
 will, but the will of him that sent me." John 
 vi. 38. 
 
PERSON OF CHRIST. 101 
 
 c ' My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, 
 and to finish his work." John iv. 34. 
 
 u Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." 
 Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
 " It is finished." John xix. 30. 
 
 What do these and numerous similar texts 
 teach as to the obedience of Christ ? Why, that it 
 went far beyond mere law keeping. It was an 
 obedience that led him to ' ' come down from 
 heaven," to be "obedient unto death," obedient, 
 not to the law, but to the Father whose will it was 
 and whose will he came to do. It was more than 
 legal righteousness, more than human it was 
 divine. Linking itself with his work as the Eter- 
 nal Son, an inseparable part of his one Personality, 
 his righteousness was One, it was the Righteous- 
 ness of God, a heavenly righteousness of infinite 
 value. 
 
 Hence, it was the "gift by grace," "the abun- 
 dance of grace and of the gift of righteousness." 
 
 It was because Christ was divine that this right- 
 eousness has its value, and because of this value 
 poor sinners whose title to an earthly Eden has been 
 forfeited receive a title to the paradise of God. 
 
 Coining from heaven, the Lord Jesus by taking 
 us into union with himself, raises us to heaven, 
 where man could never have entered on any other 
 ground. 
 
 ' ' The glory which thou gavest me I have given 
 them." John xvii. 22. 
 
 4 ' Father, / will that they also whom thou hast 
 gi\>en me be with me where I am." John xvii. 24. 
 
io2 ATONEMENT. 
 
 " It became him, for whom are all things, and by 
 whom are are all things, in bringing many sons 
 into glory, to make the captain of their salvation 
 perfect through suffering." Heb. ii. 10. 
 
 While, therefore, Christ's righteousness is im- 
 puted to us that is, reckoned or counted ours 
 and this imputed righteousness gives us standing 
 before God, we do not believe it to be his law keep- 
 ing, nor a vicarious obedience. Union with Christ 
 makes us one in him, and on the ground of this 
 oneness his righteousness becomes ours, introduc- 
 ing us into all the glory that such a righteousness 
 brings. 
 
 First. Not being a legal righteousness, it follows 
 that we are not justified by the deeds of the law, 
 neither by a personal nor a vicarious law keeping. 
 
 Second. It destroys forever the idea of salvation 
 by works and shuts us up to grace. 
 
 Third. It shows the greatness of God's thought 
 for the race, and makes the Old Testament a prep- 
 aration for the New not the -New a restoration of 
 the Old. 
 
 Fourth. It brings out the force of the truth that 
 the second man was ' ' the Lord from heaven. ' ' 
 Resurrection unto life, our title to heaven, Sonship, 
 all gather around this truth, being made possible 
 only by union with ' ' the Lord from heaven. ' ' 
 
 Fifth. It shows the ground upon which we be- 
 come heirs, and indicates the nature of the inherit- 
 ance. In contrast to the earthly calling, it is ours 
 to be made ' ' partakers ' ' of the heavenly. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 The controversy as to water baptism, especially 
 as to the "mode," has done much to obscure the 
 truth of baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus, when- 
 ever baptism is mentioned in the Bible, men think 
 of the ordinance and of the mode. 
 
 Without entering into the controversy as to the 
 meaning of the word baptidzo, other than may be 
 necessary to make plain the truth of the baptism of 
 the Spirit, there is a medium ground recognized by 
 both sides in the controversy. 
 
 The two ablest writers on the classic meaning 
 of the word, are, the Rev. J. W. Dale, from the 
 Pedo-Baptist, and Dr. Conant, from the Baptist 
 stand-point. Perhaps no others have made a more 
 exhaustive, thorough study of the word years 
 being spent in the examination and the ripest 
 scholarship being brought to the task. Giving a 
 formal definition of the word, Dr. Conant says : 
 
 'The word Baptizein, during the whole exist* 
 ence of the Greek as a spoken language, had a per- 
 fectly defined and unvarying import. In its literal 
 use it meant, as has been shown, to put into or 
 under a liquid, or other penetrable substance, gen- 
 erally water, so that the object was wholly covered 
 by the inclosing element. By analogy it expresses 
 
104 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the coming into a new state of life or experience, 
 in which one was, as it were, inclosed and swal- 
 lowed up, so that, temporarily or permanently, he 
 belonged wholly to it." 
 
 Dr. Dale, in answer to the question, "What is 
 classic Baptism ? " says: 
 
 " I would place this answer : " 
 
 " Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing 
 the character, state, or condition of any object, is 
 capable of baptising that object ; and by such 
 change of state, or condition, does, in fact, bap- 
 tise it." 
 
 Between the last half of Conant and this, there 
 is substantial agreement; and here, where they 
 both agree, we have the true meaning of the word. 
 This is in harmony with its classic use. If a ship 
 was sunk, it was baptized; if a man was drowned, 
 he was baptized ; if a man was drunk, he was bap- 
 tized by the wine. Men were baptized by sleep, by 
 ignorance, by debt. Hermerius, speaking of The- 
 mistocles, says : 
 
 u He was great at Salamis; for there, fighting, 
 he baptized all Asia." 
 
 SECTION I. What is the Baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit f 
 
 In our examination we turn, first, to the Gospels. 
 Here we find only the simple statement that Christ 
 would baptize with the Holy Spirit. During 
 Christ's life it was something still future, and yet 
 miraculous gifts and powers were possessed by the 
 
SPIRIT BAPTISM. 105 
 
 apostles. This would indicate that the baptism 
 and the u Gift" of the Spirit the miraculous pow- 
 ers were separate and distinct. 
 
 Next we turn to the first chapter of Acts. Here 
 the Lord Jesus, just before his ascension, tells his 
 disciples not to depart from Jerusalem 
 
 " But to wait for the promise of the Father, 
 which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John 
 truly baptised with water, but ye shall be baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." 
 
 And in answer to the question: 
 
 "Wilt thou at this time restore again the king- 
 dom ? " says: 
 
 " But ye shall receive power after that the Holy 
 Ghost is come upon you." 
 
 From these words, together with the record in 
 the next chapter, some have held that the baptism 
 was the pouring out. Others make it the receiving 
 power, making the baptism to be the miraculous 
 powers and gifts. As we have no miraculous gifts 
 now, it is held that we have no baptism. This 
 confounds the baptism and the gift. Both views 
 are extreme. The baptism was not the pouring 
 out, but the result of it. It was not the power, 
 but the cause of that power. Just here we appeal 
 to the word used. 
 
 ;< By analogy it expressed the coming into a new 
 state of life, or experience." Dr. Conant. 
 
 What is this change of state, of life, or experi- 
 ence, brought about by means of the Holy Spirit ? 
 
io6 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Out of darkness into light. Out of the kingdom 
 of Satan into the kingdom of his dear Son. This 
 change of state or condition, is brought about by 
 'means of the Holy Spirit, hence, it is the baptism 
 of the Spirit. 
 
 The Greek preposition ev (en), when used as the 
 dative of instrumentality, is expressed in English 
 by "with," u by," and " by means of." We use 
 this last, as being more in harmony with the per- 
 sonality of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 In the second chapter of Acts, in the account of 
 what took place on the day of Pentecost, we read : 
 
 ' ' And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, 
 they were all with one accord in one place. 
 
 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as 
 of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house 
 where they were sitting. 
 
 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues 
 like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 
 
 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, 
 and began to speak with other tongues, as the 
 Spirit gave them utterance." Acts ii. 1-4. 
 
 The order of events as here given are : 
 
 (a) The sound as of a rushing wind is heard. 
 
 (V) The sound filled the house. 
 
 (c) Cloven tongues are seen. 
 
 (d) They are all filled with the Spirit. 
 
 (e) They spake with tongues. 
 
 Where shall we look for the baptism ? Clearly in 
 the fourth item. " They were all filled with the 
 Spirit, ' ' and thus by means of the Spirit were bap- 
 
SPIRIT BAPTISM. 107 
 
 tized. By it they were brought into a new state, a 
 new relation to Christ, and to each other. 
 
 They were "filled with the Spirit," and as there 
 is bnt one Spirit, and all were filled by him, as he 
 thus dwelt in each and in Christ, they were by this 
 one Spirit united to each other, and to the Lord 
 Jesus. Thus the body was formed. 
 
 ' ' By one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body." i Cor. xii. 12. 
 
 The New Testament teaches that there is a union 
 between Christ and his people, that far exceeds all 
 analogy. He is the Bridegroom, his people the 
 Bride. He is the Foundation, the Chief Corner- 
 stone, and the Head-stone of the corner; believers 
 are the living stones in this spiritual temple. He is 
 the Vine, they are the branches. He is the Head, 
 they the members of the body. All these but illus- 
 trate from various stand-points the truth of the 
 believer's union with his Lord. The great bond of 
 union, the link that binds all together, is the in- 
 dwelling Spirit. 
 
 This is the most important truth in the New Tes- 
 tament and the key to the atonement. This bap- 
 tism has the same relation to the medium theology 
 as God's sovereignty has to Calvinism or the free- 
 dom of the will to Arminianism. It is the founda- 
 tion of the system. 
 
 How fully this baptism identifies us with Christ ! 
 By this precious baptism Christ and his people are 
 so united that he can say to a Saul on his way to 
 Damascus : 
 
io8 ATONEMENT. 
 
 u Why persecutes! thou me?" Acts ix. 4. 
 And at the gathering of the nations before his 
 glory throne : 
 
 u Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least 
 of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" 
 Matt. xxv. 40. 
 
 Christ and his people are so one, that his death 
 is theirs, his burial, resurrection, and ascension, 
 theirs. 
 
 " I was (so the Greek) crucified with Christ, never- 
 theless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." 
 Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 ' ' Ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in 
 God." Col. iii. 3. 
 
 The use of the word "substitute " when speaking 
 of the work of Christ, hardly expresses the full 
 Bible idea. While it is the best word we can use, 
 Christ's work goes beyond simple substitution. 
 Still no other word applies as well. ' ' Benefaction ' ' 
 has been suggested, but it applies to every theory 
 and every blessing. It is in no sense distinctive. 
 It expresses what it is, but not how it is. Hence, 
 all of every school, believe that Christ's work is a 
 benefaction. If we use the word substitution in 
 the sense of "in the place of," and confine it to this 
 meaning, it, better than any other word, expresses 
 what Christ did by his sufferings. But we must 
 remember the truth of the union with Christ which 
 places his substitution upon different ground than 
 that of one person dying in the place of another, 
 while not destroying that idea. 
 
SPIRIT BAPTISM. 109 
 
 The Bible everywhere proclaims the unity be- 
 tween Christ and his people to be such, that it lays 
 a foundation for more than substitution does. Sub- 
 stitution alone would bring no fitness for heaven; 
 union with Christ does. 
 
 Here is an unconverted man. Certainly he is 
 not "in Christ," nor is Christ "in him." 
 
 ' ' If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is 
 none of his." Rom. viii. 9. 
 
 The Holy Spirit so applies the word that the man 
 is convicted of sin. Still the Holy Spirit is ex- 
 ternal to him and he is told not to "resist the 
 Spirit." Moved by his sense of need, he comes to 
 Christ, receives him as his Savior, believes on him. 
 No sooner does he believe than the Holy Spirit is 
 given to him as the "earnest" of the inheritance. 
 
 ' ' In whom having also believed ye were sealed 
 with the Holy Spirit." 
 
 His body thus becomes the "temple of the Holy 
 Ghost." Henceforth " the Spirit of God dwells in 
 him." This indwelling spirit, as it dwells also in 
 Christ, links him to Christ, and so by means of one 
 spirit he is "baptized into Christ." 
 
 SECTION II. What are the results of the Spirit 
 Baptism? 
 
 First. It lays a foundation for the atonement. 
 
 The difficulties that have been urged against a 
 vicarious atonement may be classed under two 
 heads. 
 
 i. Those that come from the effort to make the 
 sufferings of Christ an "exact equivalent " for those 
 
no ATONEMENT. 
 
 of the saved. This Calvinistic position logically 
 leads to one of three conclusions. That he suffered 
 the exact equivalent for those of the saved a lim- 
 ited atonement. That he suffered an exact equiva- 
 lent for those of all men. This means either that 
 all men are saved Universalism or that Christ suf- 
 fered the penalty for the lost a double bearing of 
 the penalty. 
 
 The sufferings of Christ must necessarily be of 
 infinite value from the divinity of his person. 
 Man's sin being finite, it is the substitution of that 
 which has infinite value for that which is finite. 
 (See this fully discussed in chapter on u Day of 
 Atonement.") 
 
 2. Those that grow out of the connection between 
 penalty and criminality. The great problem of 
 unbelief has always been, how an innocent man 
 can suffer for the guilty. It has been held that it 
 can not be done justly without a transfer of the 
 criminality; and this transfer being impossible, 
 many have been led to reject substitution. All be- 
 lieve that if substitution requires a transfer of crim- 
 inality it must be rejected. We believe that except 
 when the penalty is of the nature of a fine, such 
 transfer of criminality would be demanded in a 
 normal case of substitution. As an example, if a 
 man commits a murder, the demand of the law is 
 not for death, but the death of the murderer. There- 
 fore, the penalty could never be borne by a perfectly 
 innocent man, however willing he might be. His 
 death would in no sense satisfy the demand of the 
 law, which is inseparably connected with the crim- 
 
SPIRIT BAPTISM. in 
 
 inality. It would never be approved by the moral 
 sense of mankind. Criminality being untransfer- 
 able, substitution is impossible in such cases. 
 
 It is here that the truth of the Spirit baptism 
 meets us, placing the work of Christ on such 
 grounds, and bringing in such conditions, that it 
 stands outside of our experiences and distinct from 
 every thing else. 
 
 The Spirit baptism lays a foundation in justice 
 for a vicarious atonement. 
 
 The union of the humanity and divinity of Christ 
 is such that he is one person, but at the same time 
 his true humanity and divinity are not impaired. 
 So the union of Christ and his people is such that 
 on the ground of it, we are one, and yet our sep- 
 arate identity is not destroyed. This union is simi- 
 lar to that between the Father and the Son; for 
 Christ prays : 
 
 'That they may be one even as we are one." 
 John xvii. 22. 
 
 This oneness does not destroy identity, so that 
 our sin does not become Christ's. Yet the unity is 
 so real, that while the criminality is ours and the 
 sufferings are his, these sufferings are in our room 
 or place. The separate identity separates the crim- 
 inality from Christ, the mystic union makes the 
 value of his sufferings ours. This is what we mean 
 by substitution. 
 
 Then no benefit can come to any man until he 
 accepts the Savior. But when he believes, being 
 " baptized into Christ," he is "baptized into his 
 death." 
 
ii2 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Second. It gives us a perfect righteousness. 
 
 When a man has suffered the penalty of the law, 
 his standing is not that of an innocent man in the 
 community. The guilt of his crime, although it 
 has been expiated, still clings to the man's charac- 
 ter and affects his standing. So with the sinner. 
 The death of Christ as expiating his offense does 
 not give him standing. Hence, righteousness is 
 needed. Righteousness delivers us from the guilt, 
 and gives us a standing as ' ' complete in him. ' ' This 
 is "justification of life" that is, a justification be- 
 longing to the life that is given. What a standing 
 it bestows ! In Christ, we stand before God in the 
 value of his righteousness, the measure of his love 
 to us being his love to Christ. 
 
 u And hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." 
 John vii. 23. 
 
 This righteousness is ours solely on the ground 
 of union with Christ. Being "in him," his right- 
 eousness becomes ours, but as our separate identity 
 remains, it is said to be imputed to us, and being 
 counted as ours, our standing is perfect even though 
 there be sin in our actual experience. Yet the 
 union being real it is more than imputation, the 
 imparted life making us ' ' partakers of the divine 
 nature,' 4 so that this righteousness works itself out 
 in our experience until it will be ours in character 
 as well as in standing; an imparted as well as an 
 imputed righteousness. 
 
 ( ' But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God 
 is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctifica- 
 tion, and redemption." i Cor. i. 30. 
 
SPIRIT BAPTISM. 113 
 
 "And be found in him, not having mine own 
 righteousness which is of the law, but that which 
 is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness 
 which is of God by faith." Phil. iii. 9. 
 
 Third. It is the ground of election. 
 
 An unconditional individual election to eternal 
 life is not taught in the Scriptures. Election is 
 taught, but always in Christ. 
 
 ' ' According as he hath chosen us in him before 
 the foundation of the world, that we should be holy 
 and without blame before him in love." Bph. i. 4. 
 
 No unconverted person is in Christ; then no un- 
 converted person is one of the elect. Election out 
 of Christ is unknown to the Bible. Without the 
 Spirit a man is u none of his" But when by the 
 one Spirit we are baptized into Christ, this union 
 with Christ takes us u out of the world " and places 
 us among the " elect." 
 
 Over the door of entrance God has written : 
 
 * ' Whosoever will may come. ' ' 
 
 But when we have entered and looked up we 
 read : 
 
 "Chosen in him before the foundation of the 
 world." 
 
 Fourth. It is the ground of deliverance from 
 sin. 
 
 This will be considered fully in the chapter on 
 "Redemption," and also in Part III., " The Appli- 
 cation of the Atonement." 
 
 Fifth. It is the ground of the believer's security. 
 9 
 
ii4 ATONEMENT. 
 
 (a) It is involved in election which secures cer- 
 tainty. 
 
 (b) The life that is imparted is Christ's. As we 
 are linked to him in resurrection, not incarnation, 
 it is his resurrection life we receive, which never 
 ends; hence it is "eternal life" the believer has as 
 a present possession. 
 
 (c) Union being by the Spirit, the Spirit's work in 
 us, and Christ's intercession for us combine to 
 secure our safety. 
 
 Sixth. It is the ground of Christian unity. 
 
 Oil being the well-known symbol of the Holy 
 Spirit, we have a beautiful type of the "unity of 
 the Spirit "in the one hundred and thirty-third 
 Psalm. 
 
 "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for 
 
 'brethren to dwell together in unity. It is like the 
 
 precious ointment upon the head, that ran down 
 
 upon the beard, even Aaron's beard, that went 
 
 down to the skirts of his garment. ' ' 
 
 As the life is the unity of the body, the spirit is 
 the unity of the mystic body; and there being but 
 one spirit, all Christians are one. 
 
 This precious baptism Christian baptism the 
 only one that saves, is the foundation of the Medi- 
 um Theology; the key to the great truth of the 
 atonement. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 The Day of Atonement is one of the most com- 
 plete typical representations of Christ's work to be 
 found in the Bible. While all types are but im- 
 perfect pictures, this brings out features of Christ's 
 work not so fully brought out elsewhere. Thus 
 the two goats, one to die, the other to bear sin, are 
 distinctive. 
 
 They represent a difference in the work of Christ, 
 because both typify him. What is this ? The goat 
 that is slain sets forth Christ as dying. The other 
 goat having sins transferred to him "he shall bear 
 upon him all their iniquities" is a type of Christ 
 as sin bearer.. Each is separate from the other, 
 bringing out the Bible distinction between propiti- 
 ation and substitution. 
 
 One cause of the controversy between Calvinists 
 and Arminians is a failure to make this discrimin- 
 ation. Propitiation has an aspect to all men ; sub- 
 stitution is always limited. 
 
 The Calvinist, seeing that substitution is limited, 
 and recognizing that if Christ u bore our sins," we 
 are effectually and certainly saved, and not distin- 
 guishing between substitution and propitiation, 
 makes propitiation limited also. This leads to the 
 
n6 ATONEMENT. 
 
 limited atonement with its fatalism, or, more cor- 
 rectly, as strictly fate ignores God, its doctrine of 
 u necessity." 
 
 The Arminian recognizes that propitiation is for 
 all men; and not discriminating between propitia- 
 tion and substitution, makes substitution universal 
 also. This leads him, in order to avoid Universal- 
 ism, to give a lower value to Christ's work for his 
 people, bringing in other conditions of salvation, 
 thus exalting man and degrading the work of 
 Christ. 
 
 Both are logical consequences of a failure to dis- 
 tinguish between the two goats, but in opposite 
 directions. We have thus two great systems, each 
 with elements of strength from the truth they 
 possess, but with elements of weakness, because 
 only a part of the truth. 
 
 Calvinism is strong as to substitution, decided as 
 to the value of Christ's work for the believer, giv- 
 ing the full glory of our salvation to him. It builds 
 up a sturdy Christian character, and has left the 
 deepest impress upon the hymns of Christendom. 
 Those hymns that have found their way into every 
 land, and that live in the worship of Christendom, 
 are those that tell of salvatign all of grace, and of 
 the benefits of Christ's work for his people. 
 
 ' ' Grace, ' t is a charming sound. ' ' 
 "Just as I am, without one plea." 
 u How firm a foundation." 
 
 These are the hymns that fill the hearts of God's 
 people with love and devotion as they sing. 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 117 
 
 No hymn that embodies the lower Arminian idea 
 of apostasy has ever crept into the great heart of 
 Christendom. 
 
 How strong and massive has been the Christian 
 thought and literature Calvinism has given to the 
 world. Grappling with the deeper questions of 
 theology, always zealous for the glory of the Lord, 
 standing everywhere the earnest defender of the 
 faith against all comers, the literature of our com- 
 mon Christianity has largely sprung into being 
 through >its instrumentality. It has been the bul- 
 wark of the truth. What great names shine, as 
 stars in its pathway, like those of Augustine and 
 Anselm. 
 
 How grand the history it has given to the world. 
 Rivaling in its spirit of heroism the ancient Spar- 
 tans and Persians, it leaves a heritage of glory to 
 all ages. The heroic struggles in the Netherlands, 
 the victories of the famous * ' Ironsides, ' ' the pa- 
 thetic story of the Covenanters speak its spirit and 
 record its power. 
 
 Strong as to substitution, when it comes to pro- 
 pitiation, Calvinism loses its strength, and with 
 halting step and stammering voice presents Christ 
 to a dying world. It deadens the sense of respon- 
 sibility and lulls to sleep those who should be 
 aroused. 
 
 Arminianism, on the other hand, is strong as to 
 propitiation. It inflames with zeal the followers of 
 Christ, leading them to earnest, aggressive work in 
 winning souls. Under the influence of its teaching, 
 which is the spirit of all mission life, the Christian 
 
n8 ATONEMENT. 
 
 army is marching on to conquer the world for Christ. 
 The rugged pioneers of the great Christian army, 
 making their way into the forests and waste places 
 of the earth, crossing the seas to heathen lands as 
 the great advance guard of civilization, are but car- 
 rying out the great principle of propitiation for all. 
 
 One of the grandest histories of modern days is 
 that of the Methodist church. The struggles and 
 sacrifices, the toil, the flaming zeal of its preachers 
 may challenge the admiration of the world. Pro- 
 pitiation for all men, salvation offered to all, and 
 all men responsible for their acceptance or rejection 
 of it, this is the mainspring of the energy of the 
 great Christian host. 
 
 Here, again, we may notice that the hymns that 
 breathe this spirit live. 
 
 u From Greenland's icy mountains " is sung in 
 the missionary meetings of all Christendom. No 
 hymn has taken hold of the heart of the church 
 that embodies the idea of a limited atonement. 
 
 While strong as to propitiation, Arminianism is 
 vacillating as to substitution, giving an uncertain 
 value to Christ's work for his people, making that 
 value to depend upon the believer's faithfulness, 
 rather than upon what Christ has done, thus leav- 
 ing Christians without the fullness and blessing of 
 the Christian standing. It keeps men in the val- 
 leys, wandering in the fog of uncertainty and doubt, 
 when they might be on the mountain in the grand 
 sunshine of perfect assurance. 
 
 Both are extremes. Truth is midway between. 
 Propitiation for all men, in the fullest Arminian 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 119 
 
 sense, so that a full salvation may be preached unto 
 all, but substitution limited and meaning all that 
 the Calvinist affirms. This is shown by the two 
 goats on the day of atonement. 
 
 A Calvinist can not logically believe in a vicari- 
 ous atonement, or propitiation for all men. It is 
 fundamental to Calvinism that Christ's sufferings 
 were an exact equivalent for those of the saved. 
 Then of course Christ could have died for none but 
 the saved, or you have the contradiction that he 
 paid the debt, and at the same time did not pay it. 
 Calvinism in every fiber of it is logically consistent 
 wit h itself, and "necessitates" the dogma of a lim- 
 ited atonement. But this logical consistency brings 
 it into conflict with the plainest teaching of the 
 Bible, and taxes to the utmost the ingenuity of its 
 advocates in explaining away the force of many 
 texts. 
 
 Arminianism, embracing in some form the idea 
 of "relaxation," can never give a definite value to 
 the sufferings of Christ for his people; so that the 
 exact benefit of Christ's work to his people, so far 
 as the standing and security of the Christian are 
 concerned, is shrouded in gloom. 
 
 The Medium Theology, recognizing propitiation 
 for all men, but giving to substitution its full value, 
 has the strength without the weakness of both great 
 systems. It is the theology of the future. The 
 drift is already in that direction. A limited atone- 
 ment and the dogma of apostasy are being preached 
 less and less. A full, free salvation is proclaimed 
 grandly from the pulpits of Christendom, with few 
 
120 ATONEMENT. 
 
 exceptions; while a fuller, deeper estimate is being 
 placed upon Christ's work for his people. Practi- 
 cally, the medium theology is that of a large section 
 of the Christian world; and we trust that in giv- 
 ing it more definite form and systematic expression 
 this book will in some measure help to a greater 
 unity. 
 
 SECTION I. Propitiation. 
 
 Knowing that the Bible does not teach Univer- 
 salism, how to avoid it logically, and yet receive 
 the truth that Christ is a propitiation for all men, 
 has been a great problem. 
 
 All difficulties grow out of the bargain and sale 
 theory. So many to be saved, so much suffering 
 to be endured u an exact equivalent " like the 
 pound of flesh of old Shylock. There evidently 
 underlies this, the thought that Christ's sufferings 
 would have been increased or diminished, if more 
 or less were saved. This loses sight of the prin- 
 ciple that it is "the altar that sanctifies the gift." 
 The sufferings of Christ would have been no less 
 if only one had been saved, and no more if all were 
 saved. 
 
 The divinity did not suffer, only the humanity; 
 but the union of divinity with humanity gave to 
 those sufferings an infinite value. How far this 
 scatters the thoughts of men as to u exact equiva- 
 lent," u relaxation, " etc. An u exact equivalent," 
 so much suffering for so many saved, as if the di- 
 vinity could be parceled out and the infinite become 
 finite ! How it degrades the work of Christ. The 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 121 
 
 divinity gave to those sufferings a value that far, 
 infinitely far, exceeds the needs of humanity. This 
 is quite another thing from needless, unnecessary 
 suffering. The value of the sufferings is not in 
 their extent, but in the person of the sufferer. 
 
 This broad view of the value of Christ's suffer- 
 ings leads to a twofold view of propitiation; one 
 general, the other special. One the ground upon 
 which Christ is the available substitute for all men, 
 the other the ground upon which he becomes the 
 actual substitute of his people only. On the sup- 
 position that sins are all counted, as we foot up the 
 sum total of a man's indebtedness, their exact de- 
 merit estimated and the exact suffering due to this 
 borne by Christ, such a distinction would be im- 
 possible. 
 
 The Day of Atonement presents more this gen- 
 eral aspect of propitiation, hence the two goats; 
 whereas in sin-offerings for individuals, there was 
 only one. 
 
 Looking at the work of the Day of Atonement 
 we find that Aaron first makes atonement for him- 
 self and his house, because as a type of Christ he 
 must be clean. Then we read : 
 
 ' ' He shall make an atonement for the holy place, 
 because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, 
 and because of their transgressions in all their un- 
 cleanness." Lev. xvi. 1 6. 
 
 God could not have remained for one moment in 
 the midst of his people, but for the blood; and 
 therefore the tabernacle and its rich provision for 
 
122 ATONEMENT. 
 
 man's need, all stood in the power of the blood. 
 The uncleanness of the people separated from God, 
 hence, atonement must be made for in order to ob- 
 tain or retain 
 
 u The tabernacle of the congregation, that re- 
 maineth among them in the midst of their un- 
 cleanness." 
 
 This points out a view of the atonement that is 
 all important, that which is general, and in virtue 
 of which Christ is an available substitute for every 
 man. 
 
 Who has not heard preachers proclaiming that 
 God is angry with the sinner; representing him in 
 such an attitude that the sinner has to "cry for 
 mercy," and beg and plead and weep and mourn to 
 make God favorable? This gospel of hate is not 
 that of the New Testament, but is foreign to its 
 spirit and teaching. The psalmist says : 
 
 "God is angry with the wicked every day." 
 Ps. vii. ii. 
 
 But the words ' ' with the wicked ' ' are supplied 
 by the translators. 
 
 The Old Testament everywhere proclaimed that 
 God was separated from the race on account of sin 
 "angry every day." What this anger was we 
 have already seen; and as long as the demand was 
 not met and sin was not atoned for, God remained 
 "angry every day." 
 
 Of course the time element does not apply to 
 God, wherefore God was dealing in grace in every 
 age. Yet as a dispensation it represented God as 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 123 
 
 alienated from men. Moses, in the symbolical vis- 
 ion granted to him, sees God with his face turned 
 away his attitude to men before the advent of the 
 Messiah. Even when he comes to dwell in the 
 tabernacle, the veil hanging in front of the holy 
 place tells that God is still unreconciled "angry 
 every day." 
 
 But how different now ! When the Babe was 
 born in Bethlehem of Judea, the angels burst into 
 singing, and their grand anthem carries to all na- 
 tions the tidings of: 
 
 ' ' On earth peace, good-will toward men. ' ' 
 This is the gospel the good spell, or story of 
 good-will to men. 
 
 At the close of his life, when his great mission 
 is ended, we hear him as he hangs bleeding on the 
 cross triumphantly exclaiming : 
 "It is finished." 
 
 At once the hand of God's love reaches down and 
 rends the veil of the temple from "the top to the 
 bottom." Not from the bottom to the top, as if 
 rent from earth, but from the top to the bottom. 
 Not on one side, not a mere slit, but in the very 
 midst. 
 
 4 ' His love unknown hath broken every barrier 
 down. ' ' 
 
 God has been perfectly propitiated; Christ's suf- 
 ferings meet all demands and cover over the sins of 
 the race. God is reconciled, not he has to be. 
 
 ' ' To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the 
 world unto himself." How? "Not imputing 
 their trespasses unto them." 2 Cor. v. 19. 
 
i24 ATONEMENT. 
 
 God is no longer angry, so that now it is not God 
 that has to be reconciled to the sinner, but the sin- 
 ner to God. This is what the rent veil proclaims. 
 We have thus, as the result of Christ's work, God 
 propitiated, all barriers removed, and he able to 
 deal in grace with mankind. This view is general, 
 not special, and fully explains those texts which 
 present the work of Jesus as for all men. 
 
 "I exhort, therefore, that, first of all, supplica- 
 tions, prayers .... be made for all men 
 
 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God 
 our Savior. Who will have all men to be saved, 
 and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For 
 there is one mediator between God and men, the 
 man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for 
 all, to be testified in due time." i Tim. ii. 2-6. 
 
 ' ' For the grace of God that bringeth salvation 
 hath appeared to all men ." Titus ii. n. 
 
 u That by the grace of God he should taste death 
 for every man." Heb. ii. 9. 
 
 4 ' He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for 
 ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." 
 i John ii. 2. 
 
 In this last the words, u the sins of," are supplied, 
 there being nothing to correspond to them in the 
 Greek. Their omission marks a distinction between 
 propitiation in its aspect to the believer and to the 
 world. As an imperfect illustration of what we 
 mean : If a supper has been provided for every cit- 
 izen, and all are invited, we have this general view 
 of propitiation. It would be an available supper 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 125 
 
 for every man. Ample provision, and an honest 
 invitation to come. But as none receive any benefit 
 from the supper but those who come, we have pro- 
 pitiation in its special sense. An actual supper for 
 those who came only. 
 
 " Behold the L,amb of God that taketh away the 
 sin of the world." John i. 29. 
 
 It is not the sins of the world, which would be 
 special, but "the sin" which is general. It is not 
 "bear the sin," but "taketh away" Sin the sin 
 of the world was between God and the race, so 
 that God was "angry every day; " but through the 
 merit of Christ's work sin has been put out of the 
 way. God has been reconciled, and the way opened 
 for mercy to come to the sinner, so that all may be 
 saved. 
 
 The general view of propitiation carries with it: 
 
 First. It is because of it that any blessings are 
 enjoyed by the unsaved. It is on the ground of 
 Christ's propitiatory work that men who are not 
 Christians eat and drink and live on in their sins. 
 The breath with which men oppose God they owe 
 to the work of Jesus, for if it were not for the 
 atonement they would long since have been in tor- 
 ment. Propitiation lays the foundation for this 
 being a day of grace when mercy pleads to spare a 
 little longer. 
 
 Second. By virtue of propitiation in this general 
 sense, God being reconciled, judgment passes to the 
 Son. Having suffered and died, meeting the claims 
 of divine holiness, to call to account becomes his 
 
i26 ATONEMENT. 
 
 right, and in the closing scenes pictured in the 
 book of Revelation, we begin to hear of the 
 ' * wrath of the L,amb. ' ' Here, again, oneness 
 with Christ carries us on to share in that judgment. 
 "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the 
 world .... we shall judge angels." i Cor. vi. 
 1-4. 
 
 Third. By virtue of propitiation in its general 
 sense, the offer of salvation is made to men. So 
 hateful is sin, and so completely does it separate, 
 that without the blood there could be no ground 
 even for the offer of salvation. 
 
 Thus the gospel, on the ground of propitiation, 
 is preached to ' ' every creature, ' ' and because of the 
 infinite value of the blood, "whosoever will may 
 come," and whoever comes will be -saved. 
 
 SECTION II. Substitution. 
 
 It must be remembered that the two goats were 
 closely united, so as to constitute a sin-offering, 
 because it is the same sacrifice, but presented from 
 two different stand-points. Of course, in all this it 
 must be remembered that there is no past, present, 
 and future from God's stand-point, and that in the 
 light of God's eternity the seeming difficulties that 
 men urge against the atonement have no real force, 
 as the whole work is one and indivisible with him. 
 But different types are used for our instruction, and 
 it is truth as revealed to us that has to be harmo- 
 nized with our limited conceptions. Conflict here 
 does not imply conflict in reality from God's stand- 
 point. While we can discriminate between the 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 127 
 
 two goats we must also remember that it is but one 
 sacrifice, but one work. The truth of the live 
 goat is expressed in the following texts : 
 
 ' c This is my blood of the New Testament, which 
 is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt, 
 xxvi. 28. 
 
 ' ' So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of 
 many." Heb. ix. 28. 
 
 ' ' Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our 
 sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten 
 of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for 
 our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : 
 the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and 
 with his stripes we are healed. All we, like sheep, 
 have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him 
 the iniquity of us all." Isa. liii. 4-6. 
 
 "Who his own self bore our sins in his own body 
 on the tree." i Peter ii. 24. 
 
 These give us simply the truth as to the live 
 goat. An attempt has been made to break the 
 force of these scriptures by a reference to Matt. viii. 
 17, where Christ quotes from Isaiah : 
 
 ' ' That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 Isaiah the prophet, saying himself took our infirmi- 
 ties, and bare our sicknesses." 
 
 Bushnell says of this : 
 
 "It is the one scripture that gives, beyond ques- 
 tion, the Bible usage of all vicarious expressions in 
 the Old Testament." 
 
 By comparison with Isaiah, we find a difference 
 that gives a clew to the meaning of Matthew. 
 
i28 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Isaiah says : 
 
 " Surely he hath borne (the Septuagint translates 
 this <pe t o(o, pheroo) onr griefs and carried our sor- 
 rows." 
 
 Matthew, quoting freely, but not literally, says : 
 
 ' ' Himself took (l^a/9e, elabe) our infirmities, and 
 bare our sicknesses." 
 
 This use of Ittafls for <pepto is the key to a sound 
 exegesis. 
 
 All sickness and suffering is the result of sin. 
 When, therefore, Christ healed the sick, it was dis- 
 tinctly on the ground of atonement, without which 
 none would have been healed. It will be seen from 
 Matthew that the healing of the sick was coupled 
 with the casting out of the devils. Hence, John 
 says : 
 
 "For this purpose the Son of God was mani- 
 fested that he might destroy the works of the devil ? ' ' 
 i John iii. 8. 
 
 How did he destroy the works of the devil ? 
 
 ( ' That through death he might destroy him that 
 had the power of death that is, the devil." 
 
 It was by his death and sufferings that Christ be- 
 came victor, able to deliver the captive, and give 
 healing to the sick, and eyes to the blind. (See 
 Luke iv. 1 8, etc.) It all links itself to the cross. 
 Who but the one that became a man u that through 
 death he might destroy him that had the power of 
 death," could say to a Lazarus, "come forth," and 
 then only because he was ' ' the resurrection and the 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 129 
 
 life." This shows that it was in anticipation, in 
 the power of his resurrection, as having made 
 atonement on the cross. Who but he who came 
 "to destroy the works of the devil," could have 
 healed the sick, and then only as the world's great 
 sin bearer? It was in anticipation, the removal 
 of the sickness, on the ground of the bearing of 
 the sin on the cross. This is the reason why Isaiah 
 is quoted, and why the word is changed. Isaiah 
 emphasizes the bearing, Matthew the removal one 
 the cause, the other the effect. 
 
 The use of IAa/9s for ^sfjco is the key to a still 
 further opening of the truth. The use of l^a/9e 
 would not be justified unless it expressed an idea 
 contained in the Hebrew word that it translates. 
 
 There is much controversy as to what is meant 
 by bearing sin. Some, like Dr. Hodge, explain it 
 to mean 
 
 u To bear the guilt and punishment of sin." 
 
 Others, quoting Matthew, claim that it means to 
 remove sin, in the same sense that Christ removed 
 the disease that is, by taking it away, or curing it. 
 In the controversy, the meaning of the Hebrew 
 word nasa has been largely discussed, but in look- 
 ing for its meaning we must follow some order to 
 arrive at a sound conclusion. 
 
 Two Hebrew words are translated "bear" in 
 connection with sin bearing. 
 
 i. N^ (nasa). This word means primarily "to 
 take up, to lift up, to raise." It is translated 
 "take," "take up," "lift up," some two hundred 
 10 
 
130 ATONEMENT. 
 
 and fifty times in the Old Testament. It expresses 
 the lifting up of the hands, head, countenance, 
 eyes, voice, heart, and soul, or the taking up of a 
 weapon, etc. 
 
 In the development of this primary meaning of 
 " to take up," it acquires that of " to take away" 
 from which we get the application, to take away 
 the sin or guilt of any one, translated ' ^forgive. ' ' 
 
 It also acquires from the primary sense of "to 
 take up ' ' that of " to take upon, to bear, to carry, ' ' 
 this being applied to bearing sorrow or sin. 
 
 The use of the word in the sense of u forgive" 
 comes from the developed meaning of u take 
 away. ' ' 
 
 Its use in the sense of bearing sin comes from the 
 developed meaning of u take upon" 
 
 Any argument from the meaning forgive, can 
 have no force in respect to "sin bearing." It is 
 only the primary sense of ' ' take up ' ' that can 
 apply. If the use of the word in the sense of bear- 
 ing was a development of the idea of forgiveness, 
 then it would have. 
 
 The idea of carrying taking upon is in the 
 word when used of sin bearing. The sin is on 
 borne by or carried by that which carries it, either 
 in a ritual or a real sense. We believe that the 
 dictionaries sustain this definition, and that Bible 
 usage will be found in harmony with it. 
 
 2. '3D (sabal}. This word means " to bear, to 
 carry. ' ' 
 
 Both these words are used in Isaiah liii. 4, while 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 131 
 
 in Isaiah liii. n it is sabal, not nasa. That sabal 
 expresses the idea of bearing the punishment of 
 sin can not be questioned, thus : 
 
 " Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we 
 have borne (sabal} their iniquities." L,am. v. 7. 
 
 After careful examination we believe that sabal 
 is always used to express the idea of bearing sin in 
 the sense of bearing its punishment, but never in 
 the sense of removing it. 
 
 Nasa means more than this. It not only ex- 
 presses the idea of bearing the penalty, about 
 which as to some texts there can be no dispute, but 
 it expresses more the taking away of the sin. 
 Nasa expresses both ideas, the bearing and the re- 
 moving. This is indicated by Matthew. To deny 
 the sense of removing is to make Matthew unmean- 
 ing. To deny the sense of bearing is to ignore the 
 use of sabal. If yspco had been used in Matthew, 
 the criticism of Bushnell and others would have 
 some application. Still the quotation, with the use 
 of ^/9e, indicates a meaning overlooked by Hodge. 
 
 Our theory harmonizes both. The bearing of sin 
 certainly was the bearing of its penalty, but this 
 bearing carried with it its removal. Bushnell and 
 Hodge are but the two sides of the same grand 
 truth. The sin bearing could never avail for poor 
 sinners, unless it included the removal of the sin 
 itself as well as its penalty. 
 
 Substitution implies, in the nature of things, a 
 limitation. It is not limited by any act of God's, 
 nor by any failure in the provision made. It is not 
 
132 ATONEMENT. 
 
 owing to any "inability" that God removes in the 
 case of one man, but not in that of another, but 
 simply and alone to the free, willful rejection of 
 Christ. 
 
 " Ye will not come to me that ye might have 
 life." John v. 40. 
 
 The sin was transferred to the head of the scape- 
 goat by confession and the laying on of hands. 
 This last, as the sign of identity, points, in the 
 type, to our union with Christ in the antitype. 
 
 There can be no substitution without the transfer 
 of sins, there can be no transfer without union, as 
 we have shown; there can be no union without 
 faith. Hence, substitution is limited; it requires 
 the assent of both parties. No substitution is pos- 
 sible without mutual consent, hence, the "receiv- 
 ing," or believing on Christ, makes the substitution 
 individual and personal. 
 
 Propitiation is unlimited, because it rests upon 
 the will of God alone; it is general, because what 
 propitiates for one does for all; it is a single act, 
 because it removes the anger of one being only. 
 
 Substitution is limited, because it rests upon the 
 wills of millions of men; it is special, because it 
 requires personal acceptance for its completion; it 
 is not a single act, because it requires a change in 
 many. It is always personal. 
 
 Propitiation, on the Day of Atonement, had a 
 universal aspect; the blood carried into the holiest 
 was sufficient for the sins of all mankind, the door 
 of Gentile proselytism standing wide open. The 
 
DAY OF ATONEMENT. 133 
 
 whole race could have been blessed without adding 
 to the amount of blood that was shed. One goat 
 was sufficient for mankind. But none received any 
 benefit from that blood, but those whose sins were 
 transferred to laid upon the live goat. Substi- 
 tution was, therefore, limited to those whose sins 
 were confessed. If all had become proselytes, no 
 more blood would have been shed, but many more 
 sins would have been transferred. 
 
 The sins were not transferred until after the 
 death of the goat, and the blood had been carried 
 into the holiest; this is the one fact that empha- 
 sizes the distinction. One goat shows what Christ 
 did by his death, the other what Christ is as risen 
 the sin bearer for all who will .lay their sins upon 
 him. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE OFFERINGS. 
 
 Ill this chapter we enter upon a subject of the 
 deepest interest, one so closely connected with the 
 atonement that it is very largely the key in type 
 of Christ's work for us. 
 
 The cross is many-sided ; for which reason it 
 takes many types to bring out the fullness of 
 Christ's work. All the offerings are essential to a 
 full representation of his work in its varied rela- 
 tions. 
 
 In searching for the meaning of the five offerings, 
 we find that four of them entail the death of a vic- 
 tim. One does not. This shows that the meat- 
 offering is a type of Christ in his life^ the other 
 four of Christ's death. 
 
 Then we find a further distinction in the fact that 
 two of them are u sweet savor" offerings, while 
 the sin and trespass offerings are not. 
 
 Of the two that are not, one, the sin-offering, 
 was burnt "outside the camp," the other upon the 
 altar. 
 
 The burnt and peace offerings are distinguished 
 by the one being entirely consumed, and the other 
 being partly eaten by the priests. 
 
 These are all -important differences, and help iis 
 
OFFERINGS. 135 
 
 to see the view of Christ's work which they repre- 
 sent. 
 
 As the meat- offer ing is a type of Christ in his 
 life, it will hardly be in place to discuss it, at any 
 rate here. As a type it represented the perfect 
 humanity of Christ (fine flour), conceived and 
 anointed by the Holy Spirit (mingled and anointed 
 with oil), and the perfection of that life tested and 
 brought out by temptation, suffering, and law (a 
 threefold testing by fire). The thought of atone- 
 ment does not connect itself with the meat-offering, 
 as it is only on the cross that Christ "bears our 
 sins " u on the tree" Hence, instead of speaking 
 of the priest as making atonement, we read: 
 
 "And the priest shall burn the memorial of it 
 upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a 
 sweet savor unto the Lord." Lev. ii. 2. 
 
 That during his life Christ suffered, is true, but 
 these sufferings were not vicarious, being designed 
 to bring out the perfection of that life as " without 
 blemish." 
 
 A doctrine that has many advocates, especially at 
 Oxford, in England, represents Christ as taking 
 believers into union with himself by his incarnation, 
 giving to the incarnation the value we give to the 
 resurrection. The objections to this are numerous. 
 It overlooks the holy character of Christ's manhood, 
 it leads to a low estimate of the ruin sin has 
 wrought, and passes by the necessity for death and 
 judgment. On this ground Christ's death could 
 hardlv be vicarioiis. 
 
136 ATONEMENT. 
 
 In opposition many scriptures can be cited. 
 
 ' ' Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground 
 and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bring\th 
 forth much fruit." John xii. 24. 
 
 No union without death. The figure that more 
 than any other represents the unity for which 
 Christ prayed, is that of the body, but the body was 
 not formed until Pentecost : 
 
 "He raised him from the dead .... and gave 
 him to be head over all things to the church." 
 Eph. i. 20-22. 
 
 The meat-offering was usually coupled with the 
 burnt-offering : 
 
 u The burnt-offering and its meat-offering." 
 
 Before we examine the offerings in detail it is 
 well to refer to the design of sacrifice. 
 
 Bushnell, and the advocates of the Moral Influ- 
 ence theory generally, deny that the Mosaic sacri- 
 fices were expiatory, and teach that they were to 
 express the repentance and spiritual aspirations of 
 the worshipers. "The essence was the sprinkling 
 of the blood, as the bearer of life, upon God's altar; 
 this being a symbolical representation of the giving 
 of the worshiper's life up to the. service of God, 
 in other words, his returning back to God by re- 
 pentance and faith .and self-dedication, after being 
 separated from him by sin." 
 
 This was neither the Jewish nor heathen idea of 
 sacrifice. The evidence is simply overwhelming 
 that both heathen and Jewish sacrifices were to pro- 
 pitiate God by an expiation. The occasion of their 
 
OFFERINGS. 137 
 
 being offered, the qualifications of the victims, the 
 terms that are used, the ceremonies connected with 
 them and their effects when offered, all show that 
 the Old Testament sacrifices were vicarious. Jewish 
 testimony might be multiplied to establish the fact 
 that the Jews so regarded them. 
 
 ' ' The imposition of hands was a tacit declara- 
 tion on the part of every offerer that he removed 
 his sins from himself and transferred them to that 
 animal." Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson. 
 
 "Whenever anyone sins through ignorance, or 
 even with knowledge, he transfers his sins from 
 himself and lays them upon the head of the victim." 
 Isaac Ben Arama. 
 
 u The blood makes atonement for the soul; the 
 meaning is life instead of life." Aben Ezra. 
 
 "It is just that his blood be shed and that his 
 body be burned. But the creator of his mercy ac- 
 cepted the victim of him as his substitute and ran- 
 som, that the blood of the animal might be shed 
 instead of his blood that is, that the life of the 
 animal be given for his life." Rabbi Moses Ben 
 Nachman. 
 
 We believe it is beyond controversy that the Jews 
 regarded their sacrifices as vicarious. Some of the 
 advocates of other theories admit this, but deny 
 that in this they were typical. 
 
 "Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the sacri- 
 fices of Christ was not than what it was." 
 
 As to heathen sacrifices, they were of two kinds, 
 distinguished as hostia honoraria and hostia pia- 
 
138 ATONEMENT. 
 
 cularis. The first was simply a meal offered as 
 expressive of the relation of friendly dependence. 
 The latter was to appease the divine anger. Thus 
 during the reign of Titus, so many calamities came 
 upon the people that we find him offering sacrifices 
 to turn away the anger of the gods. 
 
 " For the relief of the people during the plague 
 he employed, in the way of sacrifices and remedies, 
 all means both human and divine." Seutonius, 
 Titiis 8. 
 
 SECTION I. The Burnt-offering. 
 
 The cross may be viewed from two stand-points. 
 The sinner's, as he sees in the death of Christ that 
 which fully meets his need, and that of the Father, 
 as -he beholds in that cross Christ doing his will. 
 Thus we have the sin and trespass offerings setting 
 forth Christ's death as bearing sin and making ex- 
 piation. These can never be "sweet savor" offer- 
 ings, for God can never be regarded as taking de- 
 light in this aspect of Christ's work. The cross 
 has a yet grander side; for on that cross God was 
 glorified by the work of his Son. This is the truth 
 of the burnt-offering. We are apt to lose sight of 
 this Godward side of the cross, looking at it from 
 that of our self-interest alone. But while it is true 
 that Christ, by his death, makes an atonement, and 
 that this is fully brought out by the offerings, the 
 cross meant much more. It was there that Christ, 
 dying u for the ungodly," was fulfilling the great 
 mission of his advent, which was the glory of God. 
 
 Lo, I come to do thy will, OGod." Heb. x. 9. 
 
 < t 
 
OFFERINGS. 139 
 
 "I have glorified thee on the earth; I have 
 finished the work which thou gavest me to do." 
 John xvii. 4. 
 
 This is the key to Christ's life and death. As 
 one writer says : 
 
 " It was an ineffable delight to him to accomplish 
 the will of God on this earth. No one had ever 
 done this before. Some had, through grace, done 
 'that which was right in the sight of the Lord;' 
 but no one had ever perfectly, invariably, from first 
 to last, without hesitation, and without divergence, 
 done the will of God. But this was exactly what 
 the Lord Jesus did. He was ' obedient unto death, 
 even the death of the cross ' (Phil. ii. 8). ' He 
 steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. ' And as 
 he walked from the garden of Gethsemane to Cal- 
 vary, the intense devotion of his heart told itself 
 forth in these accents, ' The cup which my Father 
 hath given me, shall I not drink it? ' " 
 
 How resplendent with glory the whole life, suf- 
 ferings, and death of Christ becomes, under the 
 influence of this precious truth. What wonder the 
 Father delights in it, or that it should be a "sweet 
 savor" unto him. The burnt-offering shows this 
 in type. It represents Christ as glorifying God by 
 doing his will, and not Christ as sin bearer. Thus 
 the very name of the offering is properly incense- 
 offering, it being the same Hebrew word that is so 
 translated elsewhere. How rich ! How fragrant ! 
 What perfect incense is this view of the cross ! It 
 makes it the offering, so that the altar becomes the 
 "altar of burnt-offering," being offered night and 
 morning, as if God would have this thought of the 
 cross always before his eyes. 
 
140 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The same truth is brought out by the peace-offer- 
 ing, but there, our participation in the delight that 
 this thought of Christ's work gives is the leading 
 idea. 
 
 ' ''Let him offer a male without blemish. ' ' 
 
 Here we have a very beautiful figure of Christ as 
 the Holy One "without blemish." 
 
 The meat-offering represents the life of Jesus 
 tested by fire, so as to exhibit its perfect sinlessness. 
 But the more that life is tested, whether by suffer- 
 ing, law, or temptation, the more is its perfection 
 manifested. None but a holy being could die the 
 just for the unjust. To a spiritual Christian, the 
 investigation of this theme is one of the most won- 
 derful of all, leading to the highest praise and wor- 
 ship, as he apprehends the moral glory of Jesus. 
 One reason why so many types are given us is to 
 bring out this moral -glory. All figures being im- 
 perfect, there is danger of man's pressing them so 
 as to make a blemish in the sinless man. 
 
 How wonderful is the perfection of Christ. Com- 
 ing to do the Father's will, never for one moment 
 does he falter. In every desire, look, word, and act, 
 we see the Father's will as the spring and source of 
 all. When tempted of the devil, men have said, 
 there would have been no wrong in his satisfying 
 hunger by an exercise of his miraculous powers; 
 but that is to lose sight of the great end of his 
 life: 
 
 "I come to do thy will." 
 
 Christ's long fast of forty days was not such a 
 fast as fallen humanity would have endured without 
 
OFFERINGS. 141 
 
 divine help. Being holy, there was no necessity of 
 death ; and hence we have no reason to believe that 
 he tmderwent any suffering during the forty days. 
 The words indicate the reverse : 
 
 "And when he had fasted forty days and forty 
 nights, he was afterward an hungered. ' ' 
 
 This hunger was not so much the result of his 
 voluntary will, but of the Father's will cheerfully 
 submitted to. Hence, the force of the temptation 
 to make bread of the stones. If it was the Father's 
 will that he should hunger, he will submit. 
 
 ' ' Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every 
 word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." 
 
 It is thus that his temptations manifest the per- 
 fection of his life. 
 
 How wonderful the perfection of Christ ! For 
 eighteen centuries men have been seeking faults in 
 the character of Jesus; and where they have been 
 claimed, it has been because of failure to apprehend 
 the truth as to his person. 
 
 Thus in the garden, in the agony he endured, 
 some see a shrinking from mere physical pain, and 
 thus proclaim a blemish. But that which to the 
 natural man seems like shrinking, to the eye of 
 faith but serves to bring out his perfection. It 
 can not be said that Jesus was willing " to be made 
 sin," even though it was without criminality. 
 That would have in it a shade of wrong a blem- 
 ish. But if it is the Father's will he will drain the 
 cup to the very dregs. See how carefully the Bible 
 guards the sinlessness of Jesus. The meaning of 
 
142 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the agony in the garden, with its despairing cry, is 
 thus the shrinking of Jesus from bearing sin and 
 taking the sinner's place. It could not be other- 
 wise with a holy being. Yet the perfection appears 
 as he triumphantly exclaims : 
 
 ' ' Nevertheless thy will, not mine be done. ' ' 
 The wonderful perfection of Christ is seen in his 
 life, it shines out in his death. Always, every- 
 where, he is " without blemish." 
 
 "He shall offer it of his own voluntary zvill." 
 The Revised Version is clearer : 
 
 ' ' He shall offer it at the door of the tent of 
 meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. ' ' 
 
 This is never said of any offering but the burnt- 
 offering. Of the sin and trespass offerings it says : 
 
 "And the priest shall make atonement for him, 
 and it shall be forgiven him. ' ' 
 
 This is a distinction we must recognize, as it is 
 of deep interest. While it- is certain that Jesus 
 must bear our sins to save us, we can not regard 
 God as delighting in this blood shedding or sin 
 bearing. Yet this has been the thought of many; 
 and this imperfect conception of Christ's work has 
 led, by its very grossness, to serious difficulties in 
 the minds of earnest thinkers. 
 
 Christ's obedience was unto death; he perfectly 
 carried out the Father's will, and by his finished 
 work provided salvation for men. From this com- 
 pleted work that so fully glorifies God, there goes 
 up a rare incense, a "sweet savor." This is the 
 
OFFERINGS. 143 
 
 burnt or incense offering; and it is this that is "ac- 
 cepted for him. ' ' 
 
 * ^And he shall put his hand upon the head of the 
 burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to 
 make atonement for him." 
 
 The laying on of hands has a very prominent 
 place in the ceremonies of Judaism. In the sixth 
 of Hebrews it is classed among the fundamental 
 principles held by the Jews. They had the doctrine 
 of Christ in type, or figure, ' ' the word of the be- 
 ginning of Christ." So the margin reads, and of 
 this Paul was writing. 
 
 Perfection is the theme of the Epistle; perfection 
 in Christ, in contrast to the imperfection under 
 Judaism. 
 
 'The law made nothing perfect, but the bring- 
 ing in of a better hope did." 
 
 Perfect access, a perfect priest, a perfect sacrifice, 
 and a perfect cleansing, "once for all." This is 
 what we have in Christ, as Paul shows in contrast 
 to the imperfection of all under Judaism. Leave 
 then (says Paul), the imperfect the beginning of 
 the word of Christ the fundamental doctrines of 
 Judaism and go on to the perfection to be found 
 in Christ. Every thing that is mentioned by Paul 
 as elementary, is the Jewish form of the doctrine, 
 while that which is elementary to Christianity 
 Jesus and the resurrection has no place. 
 
 "The laying on of hands " is among the doctrines 
 thus pointed out. It had, therefore, an important 
 place in the teaching of the Jew. It was the sign 
 
 ; 'l 
 
144 ATONEMENT. 
 
 of identity, by which the worshiper identified 
 himself with the victim, designated it as his. It 
 was this oneness, or identity, that secured for the 
 offerer the benefits of the offering he presented. 
 The offering itself was a sweet savor, and all that 
 the offering of which it was a type meant, was 
 thus bestowed upon the offerer, "accepted for 
 him," as the sacrificial substitute of him who 
 offered it. 
 
 This laying on of hands points, as a type, to the 
 act of faith by which Christ is appropriated and the 
 believer by one Spirit is "baptized into Christ." 
 
 The flaying, the cutting into pieces, all, as types, 
 were but tests to show that the victim was really 
 "without blemish." Perfect as a whole and per- 
 fect in every part. The structure of the frame, the 
 joints and sinews must all be laid bare, showing its 
 perfection in every part. 
 
 The burnt-offering was peculiarly God's. The 
 entire body was burnt upon the altar, none being 
 partaken of by the priest. The skin alone was 
 preserved, and this belonged to the priest who made 
 the offering. It was the skin of the for/-offering, 
 not of the ^//-offering; showing most beautifully 
 in type, the source and character of that righteous- 
 ness God provided when he made for man a " coat 
 of skins." 
 
 Man connects this righteousness with the sin-of- 
 fering a penal righteousness, or law keeping. 
 God's word connects it with the burnt-offering, in 
 which, as doing the Father's will, Jesus glorified 
 God. 
 
OFFERINGS. 145 
 
 It was all burnt, all consumed. It is God who 
 delights, and into this delight in its fullness no cre- 
 ated intelligence can enter. None but the infinite 
 God can ever apprehend the infinite value of Christ's 
 work, and therefore one offering is given to bring 
 this out. 
 
 In the Gospels we have Christ presented from 
 many stand-points. Thus he is the King of the 
 Jews in Matthew, a servant in Mark, the Son of 
 man in Luke, and the Son of God in John. This 
 is only one of many keys. We find another in the 
 offerings. As meat-offering he is seen in all, espe- 
 cially in John, because the burnt- offering is linked 
 with it more than any other. Matthew gives Christ 
 as trespass-offering. Mark as sin-offering. Hence, 
 it is only in these Gospels that we have the record 
 of the hiding of the Father's face. In Luke he is 
 the peace-offering; and how, as peace-offering, he 
 adds to the beauty of his life! Here, only, have we 
 the story of the prodigal son, of the good Samari- 
 tan; and here only, the words, "forgive them," on 
 the cross. In John we have Christ as burnt-offering. 
 The truth that runs all through John is that of 
 doiiig the Father's will, glorifying God. In John 
 only, he cries, "it is finished." Reading the Gos- 
 pels in the light of the offerings, and the offerings 
 in the light of the Gospels, we find a harmony and 
 a beauty that magnifies the work of Christ. 
 
 SECTION II. The Peace- Offering. 
 
 The peace-offering is also a sweet savor offering, 
 and hence, does not bring out directly the thought 
 ii 
 
146 ATONEMENT. 
 
 of sin bearing. Of course, the work of Christ is so 
 one, that in all the offerings the question of sin and 
 atonement is brought out; but in this analysis we 
 are showing the stand-point from which each offer- 
 ing presents the work of Christ. 
 
 The peace-offering gives us communion. It 
 presents Christ's work from the same stand- 
 point as the burnt-offering, with this difference: 
 that in the burnt-offering all was consumed, while 
 in the peace-offering a part was reserved for the 
 priestly family. We have one distinct offering to 
 bring out God's delight in the work of his Son. 
 It is this offering that is accepted for us. We are 
 not accepted according to our appreciation of 
 Christ's work, but according to God } s estimate of it. 
 Our standing is not measured by our feelings, faith, 
 or knowledge, but by the measure of God's satisfac- 
 tion and delight in the finished work of Christ. 
 How foolish to be occupied with self instead of Christ ! 
 
 In the peace-offering, we enter into this thought, 
 and have communion with God in his delight in 
 the work of his Son. The breast and the shoulder 
 (affection and power), are reserved to be eaten by 
 the priestly family, in communion with God and 
 each other. 
 
 No peace until the blood is shed the blood being 
 the ground of peace and the basis of communion. 
 But no sooner is the blood shed than God and the 
 worshipers dwell together in happy communion. 
 
 Some interesting features are brought out in the 
 law of the peace-offering. 
 
 It must be eaten the same day that the blood was 
 
OFFERINGS. 147 
 
 shed, showing how close is the connection between 
 communion and the blood. 
 
 The person who should eat of the peace-offering 
 while ceremonially unclean, was to be cut off. As 
 this great lesson is elaborated in the chapter on 
 " Feet Washing," we pass it by here. 
 
 The Latin "communion," and the old Anglo- 
 Saxon ' i fellowship, ' ' both translate the Greek 
 zpevatvia (koinoonid], and have the same idea of 
 something in common. But what is it we feed 
 upon in common, or in communion with God? 
 Surely not the sin bearing. It can only be in his 
 delight in the result of the completed work of 
 Christ. Here we have communion and peace, and 
 here only do we find abiding peace. When a 
 Christian is constantly looking at his sins, continu- 
 ally asking for a fresh application of the blood to 
 be made, he is on Jewish ground and fails to appre- 
 ciate the perfection of Christ's work. The perfect 
 cleansing (Heb. x.), the " no condemnation " (Rom. 
 viii.), have never been seen, so that God's thought 
 has never been shared in communion. 
 
 It is a blessed thought that while the head may 
 be wrong, having the old Jewish thought of a sacri- 
 fice to be repeated with every sin, the heart often 
 gives instinctively a fuller value to Christ's work, 
 so bringing practically into communion, and the 
 blessed enjoyment of the peace-offering. 
 
 SECTION III. The Sin-Offering. 
 
 We come now to an examination of the offerings 
 that give us the death of Christ from a stand-point 
 
148 ATONEMENT. 
 
 where they are not u sweet savor " offerings. The 
 sweet savor offerings represent the delight of his 
 love in the finished work of Christ; the sin and 
 trespass offerings the display of his holiness in 
 the judgment of sin, but from two different 
 directions. 
 
 It is always true of sin that it separates, but we 
 must discriminate the character of this separation. 
 
 Sin as nature, separates absolutely and of inevit- 
 able necessity. This separation lasts as long as 
 the depravity. 
 
 Sin as transgression, separates judicially. It 
 arouses the divine jealousy and enkindles the divine 
 wrath, so that u God is angry every day," has his 
 face turned away, and needs to be propitiated. 
 This separation ceases when propitiation has been 
 made. 
 
 Sin in the believer separates; so that the Father's 
 face is- hidden, and communion is interrupted. 
 God's remedy for this is not the blood, but confes- 
 sion. (See u Feet Washing.") 
 
 The distinction between the sin and trespass offer- 
 ings may, therefore, be briefly stated as: 
 
 The sin-offering has respect to the divine nature. 
 The trespass-offering to the demands of the divine 
 government. This is indicated in the words used 
 ( l c sin ' ' and ' ' trespass ' ' ), and is pointed out in 
 what is said of each. One represents Christ as pro- 
 pitiating God, the other as making restitution. 
 
 The features special to the sin-offering are : 
 
 First. The blood of the sin-offering w r as sprinkled 
 seven times before "the veil of the sanctuary r ." 
 
OFFERINGS. 149 
 
 The veil hanging between the Holy and the Holiest 
 told, in type, that God was not propitiated, that 
 God was "angry every day/' The sprinkling of 
 the blood proclaimed the only ground upon which 
 we can come into the presence of God. 
 
 So, now, when the veil has been rent, when God 
 has been propitiated, when all barriers have been 
 swept away, it is on the ground of the blood alone 
 that we come into the holiest. 
 
 " Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter 
 into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new 
 and living way, which he hath consecrated for us." 
 Heb. x. 19, 20. 
 
 This last is literally "newly slain" (a/H&cf>aroc, 
 prosphatos\ or as it might be rendered 
 
 ( ' By the blood of Jesus, the new and living 
 way. ' * 
 
 It is the blood that brings us nigh. It was be- 
 cause God's claims had been met, that the veil was 
 rent; so in the sin-offering we find the sprinkling of 
 the blood before the veil. 
 
 Second. In the sin-offering the body was con- 
 sumed, or burnt outside the camp; and that not 
 upon an altar, but upon the ground. All indicates 
 truth of great importance. "The altar sanctifies 
 the gift, ' ' but the altar belongs to the burnt-offer- 
 ing, and not the sin-offering. The divinity gave to 
 the completed work its value. The absence of the 
 altar in the burning of the sin-offering shows that 
 the idea of infinite suffering has no place in the 
 Bible type. 
 
150 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The offering was the burning of the body, or a 
 part of it; not the presentation of the blood, which 
 is fatal to Bushnell's theory of sacrifice. 
 
 "The priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a 
 burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet 
 savor unto the Lord." Lev. i. 9. 
 
 In the meat-offering there was no blood, yet it 
 was an offering made by fire. The burning of the 
 sin-offering, on the ground; outside the camp, is, 
 therefore, deeply interesting. 
 
 Divinity can not be linked with sin, but connects 
 itself with the person. No altar for the sin-offering 
 exhibits the holiness of God and the demerit of 
 sin. 
 
 The place is also suggestive "outside the 
 camp." It was the place where the leper was ban- 
 ished, where the scape-goat was led, and tells 
 vividly, in type, the place that Jesus must take in 
 order to atonement. 
 
 "For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is 
 brought into the sanctuary by the high -priest for sin 
 are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus 
 also, that he might sanctify the people with his 
 own blood, suffered without the gate." 
 
 Third. The blood of the sin-offering was the only 
 blood carried into the holy of holies. The bodies 
 burnt ' l without the camp ' ' were of ( ' those beasts 
 whose blood is brought into the sanctuary." 
 
 Before leaving the sin-offering, we refer to the 
 laying on of hands once more. This was always a 
 sign of identity; but very different the thought in 
 
OFFERINGS. 151 
 
 the sin and burnt offerings. The burnt- offering 
 gave to the offerer all the merit the offering pos- 
 sessed; in the sin-offering, the offering was looked 
 upon and treated according to what the offerer was. 
 Thus the offering dealt with according to the de- 
 merit of the offerer, burnt without the camp, shows 
 what Christ was made for us, not what he is in 
 himself. For this reason there was no flaying, no 
 ' ' cutting into his pieces, ' ' in the sin-offering. 
 
 SECTION V. The Trespass-Offering. 
 
 The great truth of the trespass-offering is that of 
 restitution. It is the governmental side of the 
 cross. A partial view, but not a complete one. 
 
 Depravity separating from God, so that the 
 ' ' outer darkness ' ' is the necessary portion of the 
 sinner, carries with it the thought that sin, as 
 transgression, has this same separating character; 
 and as transgression merits, and will receive, the 
 punishment that God's holiness demands. This 
 is seen in the sin-offering. But in the punishment 
 of the wicked, the many or the few stripes pre- 
 sent the governmental awards of the great white 
 throne. 
 
 Restitution is the great thought; and this has to 
 be estimated by the priest in silver, the ram of the 
 offering being itself a part of the repayment. But 
 in every case the one fifth more has to be added. 
 Christ's work goes beyond the restoration of what 
 Adam forfeited, God and man alike being gainers 
 by it. God's government receives a glory from the 
 work of Christ that far outweighs the dishonor done 
 
152 ATONEMENT. 
 
 to it by man's sin and rebellion; while man, whose 
 sin forfeited an earthly paradise, receives the glory 
 and the blessedness of heaven. 
 
 The trespass-offerings were of two kinds; for 
 trespass against God and man. If it was against 
 God, the offering must first be made, then restitu- 
 tion. If against man, restitution first. 
 
 ' ' First go and be reconciled to thy brother, then 
 come and offer thy gift. ' y 
 
 Speaking of restitution from its manward outlook, 
 one writer presents an almost forgotten truth, and 
 yet one that ought to be taught everywhere. He 
 says : 
 
 ' ' Man, as well as God, is a positive gainer by the 
 cross. The believer can say, as he gazes upon that 
 cross, Well, it matters not how I have been wronged 
 how I have been transgressed against how I 
 have been deceived what wrongs have been done 
 me I am a gainer by the cross. I have not merely 
 received back all that was lost, but much more be- 
 sides. 
 
 "Thus, whether we think of the injured or the in- 
 jurer, in any given case, we are equally struck with 
 the glorious triumph of redemption, and the mighty 
 practical results which flow from that gospel which 
 fills the soul with the happy assurance that ' all 
 trespasses' are 'forgiven,' and that the root from 
 whence those trespasses have sprung, has been 
 judged. ' The gospel of the glory of the blessed 
 God ' is that which alone can send forth a man into 
 the midst of a scene which has been a witness to 
 his sins, his trespasses, and his injurious ways can 
 send him back to all who in anywise have been suf- 
 ferers by his evil doings, furnished with grace, not 
 
OFFERINGS. 153 
 
 only to repair the wrongs, but far more, to allow 
 the full tide of practical benevolence to flow forth 
 in all his ways yea, to love his enemies, to do good 
 to them that hate him, and to pray for them that 
 despitefully use him and persecute him. Such is 
 the precious grace of God that acts in connection 
 with our great Trespass-offering! Such are its rich, 
 rare, and refreshing fruits! 
 
 ' ' What a triumphant answer to the caviler who 
 would say, ' Shall we continue in sin that grace 
 may abound ? ' Grace not merely cuts up sin by the 
 roots, but transforms the sinner from a curse into a 
 blessing, from a moral plague into a channel of di- 
 vine mercy, from an emissary of Satan into a messen- 
 ger of God, from a child of darkness into a self-deny- 
 ing lover of God, from a slave of vile, selfish lusts into 
 a willing-hearted servant of Christ, from a cold, 
 narrow-hearted miser, into a benevolent minister to 
 the need of his fellow-men. Away, then, with the 
 oft-repeated taunts, 'Are we to do nothing?' 
 'that is a marvelously easy way to be saved,' 'ac- 
 cording to this gospel, we may live as we list.' Let 
 all who utter such language behold yonder thief 
 transformed into a liberal donor, and let them be 
 silent forever (Eph. iv. 28). They know not what 
 grace means; they have never felt its sanctifying 
 and elevating influences. They forget that, while 
 the blood of the trespass- offer ing cleanses the con- 
 science, the law of that offering sends the trespasser 
 back to the one he has wronged, with the ' princi- 
 pal ' and the ' fifth ' in his hand. Noble testimony 
 this, both to the grace and righteousness of the God 
 of Israel! Beautiful exhibition of the results of 
 that marvelous scheme of redemption, whereby the 
 injurer is forgiven, and the injured becomes an 
 actual gainer! If the conscience has been set to 
 rights, by the blood of the cross, in reference to the 
 claims of God, the conduct must be set to rights, by 
 
154 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the holiness of the cross, in reference to the claims of 
 practical righteousness. These things must never 
 be separated; God has joined them together, and 
 let not man put them asunder. The hallowed union 
 will never be dissolved by any mind which is gov- 
 erned by pure gospel morality. Alas! it is easy to 
 profess the principles of grace, while the practice 
 arid power thereof are completely denied; it is easy 
 to talk of resting in the blood of the Trespass-offer- 
 ing, while the * principal ' and the ' fifth ' are not 
 forthcoming. ' ' 
 
 How grand in its different lights is the govern- 
 mental aspect of the cross, when compared with 
 the u governmental theories" of men. 
 
 Before we close this chapter on the offerings, we 
 will point out the offerings as they are presented in 
 the Psalms. The four principal Messianic Psalms 
 answer to the four offerings. 
 
 First. The sin-offering. Psalm xxii. 
 
 In the first verse we have the key to this psalm, 
 in the language used by Christ on the cross: 
 
 " Why hast thou forsaken me? " 
 
 The burden of the psalm is the peculiar character 
 of the suffering that this cry indicates. Speaking 
 prophetically, the psalm shows that great as were 
 the sufferings Christ endured at the hands of men, 
 others had suffered in the same way. But when 
 they had trusted in God, he had never forsaken 
 them, and deliverance had come. 
 
 In this "Psalm of atonement," this is the great 
 feature the Righteous One forsaken of God. 
 
OFFERINGS. 155 
 
 ' ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? 
 far from helping me, from the words of my roaring ? 
 O my God, I cry in the daytime, and thou hearest 
 not, and in the night season, and am not silent! " 
 
 This being forsaken was so different from any 
 thing that had been experienced by a righteous man 
 before, that it is pointed out as thus distinguished. 
 
 "Our fathers trusted in thee; they trusted, and 
 thou didst deliver them; they looked unto thee, 
 and were delivered ; they trusted in thee, and were 
 not confounded. But /am a worm and no man." 
 
 In the sinlessness of his character, this hiding of 
 the Father's face meant far more to Christ than to 
 any other. We can never fathom it or measure the 
 intensity of the cry as he asks, u Why hast thou 
 forsaken Me?" 
 
 This special hiding of the Father's face, a thing 
 so unique in his dealings with the righteous, points 
 to the vicarious character of the sufferings he en- 
 dured as our great sin-offering. 
 
 For this reason, when the work is done, we find 
 him at once surrounded by the "brethren." 
 
 Second. The burnt-offering. Psalm xl. 
 
 The leading thought of this psalm is expressed 
 in the words : 
 
 " IvO I come to do thy will." 
 
 And the fact is set forth that by doing this will, 
 the types and shadows the sacrifices of Judaism 
 come to an end. It is Christ as burnt- offering that 
 we see in every line of this psalm. Christ doing 
 
156 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the Father's will, suffering, getting into the horri- 
 ble pit, delivered and made to rejoice. 
 
 Third. The trespass-offering. Psalm Ixix. 
 
 The whole psalm speaks of the suffering of 
 Christ but in their governmental aspect. "Sin," 
 in verse five, should be "trespasses;" while the 
 language in verse four : 
 
 " I restored that which I took not away," 
 points to his work of restitution; and this restitu- 
 tion made for others, and not for himself. 
 
 Fourth. The peace-offering. Psalm cii. 
 
 Here, the feature connected with the sufferings 
 of Christ that is specially pointed out, is their re- 
 sult as bringing a people into fellowship with him- 
 self, a congregation to worship him at Jerusalem. 
 
 We have not given any full, elaborate exposition 
 of these psalms, designing only to point out their 
 distinctive features. Our readers must open up this 
 vein of truth for themselves. 
 
 If we read these psalms in the light of the offer- 
 ings, we shall find a beauty that we otherwise would 
 overlook. From the psalms themselves we get 
 further light on the offering. Thus God's word 
 becomes resplendent in the light of its own truth, 
 its glory being the cross, and that cross a vicarious 
 sacrifice. As biirnt-offering, peace-offering, sin- 
 offering, trespass-offering, he meets the needs of 
 men and glorifies God, and yet his work is one. 
 
 " By one offering he hath perfected forever them 
 that are sanctified." Heb. x. 14. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 THE BLOOD. 
 
 Before we leave the subject of sacrifice, we may 
 properly examine some offerings that give us further 
 light. 
 
 SECTION I. AbeV s Sacrifice. 
 
 While we believe that Adam offered a sacrifice in 
 the garden, as indicated by the coat of skins, which 
 could only have been provided by the shedding of 
 the blood of a victim, Abel's is the first recorded 
 sacrifice. We may, therefore, expect that the lead- 
 ing features will be forcibly brought out, especially 
 in the light of the New Testament. The record is : 
 
 ' ' In process of time it came to pass, that Cain 
 brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to 
 the Lord. 
 
 And Abel, he also brought of the firstling of his 
 flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had re- 
 spect unto Abel and to his offering." Gen. iv. 4, 5. 
 
 Both Cain and Abel were born after the expulsion 
 from Eden. Both were the children of fallen Adam, 
 both were depraved, and both needed a savior. 
 There was ' c no difference' ' as to this. It was entirely 
 in the sacrifice they offered that they were so widely 
 apart, that one was accepted and the other rejected. 
 
158 ATONEMENT. 
 
 u By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice 
 than Cain." 
 
 What was this difference? Cain, we are told, 
 "brought of the fruit of the ground " that ground 
 that God had cursed. He had been taught, equally 
 with Abel, of the evil of sin and the consequent 
 exposure to death and " after death the judgment." 
 No doubt he had heard of the glorious promise of 
 a Savior and of his father's faith in that promise, 
 but in the pride of his heart he fails to believe; 
 fails to take the sinner's place, and dares, an unfor- 
 given sinner, to bring the fruit of his hands as an 
 offering to the Lord. He manifests no faith in the 
 Savior and comes with an unbloody sacrifice, 
 bringing life, not death ; forgetting, or disbelieving, 
 that 
 
 "Without shedding of blood is no remission." 
 
 Abel offers, by faith, a more excellent sacrifice. 
 He takes the place of a sinner and claims the prom- 
 ise of a Savior, bringing the blood of a victim; and 
 on the ground of that blood, he is accepted of God. 
 God testifying, or bearing witness, "of his gifts," 
 as the ground of his being righteous. 
 
 God's answer to Cain points this out as the 
 ground of Abel's acceptance. 
 
 "If thou doestwell" this is rendered in the 
 Septuagint by opdcoz TtpoGzvs-fQr^ (prthoos proseneg- 
 kees\ "if thou offer correctly shalt thou not be ac- 
 cepted." On the other hand, "if thou doest not 
 well, a sin-offering lieth at the door." Where there 
 is sin, God has made provision for the acceptance 
 
THE BLOOD. 159 
 
 of the offerer a sin-offering waits at the door. If, 
 therefore, Cain was not accepted, it was because of 
 his failure to avail himself of this provision. The 
 blood of Abel's sacrifice was accepted for him, but 
 we look to 
 
 ' ' The blood of sprinkling that speaketh better 
 things than that of Abel." 
 
 SECTION II. The Offering of Isaac. 
 
 The offering of Isaac by Abraham, while a trial 
 of Abraham's faith, evidently represents Isaac as a 
 type of Christ. A careful examination of the alle- 
 gory, in Galatians, and of the eleventh chapter of 
 Hebrews, will show this. Isaac, "the child of 
 promise," offered by Abraham, points on to the 
 promised ' ' seed, ' ' and, as a type, shows features 
 not found elsewhere. 
 
 First. The command to offer Isaac was the com- 
 mand for a human sacrifice. Of course God never 
 intended that Isaac should die, having provided a 
 ram as a substitute; but it was a lifting, in some 
 measure, of the veil, showing what the true thought 
 of sacrifice is a man dying in the place of man. 
 It is the seed of the woman with bruised heel that 
 we here catch a glimpse of. 
 
 Second. The language used points on to Christ : 
 ' Take now thy son, thy only begotten son." 
 
 Third. This leads to still another thought, that 
 which is its great typical lesson that this is the 
 only offering where God's love in the gift of his 
 Son is shown: "take now thy son " this son of 
 thy love, the child around whom your affection 
 
160 ATONEMENT. 
 
 clings take him, and offer him upon the altar. In 
 the ready, unmurmuring response of Abraham, we 
 have a type of God's love in the gift of his Son. 
 
 ' ' God so loved the world that he gave his only 
 begotten Son." 
 
 This aspect of sacrifice is continually emphasized 
 in the Bible. " The gift of God," who "spared 
 not ' ' his own Son, but freely gave him to die, is 
 the theme everywhere. While we honor the Son 
 and sing of his "dying love," we must remember 
 the Father's love in the gift of that Son. This 
 should vivify the praise and adoration of his people. 
 
 Mark the words of Abraham in response to the 
 questions of Isaac "God will provide a lamb to* 
 the burnt-offering." As it was a "ram" that was 
 caught in the thicket, this evidently looks forward, 
 prophetically, to that Lamb that in the ' ' fullness 
 of time" God was to provide for the sins of the 
 people. "God will provide." It is not man's pro- 
 vision, but God's; not what man does for himself, 
 but what God does for him, by the gift of his Son. 
 
 Fourth. The perfect submission of Isaac to the 
 will of his Father, even permitting himself to be 
 bound to the altar "obedient unto death." How 
 it all points to Christ! The Father's love in giving 
 his Son, and the perfect obedience of that Son, are 
 both illustrated in the type. 
 
 SECTION III. The Blood. 
 
 As all types meet in the person of Christ, all sac- 
 rifices point to him, each bringing into view some 
 new aspect of the cross. But in every sacrifice we 
 
THE BLOOD. 161 
 
 have prominence given to the blood. The blood 
 meets us at every stage of the world's history, and 
 the importance of the blood is insisted on in every 
 dispensation. 
 
 " For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I 
 have given it to you upon the altar to make an 
 atonement for your souls : for it is the blood that 
 maketh an atonement for the soul." L,ev. xvii. n. 
 
 "In whom we have redemption through his 
 blood, the forgiveness of sins." Eph. i. 7; Col. 
 i. 14. 
 
 "Without shedding of blood is no remission." 
 Heb. ix. 22. 
 
 "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth 
 us from all sin." i John i. 7. 
 
 "And have washed their robes, and made them 
 white in the blood of the Lamb." Rev. vii. 14. 
 
 Such verses might be multiplied; showing that 
 everywhere the Old Testament declares that the 
 blood makes atonement, while the New proclaims 
 no remission without the blood. 
 
 What does the blood mean ? What was accom- 
 plished by it ? 
 
 The popular method of dealing with such texts 
 as- the above, by those who reject a vicarious atone- 
 ment, is to speak of .them as figurative. This is 
 followed by the assumption that if they are figura- 
 tive, they may be interpreted in any way the fancy, 
 or creed, of the interpreter may suggest. 
 
 The statement that they are figurative is too 
 12 
 
162 ATONEMENT. 
 
 sweeping and fails to discriminate between what is 
 literal, figurative, and spiritual. The expression 
 " shedding of blood " is figurative for the taking of 
 the life. The life being "in the blood," when the 
 blood is "shed," or "poured out," the life is taken, 
 and the victim dies. The uniform Bible use of the 
 expression is to point out -iteral death. 
 
 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his 
 blood be shed." Gen. ix. 6. 
 
 This means, as all agree, the killing of a man, 
 and indicates what the expression means in the 
 Bible : 
 
 "The blood is the life." Deut. xii. 2.3. 
 
 The shedding of the blood was the taking of the 
 life; and where life had been taken, the guilt of 
 ihe blood was said to rest. 
 
 "At the hand of every man's brother will I re- 
 quire the life of man." Gen. ix. 5. 
 
 " His blood will I require." Ezek. iii. 18. 
 
 A careful examination of the many passages sim- 
 ilar to these, speaking of the blood being required, 
 the blood being upon their heads, the land being 
 cleansed of the blood, washing the hands of the 
 blood, etc., show that blood-shedding and life-tak- 
 ing are synonymous. Blood-shedding never means 
 any thing else in the Bible. Until Scripture au- 
 thority is given for any other meaning, sound in- 
 terpretation leads to the acceptance of that which 
 is expressed. This rests upon a Bible basis, all 
 others upon the imaginations of men. 
 
THE BLOOD. 163 
 
 In the victims offered in sacrifice, the blood shed- 
 ding was always the taking of the life, there being 
 no example of blood shedding without it. As 
 death corporeal death was the penalty of the 
 law, we see that the death of the victim was in the 
 place of the person who made the sacrifice, it being 
 "accepted for him." This was literally, the sub- 
 stitution of the life of the victim for the forfeited 
 life of the offerer. In the old Mosaic sacrifice, the 
 death of the victim never meant more than this; 
 for, 
 
 ' ' It was not possible that the blood of bulls and 
 of goats should take away sins." Heb. x. 4. 
 
 Christ's death, while literal, and, as such, a meet- 
 ing of the penalty of the law, went beyond this; 
 and this deeper meaning in the antitype is embodied 
 in language taken from the type. But the one 
 represented the other. If the one was vicarious, 
 the other must be. The language would be mis- 
 leading when used of Christ if it were not. If the 
 Jewish sacrifice was a vicarious meeting of the 
 claims of law, then Christ's death is a meeting of 
 the demands of God in our stead. The blood of 
 the victim on the gold of the mercy-seat told of 
 law satisfied, so that mercy came to men. Log- 
 ically, the blood of Jesus does the same, on a higher, 
 broader scale. 
 
 " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
 ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sancti- 
 fieth to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more 
 shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal 
 
164 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge 
 your conscience from dead works to serve the living 
 God." Heb. ix. 13, 14. 
 
 This is the deep spiritual meaning of the blood. 
 The advocates of the Moral Influence theory, quot- 
 ing Lev. xvii. n u the life is in the blood " hold 
 that as the blood is the "bearer of life," the blood 
 being brought to the mercy-seat simply means that 
 the life of the offerer is dedicated to God. We ob- 
 ject to this 
 
 First. While it was the offerer who killed the 
 victim, it was the priest that put the blood on the 
 horns of the altar, or wherever else it was placed. 
 On the Day of Atonement it was the high-priest who 
 killed the goat and carried its blood into the holiest. 
 All this is out of harmony with any other than a 
 vicarious death. The man offers the animal which 
 is accepted for him, and after it is accepted after, 
 not before he kills it, and the priest disposes of the 
 blood. 
 
 Second. The uniform Bible use forces us to give 
 to the blood shedding the meaning of life taking, 
 the blood being the evidence the memorial that 
 death had been inflicted. 
 
 Third. The blood makes atonement. Atonement 
 is "to cover" over, this being always done when 
 sin was in question, by an expiation. The theory 
 denies that atonement "atones" for sin, giving to 
 the word a meaning (at-one-ment) that is not war- 
 ranted by Greek or Hebrew usage. Words in the 
 Bible are always used in the sense they had when 
 
THE BLOOD. 165 
 
 the writers lived. If there are any exceptions to 
 this rule, the fuller meaning or new application will 
 always be indicated by the context. Even then 
 the old meaning is the essential basis of the new 
 application. Such new meanings are never to be 
 accepted but on the clearest evidence. In the 
 absence of such evidence, it is an assumption to 
 give any new meaning. It is beyond contro- 
 versy that the Hebrew word for atonement carried 
 with it the idea of expiation, and that it was so 
 used by the Jews. So with the Greek word for 
 propitiation. Not one quotation can be given from 
 either Greek or Jewish writers, where the words are 
 used in connection with sin, in any other sense. 
 All lexicons so define the words. The church has 
 always so understood them. If, then, we take 
 atonement in its true sense, the theory denies that 
 the blood makes atonement; which is the very thing 
 the Bible affirms. 
 
 Oehler, while holding a vicarious atonement, 
 presents a theory inconsistent with it. It is indi- 
 cated in the following quotation : 
 
 " The meaning of this use of the blood is given 
 in Lev. xvii. n, where the prohibition to use 
 blood is based on the following declaration : '.For 
 the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have 
 given it to you on the altar to atone for (properly to 
 
 cover) your souls (D^b'Sr^ "IS)? 1 ? ); for the 
 blood expiates through the soul (^$35), that 
 is, by means of, in virtue of the fact that the soul 
 is in it. , Now in ivhat sense is the soul of 
 
i66 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the animal presented in the blood to serve in the 
 sacrifice as a covering for the soul of man ? Gener- 
 ally speaking, by marts placing the soul of the pure, 
 innocent sacrificial animal betiveen himself and God, 
 because he is unable to approach God immediately 
 on account of his sinfulness and impurity .... 
 it is not the act of slaughter by which the guilt is 
 carried away, but the act of presenting the blood on 
 the altar that is designated as the act of atone- 
 ment" 
 
 First. The translation, "the soul of the flesh is 
 in the blood," is not given either in the Authorized 
 or Revised Scriptures, nor do we regard it as de- 
 fensible here. The Hebrew " nephesh," like the 
 Greek "psuchee," is used with many meanings in 
 the Bible. They both express a twofold sense of 
 the word "life," being properly translated both 
 "soul" and "life." Life being, in the Bible, a 
 derived meaning from that of "soul." Other 
 senses of the word "life" are expressed by other 
 words. 
 
 Nephesh denotes potential life as when we say, 
 "there is life in him;" and phenomenal life, as 
 when we say, "he is full of life." In other words, 
 the soul an immaterial entity is the potential life 
 of the body. It is the unseen, hidden energy, that 
 is the cause of the motion of the machine. On the 
 other hand, the motion of the machine the activ- 
 ities of the body are but the phenomenal soul. 
 In the first of these meanings, "soul" is the true 
 translation, in the last " life." The blood being the 
 vehicle of all vital action, it is evidently in the last 
 sense that nephesh is used; and life, not soul, is its 
 
THE BLOOD. 167 
 
 appropriate translation. This is shown by compar- 
 ing with parallel texts. 
 
 " For the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.'' 
 Lev. xvii. 14. 
 
 "The blood is the life." Deut. xii. 23. 
 
 It is "nephesh" in both these texts, but it 
 would hardly do to translate it "soul" here, as that 
 would make the blood to be the soul that would be 
 the grossest materialism. The first of these quota- 
 tions being in the same connection fixes the trans- 
 lation life as the true one. 
 
 Second. It is inconceivable how the soul of a 
 pure animal can be put between a sinner and God. 
 What meaning is to be attached to it ? 
 
 Third. It is the blood and not the soul, or life, 
 that makes atonement. 
 
 Fourth. In opposition to Oehler, we believe that 
 it was the blood shedding, or rather what was ac- 
 complished by it, that made atonement. The vic- 
 tim was brought as an offering and presented to 
 God, who accepted it for him to make atonement. 
 After this presentation and acceptance, the victim 
 was slain and the priest applied the blood. As to 
 the presentation of the blood to God, this was 
 only done in the sin-offering of the Day of Atone- 
 ment. 
 
 The blood makes atonement; and after the death 
 of the victim, the blood was the memorial of an 
 accomplished 'sacrifice. 
 
 The blood belonged to God, and not to man; 
 hence he says: 
 
i68 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ' ' I have given it to you upon the altar to make 
 an atonement for your souls." 
 
 It was there as God's gift to men, telling to men 
 of propitiation and the Gift that saves. 
 
 * In sacrifice the blood was never put upon the 
 people. In the consecration of the priest, the blood 
 was put on the ear, thumb, and great toe; but this, 
 while beautiful and suggestive, was consecration, 
 not atonement. 
 
 The only exception was in the case of the mak- 
 ing of the covenant, when we read : 
 
 ' ' Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the 
 people, and said, Behold the blood of the cov- 
 enant." 
 
 Moses and the seventy elders were called into the 
 mount, but it was to worship ' ' afar off; ' ' for, 
 
 u They shall not come nigh." 
 
 God, * ' angry every day, ' * was still separated from 
 the people. Nowhere under law do we find the 
 people brought nigh. In entering into a covenant 
 with the people, we find that it is dedicated with 
 blood. 
 
 Death being the penal sanction of the law, it 
 was only on the ground of its claims being met and 
 satisfied, that the covenant relation could be estab- 
 lished or maintained. Under law, without law, or 
 under grace, it is always the same the blood is the 
 only ground of blessing. Without the blood is no 
 remission, and without remission there is no grace, 
 no blessing. 
 
 With the glory of God on the mount as a " con- 
 
THE BLOOD. 169 
 
 sumhig fire," and sin and defilement in the camp, 
 there could be no communion, no covenant, until 
 the altar is erected, the blood shed, and atonement 
 made. The blood sprinkled upon the people tells 
 that they are the Lord's solely on the ground of 
 the blood, and not personal merit. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 REDEMPTION. 
 
 We come now to a very important theme, one 
 that presents the work of Christ from another stand- 
 point, but in harmony with the distinctions we 
 have insisted upon. 
 
 Redemption is of a twofold character, correspond- 
 ing, as God's provision of grace, to sin as trans- 
 gression, and as depravity. 
 
 The Old Testament furnishes us with many types 
 of this twofold redemption. 
 
 SECTION I. The Year of Jubilee. 
 
 Among the Jews, every seventh year was a Sab- 
 bath; but when seven of their Sabbatical periods 
 had passed, the fiftieth year was a jubilee, a special 
 provision for redemption. 
 
 The year of jubilee was proclaimed by the sound 
 of the trumpet, which was sounded on the Day of 
 Atonement, when all sin had been expiated. It is 
 worthy of note how closely redemption by power 
 is connected with the blood shedding. Israel's re- 
 demption from Egypt followed close upon the death 
 of the Lamb and the appearance of the blood upon 
 the door posts. The year of Jubilee is ushered in 
 by the solemn work of the Day of Atonement. 
 
REDEMPTION. 171 
 
 The great feature of the jubilee was: 
 
 ' ' And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- 
 claim liberty throughout all the land unto all the 
 inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; 
 and ye shall return every man into his family. ' ' 
 
 This shows the blessing. Every Israelite who 
 had sold himself on account of poverty became 
 free, and every alienated inheritance was restored 
 to its original owners. During the fifty years the 
 slave might be redeemed by the payment of a ran- 
 som, the provision for this being indicated by law. 
 But the year of jubilee set free without any 
 payment. 
 
 So with the land. Being divided among the tribes 
 and sub-divided among the families, it became their 
 perpetual inheritance. If, however, it had in any 
 way passed into alien possession, provision was 
 made for the redemption by purchase; and the one 
 whose right it was to redeem was indicated by law. 
 An illustration of this is seen in the case of Boaz. 
 The kinsman nearer than he had to renounce his 
 right, before Boaz could redeem Ruth's inheritance. 
 
 The jubilee shows, therefore, a twofold redemp- 
 tion by the payment of a price, or by power. 
 
 What a year! what blessings! When the notes 
 of the silver trumpet rang out, sweet and clear, its 
 echoes penetrated into every part of the land and 
 gave liberty to the captive and untold blessing to 
 the people. The exile returned to his home, the 
 poor and the struggling entered again upon their 
 possessions; the debtor was freed from his debts, 
 
172 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the man-slayer could return home in peace. The 
 full tide of blessing flowed over the land! It was 
 indeed a year of jubilee! 
 
 SECTION II. The Goel, or Redeemer. 
 
 The idea of redemption being prominent in the 
 Jewish theocracy, we find special provision for it 
 in their laws, and we find one who was specially 
 the Redeemer. As to the meaning : 
 
 The verb 7X3 (gaal) means primarily u to re- 
 deem, to ransom;" and is translated "redeem," 
 but never ransom, the Hebrew word for that being 
 kopher, indicating that a ransom is that which 
 "covers" satisfies the demand, and so liberates. 
 
 Other words are used to express the idea of re- 
 deeming, the principal one being ilH3 (padati), 
 "to cut, to cut in two;" hence, to "ransom or re- 
 deem," " to set free." 
 
 The difference between the two words is that 
 padah simply expresses the idea of setting free, 
 whereas gaal carries with it the thought of the 
 manner in which this is done, either by avenging 
 or by repayment. 
 
 Goel is the only word translated "Redeemer." 
 It is sometimes translated "kinsman" (the word 
 denoting a blood relation), and sometimes "avenger" 
 or "revenger." The Goel was the kinsman, whose 
 right it was to redeem when occasion demanded. 
 
 Under the Mosaic law, when a man died without 
 children, it became the duty of the next of kin to 
 marry the widow, so as to raise up children to pos- 
 
REDEMPTION. 173 
 
 sess the inheritance of the dead man, that it might 
 be saved to the family. 
 
 When property had been alienated, it was the 
 right of the next of kin to redeem it. 
 
 "There is a kinsman (gaal) nearer than I." 
 
 "And the kinsman said, I can not redeem it for 
 myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance : redeem 
 thou my right to thyself; for I can not redeem it." 
 Ruth iii. 12; iv. 6. 
 
 Again, when a murder had been committed, the 
 next of kin was called upon to slay the murderer; 
 the reason given being 
 
 "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye 
 are : for blood it defileth the land: and the land can 
 not be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but 
 by the blood of him that shed it." Num. xxxv. 33. 
 
 The word "cleansed" is in the Hebrew kapher 
 (atonement). Atonement must be made for the 
 wrong by the death of the man-slayer. His only 
 safety was to remain in the city of refuge, if the 
 killing had been accidental; and it was specially 
 prohibited that any "satisfaction" (kaphar) should 
 be received of him (verses 31, 32). He could not 
 make atonement himself. 
 
 The next of kin, whose duty it was to avenge the 
 death, and thus cleanse, or redeem, the land from 
 the curse, was the Goel, or Redeemer. 
 
 From this brief review it is seen that the Re- 
 deemer was a "kinsman," who redeemed by paying 
 a price, or by avenging. This brings out once more 
 the idea of a twofold redemption. 
 
174 ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION III. The firstling of an Ass Ex. 
 xiii. 13. 
 
 Under the Mosaic economy we find a distinction 
 made between clean and unclean animals. Of course 
 this was to teach some great spiritual lesson. This 
 is indicated in the vision granted to Peter. 
 
 ' ' And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel 
 descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet 
 knit at the four corners, and let down to the 
 earth : 
 
 "Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts 
 of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things 
 and" fowls of the air. 
 
 "And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill 
 and eat. 
 
 u But Peter said, Not so, L,ord; for I have never 
 eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 
 
 "And the voice spake unto him again the second 
 time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou 
 common." Acts x. 10-15. 
 
 4 ' Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a 
 man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto 
 one of another nation; but God hath showed me 
 that I should not call any man common or unclean. " 
 Acts x. 28. 
 
 The Jew was clean, or holy; the Gentile was un- 
 clean. This distinction was largely arbitrary, being 
 based upon natural birth alone. The real distinc- 
 tion indicated, is as between the saved and the 
 lost, the believer and the unbeliever. (See 2 Cor. 
 vi. 14-17, etc.) 
 
REDEMPTION. 175 
 
 The ass that had to be redeemed was an unclean 
 animal, the lamb that redeemed it was clean. It was 
 the substitution of the clean lamb in the place of 
 the unclean ass. 
 
 But why did it need to be redeemed ? 
 
 If we turn to the record we find that it is founded 
 upon the same event as the passover. The first- 
 born, both of man and beast, had perished among 
 the Egyptians; but those of the Hebrews, sheltered 
 by the blood, had been spared. On the ground of 
 this, God claimed all "firstlings" as his. 
 
 "And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in the 
 time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt 
 say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought 
 its out from Egypt, from the house of bondage. 
 
 "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would 
 hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first- 
 born of man, and the first-born of beast : therefore 
 I sacrifice to the Lord all that openetli the matrix, 
 being males; but all the first-born of my children I 
 redeem." Ex. xiii. 14, 15. 
 
 As the first-born belonged to the Lord, it was not 
 to do any work, it was to be eaten by the family 
 when sacrificed but only before the Lord. In the 
 case of the unclean animal, as it could not be sac- 
 rificed, because God can not accept what is unclean, 
 it must be redeemed, or slain. 
 
 "And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem 
 with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then 
 thou shalt break his neck : and all the first-born of 
 man among thy children thou shalt redeem." 
 
176 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Here we clearly have substitution, and its great 
 application pointed out in the closing sentence. 
 Man, like the ass, is unclean, and must, like it, be 
 redeemed, or perish. 
 
 How vivid is this passage! What more worthless 
 than a broken-necked ass ? This is the great offense 
 of the Bible; it gives man so low a place that it 
 humbles his pride. Without redemption, he will 
 be no better than a broken-necked ass. But what 
 is more exalted than the L,amb? It is a Lamb that 
 is seen in the midst of the throne. All heaven 
 sings, "Worthy the Lamb. " If, then, by nature, 
 we are so low, by grace we may become most ex- 
 alted. Grace makes the unclean clean, the worth- 
 less precious, and raises gulity sinners up into glory 
 there to share it with the Lamb. 
 
 But it is only as a "lamb" is slain as a substi- 
 tute. If he will not redeem it, its neck must be 
 broken. 
 
 SECTION IV. Redemption by Purchase. 
 
 Redemption by purchase is presented in many 
 texts. 
 
 " Ye are bought with a price." i Cor. vi. 20. 
 
 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- 
 deemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, 
 . . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as 
 of a lamb without blemish and without spot." i 
 Peter i. 18, 19. 
 
 The language here used links on to the Jewish 
 sacrifice, showing the effect of those sacrifices to be 
 
REDEMPTION. 177 
 
 our redemption. But it is redemption by purchase 
 that is so linked. From what are we redeemed ? 
 To whom was the price paid ? 
 
 In the early days of the church, there was a wide- 
 spread belief that this price, or ransom, was paid to 
 Satan. This was natural, when we remember the 
 custom of that day was to hold a captive for ransom. 
 The right of the conqueror was almost universally 
 recognized, captives even returning to captivity 
 when liberated on parole to obtain this ransom, and 
 being unable to do so. This right being so gener- 
 ally recognized, it was natural that Satan should be 
 regarded as having a right of conquest in men; 
 hence, the belief of many that the ransom was paid 
 to Satan. But the Bible gives no countenance to 
 this idea; as in no sense has the devil any valid 
 claim that God would recognize. The Bible 
 never teaches that we are redeemed from the 
 power of the devil by a ransom. It shows that 
 we are redeemed from the curse of the law, re- 
 deemed from sm y and, while it does not use the 
 words, that we are redeemed from the power of 
 the devil. But here comes in the distinction be- 
 tween redemption by purchase and power. Re- 
 demption from the curse of the law is by purchase; 
 from sin and the power of the devil, by power. 
 The first only, then, is vicarious. The others, in 
 the nature of things, can not be. 
 
 * ' To redeem them that were under the law, that 
 we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. iv. 5. 
 
 ' ' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law, being made a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13. 
 13 
 
178 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Here the manner of the redemption is pointed 
 out " being made a curse for us." It was God 
 who pronounced the curse of the law, and he will 
 execute it. As the moral governor of the universe, 
 he will enforce the sanctions of his law, and will 
 " in no wise clear the guilty." 
 
 As the blood that was shed had to be redeemed 
 by the Goel, because the law demanded "life for 
 life," and* was redeemed when the man-slayer was 
 killed the land being cleansed or atonement being 
 made so the demands against the sinner must be 
 met; and when met, he is redeemed from the curse 
 of the law. 
 
 The ass, because it was unclean, could not be ac- 
 cepted by the Lord, and was, therefore, doomed to 
 destruction, unless redeemed by a lamb. The lamb 
 was a ransom a price paid for its redemption; 
 and shows to whom the price was paid, and ivhy. 
 
 Christ meets the demand pays the price and 
 thus he becomes our "ransom." 
 
 "And to give his life a ransom for many."- 
 Matt. xx. 28. 
 
 " As Christ also loved the church and gave him- 
 self for it." Eph. v. 25. 
 
 "Who gave himself a ransom for all."- i Tim. 
 ii. 6. 
 
 In looking at these passages the prepositions that 
 are used have special force. They are fore/? (Imper} 
 and avri (anti). 
 
 The first is used in Ephesians, the last in Mat- 
 thew and Mark, while both are used in Timothy. 
 
REDEMPTION. 179 
 
 Huper, "with the genitive, generally, but not 
 always, carries the idea of substitution." It is the 
 preposition used in John x. 15; Rom. v. 6-8; 2 
 Cor. v. 20; Gal iii. 13, etc. 
 
 Anti, better than any other Greek word, expresses 
 the idea of substitution. (See Winer's Grammar 
 of New Testament Greek.) It is used in the follow- 
 ing texts : 
 
 "/;* the room (anti) of his father Herod." Matt, 
 ii. 22. 
 
 "An eye for (anti) an eye." Matt. v. 38. 
 
 : 'Will he for a fish give him a stone. " Matt. 
 xi. ii. 
 
 "Recompense to no man evil yfrrevil." Rom. 
 xii. 17. 
 
 See also Matt. xvii. 27; Luke i. 20; xii. 3; xix. 
 44; John i. 16; Acts xii. 13; i Cor. xi. 15; Kph. 
 v. 31; i Thess. v. 15; 2 Thess. ii. 10; Heb. xii. 2; 
 xii. 16; James iv. 15; i Peter xiii. 9. These are all 
 the texts where anti is used. "Gave himself a 
 ransom for many," is, therefore, "in the room," 
 or ' ' place ' ' of many. 
 
 In i Tim. ii. 6, both prepositions are used, so 
 making one of the strongest possible statements of 
 substitution. It could not have been presented 
 more forcibly in Greek. It reads, 6 dob$ iaorov 
 d.vT'dvTf>ov unsp Ttdvnov (who gave himself a substi- 
 tutionary ransom for all). 
 
 The word lorpov "ransom" is here aj/v&ttrjafft?, 
 if we give any translation to the anti at all, as it is 
 
i8o ATONEMENT. 
 
 followed by huper, it would express the idea of a 
 substitutionary ransom for all. 
 
 Christ as our ransom redeems us from the curse 
 of the law death, and after death the judgment 
 then, for the believer these have no longer any ter- 
 rors, as over us they have no longer any power. 
 
 SECTION V. Redemption by Poiver. 
 
 The Bible teaches that we are redeemed from sin 
 and the power of Satan, as well as from the curse 
 of the law; this, however, can not be by a ransom. 
 
 The idea that God gave his Son as a ransom to 
 Satan is preposterous. God can never recognize 
 any right of Satan in man; otherwise, obedience to 
 Satan would be right. The Master had a right to 
 the service of his slave, and this right was recog- 
 nized in the provision for the payment of a ransom. 
 The devil has no right to the service of men; and 
 the payment of a ransom, being a recognition of 
 such right, is impossible. More, the devil himself 
 is a rebel, to be overthrown and punished; and can 
 have no right in his rebellion that God will own. 
 The only way, then, is to redeem by power. The 
 Egyptians held the Jews in bondage, but they had 
 no right to do so; hence, God pays no ransom to 
 the Egyptians, but delivers his people by the power 
 of his own strong arm. God will never pay the 
 devil a price; but the strong man armed will be 
 overcome by the stronger than he, and dragged at 
 the chariot wheels of his conqueror, and then cast 
 into the lake of fire. 
 
 Neither did Jesus pay a price to sin. That would 
 
REDEMPTION. 181 
 
 be an absurdity. Redemption from sin can only be 
 by the power of God. 
 
 Substitution here is, in the nature of things, im- 
 possible. Christ is, therefore, a ransom, only as 
 meeting the demands of law. 
 
 Redemption from the curse of the law, by the 
 payment of a ransom, so that we are delivered from 
 that curse forever, gives us our title to heaven. 
 Redemption from the power of Satan and of sin, 
 by the greater power of God, as manifested in the 
 importation of life, the poiver of that life, and 
 ultimately in the redemption of the body, gives 
 us fitness for heaven. It is thus that Christ 
 destroys the works of the devil, and completes his 
 work. 
 
 If we would not have confused or erroneous views 
 of the work of Christ, we must see and recognize 
 this distinction. 
 
 Redemption by power, while distinct, is still 
 closely connected with redemption by purchase. 
 
 SECTION VI. The Passover and the Sea. 
 
 We have dealt largely with the types, because 
 they are the pictures that God gives us of spiritual 
 things; and in their light we reach a higher con- 
 ception of the truth. 
 
 The Passover stands out in the forefront as among 
 the types of the Old Testament, and has unusual 
 interest for us because it is linked with the memo- 
 rial supper in the upper room. 
 
 The Passover and the sea connect together and 
 bring out in type, this twofold redemption. The 
 
1 82 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Passover reveals God as Judge, the Red Sea as De- 
 liverer. 
 
 God was about to pass over the land in judgment, 
 and every first-born must die. Special provision 
 was, however, made for the salvation of his people. 
 The Jew was told to take u a lamb" and kill it. 
 There must be death in every house in Egypt that 
 night. In the house of the Egyptian the death of 
 the first-born. In the house of the Israelite the 
 death of the lamb, slain in the place of the first- 
 born, a type of the Lord Jesus slain in the sinner's 
 place. This is plainly substitution the lamb in 
 the place of the first-born so that the angel of 
 judgment would pass over. This is what Christ is. 
 
 "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for 
 us." i Cor. v. 7. 
 
 After the death of the victim, the blood was to 
 be sprinkled on the door-posts and on the lintel. 
 Not upon the threshold, for the blood was too holy 
 a thing to be trampled under foot. It is the unbe- 
 liever who thus places it under his feet as a common 
 thing. Not under foot, but upon the door-posts, is 
 the proper place for the blood. Then God says: 
 
 ' 'And the blood shall be to you for a token upon 
 the houses where ye are : and when I see the blood, 
 I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be 
 upon you to destroy you." Ex. xii. 13. 
 
 It was the blood, and only the blood, that saved 
 them. 
 
 The blood saved irrespective of their personal 
 character. Moses needed the blood just as much as 
 
REDEMPTION. 183 
 
 the worst sinner in Israel; and the worst sinner was 
 just as safe as Moses, if the blood was on the door-post. 
 
 It saved irrespective of their feelings. Whether 
 they believed the testimony of God about the blood 
 so as to enjoy perfect assurance, or whether that 
 testimony was doubted, so that they were filled with 
 alarms and fears, they were equally secure, if the 
 blood was there. 
 
 It saved irrespective of their faith. Certainly, 
 whatever may be said of the people, there was no 
 faith on the part of the beasts. It is not our faith, 
 but the blood, that saves. To trust in our faith, or 
 our experiences, is just as unsafe as to trust in our 
 works. It is Christ who saves. It is the blood 
 that shelters. It shelters us when, looking away 
 from self emptied of self we look away to Jesus, 
 relying upon him for salvation. 
 
 The blood preserved from the judgment, but they 
 were still in Egypt. 
 
 Moses brings them to the Red Sea, and there we 
 see them with the waters in front and the Egyptians 
 behind them. 
 
 It is not judgment at the sea that is passed. It 
 is not sin bearing. But the sea is the place where 
 the whole power of evil is annulled, and deliverance 
 obtained. 
 
 " Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord." 
 Ex. xiv. 13. 
 
 Here we find a new word in the Bible "salva- 
 tion;" and here at the sea we find Israel delivered 
 from Egypt and delivered forever. The waters 
 never opened for Israel's return. 
 
184 ATONEMENT. 
 
 In the Passover and the sea we have distinct 
 types of the twofold redemption by purchase by 
 power. 
 
 In Paul's Epistle to the Romans we find it again 
 beautifully unfolded. The first eight chapters give 
 the work of Jesus, and these chapters divide into 
 two parts in the midst of chapter five. 
 
 The first deals with the blood as meeting the 
 claims of God, so that Jesus is set forth as our 
 * ' mercy-seat, ' ' on the ground of which we are 
 "justified by faith." It is the great truth of our 
 being "justified by his blood" or redemption by 
 purchase. The second part has to do with deliver- 
 ance from sin itself. Deliverance in our experience, 
 deliverance from its power, and ultimate deliverance 
 from its presence, in ' ' the redemption of the 
 body." And this deliverance the outcome of the 
 Spirit baptism, the result of being "baptized into 
 his death." 
 
 The first part has to do with redemption from the 
 penalty of sin as transgression, the second with re- 
 demption from the depravity itself. The one is by 
 the blood; the other by the imparted life. 
 
 "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled 
 to God by the death of his Sou, much more, being 
 reconciled, we shall be saved (delivered) by his life. ' ' 
 Rom. v. 10. 
 
 Propitiation and substitution; redemption by pur- 
 chase and by power; "justification by blood," 
 and "justification of life," these are the themes 
 that are presented in the two parts of the first eight 
 chapters of Romans. 
 
PART III. 
 
 THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 ELECTION. 
 
 In considering the application of the atonement, 
 we are led to examine the question of election, the 
 great subject of controversy of the ages. 
 
 It is certain that the Bible teaches election, only 
 we need to discriminate as to how it is taught. We 
 must not fasten on to the name a doctrine foreign 
 to the spirit and teaching of the Scriptures. 
 
 The Bible presents us with a national election to 
 special privileges; an election to a special office or 
 work, as in the case of Paul ; and also an individual 
 election to eternal life. In respect to this last, 
 Calvinists teach that it is unconditional and from 
 eternity. 
 
 "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of 
 his glory, some men and angels are predestinated 
 unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to 
 everlasting death." 
 
 "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto 
 life, God, before the foundation of the world was 
 
i86 ATONEMENT. 
 
 laid, according to his eternal and immutable pur- 
 pose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of 
 his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting 
 glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without 
 any foresight of faith or good works, or persever- 
 ance in either of them, or any other thing in the 
 creature, as conditions, or causes moving him there- 
 unto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace. "- 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. 
 
 On the other hand, Arminians believe that the 
 election is conditional, depending upon the faith 
 and faithfulness of the believer. They teach, 
 "that God, from all eternity, determined to bestow 
 salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere 
 unto the end." Then a man may be assured of his 
 salvation, but have no knowledge of his election; 
 because he does not know that he will persevere to 
 the end. 
 
 Both Calvinists and Arminians date the election 
 from eternity, but the Calvinist makes it uncon- 
 ditional; the Arminian conditional. One bases 
 it upon God's decrees, the other upon his fore- 
 knowledge. One makes it all of grace, the other 
 partly of human merit. 
 
 The Calvinist holds that the individual will be- 
 lieve and persevere because he is one of the elect; 
 the Arminian believes that he is one of the elect 
 because this faith and perseverance were foreseen. 
 
 Is there a medium ground? Yes; that we are 
 elect when united to Christ, and only as united to 
 Christ. 
 
 The election being the result of union, is uncon- 
 ditional, the life being imparted 011 the condition of 
 
ELECTION. 187 
 
 faith; but the election being one of those blessings 
 that follow the union. 
 
 It is thus entirely of grace, without any depend- 
 ence on the merit or faithfulness of the believer. 
 
 Election on the ground of foreseen faith carries 
 with it this difficulty: that a man is elect because 
 of his faith before he exercises it. An effect pre- 
 ceding its cause. On the medium theory, they are 
 not elect because it was foreseen that they would be 
 in him, but elect in him they are not elect out of 
 him. When we come to the connection of baptism 
 with election we will show this at length. 
 
 We have thus three positions : 
 
 First. An unconditional election, depending 
 alone upon the sovereign good pleasure of God. 
 
 Second. A conditional election, depending upon 
 a foreseen faith and faithfulness of the creature. 
 
 Third. An unconditional election of all who are 
 in Christ, this union, and not the election, depend- 
 ing upon the faith being exercised. 
 
 In our investigation we will examine some of 
 the texts relied on by Calvinists, and then show 
 the connection of election and the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 SECTION I. Ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters 
 of Romans. 
 
 These form the citadel of the Calvinistic theory 
 of election and are its strongest proof texts. A 
 careful examination will therefore be in place. It 
 is not by taking a verse here and a verse there that 
 we can reach the truth, but by taking every verse, 
 
1 88 ATONEMENT. 
 
 in its connection, as part of Paul's argument. 
 Only thus can we rightly divide the word. We 
 must first determine the theme of the apostle, the 
 proposition he is discussing. Then the true appli- 
 cation of individual texts can be easily seen. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans divides into four parts, 
 these three chapters constituting the third division 
 of the book. It presents God's dealings with Jew 
 and Gentile, and God's promises made to the Jew 
 are reconciled with the incoming of the Gentiles. 
 
 In the first part of the Epistle he showed both 
 Jews and Gentiles to be sinners, and that the right- 
 eousness of God by faith was for both alike; but 
 this does not touch the question of the promises. 
 These being given to the Jew, he claimed an ad- 
 vantage over the Gentiles. How these promised 
 blessings, that they had always regarded as spe- 
 cially their own, could be given to a Gentile it was 
 hard for a Jew to understand; and hard, in fact, for 
 any one. Paul is discussing this question, showing 
 the right of the Gentiles to share the promises. 
 This being his theme, special texts must be inter- 
 preted in harmony with it. 
 
 Paul begins his argument by telling of his great 
 love for them. There is a parallel here with the 
 conduct of Moses; who, when Israel was about to 
 be cast off, said : 
 
 " Blot me out only let Israel live." 
 
 Paul sees them not about to be, but actually, set 
 aside, and the Gentiles grafted in; so in the spirit 
 of Moses, he says, in the love he bore his people : 
 
ELECTION. 189 
 
 ' ' I could wish that myself were accursed from 
 Christ for my brethren, my kinsman according to 
 the flesh." 
 
 By a comparison with the case of Moses, it is 
 plain that Paul means he would be willing to be 
 set aside, if Israel might remain. It is all national. 
 
 He then argues from God's sovereignty, as dis- 
 played in their own history, God's right to let the 
 Gentiles in. 
 
 His argument is that they were not all Israel who 
 were of Israel, because some of the descendants of 
 Abraham and Isaac were not inheritors of the 
 promises. Nor because they were the seed of Abra- 
 ham were they all children. Otherwise the de- 
 scendants of Ishmael and Esau would have shared the 
 blessings of the Jews. In choosing Isaarc and not 
 Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau, God acted as sover- 
 eign, without respect to the merit of either, both 
 being not yet born (ix. n.). As he acted sovereignly 
 then, so he could now in bringing in the Gentiles. 
 
 The choice of Isaac and Jacob, however, was not 
 as individuals to eternal life, but as the fathers of 
 the great nation and channel through which the 
 Messiah, the promised seed, should come. Nor 
 does the passing by of Ishmael and Esau in anywise 
 imply that they were ordained to lose their souls. 
 It was clearly national election, standing out in 
 connection with God's separating a people from the 
 nations to be his. This is plain from the history. 
 
 U 7z>0 nations are in thy womb, and two manner 
 of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and 
 
190 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the one people shall be stronger than the other; 
 and the elder shall serve the younger." Gen. 
 xxv. 23. 
 
 This national election being of God's sovereignty, 
 his bringing in of the Gentiles on the same ground, 
 gave them an equal right to the promises. This 
 being the theme, it is easy to make the application 
 of the different illustrations. 
 
 The subject being national election to temporal 
 blessings and privileges, God's sovereignty in this 
 is illustrated by two events in their history; one of 
 mercy extended, the other of judgment inflicted. 
 
 But are they examples of unconditional election 
 and reprobation ? We say, unhesitatingly, they are 
 not. That is not Paul's theme, nor is there any 
 thing in the illustrations to sustain it. 
 
 What was the occasion of God's saying to Moses 
 ' ' I will have mercy, ' ' etc. , and why does Paul 
 introduce it into his argument? If we turn to 
 the record in Exodus it will be made clear. The 
 Israelites, even before the mount where the fire and 
 thunder told of God's presence, were guilty of idol- 
 atry. God was angry : He says : 
 
 "Go up hence, thou and the people .... into 
 the land. . . . / will not go lip in the midst of thee." 
 
 This was equivalent to casting off his people. 
 Moses pleads with God with all the earnestness of 
 his soul, and his intercession avails. God says : 
 
 u My presence shall go with thee." 
 
 He might justly have cast the people away; they 
 had broken the covenant, and forfeited their posi- 
 
ELECTION. 191 
 
 tion by their sin; and lie might, as sovereign, have 
 chosen others to carry out his purposes. In fact, 
 this was his proposition to Moses, to destroy the 
 people, and make the promise to Abraham good 
 through the descendants of Moses. Moses is un- 
 willing to accept this blessing at the expense of his 
 countrymen. Hence, when on the intercession of 
 Moses God forgave the people, it was an act of 
 sovereign mercy; hence he says to Moses: 
 
 " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." 
 
 When Paul quotes this, he does it to remind them 
 that as God's sovereignty alone led him to preserve 
 them from ruin at Sinai, he had, on that ground, 
 the right to bring in the Gentiles. The potter 
 certainly had power over the clay. This exposi- 
 tion is in harmony with the theme of the epistle; 
 the application to individuals now is not. 
 
 So with Pharaoh; by preserving him from the 
 plagues, by his long-suffering and patience, God 
 gave him ample time for repentance. But, as it is 
 written : 
 
 "Because sentence against an evil work is not 
 executed speedily, therefore the hearts of the sons 
 of men are fully set in them to do evil." 
 
 So all this but hardens Pharaoh's heart. He 
 grows bolder and more insolent, and God in his 
 sovereignty permits it, until, his cup being full, his 
 final overthrow makes Israel's deliverance more 
 glorious. It all bore upon their call as a nation, 
 and God's glory upon the earth. God, in deliver- 
 ing his people, acted as sovereign, thus again 
 
192 ATONEMENT. 
 
 showing his right to bring in the Gentiles. It has 
 no direct reference to Pharaoh's eternal destiny; 
 that was undoubtedly settled long before, upon the 
 principles God has revealed to men. 
 
 The argument as to the potter and the clay is 
 still in respect to Jew and Gentile, as the whole 
 context shows. If the reader will study these 
 chapters in the light of this exposition, this will be 
 easily seen. 
 
 SECTION 1 1 . Predestination. 
 
 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did pre- 
 destinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." 
 
 That we may have a fair statement as to the 
 controversy about foreknowledge (which is the key 
 to the Calvinistic theory of predestination), we 
 quote Dr. A. A. Hodge's definitions. 
 
 "Foreknowledge is an act of the infinite intelli- 
 gence of God, knowing from all eternity, without 
 change, the certain futurition of all events, of 
 every class whatsoever, that ever will come to pass. 
 
 " Foreordination is an act of the infinitely intel- 
 ligent, foreknowing, righteous, and benevolent will 
 of God, from all eternity determining the certain 
 futurition of all events of every class whatsoever 
 that come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes 
 the certain futurition of events, while foreordina- 
 tion makes them certainly future." 
 
 "God foreknows all events as certainly future 
 because he has decreed them and thus made them 
 certainly future." 
 
ELECTION. 193 
 
 This is as clear as Kant's " Critique of Pure 
 Reason." "Foreknowledge is an act." As acts 
 are the result of volitions, it logically follows from 
 this that God's foreknowledge is the product of his 
 will, and therefore not a necessary attribute of the 
 Deity. This is a denial of the omniscience of God. 
 Or, if not a denial, it makes this attribute to be the 
 product of will. If one attribute is, then all are; and 
 we have a self-existent being who is his own creator. 
 
 Again, u Foreordination is an act of th 
 foreknowing .... will of God." Then his fore- 
 knowledge is back of his decrees. But "God fore- 
 knows .... because he has decreed." Here dis- 
 tinctly the foreknowledge is the result of the de- 
 crees. 'We thus have a vicious circle. Foreordi- 
 nation based upon foreknowledge, and foreknowl- 
 edge iipon the decrees. 
 
 We can see a reason for this. The real ground 
 of Calvinistic predestination is in the last quotation 
 from Hodge. But while this is essential to the 
 creed, it leaves a fatal weakness in another direction. 
 If he foreknows because he decrees, then logically 
 he decrees without any foreknowledge, blindly and 
 unintelligently; otherwise you have an effect pre- 
 ceding its cause. 
 
 Hodge's definitions are defective in another di- 
 rection. " Foreknowledge is the act .... know- 
 ing (whatever that means an act does not 
 know, but intelligence does; to speak of 'an act 
 of the intelligence ' as knowing is to make of this 
 act an intelligent entity) the certain futurition of 
 all . . that . . 
 
194 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Certainly, that which will come to pass must be 
 future, and to say that it takes "an act of intelli- 
 gence" to know this is saying but little. Every 
 intelligence knows that what will come to pass is 
 certainly future; and if this is foreknowledge, it 
 belongs to men and angels as well as to God. So 
 also with his definition of foreordination; it has to 
 do with making events certainly future, instead of 
 being causative of events. 
 
 From any stand-point, Calvinistic or otherwise, 
 these definitions are very defective. We can only 
 account for this on the supposition that the dogma 
 of predestination, as held by Calvinists, necessi- 
 tates the basing of foreknowledge upon the de- 
 crees; and as this brings in confusion, his defini- 
 tions are the outcome of the fog. As the creed is 
 false, the definitions must be unsound. 
 
 Foreknowledge is to know beforehand. Fore- 
 ordination is to ordain or decree beforehand. To 
 know and to decree are distinct operations, so sepa- 
 rate from each other that they can never be con- 
 founded in sound reasoning. 
 
 What is the foreknowledge of God? Simply 
 that he knows beforehand, before it comes to pass. 
 This is all that the word means; but this gives rise 
 to many questions as to the nature of this fore- 
 knowledge, the principal one being: Is this fore- 
 knowledge limited or unlimited? Does it extend 
 to all events, or are there exceptions, things God 
 does not know beforehand ? Here we enter the do- 
 main of controversy. A vast majority of theo- 
 logians hold that it is unlimited, extending to 
 
ELECTION. 195 
 
 all things, including the free volitions of all intel- 
 ligences, so that nothing happens but what was 
 known to God from all eternity; some adding that 
 his foreknowledge extends " to all possible events as 
 well as to those that are actual." 
 
 Others, while holding to the foreknowledge of 
 God, deny that it is unlimited, teaching that certain 
 classes of events (about which they are not agreed) 
 are unknown to God before they come to pass. 
 That is, while he knows them as possible, he does 
 not know them as actual; most explaining that the 
 reason of this is that he has willed not to know 
 them a self-evident contradiction. 
 
 We believe that nothing can be maintained but 
 the unlimited foreknowledge of God. If his fore- 
 knowledge is not unlimited, we can never reason 
 out the absolute perfection of God. All the attri- 
 butes are blended in harmony; and so intimately 
 are they connected that imperfection in one is im- 
 perfection in all. God's omniscience is an essential 
 attribute; but he is not omniscient, if there is any 
 thing unknown to him. 
 
 What is the foreordi nation of God? Simply 
 that God ordains or decrees beforehand, what 
 comes to pass. All believe in foreordination who 
 believe in God. The logical alternative is atheism. 
 But here again the question is raised, Do God's de- 
 crees extend to every thing, or are there things God 
 did not decree ? 
 
 Here an important distinction must not be lost 
 sight of. Foreknowledge is included in an essential 
 attribute of the Deity omniscience. To decree be- 
 
196 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ing an exercise, or manifestation, of the divine will, 
 is not essential to the divine nature that is, to deter- 
 mine an event is no more essential to the divine nat- 
 ure than not to determine it. In the creation of men 
 and angels God gave them the power of choice, 
 leaving them free in the exercise of these volitions. 
 Hence, while known beforehand to God, they are 
 not decreed, because they are the free volitions of 
 other intelligences. 
 
 Calvinism teaches that 
 
 ' ' God from all eternity did by the most wise and 
 holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchange- 
 ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as 
 thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is 
 violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is 
 the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 
 away, but rather established." Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith. 
 
 The first clause of this sentence contains a uni- 
 versal affirmation, the second introduces a modifica- 
 tion which, however, is not an exception. It does 
 not say these are not decreed, only, ' ' yet so as, ' ' 
 etc. The first and last clauses being contradictory, 
 the proposition can not stand. 
 
 The volitions of creature intelligences are either 
 necessitated by the will of God, or they are free. 
 If they are necessitated, then God, not man, is the 
 author of sin; there is no logical escape from this. 
 So far as we know, no creed has ever made God the 
 author of sin. Here, by common consent, is one 
 thing that God did not decree. Hence, it must 
 have originated in the volition of some intelligence 
 
ELECTION. 197 
 
 other than God. The existence of sin is- the unan- 
 swerable argument for the freedom of the will, and 
 shows that we can not say that God has decreed all 
 things. What God permits he does not decree; for 
 his decrees are always causative. To speak of a 
 permissive decree is a contradiction in the terms. 
 
 To decree is to determine that it shall be; and 
 when God determines a thing, it always is. 
 
 A better statement as to the decrees is : 
 
 u 
 
 God, for the manifestation of his glory and 
 goodness, by the most wise and holy counsel of his 
 own will, freely and unchangeably ordained or de- 
 termined what he himself would do, what he would 
 require his intelligent creatures to do, and what 
 should be the awards, respectively, of the obedient 
 and the disobedient." Confession of Faith of the 
 Cumberland Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The Calvinistic theory that God foreknows be- 
 cciuse he decrees, is the reverse of what the Bible 
 teaches. 
 
 " For whom he did foreknow, he also did predes- 
 tinate." 
 
 ' ' Elect according to the foreknowledge of God 
 the Father." 
 
 Foreknowledge, in the Bible, is the ground of 
 predestination; aad this is fatal to the Calvinistic 
 interpretation of Romans viii. 
 
 The truth is that Calvinists overlook the Eternity 
 of God. The time element has no place with God, 
 and this is the reason of his foreknowledge, and not 
 his decrees. Instead of saying, therefore, with Dr. 
 Hoclge, that he foreknows because he decrees, we 
 
198 ATONEMENT. 
 
 would say -that foreknowledge is the necessary at- 
 tribute of an Eternal Being. Not to foreknow im- 
 plies limitation, limitation implies the finite, and 
 the finite can not be God. It is more rational to 
 posit the foreknowledge of God in his eternity 
 than in his decrees. In revealing his will to us, as 
 we can see only from the time stand-point, his de- 
 crees rest upon his foreknowledge. 
 
 SECTION III. Election and the Spirit Baptism. 
 
 This gives us the key to the whole question of 
 election, which is always ' ' in Christ. ' ' 
 
 u According as he hath chosen us in Him before 
 the foundation of the world." Eph. i. 4. 
 
 Here the choice is "in Him," not out of or apart 
 from him. But in no sense can it be said of an un- 
 repentant sinner that he is " in Christ," so that 110 
 such sinner can be among the "chosen." The 
 terms "elect" or "chosen" are never used in the 
 Bible except when believers are addressed, and then 
 of all believers. Every one in Christ is elect. No 
 one is elect out of Christ. These statements are in 
 harmony with Bible teaching. 
 
 " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy 
 calling, not according to our works, but according 
 to his own purpose and grace, which was given 
 to us in Christ before the world began." 2 Tim. 
 i. 9. 
 
 Here again it is "in Christ." The believer's 
 oneness with Christ is the foundation of every 
 blessing. 
 
ELECTION. 199 
 
 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the prom- 
 ises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many, 
 but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ." 
 Gal. iii. 16. 
 
 The seed not being plural, the promise is to 
 Christ, and to Christ alone. It is not made to a 
 believer, it is not a promise conditioned upon faith. 
 Consequent upon faith it no doubt is, but not con- 
 ditioned. Our union with Christ depends upon 
 our faith; but the blessings that he gives to those 
 who are thus united are the manifestation of his 
 love bestowed freely and of grace. 
 
 u And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
 
 " If ye be Christ's; " this can not be a sinner, as 
 it is only " after ye believed" that the Spirit is 
 given. Without the Spirit a man is " none of his." 
 Christ himself, and Christ alone, is the seed of 
 Abraham. If we are one with him, if we are in 
 him, what he is we are, because of this oneness. 
 Thus, and thus only as one with him we become 
 the seed (not seeds) of Abraham. These promises 
 are not made to us on the condition that we have 
 faith, but they become ours in Christ, because they 
 are his. Christ himself is God's elect; the chosen 
 one, chosen before the world was made. So again, 
 if we are one with him, we are chosen, we are the 
 elect. We are not elect because of our faith, but 
 we are elect in him; our union with him being the 
 only ground of this election. If Christ's election 
 was unconditional, ours must have the same char- 
 
2oo ATONEMENT. 
 
 acter. It is all in him. From this stand-point no 
 man is, in any sense, elect or chosen, who is not a 
 Christian. But, blessed be his name! every man in 
 Christ is elect, and as his election is from eternity, 
 theirs is, also, the moment they share it. 
 
 " For as many of yon as have been baptized into 
 Christ, have put on Christ" Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 The blessed Spirit, given to us the moment we 
 believe, baptizes us into Christ; and thus we are 
 baptized into his death and also into his resurrec- 
 tion. Union with Christ is the ground of all our 
 blessings. 
 
 By natural birth we are born of Adam; and this 
 old man born of Adam is dead. This old 
 man this dead man is in no sense elect. It is 
 only the new man the new creation, born of God 
 that is alive. This new man, "born of the 
 Spirit," is the elect man. 
 
 This is the key to the whole subject. A bank- 
 rupt race, we have nothing of ourselves, or apart 
 from Christ. But when baptized into Christ, we 
 have all things in him. 
 
 How are we put into Christ ? 
 
 "For ye are all the children of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus. For as many as have been baptized 
 into Christ have put on Christ." 
 
 The last clause is linked with the first. As be- 
 lievers, when we believe, the Spirit is given; we 
 are by this Spirit baptized into Christ, and so put 
 on Christ. Putting on Christ, we become what 
 Christ is. He is a Son, so we become God's sons 
 
ELECTION. 201 
 
 in him. It is in harmony with this that Paul 
 writes : 
 
 "Because God hath from the beginning chosen 
 you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 
 and belief of the truth." z Thess. ii. 13. 
 
 Election is through " sanctification of the Spirit 
 and belief of the truth." Sanctification of the 
 Spirit, linking us to Christ and thus imparting the 
 divine nature, so that we can say, ' ''Now are we the 
 sons of God." The "belief of the truth," the 
 ground upon which we are thus united to Christ. 
 
 We have thus shown the true ground of election. 
 An election that is ours when in Christ. An elec- 
 tion that becomes ours the moment we are born 
 again. An election that is entirely of grace. 
 
 This is in harmony with God's sovereignty on 
 the one hand, and the freedom of the creature on 
 the other. 
 
 Theologically, it is medium ground. It honors 
 the sovereignty of God, without degrading that 
 sovereignty to a strict necessity; as if God could 
 not be sovereign if man were free. On the other 
 hand, it makes provision for the volition of the 
 creature, so that God acts in harmony with man's 
 constitution; and yet it does not give glory to the 
 creature; leaving our blessings as all of grace. 
 
 It presents election in such a way that the sinner 
 can not use it as an excuse for his rejection of 
 Christ, and yet it enables the believer to know 
 with a blessed assurance that he is one of the elect. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 DIVINE INFLUENCE. 
 
 The difference between tlie old and new school 
 in the Presbyterian church is in brief this : The 
 old school believe in a limited atonement, that 
 Christ died only for the elect, and that those for 
 whom he died, and none others, will be saved, the 
 non-elect being foreordained to be lost. 
 
 New school Presbyterians believe that Christ 
 died for all men (but not in the sense advocated in 
 this book), and that all men may be saved if they 
 will believe. But both old and new school teach 
 that, in the application of the atonement, none will 
 believe except they be regenerated. Both believe 
 that, in regenerating one and passing by another, 
 God acts sovereignly, electing some to eternal life. 
 The new school, however, deny eternal reproba- 
 tion, holding that all may come if they will. 
 
 The Medium Theology differs from both; affirm- 
 ing that faith is the condition of regeneration, and 
 precedes it in every case. Instead of the regenera- 
 tion producing the faith, the faith is the procuring 
 cause of the regeneration. 
 
 This leads to an examination of the whole sub- 
 ject of divine influence as it stands connected with 
 the faith that saves. 
 
DIVINE INFLUENCE. 203 
 
 Equally with Calvinists, we repudiate the idea of 
 salvation by works, and, equally with them, believe 
 it to be entirely of grace. They, however, by grace 
 mean that it is entirely of God's power, who does 
 the whole work apart from any faith exercised by 
 man, faith being the first exercise of a regenerated, 
 new-born soul. 
 
 By grace we understand that salvation is from 
 God, that it is a free gift, irrespective of any work 
 or merit of the creature. But we do not believe 
 that faith is a work, or in any sense meritorious in 
 itself. Whenever we make a work of our faith, 
 trusting in it rather than in Christ, it becomes a 
 legal faith that can not save. Receiving is not 
 meriting, and faith is receiving. Grace does not 
 exclude the act of faith, but includes it. 
 
 "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by 
 grace." Rom. iv. 16. 
 
 u As many as received him, to them gave he 
 poiver to become the sons of God, even to them that 
 believe on his name." John i. 12. 
 
 SECTION I. : Inability: 
 
 The Calvinistic position as to this is set forth by 
 Dr. A. A. Hodge, clearly and forcibly, as follows : 
 
 "The orthodox doctrine does not teach, first, that 
 man by the fall has lost any of his constitutional 
 faculties necessary to constitute him a responsible 
 moral agent. These are (a) reason, (d) conscience, 
 and (c) free will. Man possesses all of these in ex- 
 cise. He has po\\*er to know the truth; he recog- 
 nizes and feels moral distinctions and obligations; 
 
204 ATONEMENT. 
 
 his affections and tendencies and habits of action 
 are spontaneous; in all his volitions he chooses and 
 refuses freely as he pleases. Therefore he is re- 
 sponsible. Nor, second, that man has not power 
 to feel and to do many things which are good and 
 amiable, benevolent and just, in the relations he 
 sustains to his fellow-men. 
 
 "But the orthodox doctrine does teach, first, that 
 the inability of man since the fall concerns things 
 which involve our relation as spiritual beings to 
 God the apprehension and love of spiritual ex- 
 cellence and action in conformity therewith. These 
 matters are designated in the Confessions * things of 
 God,' ( things of the Spirit,' 'things which pertain 
 to salvation.' Second, that man since the fall is 
 utterly unable to know, or to feel, or to act in cor- 
 respondence with these things. A natural man 
 may be intellectually illuminated, but he is spirit- 
 ually blind. He may possess natural affections, but 
 his heart is dead toward God, and invincibly averse 
 to his person and law. He may obey the letter, 
 but he can not obey in spirit and in truth." 
 
 This we may accept as a statement of man's in- 
 ability, and hence of his need of "divine influ- 
 ence," in order to salvation. Thus far, we are in 
 full accord with him. But Dr. Hodge goes farther, 
 and then we have to part company. He says : 
 
 "It is absolute in the proper sense of that term. 
 No unregenerate man has power either directly or 
 indirectly to do what is required of him in this re- 
 spect; nor to change his own nature so as to in- 
 crease his power; nor to prepare himself for grace, 
 nor in the first instance to co-operate with grace, 
 until in the act of regeneration God changes his 
 nature and gives him through grace gracious ability 
 to act graciously in constant dependence upon grace. " 
 
DIVINE INFLUENCE. 205 
 
 This conflicts with his statement in the first quo- 
 tation we made from him, where he distinctly rec- 
 ognizes the possession of the "power" that he 
 here denies, unless he nses the word in a different 
 sense. 
 
 We hold that all men have lost the ability to 
 render acceptable service to God. This is the in- 
 evitable result of depravity. Depravity must be 
 total, in the sense that it affects the entire man, so 
 that his emotions and sensibilities, his thoughts, 
 feelings, affection, judgment, and will are all alike 
 perverted. Thus every act of worship must be af- 
 fected by this corruption, and, apart from the work 
 of Christ, be utterly unacceptable to God. 
 
 Again, a man is utterly unable to regenerate him- 
 self. Regeneration is absolutely the work of God. 
 
 So far we agree; but when we are told that man 
 can not believe until he is regenerated, we dissent. 
 
 Edwards makes a distinction between natural 
 and moral ability; and while Dr. Hodge objects to 
 it, he has practically made the same distinction in 
 the first extract given above, although he blots it 
 out in the second. 
 
 Natural ability means that man has possession of 
 all those faculties necessary to enable him to do 
 the will of God. He possesses affection, and hence 
 the natural ability to love; he has will, and thus 
 the natural ability to choose; and because he has 
 this natural ability he is responsible. 
 
 Moral ability is the disposition to use these fac- 
 ulties as God demands. This is certainly all that 
 the Bible teaches. We have the power, or ability, 
 
2o6 ATONEMENT. 
 
 to exercise faith, but we have not the will, or dispo- 
 sition; hence the complaint, " Ye will not come. " 
 
 This is in harmony with our experience. The 
 normal condition of the sinner is one of indiffer- 
 ence, if not opposition, to the offer of salvation. 
 While this indifference remains, the sinner never 
 will come to Christ, and never will be saved. This 
 is the result of depravity. If men are saved, pro- 
 vision must be made to remove it. It is for this 
 reason we recognize the necessity for divine influ- 
 ence. But we differ in toto from the Calvinist as 
 to the nature of this influence. He maintains that 
 God regenerates, and therefore the man believes. 
 We, that the Holy Spirit convinces, thus arousing 
 interest where there was indifference, thus making 
 salvation possible. This work of the Holy Spirit 
 is common to the race, and of such a character that 
 it may be resisted and made of no avail. So we 
 find men urged not to "resist the Holy Ghost." 
 When thus "awakened," men are left to exercise 
 their "natural ability," the powers they already 
 possess, and "trust in Christ," and those who thus 
 trust are regenerated and saved. 
 
 God's Spirit acts sovereignly, according to his 
 will, in thus convicting. But God's Spirit will al- 
 ways act in answer to prayer, whether of the sinner 
 or of the church. 
 
 SECTION II. Saving Faith. 
 
 Much of the controversy as to the nature of faith 
 arises from considering the meaning of the word 
 apart from its object. 
 
DIVINE INFLUENCE. 207 
 
 In the Greek, the noun 7r/<mc (pistis), translated 
 "faith," and the verb namixti {pisteuoo}, trans- 
 lated "believe," are both derived from the verb 
 xseffco (peithoo), generally translated "persuade," 
 but sometimes incorrectly "obey." The root 
 meaning is "to persuade," from which we get be- 
 lief a firm persuasion of the truth. 
 
 Faith may be defined as "belief of the truth " 
 "the belief of the testimony" when the word 
 has for its object a statement or a fact. 
 
 This faith, or belief, is the direct product of the 
 evidence, and does not depend upon the will. If a 
 man who has a reputation for circulating falsehoods 
 states a fact, we are in doubt as to its reality, be- 
 cause the testimony is insufficient. But if a num- 
 ber of reputable citizens agree in the testimony, 
 all doubt is impossible. This belief is necessitated 
 when the evidence is sufficient, and depends upon 
 the evidence. A man can not be responsible for 
 his belief in this sense of the word. He may be 
 responsible for failure to investigate the evidence, 
 and in that case the refusal to believe is a refusal 
 to investigate. If saving faith was only the "be- 
 lief of testimony," it could not be properly a sub- 
 ject of command, as it would be entirely a question 
 of the sufficiency of the evidence. 
 
 Faith may be defined as confidence, or trust, 
 when its object is a person. 
 
 The evidence as to a man's character may be such 
 as to inspire confidence, or trust. We then say 
 that we have faith that is, confidence in the man. 
 
 The New Testament meets us with a person; and 
 
2o8 ATONEMENT. 
 
 we are commanded to believe, to have faith, in this 
 person. Over one hundred times it is the person 
 that is presented as the object of faith, only twice 
 his work. It is not the belief of certain dogmas or 
 facts, which depends upon evidence, but faith in a 
 person that the Bible demands. This faith can be 
 exercised, whatever the amount of knowledge that 
 is possessed, by the most simple as well as the most 
 profound. 
 
 In defining saving faith we need always to re- 
 member that in the Greek the preposition ev (en) 
 in, is never used; but always e^ (eis) or enc (epi). 
 Even when it says, "Ye believe in God believe also 
 in me," it is not "/Vz" in the Greek. 
 
 The prepositions used are important factors in 
 determining what that faith is that saves. 
 
 Eis denotes "motion toward." It carries the 
 subject toward its object, whether to penetrate, or 
 otherwise, being indicated by the context. It indi- 
 cates the personal appropriation of Christ. It is 
 the response to the invitation "come," leading the 
 sinner on until he is in Christ. 
 
 Epi (upon) denotes the idea of building, resting, 
 or relying, upon Christ. 
 
 Yonder is an Israelite, bitten by a serpent. He 
 is told of the brazen serpent set up by divine grace. 
 He believes the fact believes the testimony but. 
 stays in his tent. That would do him no good. 
 He must go and look. Eis indicates this action. 
 It points out that the faith carries us to Christ, that 
 it is therefore active a living faith. The same 
 thing is taught in Romans x. 
 
DIVINE INFLUENCE. 209 
 
 "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved. How shall they call on him 
 whom they have not believed ? and how shall they 
 believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and 
 how shall they hear without a preacher? and how 
 shall they preach except they be sent? " 
 
 This is the divine order. God calls the preacher, 
 who then proclaims the message. The sinner 
 hears, he believes that is, he believes the facts, be- 
 lieves the testimony. Still he is not saved. Every 
 one in a Christian land has reached this point, has 
 this belief, if he is not an infidel. 
 
 He believes in that is, he believes about the 
 Lord Jesus. He believes that what the Bible teaches 
 is true. Yet for salvation one step more is needed ; 
 he must "call upon the name of the Lord." This 
 does not mean that he must pray, for the word is 
 never used in that sense in the New Testament. 
 The Greek word is lnt$aZso/jtM (epikaleomai], and 
 is the word used when Paul says, "I appeal unto 
 Csesar." 
 
 Believing all about Christ, we must rely upon 
 him for salvation. We must appeal to the name of 
 the Lord. 
 
 " Just as I am, without one plea, 
 But that thy blood was shed for me." 
 
 ' ' Nothing in my hand I bring, 
 Simply to thy cross I cling." 
 
 We believe the testimony about the physician, 
 but we receive no benefit until we put the case into 
 
2io ATONEMENT. 
 
 his hands. So, as ruined, helpless, lost sinners, we 
 believe the testimony, and coming to the only One 
 who is able to help us, we trust him to do the work. 
 Faith is the committal of the soul and its salvation 
 into the hands of Jesus. As Paul says : 
 
 "I know whom I have believed, and am per- 
 suaded that he is able to keep that which I have 
 committed unto him against that day." 2 
 Tim. i. 12. 
 
 Faith requires action, not passive waiting; and 
 we are held responsible, therefore, to believe; and 
 on the ground of this faith we are saved. 
 
 We are commanded to believe, which clearly im- 
 plies that the act is ours. We are condemned for 
 not believing, which could not be if faith had not 
 been possible. If faith be the fruit of regeneration, 
 we can not conceive any just ground of condemna- 
 tion for unbelief. Faith must, then, be an act of 
 God's, and not the sinner's. 
 
 On the other hand, provision must be made to 
 neutralize the indifference and lack of disposition 
 to believe. This is done by the gracious influence 
 of the Holy Spirit in conviction. This influence is 
 exerted upon all men, so that all can be saved. 
 This is indicated by the words of the Savior when 
 speaking of the coming of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " And when he is come, he will reprove (convince) 
 the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg- 
 ment." John xvi. 8. 
 
 The "world" includes all. Thus by producing 
 a sense of need, by leading to serious thoughts and 
 
DIVINE INFLUENCE. 211 
 
 impressions, and by revealing Christ, God's Spiri 
 overcomes the natural indifference of the heart 
 neutralizes the effect of the depravity for which 
 they are not responsible leaving men free to choose 
 life or death. 
 
 The convincing work of the Holy Spirit must 
 not be confounded with the feeling, the emotion 
 that it produces. This feeling is the result of his 
 work, and not the work itself, differing in individ- 
 uals according to their temperament, their surround- 
 ings, the influences brought to bear upon them, 
 and the nature of the methods of work employed. 
 It is of moment that men should be reminded of this, 
 as too many are waiting for overpowering feelings, 
 and in their absence, soothe conscience with the 
 idea that it is something beyond their control, and 
 they are, therefore, not responsible for immediate 
 action. 
 
 It is because of this divine work that we have 
 such texts as 
 
 * ' No man can come to me, except the Father 
 which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him 
 up at the last day." 
 
 But conviction is not regeneration; this last fol- 
 lows, but never precedes faith. This is shown by 
 the following facts : 
 
 First. L/ife is always conditioned upon faith, never 
 faith upon the life. 
 
 ' ' Ye will not come unto me that ye might have 
 life." 
 
 " He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." 
 
2i2 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Calvinism reverses this. As the new birth is the 
 beginning of this life, it must follow the faith upon 
 which it is conditioned. 
 
 Second. The Bible declares that without faith no 
 one can have life. 
 
 " He that believeth not shall not see life." 
 
 Unless a man can be regenerated without life, 
 this shows that a man can not be regenerated with- 
 out faith. To do so God's word would have to be 
 set aside. 
 
 Third. The responsibility and condemnation for 
 not believing show that regeneration follows the 
 faith, and that in exercising faith men are free. 
 We know it is said that a man may be justly con- 
 demned for his unbelief because he has the natural 
 ability to believe, and that God's regenerating one, 
 and not another, does no harm to the last, nor less- 
 ens his responsibility. 
 
 But in thus reasoning, it is forgotten that men 
 are born depraved ; without any choice of their own; 
 and that they are not responsible for the depraved 
 nature and its dispositions. 
 
 Then the provision made is for fallen men; for 
 men known to be depraved when the provision was 
 made; and the condemnation is for rejection under 
 such surroundings as these. Unless there be a real 
 provision, one made in good faith, one that was 
 within the reach of those who reject it, condemna- 
 tion for unbelief would be unjust. 
 
 We come into being without any volition of our 
 own; we are born depraved without any wrong for 
 
DIVINE INFLUENCE. 213 
 
 which we are personally responsible, and can never 
 believe it would be right that we should be con- 
 signed to endless despair infallibly, and apart from 
 any choice that we may make. 
 
 The terrible inheritance of corruption can never 
 be reconciled with the goodness of God only as 
 provision is made, as wide as the race, for its removal 
 and man's salvation. 
 
 That fallen men are justly condemned for their 
 sins is true; but only because they have been free 
 not to do the wrong. If the sin had been necessi- 
 tated by the evil nature, punishment would be un- 
 just. To add to this other punishment because of 
 the rejection of a remedy, if in its rejection they 
 had no real choice, would be unjust; as it would 
 make that which was intended as a blessing to the 
 saved, a curse to the unsaved; without any possibil- 
 ity of avoidance on their part. 
 
 To argue the right of God to choose some and 
 pass by others, is one thing; to condemn those 
 passed by for being so, is quite another. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE NEW BIRTH. 
 
 The theory of regeneration presented in these 
 pages is the logical sequence of the Medium Theory 
 of the Atonement, and inseparable from it. The 
 key is found in John iii. 
 
 ' ' That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and 
 that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ' ' 
 
 Nicodemus, a Jewish teacher, came to Jesus by 
 night as an earnest inquirer after truth. He ia met 
 with the startling statement 
 
 u Except a man be born again, he can not see the 
 kingdom of God." 
 
 Although a religious teacher, he is entirely igno- 
 rant of the great truth, found everywhere in the Old 
 Testament, of a spiritual birth. Zealous of cir- 
 cumcision, he knew nothing of that circumcision 
 of the heart that the Old Testament writers pro- 
 claimed, and seems to have overlooked the need for 
 a change of heart, as set forth by Bzekiel and 
 others. The words of the Savior are unmeaning to 
 him, and thinking only of a literal birth, he says : 
 
 u How can a man be born when he is old? can 
 he enter the second time into his mother's womb 
 and be born ? ' ' 
 
NEW BIRTH. 215 
 
 To understand the words of the Savior that fol- 
 low, we must remember that Jesus is explaining 
 his words in the third verse, and explaining with 
 special reference to the difficulty of a material 
 birth in the mind of Nicodemus. "How can a 
 man be born when he is old?" This shows what 
 was in the mind, and what Jesus had to remove by 
 his explanation. To utterly ignore this is to fail to 
 comprehend the entire argument. What does Jesus 
 mean by saying, " Except a man be born again he 
 can not see the kingdom of God ? ' ' Why, that a 
 man must be spiritually enlightened by the new 
 birth, to see the kingdom. The Jewish teacher 
 had evidently been intellectually convinced that 
 Jesus came from God. To see more, he must be 
 born again, the things of God being spiritually 
 discerned. All this, however, is a blank to Nico- 
 demus; this is seen by his second question. So 
 Jesus says : 
 
 "Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God." 
 
 It is as if Jesus had said, a man must be born in 
 the way you are thinking of literally and corpo- 
 really by means of water, and also in another 
 and a totally different way by means of the Holy 
 Spirit. Two births and only two one literal, by 
 means of water; the other spiritual, by means of 
 the Spirit. Then, further carrying out the ideas, he 
 adds, that which is born of flesh born of water 
 is flesh, etc. 
 
 The early identification of Spirit and water bap- 
 
2i6 ATONEMENT. 
 
 tism as one led to this, and other texts, being ap- 
 plied to baptism, because they taught a spiritual 
 birth. Commentators, following in each other's 
 track, have, therefore, largely regarded this verse as 
 referring to water baptism, making two births 
 where the early writers made but one. 
 
 While the words 4 1 born of water " express a 
 physiological fact, that a natural birth is impossible 
 except it be u by water," the very birth that was 
 in the mind of Nicodemus; we believe they were 
 used by the Savior to point out another truth be- 
 yond this. 
 
 Water, when used figuratively, always represents 
 the word, as connected with the work of the Holy 
 Spirit. "Living water/' more, the Spirit; but al- 
 ways as connected with the word. (John vii. 
 37, 38.) 
 
 "Ye are clean through the word which I have 
 spoken." John xv. 3. 
 
 Thus the living water of the fourth chapter is a 
 presentation to the woman of the same truth Christ 
 gives to Nicodemus. So we find the same dullness 
 of spiritual apprehension, the same ultimate pre- 
 sentation of himself as the object of faith. This 
 figurative use of water was no doubt intended by 
 the Savior; for we find Peter bringing the word 
 and the flesh into contrast, just as Christ does the 
 flesh and the Spirit. 
 
 That this new birth is not baptism is seen from 
 the words : 
 
 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will 
 
NEW BIRTH. 217 
 
 of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " 
 John i. 13. 
 
 Baptism is pre-eminently of the "will of man," 
 and depends upon that will for its accomplishment. 
 
 SECTION I. That which is born of the flesh is 
 flesh. 
 
 This is the sinful nature, or depravity, which 
 comes by natural birth. This inherited sinful 
 nature meets us in every part of the Bible. 
 
 "Who can bring a clean thing- out of an un- 
 clean ? " Job xiv. 4. 
 
 "How then can man be justified with God? or 
 how can he be clean that is born of a woman? " 
 Job xxv. 4. 
 
 Verses might be multiplied showing that the 
 Bible fully 'and constantly teaches the inheritance 
 of a sinful nature. It was for this reason we find 
 so large a part of the books of Moses occupied 
 with those ceremonies that stood connected with 
 the birth of a child, all, like those in the twelfth of 
 Leviticus, proclaiming that man is by birth sinful. 
 This sinful nature is called, in the Bible, by sev- 
 eral names, thus : 
 
 First. Sin, in distinction to sins. Not that sin 
 in the singular number always refers to the nature, 
 but that the nature is so called. In the first Epistle 
 of John, verse 8 of the first chapter refers to the 
 nature, and verse 10 to sin as a transgression. 
 
 "No more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in 
 me." Rom. vii. 21. 
 
218 ATONEMENT. 
 
 This must mean sin as nature, as transgression is 
 something done, not something within. 
 Second. It is called the flesh. 
 
 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." 
 John iii. 6. 
 
 ' ' They that are in the flesh can not please God. 
 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so 
 be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Rom. 
 viii. 9. 
 
 As Paul is writing to living men, who were in 
 the body, "flesh" can not mean the body, and 
 therefore must refer to the nature. 
 
 Third. It is called the old man. 
 
 ' ' That ye put off concerning the former conver- 
 sation the old man." Eph. iv. 22, etc. 
 
 The Bible teaches that the evil nature can not 
 be changed, mended, or improved. Spirit is not 
 flesh transformed into spirit. The idea of the flesh 
 being changed is unknown to the Scriptures. It 
 is "mortified," never "sanctified." The Bible 
 teaches its utter ruin and hopeless condition. 
 
 "Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against 
 God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither 
 indeed can be" Rom. viii. 7. 
 
 "Flesh" and "carnal" translate the same 
 Greek word, so we have used the marginal trans- 
 lation. "The carnal mind," the mind of this old 
 man, is not subject to the law of God. Then 
 with an emphasis that ought to settle the whole 
 question, he adds, "neither indeed can be." 
 
NEW BIRTH. 219 
 
 SECTION II. That which is born of the Spirit is 
 spirit. 
 
 Just as by natural birth a man inherits a sinful 
 nature, so in the new birth he has created in him a 
 new nature. Not a new faculty, or organ, but a 
 new nature. How, will be shown presently. 
 
 * ' If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature ' ' 
 (Greek XTWC, creation). 2 Cor. v. 17. 
 
 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avail- 
 eth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new crea- 
 tion (xn'<c). n Gal. vi. 15. 
 
 Just as the old nature has its distinctive names, 
 so this new creation, or new nature, has also. 
 
 First. It is called eternal life. Eternal life is 
 presented under various aspects in the Bible. Thus 
 Christ himself is the eternal life (i John i. 2 ; v. 20, 
 etc). It is eternal life we enter upon at death. So, 
 also, the motions, emotions, and activities of the 
 Christian the new nature is eternal life. 
 
 "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." 
 John vi. 47. 
 
 Second. It is called Spirit. 
 
 "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." 
 
 Third. It is called the "new man." 
 
 ' ( That ye put on the new man, which after God 
 is created in righteousness and true holiness." 
 Kph. iv. 24. 
 
 "And have put on the new man, which is re- 
 newed in knowledge after the image of him that 
 created him." Col. iii. 10. 
 
220 ATONEMENT. 
 
 This new nature is created in the believer by the 
 power of the Holy Spirit (John i. 13). As the 
 "old man" can not be subject to the law of God, 
 so this new man never sins. 
 
 " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit 
 sin; for his seed remaineth in him and he can not 
 sm\ because he is born of God." i John iii. 9. 
 
 "Whosoever" means every one, so that what is 
 here said is true of every Christian, and not of a 
 special class. Of course, this does not mean that 
 Christians, as such, do not sin; for such testimony 
 has never been given of any one by his fellow-men, 
 who are the only competent witnesses. Sin and 
 death are joined together, and a sinless man could 
 never die. "This do and thou shall live" would 
 forever keep him upon the earth, unless God took 
 him, as he did the prophet of fire, in a chariot of 
 fire: A man's own testimony is, of course, only a 
 piece of conceit and valueless as testimony. A 
 man may tell of his experience, feelings, or belief, 
 but any claim as to a sinless life is of no value; 
 that testimony must come from others, and has 
 never been given. Hence, John's words have a spe- 
 cial force and application. 
 
 ' ' If we say we have no sin, we deceive our- 
 selves." 
 
 We do not deceive God, nor our neighbors; but 
 we do deceive and wofully ourselves. 
 
 To understand John, we must remember that the 
 old man, while alive in our experience, is looked 
 upon as dead by the L,ord. 
 
NEW BIRTH. 221 
 
 To illustrate : During the Franco- Prussian war, 
 a man was drafted for the army. A friend offered 
 to go in his stead. Having a family to support, he 
 accepted the offer. In the first battle this friend 
 was shot and killed. Soon after the same man was 
 drafted again; but instead of going, or sending an- 
 other substitute, he wrote to the officials, "I am 
 dead; I have lost my life in the service of my 
 country; she has no further claim upon me." It 
 was decided to be a valid plea. He had died in the 
 person of his substitute, who, in the eyes of the 
 law, stood in his place; so that what was done by 
 the substitute was done by him legally. Just so is 
 it with the believer; as Christ takes his place and 
 dies for him, he can say with Paul, 
 
 "I was (Greek is in aorist tense) crucified with 
 Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I (the old man) 
 but Christ (the new man) liveth in me." Gal. 
 ii. 20. 
 
 ' ' Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ 
 in God. "Col. iii. 3. 
 
 As the old man is looked upon as dead "dead 
 with Christ" it is only the new man of whom 
 John is speaking, and this new man u born of 
 God," not of Adam does not, and can not sin. 
 
 More, as still further carrying out this idea. As 
 by natural birth we are united to Adam, and by 
 spiritual birth to Christ, the union with the old 
 Adam nature is not broken until death; hence, we 
 are not fully brought into the son's place until the 
 resurrection. 
 
222 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ' ' Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemp- 
 tion of the body." 
 
 SECTION III. The two natures in conflict. 
 
 By natural birth we are born of Adam, inherit- 
 ing the Adam nature u that which is born of the 
 flesh is flesh." By spiritual birth we are born of 
 God, being made partakers of the divine nature, 
 by our union with Christ "that which is born of 
 the Spirit is spirit." The result is that we have 
 both the Adam and the Christ nature in us as be- 
 lievers. One sinful, the other sinless; one fallen 
 and depraved, the other holy and impeccable. Be- 
 tween these two natures there is conflict the war- 
 fare of the Christian life. 
 
 u The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the 
 spirit against the flesh : and these are contrary the 
 one to the other : so that ye can not do the things 
 that ye would." Gal. v. 17. 
 
 We have another .strong picture of this conflict 
 in Romans vii. 
 
 Before we consider it, it may be said that while 
 it is the experience of a saved man, it is not true 
 Christian experience. It is a believer, with the 
 two natures in conflict, but without knowing ex- 
 perimentally the "deliverance" of which Paul 
 speaks. 
 
 There are two features to this deliverance. 
 
 First. In the seventh, it is a man groaning under 
 law; in the eighth, it is a man "groaning" still, 
 but under grace. 
 
NEW BIRTH. 223 
 
 This groaning under law is trie result of not see- 
 ing the true relation of the believer to the law. 
 This, again, comes from a failure to distinguish the 
 dispensational character of the law. 
 
 Some theologians distinguish between what they 
 call the moral and the ceremonial law. But the 
 Bible never so discriminates. It is a pure inven- 
 tion. It was one law the law with its moral pre- 
 cepts and ceremonial requirements. 
 
 From Adam to Moses men were without law the 
 law of which Paul was speaking but they were 
 not without moral precepts. The difficulties come 
 from giving to the law a meaning and an applica- 
 tion it was never intended to have. 
 
 Moral precepts are the same in every age, under 
 law, or "without law" Right and wrong are 
 eternal and unchangeable; and being "without 
 law," gave no liberty to steal; so, being "free from 
 the law" does not mean license. 
 
 All Christians agree that we are not "justified 
 by the deeds of the law; " but, if we are under law, 
 we can be justified only by the law. It is only be- 
 cause we are " dead with Christ," and hence, "dead 
 to the law, ' ' that salvation is possible on any other 
 ground. (See Rom. vii. 1-4.) 
 
 "Ye are not under law, but under grace." 
 Rom. vi. 7. 
 
 " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to 
 every one that believeth." Rom. x. 4. 
 
 Many theologians teach that while we are free 
 from the law in part, so that it is not the ground 
 
224 ATONEMENT. 
 
 upon which we are to be justified, it is still the be- 
 liever's rule of life. But this is logically untenable. 
 The law threatens certain penalties for disobedience. 
 What of these ? To say that we are free from its 
 curse, free from its penalties, but not free from its 
 rule, is a contradiction. 
 
 The strongest passage quoted by those who teach 
 that the law is a rule of life, is Matt. v. 17-19: 
 
 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, 
 or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to 
 fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and 
 earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 
 from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, 
 therefore, shall break one of these least command- 
 ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called 
 the least in the kingdom of heaven," etc. 
 
 This is from the Sermon on the Mount, in which 
 Jesus is unfolding the true meaning and require- 
 ments of the law. . It is addressed to Jews, while 
 the dispensation of law was still in force. This 
 sermon does not touch the question of grace at all. 
 It says nothing of the blood, of faith, or of the 
 gospel. In the words quoted above, Jesus is teach- 
 ing what a legal righteousness means, and in the 
 application says : 
 
 " Except your righteousness shall exceed," etc. 
 Matt. v. 19, 20. 
 
 The law stands forever, hence we must die to be 
 delivered from it; but when by death we are thus 
 free, it is no longer a rule of life, it no longer 
 curses. 
 
NEW BIRTH. 225 
 
 If the law is not our rule of life, what is ? Thank 
 God! the Bible answer is full and complete. Of 
 the scores of texts, take the following, which need 
 no comment : 
 
 "To me to live is Christ." Phil. i. 21. 
 
 " Be ye, therefore, followers of God, as dear chil- 
 dren." Eph. v. i. 
 
 "Ought himself also so to walk, even as he 
 walked" i John ii. 6. 
 
 " Purineth himself, even as he is pure" i 
 John iii. 3. 
 
 "If any man serve me, let him follow me" 
 John xii. 26. 
 
 "Leaving us an example, that ye should follow 
 his steps" i Peter ii. 22. 
 
 "As many as walk according to this rule" 
 Gal. vi. 15, 16. 
 
 These scriptures might be multiplied, it being 
 the one consistent testimony of the New Testament 
 that Christ himself, and not the law, is the believer's 
 rule of life by which his walk is to be ordered. 
 
 What advantage is there in this ? 
 
 (a) It gives a higher standard because the re- 
 quirements of grace are more than those of law. 
 
 (b} It gives a living model in the place of a dead 
 rule. 
 
 (c) It delivers from the terrors inseparable from 
 law. 
 
 (d) It fixes the eye upon Christ, taking it from 
 the law and from self. 
 
 16 
 
226 ATONEMENT. 
 
 "But," says an objector, "if we are not under 
 the law as a rule of life, then we are not prohibited 
 from stealing." 
 
 We ask in reply, did Christ steal ? If not, as he 
 is our rule, then we can not steal. 
 
 The law was given at Sinai, amid thunder and 
 lightning, voices, fire, clouds, and earthquakes. 
 The terror is inseparable from the law; and it is 
 only when we realize full deliverance that we lose 
 our fears. We must get out from under old Sinai's 
 frowning shadow, and then we can enter into the 
 first element of deliverance the "no condemnation 
 to them that are in Christ." 
 
 Second. The next element of deliverance is found 
 in the words 
 
 "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, 
 hath set me free from the law of sin and death." 
 
 We need to examine this closely, so as to guard 
 against a false interpretation. There is a real de- 
 liverance taught here, but this has been so distorted 
 that it has done more than any thing else to preju- 
 dice people against the truth itself. 
 
 Does the Bible teach that this old nature is ever 
 destroyed or made holy during the life of the be- 
 liever? Most certainly not. The flesh is never 
 sanctified, but always needs to be mortified. If the 
 flesh was destroyed, men would not die, and sin 
 would be eternally impossible; but many of those 
 who profess sanctification backslide, showing that 
 the flesh is still there. 
 
 On the other hand, are we to be always in the 
 
NEW BIRTH. 227 
 
 condition indicated in Romans vii.? Is the old man 
 to be continually controlling? By no means. We 
 may have present freedom from the dominion of sin, 
 though not from its presence. "Free" does not 
 mean ( ' exempt from, " as if the old man had been 
 destroyed, but free, in opposition to bondage the 
 bondage indicated in Romans vii. 
 
 Let our readers underline the words "I," "me," 
 and " my," in the last half of the seventh chapter, 
 and he will not find it hard to see how a man ob- 
 tains deliverance. The regenerate man is in him- 
 self just as weak as the unregenerate. Hence, we 
 have in the seventh the will right, but power lack- 
 ing. In the eighth this power is found, and deliv- 
 erance obtained. 
 
 A man, after conversion, resolves to do better, to 
 live right, and makes an honest effort to do so, but 
 he finds that his resolutions are just as worthless as 
 ever. His trouble is that he has not realized his 
 weakness; that "without me ye can no nothing." 
 When this is realized, he looks out of himself for 
 power, and finds this in the indwelling Spirit. 
 When by faith he relies upon this Spirit walks in 
 the Spirit deliverance is found; power, not his 
 own, but Christ's, sets him free from the law of sin. 
 
 Keeping this in mind, let us examine Rom. vii. 
 as to the conflict of the two natures. 
 
 ' ' For I know that in me that is, in my flesh 
 there dwelleth no good thing : for to will is present 
 with me; but how to perform -that which is good I 
 find not .... now if I do that I would not it is 
 no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." 
 
228 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Here Paul attributes failure to the old man the 
 flesh that still dwells in him. 
 Then he shows the conflict. 
 
 "I delight in the law of God after the inward 
 man. > > 
 
 The new man, the sinless man, is all right, and 
 delights in the law of God, but 
 
 U I see another law in my members (the flesh) 
 warring against the law of my mind, and bringing 
 me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my 
 members. ' ' 
 
 u So then with the mind / myself serve the law 
 of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." 
 
 In the beginning he identifies himself with the 
 old man ("in me that is, in my flesh"}. In the 
 close he links himself with the new man ( U I my- 
 self, .... but with the flesh"). Another key to 
 the deliverance itself. 
 
 SECTION IV. The Nature of the Change. 
 
 The verses just examined help us to understand 
 the nature of the change "the law of sin which is 
 in my members" 
 
 All through the Bible man is represented as a 
 triune being, possessing body, soul, and spirit. 
 
 "Your whole spirit, and soul, and body." i 
 Thess. v. 23. 
 
 This gives us the distinction between man and 
 the brute. An animal, according to the Scriptures, 
 has a soul (not soul in the popular sense, not an 
 
NEW BIRTH. 229 
 
 immortal soul, but a soul in the Bible sense of that 
 word). 
 
 "Every creature in which there is life." 
 Gen. i. 30. 
 
 This is, in the Hebrew, "living soul." This, 
 with other texts, plainly affirms the possession of a 
 soul a nephesh by the animal. It never affirms 
 that it has a spirit. Ecclesiastes iii. 21, may seem 
 an exception, but is not really so. The book is 
 man's voice, not God's. It is an inspired picture 
 of what Solomon's "wisdom" taught him, but it 
 is not a revelation from God (see i. 17). In Eccle- 
 siastes spirit is used in its primary sense of breath. 
 
 A plant has life; but in harmony with the law of 
 the Conditioned, an animal has all that the plant 
 has, and something added. What is this? The 
 Bible answers, a soul. The instinct, intelligence, 
 memory, affection, and will of the brute, is certainly 
 not the result of its material organization, however 
 intimate the connection of the body with their ex- 
 pression. They are the phenomena of soul. Man 
 has all that the brute has, and something added. 
 What is this? An immortal spirit. 
 
 The soul is the seat of the affections, appetites, 
 and desires. The spirit, of the judgment and rea- 
 son. This last the brute has not. 
 
 In the fall, every part of the man became de- 
 praved. Hence, the body became "corrupt," the 
 soul "sensual," the spirit "devilish." 
 
 Man has been likened to the old tabernacle. The 
 body the outer court, the soul the holy place, the 
 
230 ATONEMENT. 
 
 spirit the holy of holies. It was in this holiest 
 that in the tabernacle, God had his dwelling place; 
 and in the holiest in man, God ought to dwell. As 
 the sad result of the fall, God was dethroned, and 
 the devil usurped his place. Reigning there, he 
 blinds the mind, darkens the understanding, and, as 
 the God of this world, leads men captive at Iris will. 
 For this reason the unsaved man is a " child of the 
 devil," while his spirit is defiled, polluted, "dev- 
 ilish." 
 
 In regeneration there is no change in the body 
 or the soul (these combined form the flesh), it being 
 the spirit that is quickened. The unclean spirit 
 goes out of the man. This alone, however, does 
 not save. God's Spirit enters, so that God has re- 
 sumed his place in the inner holy, dwelling there 
 as the abiding Comforter. 
 
 In the new birth, the spirit is regenerated and 
 made as pure as God is pure, the very moment the 
 man believes. But the body is unchanged; hence, 
 "the law of sin" is in "my members." 
 
 We know the intimate connection between a 
 man's body and his desires, lusts, etc. The body 
 being unchanged, these remain, even in the be- 
 liever; he is a "man of like passions" as others. 
 Not only natural, but acquired appetite remains. 
 Take, for example, intemperance the appetite 
 that controls so many. Drunkenness is as much a 
 physical disease as consumption, and the diseased 
 organs remain diseased after conversion, so that the 
 appetite is there. Grace, by ' 'the law of the Spirit of 
 life in Christ," gives power to overcome, when this 
 
NEW BIRTH. 231 
 
 is relied upon by faith, so that none need fall. But 
 the appetite being there, where there is self-reli- 
 ance the man may fall, even after being regen- 
 erated. Hence, Paul says : 
 
 " I keep under my body and bring it into subjec- 
 tion." 
 
 "Mortify your members which are upon the 
 earth." 
 
 This conflict endures during life. If we feed the 
 ' ' old man, " it becomes strong in our experience, and 
 our religious life is feeble. To starve the old, and 
 feed the new, is the secret of all Christian living. 
 To neglect the new, and live only to gratify the old, 
 is the way to failure and shame. 
 
 It is plain that fitness for heaven can only come 
 by full deliverance from sin; hence, we must get 
 rid of the flesh; and so Paul points to the "re- 
 demption of the body" as the final work that 
 brings fully into the Son's place by destroying the 
 flesh. 
 
 At death, the spirit being pure, being the temple 
 of the Holy Ghost, goes at once to be with Christ. 
 In the resurrection, the power of this Spirit extends 
 to the body, which is "changed in a moment, in 
 the twinkling of an eye." Then, a redeemed 
 spirit united to a redeemed body, the last vestige of 
 sin will be forever swept away; and redeemed, de- 
 livered, saved from sin as well as from its curse, 
 we will be presented "faultless" before the pres- 
 ence of his glory. 
 
 Any scheme of salvation which does not make 
 
232 ATONEMENT. 
 
 provision for deliverance from sin as well as its 
 curse, falls short of God's thought and God's plan. 
 Redemption from the curse of the law, through 
 the death and sufferings of Jesus. Redemption 
 from the power of the devil, when he is driven out 
 from the temple, and God's Spirit and God's glory 
 fill the house. Redemption from sin by the work 
 of the SpiritV;/ us and the intercession of Jesus for 
 us. And final, full, complete deliverance, in the 
 redemption of the body. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 FEET WASHING. 
 
 All through the Bible runs the " scarlet line," 
 but side by side with the truth as to the blood, we 
 find the water. The one is as important as the 
 other; but, alas ! the water has been sadly mis- 
 placed in the teaching of Christendom, and con- 
 fusion has come in, to the ruin of souls and to the 
 discouragement of believers. 
 
 SECTION I. "That he might sanctify and 
 cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. ' ' 
 Bph. v. 2,6. 
 
 This gives us a key to unfold the spiritual mean- 
 ing of the water. 
 
 Remember, it is the church, not the sinner, that 
 is thus cleansed, that it may be presented a glorious 
 church without u spot or wrinkle." It stands, then, 
 as God's provision for the cleansing of the church, 
 being connected with the great truth of our re- 
 demption from sin. 
 
 The verse literally reads, "with the laver of 
 water in the word" (TM Xourpco TOL> uSaroz i.v fry par c). 
 It being Xourpov (loutroii), and not Aooa) (louoo}, it is, 
 as we have given it, a laver or bath. Of what 
 laver is he here speaking ? We find but one in the 
 
234 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Scriptures, that which stood in the court of the 
 tabernacle, and in which the feet of the priests 
 were washed every time they went into the Holy 
 Place. 
 
 Entering the court of the tabernacle, the in- 
 closure within which stood the tabernacle proper, 
 the first thing encountered was the "brazen altar." 
 Here the sacrifice was offered, here the burnt-offer- 
 ing was burnt, here we meet with the blood that 
 was shed for the remission of sins. At the altar 
 the question of sin was settled, and atonement was 
 made. Passing by the altar, the next thing en- 
 countered was the laver with its water. 
 
 At the altar we have the blood making atone- 
 ment; at the laver, water for the cleansing of the 
 feet. Paul says, this laver is now "in the word," 
 water being a symbol of the word. What was done 
 in the type by the water, is done spiritually by the 
 word in the antitype. 
 
 SECTION II. The thirteenth chapter of John. 
 
 The place of this scripture in the teaching of the 
 New Testament has been largely overlooked. We 
 read that Jesus 
 
 ' * Poured water into a basin, and began to wash 
 the disciples' feet." 
 
 This was a common act of hospitality, done 
 usually by a servant. Where sandals were worn, 
 the feet became hot and dusty in traveling, so that 
 washing the feet was simply ministering to the 
 comfort of the guest. So common was it, that the 
 
FEET WASHING. 235 
 
 Pharisee was justly reproached for neglecting it, 
 when the woman supplied his lack of service by 
 her tears. 
 
 "Then cometh he to Simon Peter; and Peter 
 saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?" 
 
 It was a matter of astonishment to Peter that the 
 Lord Jesus should take a servant's place and come 
 to minister to his necessity. It was something he 
 could not understand. 
 
 "Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do 
 thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know here- 
 after." 
 
 This answer of the Lord Jesus merits close in- 
 spection. If it was to teach a lesson of humility 
 to his disciples, Peter could, and did, understand it. 
 If it was simply the local custom, or the institu- 
 tion of an ordinance, Peter could, and would, have 
 understood. The Savior's words imply a spiritual 
 meaning, not discerned by Peter at the time. On 
 the day of Pentecost, when they should all be 
 "filled with the Holy Spirit," all things would be 
 brought to their minds; and then, with minds 
 spiritually illumined, the meaning would be under- 
 stood. Peter, with characteristic impulsiveness, 
 says : 
 
 "Thou shalt never wash my feet." 
 
 Like many a Christian to-day, Peter has no 
 thought of the Lord's will, but simply what he 
 himself thinks is right. Jesus answers him : 
 
 " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." 
 
236 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Notice this language. Whatever the spiritual 
 import of the washing, Peter's part with Christ de- 
 pended upon its being done. Not his part in 
 Christ, but "with" The Greek preposition here 
 used implies fellowship, association. 
 
 The believer's part in Christ in the benefits of 
 this great atoning sacrifice depends upon his 
 faith. His part with Christ his fellowship, com- 
 munion, religious joy depends upon his obedience. 
 This he may lose at any time. Salvation, and the 
 joy of salvation, are separate and distinct from 
 each other. The one depends upon the faithfulness 
 of Christ, the other upon our own faithfulness. 
 Thus we may lose the one without losing the other. 
 David prays, "restore unto me " not my salvation, 
 he had not lost that but the u joy of my salvation." 
 
 To maintain our part with Christ, we must let 
 him wash our feet that is, our walk, our life, our 
 ways. 
 
 Peter, like many a Christian to-day, wants to go 
 to the other extreme: 
 
 u lvord, not my feet only, but also my hands and 
 my head." 
 
 This coming to be washed all over again to be 
 reconverted is to ignore what has been done al- 
 ready, and thus to undervalue Christ's work, and 
 cast a doubt upon its efficiency. It also is a fail- 
 ure to appreciate the nature of the need why the 
 feet must be washed. Jesus answers : 
 
 "He that is washed needeth not save to wash 
 his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, 
 
FEET WASHING. 237 
 
 but not all. For he knew who should betray him; 
 therefore said he, ye are not all clean." 
 
 This does not mean that Judas was unclean 
 physically, but that he was not regenerated not 
 spiritually clean. This is the only exposition that 
 gives any force to the ' ' therefore. ' ' The betrayal 
 of Christ could only be evidence of spiritual un- 
 cleanness. 
 
 The illustration is a simple one. "He that is 
 bathed" On the way from the bath to the house, a 
 man would soil his feet through contact with the 
 earth. " He would not return to bathe again ; that 
 would keep him all the time going to and fro. No, 
 he " needeth not save to wash his feet." And even 
 when he needs to have his feet washed, he is still 
 "clean every zvhit" What a precious thought to 
 the believer. Amid all our failures and short-com- 
 ings, whatever our actual condition, we are in 
 Christ not in ourselves "clean every whit." 
 
 We must remember that there is a difference be- 
 tween our standing and state. 
 
 Our standing is what we are in Christ, what the 
 work of the lyord Jesus has made us in God's sight 
 "clean every whit." 
 
 Our state is what we are in our actual experience 
 as individuals. In this life, because of the work- 
 ings of the ' ' flesh, ' ' our standing and state do not 
 correspond, but after the redemption of the body 
 they will. For this reason, because we find sin in 
 heart and life, while clean every whit, we need to 
 have our feet, our walk, cleansed from the daily sin 
 and uncleanness. 
 
238 ATONEMENT. 
 
 "Clean every whit" that is, our standing, the 
 result of the cleansing by means of the blood. 
 
 "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us 
 from all sin." 
 
 There is no modification of that word "//." 
 And, thank God, it is true of all believers, and al- 
 ways true. Some of the advocates of the dogma of 
 sinless perfection give to this verse a meaning that 
 robs believers of their birthright, and forces it into 
 conflict with what follows. 
 
 They make it a cleansing from " inbred corrup- 
 tion, ' ' so that they reach a state in which they never 
 sin. This confounds what Christ does for us, with 
 what the Spirit does in us, hence, there is utter 
 failure to understand what is meant by cleansing 
 with, or by, the blood. The blood was shed to 
 atone for sin actually committed; it was the meet- 
 ing of the claims of God against us. This blood 
 was not applied to the people, but presented to God ; 
 and on the ground of the value of that blood, sin is 
 remitted, blotted out, removed as far as the east 
 from the west. The blood covers hides the sin, 
 so that we are, in God's sight, " clean every whit." 
 The cleansing is in the sight of the Lord judicial 
 and not that we are clean in ourselves, for the next 
 verse says: 
 
 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive our- 
 selves." 
 
 The tense shows that the cleansing is a perfected 
 one, and always and at all times true of the be- 
 liever. " From all sin " that is, from every sin of 
 
FEET WASHING. 239 
 
 the entire life. If there is one sin Christ did not 
 atone for, either Christ must die again or the soul 
 must be lost. 
 
 The work of the blood is never repeated; it is 
 done "once for all." 
 
 ' ' The worshipers once purged should have no 
 more conscience of sins." 
 
 ' ' By the which will we are sanctified through 
 the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
 all." 
 
 "For by one offering he hath perfected forever 
 them that are sanctified." Heb. x. 14. 
 
 The whole argument of Hebrews x. is the perfec- 
 tion of the cleansing, in opposition to the imperfect 
 cleansing of Judaism. 
 
 Believers ought never to lose sight of this truth. 
 At all times, under every circumstance, whatever 
 the character of the life or of the feelings, it is al- 
 ways true of the believer that he is "clean every 
 whit." Even when we are the most out of com- 
 munion, and spiritual declension has brought * ' lean- 
 ness " to the soul, it is still true that we are " clean 
 every whit. ' ' There ought to be no sin on the con- 
 science, because that the worshipers once purged 
 should have no more conscience of sins. 
 
 But while there is no sin on the conscience, while 
 we are "clean every whit," while the blood per- 
 fectly cleanses, there is sin in the flesh. For this 
 reason we need to have our feet our walk, our life 
 cleansed from this sin. 
 
 "Every branch in me that beareth fruit, he 
 
240 ATONEMENT. 
 
 purgeth (cleanseth) it that it may bring forth more 
 fruit." John xv. 3. 
 
 How is this cleansing accomplished? 
 
 ' ' Ye are clean through the word. ' ' 
 
 4 ' Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way 
 (feet), by taking heed thereto, according to thy 
 word." Ps. cxix. 9. 
 
 u Sanctify them through thy word."- -John 
 xvii. 17. 
 
 This cleansing by the word is constant. How 
 does Jesus wash his disciples' feet? Here is a 
 young convert; in the ardor of his first love he 
 says, ' ' Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ? " The 
 Lord places the Bible in his hands, as ( ' the man of 
 his counsel," the guide of his life. He begins to 
 study the Scriptures; as he reads, he sees that his 
 life is not in harmony with this or that precept. 
 The moment he discerns this, or has it impressed 
 upon his conscience as he thus sees the wrong in 
 his life it is Christ coming to wash his feet. If 
 he lets Christ wash his feet (his walk) by putting 
 away the wrong by yielding obedience to the 
 truth his part with Christ remains. But if he 
 fails to obey, fails to do what the word requires 
 refuses to let Christ wash his feet his part with 
 Christ is lost, the joy of his salvation is gone. 
 
 SECTION III. Confession. 
 
 But perhaps many are asking, if a believer loses 
 his part with Christ, how is he to be restored ? In 
 reply, we say that God's remedy is confession. 
 
FKET WASHING. 241 
 
 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to 
 forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all un- 
 righteousness." i John i. 9. 
 
 There is a great difference between praying for 
 forgiveness and confessing the sin. Of course 
 prayer may carry with it confession, and so amount 
 to the same thing; but confession is the remedy. 
 But why confession? Because it is the true ex- 
 pression of that state which God requires. It is as 
 sons that the Father's face is hidden from us, and 
 communion interrupted. It is much harder for a 
 child to confess a wrong than to ask forgiveness. 
 To ask forgiveness does not always imply a just ap- 
 preciation of the wrong, and simply shows sorrow 
 for the loss of communion and a desire for its 
 restoration. Confession goes beyond this. The 
 essence of confession is the self-judgment that it 
 necessitates. We must see it to be a sin, drag it 
 into the light and judge it as a sin, before we con- 
 fess it. Confession involves self-judgment, and this 
 is God's remedy where communion has been lost. 
 
 Reader, are you in the gloom, living without 
 spiritual joy? Then the moment the sin is con- 
 fessed that brought the cloud between you and the 
 Father, that moment the intercession of Jesus 
 avails, and all is forgiven. The hand of love brushes 
 away the clouds. 
 
 As Christ washes our feet, so we ought to wash 
 one another's. 
 
 : ' If any man be overtaken in a fault, ye which 
 are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of 
 17 
 
242 ATONEMENT. 
 
 meekness, considering thyself, lest them also be 
 tempted." Gal. vi. i. 
 
 If we see wrong in a brother, the law of Christ 
 obligates us to wash his feet. We must not come 
 in the spirit of censure, but of love. Neither must 
 we wash his feet with our opinions, but with the 
 word. Our opinions may be wrong; we have no 
 right to judge another by these. We must bring 
 the word to bear, and if this is plain, and we do it 
 in love, it will do its work. 
 
 If he lets us wash his feet, we are drawn close to 
 each other; but if he refuses, a cloud comes between 
 us, and fellowship is interrupted. 
 
 Then, confession alone can restore the fellow- 
 ship. 
 
 May we be found ever washing each other's feet; 
 but above all, willing; and eager to have Christ wash 
 our feet, that we may not only have part in him, 
 but always, and at all times, an unclouded part with 
 him. 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 - 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 SONSHIP. 
 
 Ill this part' of our book we are discussing the 
 application of the atonement. This embraces more 
 than the extent. Hence, it will be in place to con- 
 sider the question of Sonship, in its bearing upon 
 the salvation of the soul, and standing of the Chris- 
 tian. 
 
 SECTION I. Who are Sons? 
 
 It is not a Bible thought that God is the Father 
 of all men, and therefore that all men are brethren. 
 An unconverted man is never, in any sense, God's 
 son. It is strange, when we remember what the re- 
 lation implies, that this truth is not more generally 
 understood. 
 
 The only text that can be quoted as teaching the 
 sonship of a sinner is Acts xvii. 28. But here, 
 Paul is quoting from a heathen poet, not to prove 
 the Fatherhood of God, but as an argument drawn 
 from their own writings to enforce the personality 
 and spirituality of God. 
 
 For an unconverted man to look up and say, 
 u My Father,'' is to claim a relationship to which 
 he has no title. 
 
 When the Jews came to Jesus upon one occasion, 
 they said : 
 
244 ATONEMENT. 
 
 "We have one Father, even God." John viii. 41. 
 
 Did Jesus recognize the relationship? No; for 
 he at once repudiates it 
 
 "If God were your Father, ye would love me; 
 .... ye are of your father, the devil." 
 
 He thus assigns them a different paternity. Son- 
 ship is one of the distinctive blessings that come to 
 us through Christ. 
 
 "When the fullness of the time was come, God 
 
 sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under 
 
 the law, to redeem them that are under the law, 
 
 4hat we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 
 
 iv. 4, 5- 
 
 ' ' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
 spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 
 viii. 16. 
 
 The Spirit does not bear witness with the spirit 
 of the sinner, that he is a son. 
 
 Many "isms" build their arguments upon the 
 universal Fatherhood of God. These arguments 
 are of no force in the face of the fact that a sinner 
 is not a son. But John certainly places the whole 
 matter beyond dispute, so far as the Bible may be 
 proof, when he says : 
 
 ' ' In this the children of God are manifest, and 
 the children of the devil." i John iii. 10. 
 
 He here divides men into two classes, only one of 
 which are God's children. We repeat it, therefore, 
 with emphasis, the Bible does not teach that the 
 sinner is a son. 
 
SONSHIP. 245 
 
 Let us try and see the force and beauty of this 
 relationship, and the privileges it carries with it. 
 And while we endeavor thus to do, may the Holy 
 Spirit illuminate our understanding, that we may 
 see the wondrous glory, the inestimable blessing of 
 sonship. In Paul's writings a son is contrasted with 
 a servant, and this contrast helps to bring out the 
 value of sonship. 
 
 SECTION II. Sonship is an eternal relation, 
 a Servants is temporary. 
 
 * * The servant abideth not in the house forever : 
 but the Son abideth ever." John viii. 35. 
 
 Servants may come and go, but the son remains. 
 A servant may cease to be a servant, but a son can 
 not give up his sonship. "Once a son always a 
 son." Being born, we can not be unborn; and as 
 the relationship is founded, not upon the service 
 rendered, but upon the birth, it can not be dissolved. 
 It is permanent, inalienable; "the son abideth 
 ever." A boy may be a disobedient son, he is still 
 a son. Being sick does not change a sheep into a 
 goat. Being willful does not change a son into a 
 servant, or cause the relationship to cease. 
 
 ' ' Once a son always a son." Nothing can change 
 this or altar it. How different with a servant! 
 When he ceases to be of service, or to render a re- 
 turn for his wages, he can be dismissed at the will 
 of his master at any time. There is no such per- 
 manency in the relation, that it can not be broken. 
 But, we are "no more servants, but sons." 
 
46 ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION III. The Son enjoys his place and 
 privileges in the Fathers house because of his 
 birth ; a Servant because of his service. 
 
 It is because we have been born again, that we 
 enjoy the blessings of the gospel. It is not on the 
 ground of any merit in us, or of any good that we 
 do, in whole or in part, that we have u a title clear 
 to mansions in the skies." Neither is it because 
 we have been faithful that we enter heaven at last. 
 On any such ground, none of us could be saved. 
 It is simply because of union with Christ, because 
 born again, that they are ours. 
 
 When God appeared unto Moses in the burning 
 bush, he told him to put off his shoes ; but when 
 the prodigal comes home, the first thing is to put 
 shoes on his feet. Why? In oriental countries a 
 servant must remove his shoes when coming into 
 the presence of his master; so that Moses, the rep- 
 resentative of law, puts off his shoes. The law 
 gives us a servant's place, making our blessing con- 
 ditional upon our obedience the reward for service 
 rendered. But grace brings into a son's place; so 
 that while the law puts off the shoes, grace puts 
 them on. 
 
 A son is properly required to be obedient; but he 
 is a son, not because of this obedience, but because 
 of his birth. He is obedient because he is a son, 
 living in the enjoyment of the blessings that a lov- 
 ing father constantly bestows. How important to 
 our peace to remember this! 
 
 If obedience be a condition of salvation, none 
 
SONSHIP. 247 
 
 can be saved; for all fail in their obedience. If a 
 condition, the least failure forfeits the title, as there 
 is no yielding in a condition. In case of failure, 
 we are left without hope, because the blood can not 
 avail. If the blood avails, then the obedience 
 ceases to be a condition. A condition is something 
 that must be complied with to secure the salvation; 
 and failure works ruin to the soul. But all have 
 failed; so that if obedience is the condition of sal- 
 vation, all are lost. 
 
 Obedience as a condition of salvation, the Bible 
 never teaches, but obedience as the evidence and 
 fruit of the faith, the Bible always proclaims. 
 There may be degrees in fruit, but no such degrees 
 are possible in a condition. 
 
 How strange that men do not see that it is not 
 because we are faithful, but because of the efficacy 
 of Christ's work, that we are saved! As none are 
 faithful, all being "unprofitable servants," on any 
 such ground how could we have peace in believing, 
 or enjoy the assurance of faith? The word does 
 not say, Believe, and if you prove faithful you shall 
 be saved. But, " Believe, and thou shalt be saved." 
 No perhaps, but a blessed certainty! For one to 
 believe and be lost would be for God's word to 
 prove untrue. No! In all the songs of the re- 
 deemed in glory, not one is singing "worthy am I," 
 but "worthy the Lamb!" All the glory being 
 ascribed to him. 
 
 A son is required to be obedient; and his favor 
 with the father, his influence in the family and with 
 the neighbors, his own happiness and rewards, all 
 
248 ATONEMENT, 
 
 depend upon that obedience. Still, this does not 
 make him a son, that comes from his birth alone. 
 
 Men seem to think that unless heaven is the prize 
 of obedience, there is no motive to right living. 
 As a dear brother said recently, " If a man is saved 
 once for all, then he can do as he pleases; live 
 whatever kind of life he wishes." Our reply was, 
 u Most certainly, he is left to the enjoyment of 
 Christian liberty; but you mistake in supposing he 
 will please to do wrong. That would be to make 
 the new birth of no value, and to ignore the 
 grandest motives in the world. ' ' 
 
 If one truth is more emphatic than another, it is 
 that the tree must be made good to produce good 
 fruit. But after the tree has been made good, the 
 good fruit is the inevitable result. If a man is born 
 again, the tree has been made good ; and the good 
 fruit follows. To believe that a child of God will 
 freely and voluntarily choose an evil life, is a dis- 
 honor to Christ's work, making it of no value. If 
 his affection and will have been changed, so that he 
 is a new creature, the certain result will be good fruit. 
 
 u Hereby we do know that we know him, if we 
 keep his commandments." i John ii. 3. 
 
 ' * As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
 are the sons of God." Rom. viii. 14. 
 
 So certain is this, that to do otherwise is an evi- 
 dence of an unregenerate heart. 
 
 ' ' They went out from us, but they were not of 
 us, for if they had been of us they would no doubt 
 have continued with us." i John ii. 19. 
 
SONSHIP. 249 
 
 The words u no doubt " are supplied by the trans- 
 lators. The original reads, "they would have con- 
 tinued." 
 
 It is for this cause that obedience, being the fruit 
 of the faith, is an evidence of sonship. 
 
 He can do as he pleases, so far as his title to sal- 
 vation is concerned, that is true; but he will please 
 to do his Master's will. 
 
 11 If a man love me he will keep my words." 
 John xiv. 23. 
 
 Not he must, but he will. 
 
 Then again, this objection ignores the strongest 
 of all motives. The gospel appeals to love as the 
 motive to obedience. 
 
 A man has a mortgage on another man's property. 
 He requires this man to do something, and threat- 
 ens, in case of failure, to foreclose the mortgage. 
 The man being thus in his power, may do what is 
 required of him; but he acts reluctantly, his heart 
 is not in the service. So, if we obey simply to 
 escape the consequences of our sins, it is only 
 formal; the heart is not enlisted, and God, who de- 
 sires heart service, sees no value in it. 
 
 Again, a man offers a certain sum of money for a 
 service he desires. Here the service is rendered, 
 not from love, but for gain. A servant gives no 
 more, as a rule. This is not the obedience that 
 God desires. 
 
 But here is a man who saved the life of another, 
 and in so doing lost an arm. He desires a service; 
 and as the man looks at the armless sleeve, he 
 
250 ATONEMENT. 
 
 thinks, "he lost that arm for me." How it stirs 
 his heart! how gladly he renders the service! It is 
 heart service, the best of all. So the Lord Jesus 
 comes to his people and says, ' ' I have saved you ; 
 that question is settled; now, if ye love me, keep my 
 commandments! " The believer remembers Geth- 
 semane and Calvary. He believes in the full salva- 
 tion bought by such a price. He feels that Jesus 
 is precious O how precious! He says, "I love 
 him, because he first loved me; " and with his heart 
 overflowing with love and gratitude, gladly, eagerly 
 consecrates himself to do the Lord's will. What 
 stronger motive can we find than this ? Love has 
 a thousand hands and feet; is eager to serve the 
 loved one; finds its highest joy in the favor of 
 its Lord. Away with the thought that a Christian 
 will please 'to do wrong unless Jesus stands over 
 him with a whip! Such thought fails to. under- 
 stand that faith which works by love. 
 
 Why can not we stand in the sunshine, coming 
 out from the shadows of Sinai ? Why not stand in 
 the full assurance of the "no condemnation," and 
 then, because we love him, consecrate heart and 
 life to him ? 
 
 Under the law, at certain seasons, the slaves be- 
 came free; but there was a provision that the slave 
 who " loved his master " might go before the judges, 
 and having his ear pierced with an awl at the door- 
 post of his master's house, thus give himself to per- 
 petual servitude. If the Lord has given liberty to 
 the captive, we do not want that liberty that we 
 may do wrong; but, loving our Master would bring 
 
SONSHIP. 251 
 
 ourselves to have our ears pierced, that we may be 
 the L,ord's forever. Such is the service the obe- 
 dience of love of the Christian. -. 
 
 SECTION IV. A Son is dear to the Father, a 
 Servant^s relation implies no such affection. 
 
 How proud a father is of his boy! how he de- 
 lights in him! what affection he lavishes upon him! 
 The Christian is the recipient of just such love. 
 
 "He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his 
 eye." Zech. ii. 8. 
 
 The Father's love flows out with a tenderness and 
 a fullness, beyond all expression. 
 
 You have seen a father watching his child in its 
 early efforts to walk. See how carefully he guards 
 it! How his heart thrills as it takes a few tottering 
 steps! Even so our heavenly Father is watching 
 the efforts of his feeble little ones here. And 
 blessed be his name, his hands are ever near us 
 the hands of the mighty God of Jacob to keep us 
 from harm. 
 
 With a father's heart and a father's hands so near, 
 safe is the Christian. 
 
 The child's walk is very imperfect. His gait 
 is unsteady. Yet, there is something very at- 
 tractive to the watcher, and that stirs his heart 
 strangely. The father does not think of the fail- 
 ures; he looks at the child's weakness, and re- 
 joices at the success that is made. The honest ef- 
 forts, the small victories, these are precious in God's 
 sight. 
 
252 ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION V. A Son is an heir, a Servant is not. 
 
 The glory that awaits the believer can not be told 
 in words. It is by being made a son that he be- 
 comes an heir. A servant can never, by his work, 
 become an heir. Service entitles to wages, but 
 these are always the equivalent of the work done. 
 What work of man could ever merit or win 
 heaven? Is it not preposterous that men should 
 dream of heaven as the reward of obedience? It 
 either exalts men, or belittles heaven. Heaven is 
 never promised, never obtained, on such terms. A 
 servant's place entitles to a servant's wage, but 
 nothing more. 
 
 Birth sonship constitutes us heirs. This is 
 the only Bible ground for the possession of the in- 
 heritance. "If children, then heirs," but never if 
 servants, then heirs. 
 
 The inheritance is to be enjoyed only by God's 
 children; and to be a child we must be born into 
 the family. 
 
 This inheritance, this glory, is the hope of the 
 Christian. We do not hope for salvation, we have 
 that; and what is ours in present possession is 
 not an object of hope. We have salvation, we hope 
 for the glory. 
 
 This heirship not only gives comfort and strength 
 to the believer, it makes us the subjects of peculiar 
 care on the Father's part. 
 
 4 ' To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, 
 and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for 
 you (or c for us^}, who are kept by the power of 
 God through faith unto salvation." i Peter i. 4, 5. 
 
SONSHIP. 253 
 
 It was the custom to keep the heir in a strong 
 fortress until the time he entered upon his inherit- 
 ance. The word here used refers to this custom. 
 ' * Kept, " as in a fortress, showing him to be 
 guarded by the safeguards the father's love pro- 
 vides. 
 
 " Kept," not by our faithfulness, but by the power 
 of God; and surely that is adequate and sufficient 
 for the work. If he can not keep, he can not save, 
 as the keeping is implied in the saving. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS. 
 
 The baptism of the Holy Spirit, as we have 
 shown, is the foundation -of the Medium Theology. 
 In this chapter we wish to show its connection with 
 the grand truth of the believer's security in Christ. 
 
 Two positions are taken in the Christian world. 
 One that a man is saved when he believes, the other 
 that a man may trust in Christ, and yet fall away 
 and be lost. 
 
 We hold that if a man trusts in Christ he is saved, 
 which is not true if there is any danger of his being 
 lost,. Hence, if a believer should lose his soul, 
 either the promises of the Bible never were his, or 
 else they are not true. It says, ( ' Believe on the 
 L,ord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." No 
 perhaps, no other condition, but an absolute prom- 
 ise; believe, and "thou shall be saved." 
 
 We find, however, that a Christian, by the power 
 of u the flesh," may fall into sin. How far he may 
 backslide we dare not say, as no one can draw the 
 line. But we do claim that if the man is truly re- 
 generate, even when he is farthest from Christ, 
 faith still lingers in the soul and Christ still is pre- 
 cious. He is not happy or contented in his wander- 
 ings, and sooner or later the prodigal will come 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 255 
 
 back home. The unclean raven went out of the 
 ark never to return, but the gentle dove came back 
 again to the old ark, because their natures were dif- 
 ferent; and here is the difference between the regen- 
 erate man and the hypocrite, or the self-deceived. 
 As the word of God so plainly teaches, ( ' they went 
 out ' ' because they were not of us. 
 
 A believer may sin, and not be lost. David and 
 Peter both fell into grievous sin, but they did not 
 lose their souls, for they are both in heaven, singing 
 the praises of Jesus, and rejoicing in the value of 
 the blood. 
 
 It is not our purpose to enter into a full discus- 
 sion of the doctrine, but simply to present it in 
 such a way as to show the value of Christ's work 
 to the believer. 
 
 SECTION I. Some Arminian texts examined. 
 
 We will examine a few of the texts relied upon 
 by the advocates of apostasy, and have selected 
 what are regarded as the strongest. When properly 
 understood, it will be found that, so far from teach- 
 ing apostasy, they present the very opposite truth. 
 
 First. ' ' When the unclean spirit is gone out of 
 a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, 
 and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return 
 into my house from whence I came out'; and when 
 he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and gar- 
 nished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself 
 seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and 
 they enter in and dwell there ; and the last state of 
 that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it 
 be also unto this wicked generation." Matt. xii. 
 43-45- 
 
256 ATONEMENT. 
 
 It is claimed that the unclean spirit going out 
 is conversion, and its return is apostasy. In re- 
 ply, we say that there is no Bible authority for 
 such an assumption, and that it introduces nu- 
 merous contradictions into the passage, all out 
 of harmony with apostasy. The unclean spirit 
 goes out, is not driven out: indicating that such 
 may be at any time. No doubt the spasmodic 
 periods of reformation in a wicked man's life 
 may be due, in some measure, to this; and it is 
 clear that when the Holy Spirit is doing his work 
 in convincing of sin, this would be true. That 
 it is not conversion, is seen from the application 
 to this "wicked generation." The unclean spir- 
 it's return would make their last state worse than 
 the first. 
 
 Then it is the unclean spirit who says, ( ' I will 
 return;" this would be to make the apostasy de- 
 pend, not upon the man, but the will of the devil. 
 There is nothing to indicate sin on the part of the 
 man, but the reverse; for when the unclean spirit 
 returns, he finds the house clean ' ' swept and 
 garnished." None of the facts will fit in with the 
 theory of apostasy; hence we must look elsewhere 
 for a solution. The key to the subject is the 
 "empty" house. What if the devil leaves the 
 man for a season ? If the house is left empty, the 
 devil will return. There was no opening of the 
 door and letting Christ in, for then the Holy Spirit 
 would have taken up his abode in the house; not 
 as a transient guest, but to * ' abide with you for- 
 ever." John xiv. 1 6. 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 257 
 
 Second. ' ' But I keep under my body, and bring 
 it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I 
 have preached to others, I myself should be a 
 castaway." i Cor. ix. 27. 
 
 The word translated * ( castaway ' ' is dd6xepoc (ado- 
 kimos), which means "unable to stand test, re- 
 jected, refuse, worthless." In the races, it was a 
 word used to designate one who failed to win a 
 prise. In the race of which Paul is speaking, he 
 was running in order to obtain an ' ' incorruptible 
 crown." But what is this incorruptible crown? 
 Is it salvation? Did Paul by this language express 
 a fear that after all he might be lost ? Such an ex- 
 planation would be in conflict with his uniform 
 testimony elsewhere. What, then, was Paul fear- 
 ful of? Why, that he might fail of the "prize," 
 the reward for which he was running that race. 
 
 In the Bible we find four kinds of crowns given 
 to four different classes as rewards for service. "A 
 crown of life" to those who are faithful unto 
 death. Life is one thing, a crown of life is quite 
 another. Life is ours ivhen we believe, and only 
 because we believe : * ' He that believeth on the Son 
 hath everlasting life." A crown of life is future, 
 and becomes ours if we are faithful. (Rev. ii. 10.) 
 
 "A crown of glory," that u fadeth not away" 
 (an incorruptible crown), given to the elders who 
 are faithful in overseeing the flock, (i Peter v. 4.) 
 
 A "crown of rejoicing" given to those who win 
 souls for Christ, (i Thess. ii. 19.) 
 
 A ' ' crown of righteousness, ' ' given to those who 
 "love his appearing." (i Tim. iv. 8.) 
 18 
 
258 ATONEMENT. 
 
 These crowns they wear in heaven, so that they 
 do not represent heaven; and John pictures the 
 saints in glory as "casting their crowns" at the 
 Savior's feet. It was a "crown" for which Paul 
 was running the race a reward or prize and not 
 salvation, which is always a gift, and not a reward. 
 Very plainly the doctrine of rewards is taught. 
 
 u If any man's work abide which he hath built 
 thereupon (that is, on the foundation Christ), he 
 shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall 
 be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall 
 be saved ; yet so as by fire." i Cor. xiv. 15. 
 
 This is easy to understand. If we build upon 
 the foundation Christ, good material, we will re- 
 <ceive a " reward." If, while building upon Christ, 
 -we use poor material, we will "suffer loss" (what- 
 ever that may mean), but we ourselves will be 
 saved. Thus there are rewards to be won, treas- 
 ures to lay up in heaven; and as Christians we are 
 running the race for these prizes; and it was this 
 that Paul was afraid he might lose, because its pos- 
 session depended upon his own faithfulness. 
 
 Third. u Therefore leaving the principles of the 
 doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not 
 laying again the foundation of repentance from 
 dead works, of faith toward God, of the doctrine 
 of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of res- 
 urrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 
 And this will we do if God permit. For it is im- 
 possible for those who were once enlightened, and 
 have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made 
 partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the 
 good word of God, and the powers of the world to 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 259 
 
 come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again 
 unto repentance; seeing they crucify to them- 
 selves the Son of God afresh and put him to an 
 open shame." Heb. vi. 1-6. 
 
 If this is apostasy, in the Arminian sense, then 
 there is no recovery, no restoration. There is but 
 one new birth. But what is the true exposition of 
 this passage ? 
 
 It was written to the Jews, of whom one writer 
 has said : 
 
 ' They were Hebrews by birth, brought up in 
 the Jews' religion, but had embraced Christianity 
 and come within its privileged circle; for Christian- 
 ity does confer privileges on those who stand with- 
 in her pale, even though the privileged persons may 
 ever remain strangers to salvation and eternal life." 
 
 " Leaving the principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ," or more literally "leaving the word of the 
 beginning of the Christ" (dtb d^svrsc rov r^c u-pfyz 
 To r j XpiffToi) Xofov). The Jews had, in type and 
 shadow, the beginning of the word of Christ, and 
 to these Paul refers. In the list enumerated, it 
 will be seen that it is the Jewish, not the Christian, 
 form of the doctrine that is given. Now, leaving 
 this word of the beginning of Christ, u let us go 
 on to perfection." What perfection? Certainly 
 not individual perfection perfection in self that 
 being unknown to the Scriptures. But the per- 
 fection of which he was speaking perfection in 
 Christ. 
 
 The epistle has perfection for its great theme, but 
 not man's perfection. It is the contrast between 
 law and the gospel that the writer is making. 
 
260 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The law made nothing perfect, but the bringing 
 in of a better hope did" 
 
 This is the key to the whole epistle. If we fol- 
 low the apostle in his argument, we find, after a 
 review of the glories and the perfections of Christ, 
 that he goes on to contrast the imperfections of 
 Judaism with the perfection of every thing in 
 Christ. 
 
 Under the law there was imperfect access to 
 God's presence; only the high-priest could enter 
 the Holiest, and he only once a year. Now, the 
 veil has been rent, and all may come at all times. 
 
 Under the law there was an imperfect sacrifice; 
 under the gospel, a perfect sacrifice. 
 
 Under the law, an imperfect priesthood; under 
 the gospel, perfection. Having presented all this 
 vividly, the epistle leads us in the tenth chapter to 
 the grand result in the perfection of the results of 
 this sacrifice. Would that men could see this, so 
 that, instead of standing on Jewish ground, and 
 degrading the blood of Jesus to the level of that 
 of bulls and goats, they might stand in the assur- 
 ance of a Christian's standing. 
 
 ' ' The law can never, with those sacri- 
 fices which they offered year by year continually, 
 make the comers thereunto perfect. For then they 
 would have ceased to be offered [margin]. 
 
 * ' Because that the worshipers once purged should 
 have had no more conscience of sins." Heb. x. i, 2. 
 
 The repetition of sacrifice was an evidence of 
 imperfect cleansing, and the whole argument is 
 founded upon this. If so, then, the ;z<?;z-repetition 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 261 
 
 of Christ's sacrifice was proof that it perfectly 
 cleansed from all sin. Every thing is perfect. It 
 was this perfection they were to go on to, as the 
 whole epistle shows. Leaving the imperfection of 
 every thing under law, laying aside their Jewish 
 ideas go on to the perfection of the gospel. 
 
 ' ' For it is impossible. ' ' For whom ? A regen- 
 erated man, a believer? No; not one word of this 
 in the whole passage. If our readers will read care- 
 fully, they will see that there is nothing here men- 
 tioned but what applies to a Jew who had professed 
 Christianity. All that is enumerated might be 
 true, and yet the man be unsaved. In fact, the 
 writer teaches this when he says : 
 
 "We are persuaded better things of you, and 
 things that accompany salvation. ' ' 
 
 Showing that these things did not. 
 
 "Who were once enlightened." Thousands 
 around us are living in the light of Christianity, 
 believing what the Bible teaches, who are not saved. 
 
 "And tasted of the heavenly gift." The calling 
 of the Jew was earthly^ that of this dispensation is 
 heavenly, so that all the privileges of Christianity 
 are heavenly, in contrast to those of the Jews, 
 which were earthly. All living in a Christian land 
 have tasted of the heavenly gift. 
 
 "And made partakers of the Holy Ghost." This 
 does not mean that they were sealed, for then they 
 would be safe; neither does it mean that they pos- 
 sessed the "earnest," for then their right to the in- 
 heritance could never be destroyed. What then 
 
262 ATONEMENT. 
 
 does it mean ? They lived in an age when the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost was conferred on all professors, 
 by the laying on of hands, by the apostles. All 
 having these miraculous powers were partakers of 
 the Holy Ghost. Unregenerate men may thus be 
 partakers, as was Baalam; for we read, 
 
 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, 
 have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy 
 name cast out devils ? and in thy name done many 
 wonderful works?" Matt. vii. 22. 
 
 To do this they must have been partakers of the 
 Holy Ghost; yet Jesus says, "I never knew you." 
 Not, I do not know you now, but, I never knew 
 you. As he knows his sheep, they therefore never 
 were his sheep. 
 
 "And tasted the good word of God, and the 
 powers of the coming age" (literally). We have a 
 picture of this in the stony ground hearer. They 
 hear the word and immediately with joy receive it, 
 but as there is no root not a little, but none it 
 withers and dies. 
 
 So that there is nothing in this verse to point 
 out a saved man. It was a Jewish professor, 
 sharing some of the privileges of Christianity, but 
 needing to go on to the perfection in Christ. 
 
 Such a one, having fallen away, and returning 
 to Judaism, would crucify Christ afresh, because he 
 would have to deny and pronounce him accursed, 
 before he could be restored to his position as a Jew. 
 But let not such a one be deceived. There was 
 once the renewal of repentance, in the law; but 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 263 
 
 now that kind of renewal was impossible. No 
 doubt the returning Jew would again take his sin- 
 offering, and, laying on his hands, expect to be 
 renewed again, laying again the same old founda- 
 tion. Such renewal was impossible. 
 
 The question of apostasy can only be settled by 
 the word. Experience can never be regarded as 
 proof. Our feelings deceive us, the hearts of others 
 can never be known, and the only test is that of 
 the word of God. 
 
 The objection that it leads to immorality we 
 have already considered in our last chapter. The 
 gospel makes men new creatures in Christ; and 
 therefore they will never act as this objection sug- 
 gests. A sow may return to its wallow, and a dog 
 to his vomit, because their nature has remained 
 unchanged. A sheep may fall into the mud, but it 
 will not remain there; a sow will wallow in it. 
 You may cover a sow with a sheep's fleece, but 
 that does not make it a sheep; and its wallowing in 
 the mire manifests its nature, and shows that it is 
 not a sheep, but a sow. 
 
 SECTION II. Spirit baptism and perseverance. 
 
 When we come to examine the testimony of the 
 Bible as to the security of the believer, full and 
 strong are its assurances. 
 
 "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall 
 never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out 
 of my hand." John x. 28. 
 
 "Kept by the power of God." i Peter i. 5. 
 
264 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ( ' Being confident of this very thing, that he which 
 hath begun a good work in you will perform it " (or 
 finish it) " until the day of Jesus Christ." 
 
 "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." 
 
 All these and others are positive and unmis- 
 takable. The ground of this assurance is brought 
 out in the words, 
 
 u Because I live, ye shall live also." 
 
 By one Spirit we are joined to the one body the 
 body of Christ. The life of Christ is the life of 
 the body. The life of the vine is that of the 
 branch. But we are united to Christ, not by his 
 incarnation, but as risen, from the dead. This life 
 never ends, never can end. This life can not sin, 
 can not fail. The life is Christ himself, for Christ 
 is " the eternal life." If it was our own life, then 
 it might end; but being Christ's, it can never end; 
 it is everlasting life, and this is ours. 
 
 The one Spirit unites us to Christ, hence we 
 have the Spirit dwelling in us a Paraclete or Com- 
 forter. By this Spirit we are linked to the other 
 Comforter or Paraclete the Lord Jesus Christ him- 
 self. 
 
 The intercession of Christ for us and the work 
 of the Spirit in us, is the ground of the believer's 
 final salvation being made secure. 
 
 "If when we were enemies we were reconciled 
 to God by the death of his Son, much more, being 
 reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" Rom. 
 v. 10. 
 
 Not by our faithfulness, but "by his life." It is 
 
PERSEVERANCE. 265 
 
 not that Jesus pays ninety cents on the dollar, 
 leaving us to pay the rest, but that Jesus pays it all. 
 
 His intercession, not our faithfulness, secures our 
 safety. 
 
 * 4 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the 
 uttermost that come to God by him, seeing he ever 
 liveth to make intercession for them." Heb. vii. 25. 
 
 His intercession never fails; by it our eternal 
 salvation is secured, and through him our safety is 
 obtained. So we can, with Paul, give utterance to 
 that grand triumphal challenge, 
 
 u Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's 
 elect ? It is God that justifieth. 
 
 ' ' Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that 
 died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at 
 the right hand of God, who also maketh interces- 
 sion for us. 
 
 ' ' Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? 
 Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or 
 famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? 
 
 u As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all 
 the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the 
 slaughter. 
 
 u Nay, in all these things we are more than con- 
 querors through him that loved us. 
 
 u For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor 
 life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor 
 things present, nor things to come, 
 
 "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, 
 shall be able to separate us from the love of God, 
 which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. viii. 
 33-39- 
 
PART IV. 
 
 REVIEW OF BURNEY ON SOTERIOLOGY, 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 BURNEY ON LAW. 
 
 Dr. Burney's book on Soteriology sets forth what 
 we have called the Supernatural Moral Influence 
 Theory. It is by far the ablest presentation of the 
 arguments against substitution we have met, and as 
 against Calvinism simply unanswerable. In his re- 
 coil from Calvinism, he has done what hundreds 
 have before gone to the other extreme, and thrown 
 a vicarious atonement overboard. 
 
 Logically strong, his book is yet exegetically 
 weak. 
 
 We have tried to analyze his theory so as to deal 
 with each factor separately. 
 
 The foundation of his argument is to be found in 
 what he says about law and penalty. If he is right 
 in this, we concede that salvation by substitution is 
 impossible; and while we would still object to his 
 theory, we should agree that moral means alone are 
 needed for man's redemption. 
 
LAW. 267 
 
 In Part I. of this book we have shown at some 
 length the distinction between a penalty and a con- 
 sequence, and failure to do this is the fatal flaw in 
 both the Calvinistic and Burney theories. Calvin- 
 ism, with its double imputation, practically sets 
 aside redemption by power; Burney overlooks re- 
 demption by purchase. 
 
 The first part of Dr. Burney 's book is occupied 
 with an historical review of Christian Soteriology. 
 His interpretations of the Fathers are strained, un- 
 natural, and imperfect. Only one point will be 
 considered here. In our introduction we give a 
 quotation from the Epistle to Diognetus. Burney 
 quotes this as from Irenaeus, adding the following 
 comment : 
 
 Burney. " 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. 
 
 u 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. " Page 29. 
 
 He then quotes from Irenaeus as proof that he 
 held the doctrine that Christ's death was a ransom 
 to Satan : 
 
 "The word of God [the Logos] omnipotent and 
 not wanting in justice even against the apostasy or 
 kingdom of evil itself [apostasian], redeeming from 
 it \ab ed\ that which was his own originally, not by 
 using violence, as did the devil in the beginning; 
 
268 ATONEMENT. 
 
 but by persuasion [secundum sandelum], as it be- 
 came God, so that neither justice should be in- 
 fringed upon, nor the original creation of God 
 perish." 
 
 Dr. Burney, commenting on this, says : 
 
 " Here we have a distinct recognition of the 
 rights of Satan." Page 28. 
 
 Comment. i. Numerous extracts can be given from 
 Irenaeus to show that he repudiated the claims of 
 Satan, holding redemption by power, saying, "when 
 Satan is bound, man is set free." The extract 
 given by Burney is the only ground for his asser- 
 tion, aiid that it may be rightly understood we give 
 the quotation more at length (we quote from the 
 Anti-Nicene library, published in Edinburgh) : 
 
 u The mighty Word, and very man, who, redeem- 
 ing us by his own blood in a manner consonant to 
 reason, gave himself as a redemption for those who 
 had been led into captivity. And since the apos- 
 tasy tyrannized over ^^s unjustly, and, though we 
 were by nature the property of the omnipotent 
 God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us 
 its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all 
 things, and not defective with regard to his own 
 justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, 
 and redeem from it his own property, not by violent 
 means, as the (apostasy) had obtained dominion 
 over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched 
 away what was not its own, but by persuasion, as 
 became a God of counsel, who does not use violent 
 means to obtain what he desires; so that neither 
 should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient 
 handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the 
 .Lord thus has redeemed us through his own blood, 
 
LAW. 269 
 
 giving his soul for our souls, and his flesh for our 
 flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the 
 Father for the union and communion of God and 
 man, imparting indeed God to men by means of 
 the Spirit." (Against Heresies, Book V., Chapter 
 I., Section I.) 
 
 Our readers can judge if this affords sufficient 
 ground for the statement as to his belief. Is not 
 Burney mistaken ? 
 
 2. The Epistle to Diognetus has never been at- 
 tributed to Irenaeus, so that at any rate Burney 's 
 criticism has 110 force. When first published, 
 Justin Martyr's name was attached to it. Since 
 then, it has been placed among the writings of the 
 Apostolic Fathers, some attributing it to Clement, 
 others to Apollos. It is now generally conceded 
 that the author is unknown. He speaks of the 
 doctrines of Christ as u new" and says of himself, 
 "but having been a disciple of the apostles, I am 
 become a teacher of the Gentiles." 
 
 In Chapter V., Dr. Burney contrasts the Anselmic 
 and the Grotian Soteriology, and as we have his 
 views on law partly brought out, we will here re- 
 view him on law. 
 
 Burney. " i. Anselm posits the law in the di- 
 vine nature so that God being what he is the law 
 necessarily is as it is. Grotius makes the law the 
 product of the divine will. In this Grotius is right 
 and Anselm wrong." Page 47. 
 
 Comment. Is God influenced by motives when 
 he wills ? If not, as an act of will without motive 
 is inconceivable, being simply the action of blind 
 
270 ATONEMENT. 
 
 force, God and fate would be synonymous. If God 
 is influenced by motives, do they arise from that 
 which is within or from without himself? Surely 
 if he is the absolute Creator of all things, his ulti- 
 mate motive must be within himself, and must 
 have been ' ' the exercise of his attributes, and in 
 their exercise the manifestation of their excel- 
 lence." God wills nothing in conflict with his own 
 attributes. God is holy, he could not will to be 
 unholy. God is love, he can not be conceived of 
 is choosing to be vindictive, and retaining this 
 character of love. But love is essential to a perfect 
 being, and perfection is necessitated in the idea of 
 God. Hence, we may say, God can not will that 
 which is vindictive. We do not mean that the acts 
 of God's will are necessitated by his nature that 
 would deprive God's will of freedom. But we mean 
 that the acts of his will are always in harmony 
 with his nature. They are never in conflict with it. 
 
 God's existence can not be conceived of, apart 
 from the divine attributes. These form the glory 
 and perfection of God. They are made manifest to 
 us partly through his works, fully by revelation. 
 We know the nature of God by what he has 
 taught us. 
 
 The divine intelligence, not the divine will, is 
 the judge of right; hence, the will is guided in its 
 volitions by intelligence. The divine intelligence is 
 influenced in its judgments by the divine character, 
 so that without any fatalistic theory, it may be 
 regarded as evident that God will not (not can not) 
 will, only in harmony with his nature. 
 
LAW. 271 
 
 To refer every thing to the will of God without 
 reference to his nature would be to make God's 
 holiness, benevolence, truth, and justice, either the 
 products of his will, or to exist as attributes, but 
 without any channel for their exercise and mani- 
 festation. If the will is the ultimate and final 
 standard, and the acts of his will are not the mani- 
 festation of his nature, a change of will would, in 
 a moment, blot out all sin and transform virtue into 
 vice. 
 
 Burney. "2. Anselm makes the law unabrogable, 
 and even unrelaxable. Grotius makes it relaxable, 
 and even abrogable, if God should will either. In 
 this Anselm is right, and Grotius is wrong, as we 
 may see. 
 
 "3. According to Anselm's notion of law, its 
 abrogation would be the destruction of the 
 Deity, and its relaxation a modification of his nat- 
 ure, just as the destruction of any of the primary 
 properties of matter would be the destruction of 
 matter itself, as 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 of all obliga- 
 tion, and its relaxation a partial exemption." 
 Page 48. 
 
 Comment. i. If the divine will alone, apart 
 from the divine nature, is the source of law, then 
 the position of Grotius is true. If God's will alone 
 makes it right, all obligation arises from the fact 
 that God wills it; if God changes his will, then 
 obligation certainly ceases also. This is self-evi- 
 dent. How Burney can consistently deny that law 
 
272 ATONEMENT. 
 
 is relaxable and posit it in the divine will we can 
 not see. His reason, as given in our next quotation, 
 is insufficient; for if the abrogation did involve the 
 destruction of the created mind, God could so will. 
 Law being posited in the divine will, Burney can 
 not fall back upon the divine nature for proof of its 
 immutability. Hence, if the law is not abrogable, 
 on his theory it is made so by a creature existence. 
 God is, then, controlled from without, and not from 
 within, and a creature existence destroys the free- 
 dom of the divine will. This is a far more objec- 
 tionable scheme of fatality than that which he as- 
 sails. 
 
 2. Burney' s statement as to Anselm's position 
 and the illustration given is not satisfactory. A 
 change in the divine character does not necessitate 
 the destruction of the Divine Essence, any more 
 than a good man's becoming a bad one would in- 
 volve his destruction. Adam's sin did not destroy 
 him, but it did destroy his innocence. To abrogate 
 the law, according to Anselm, would destroy the 
 divine perfection, not the divine essence. Both re- 
 laxation and abrogation would necessitate a change 
 in the Deity. 
 
 Burney. u But according to the true conception 
 of the law, its abrogation would be the destruction 
 of the created mind itself, and its relaxation a modi- 
 fication 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 relaxation an essential change of the mind, 
 
LAW. 273 
 
 just as the abrogation or modification of the essen- 
 tial properties of matter would involve its destruc- 
 tion or modification. Hence, while divine ordi- 
 nances or laws of expediency, which are only ob- 
 jective and are only servitors of the great moral 
 law, may be abrogated 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 inde- 
 pendent 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." 
 Page 48. 
 
 Comment. i. Underlying this is the material- 
 istic conception that there is an analogy be- 
 tween mind and matter as to the nature of their 
 properties and their relation to the substances in 
 which they inhere. This is purely an assumption. 
 To know, feel, and will, are the attributes of spirit. 
 But as all experience shows, they differ essentially, 
 both in nature and relation, from the properties of 
 matter. 
 
 2. Burney misinterprets Anselm. He gives to 
 Anselm' s statements the meaning they would have if 
 Burney 's definition of law had been held by Anselm. 
 This is a grave fault all through Dr. Burney 's book. 
 He gives his own meaning or definitions to the 
 words of others, and then interprets them from this 
 stand-point. By ' ( the law indigenous to the human 
 mind," Burney means what he calls "subjective 
 law." When he says Anselm is at fault in making 
 it ' ' indigenous to the divine nature, ' ' we can only 
 
274 ATONEMENT. 
 
 suppose that he means that Anselm taught "sub- 
 jective law" in the Deity. 
 
 Anselm was the first to present the ontological 
 argument for the existence of God, and whatever 
 our estimate of its value, none have given it with 
 more force. In the unfolding of this argument, 
 he says that things 
 
 "Are called good in a variety of ways and de- 
 grees. This would be impossible if there were not 
 some absolute standard, some good in itself, in 
 which all relative goods participate. Similarly 
 with such predicates as great, just, they involve a 
 certain greatness and justice. The very existence 
 of things is impossible without some Being, by 
 whom they are. This absolute Being, this good- 
 ness, justice, greatness, is God." 
 
 If this is read in the light of the ontological 
 method of reasoning it is plain. But it is totally 
 different from Burney's idea of subjective law, or 
 law indigenous to the divine nature. 
 
 3. No analysis of mind will give us such a con- 
 ception of law as that which Burney advocates. If 
 .his theory is correct, we must divide the mind into 
 intellect, sensibility, will, and "subjective law." 
 But in that case it would be a contradiction to 
 speak of it as law. The properties of matter are 
 not laws, but the combined properties constitute, 
 or manifest, the nature of the substance we call 
 matter. If this is the relation of "subjective law " 
 to mind, then all obedience is necessitated. 
 
 4. But in the above extract, while making this 
 "subjective law" to inhere in the mind so that its 
 
LAW. 275 
 
 abrogation is the destruction of mind, he at the 
 same time makes it distinct; this subjective law u is 
 as truly a product of the divine will as is the mind 
 itself" If it is separate, its abrogation would be 
 but the destruction of itself. 
 
 To bring out fully Dr. Burney's theory as to law, 
 we give one more quotation, this time from "Atone- 
 ment and Law Reviewed," page 63: 
 
 Burney. u Science and the Bible are in full ac- 
 cord in affirming the existence of subjective moral 
 law as an essential characteristic of human nature. 
 Paul is the metaphysician of the New Testament. 
 He says (Rom. ii. 12-15): ' .... in that they 
 shew the work of the law written in their hearts, 
 their conscience bearing witness therewith, and 
 thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing 
 them.' This is so plain that comment can scarcely 
 make it plainer. 
 
 u (i) Paul here affirms the existence of the re- 
 vealed or written law, or law in commandment; and 
 also a law written in the hearts of the Gentiles. . . 
 . . In this verse (12) we are plainly taught that 
 those that have not objective law in commandment 
 may sin; sin is a transgression of the law; what 
 law do they transgress ? Not the law in command- 
 ment, for they have no such law. Then it is, of 
 necessity, this subjective law written in the heart. 
 
 u (3) That sin is not imputed where there is no 
 written law. The exact meaning of the word im- 
 pute in this text is of importance. The verb 
 allogeo is not the verb generally translated impute. 
 It is used but twice in the New Testament, here 
 and in Philemon xviii. 5. It can not mean (in 
 this place) that sin did not actually exist as sin. 
 .... It must mean, then, -that sin is not known, 
 
276 ATONEMENT. 
 
 or recognized, or apprehended as sin ; or in its true 
 character when there is no law in commandment to 
 define or characterize it. The sinner is, of course, 
 conscious of his mental state, of his unrest, and of 
 fearful apprehensions of evil; but is unable to un- 
 derstand the reason of all this abnormal ty in his 
 mental state. ' ' 
 
 Comment. i. Dr. Burney misinterprets both 
 science and the Bible. " Paul here affirms .... a 
 law written in the hearts of the Gentiles/' But 
 with all respect to Dr. Burney, this is just what 
 Paul does not do. It is the work of the law that is 
 written, and not the law. (TO Zpfov TOL> vo^ou 
 Ypanrov to ergon tou nomou grapton.) Paul was 
 too good a metaphysician to make such a statement 
 as Burney attributes to him. 
 
 2. "Sin is the transgression of law; what law do 
 they transgress ? .... it is of necessity the sub- 
 jective law." This definition of sin will not stand. 
 "The transgression of the law," is a translation 
 (or rather an interpretation}, of the Greek word for 
 law with the particle of privation prefixed. *AvofjLO$ 
 (anomos\ is literally law-less. Sin is lawlessness. 
 
 3. Burney assumes that because they were 
 without law they had no knowledge of right, and 
 no rule of action, unless it came from "subject- 
 ive law." In this he forgets the reason why the 
 law was given, and the special character of the dis- 
 pensation from Adam to Moses. God revealed his 
 will, gave commandments, and was in direct com- 
 munication with men. The command not to kill, 
 being an example. Six lives linked Moses and the 
 
LAW. 277 
 
 garden of Eden together. In that age truth was 
 communicated directly to men, and by oral tradi- 
 tion from them to all nations, so that in some meas- 
 ure the intellect was instructed and the conscience 
 could act. The theory of oral tradition is a better 
 explanation than "subjective" law, because, while 
 it accounts for those beliefs that are universal 
 common to all religions it better accounts for their 
 manifold perversion. 
 
 4. The theory of "subjective law" is in direct 
 conflict with Paul, who distinctly states that when 
 those nations "which have no law, practice by 
 nature the things of the law, these, having no law 
 (o'jTot vonov jj-'fj ovrc) are a law to themselves." 
 No law excludes every law, either objective or sub- 
 jective. Burney has to insert, no "written" law. 
 
 5. The great mistake of Dr. Burney is that he 
 confounds the "moral sense" in man with law. 
 Having dragged in the word law, he then makes the 
 law "objective law," thus linking them together in 
 the minds of his readers. He then boldly proclaims 
 their identity as "one law" Of course, if this be 
 true, it is only a step to the identification of penalty 
 with "subjective law," and in this way he lays the 
 foundation for his non-penal theory. 
 
 The moral sense every man has; and without 
 this moral sense or faculty, which includes con- 
 science and those primary intuitions that are com- 
 mon to the race (such as the idea of God, immor- 
 tality, etc.), law would have no force, whether it be 
 subjective or objective. It is the possession of this 
 moral sense that makes us moral agents, and lays 
 
278 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the foundation for all moral government. It is this 
 that Burney seems to mean when he speaks of sub- 
 jective law; for he says that u sin is not known 
 .... when there is no law in commandment." 
 His error is in calling it subjective law, and then 
 making it one law with that in commandment, and 
 then setting aside entirely all objective law, and 
 reasoning from the u subjective" alone. 
 
 Burney's theory requires no law in commandment, 
 and in admitting the insufficiency of subjective law, 
 he commits logical suicide. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 BURNEY ON PENALTY. 
 
 In commenting upon the distinction made by Dr. 
 
 Hodge as to Reatus culpcz and reatus poence, Bur- 
 ney says : 
 
 Burney. u Certainly there is an appreciable dis- 
 tinction between criminality and penalty, between 
 moral corruption and punishment, and we may in- 
 dicate this difference by the technical forms, reatus 
 culpcz and reatu s poence, if we choose. But it must 
 be remembered that, though they are logically dis- 
 tinct, they are both logically and chronally insepa- 
 rable. Criminality involves liability to punish- 
 ment, and punishment presupposes criminality." 
 Page 112. 
 
 Comment. Burney here, as elsewhere, deals un- 
 fairly with the positions of substitutionists. It 
 seems to be done unconsciously, because his own 
 definitions are vividly before his mind, and thus 
 used to define the meaning of substitutionists. 
 What is the distinction made by Burney in the 
 above extract? Simply between criminality and 
 penalty. We place Hodge's distinction over against 
 Burney 's rendering of it. He says : 
 
 u The word guilt expresses the relation 
 
 which sin bears to justice, or, as the older theo- 
 logians said, to the penalty of the law. The rela- 
 tion, however, is twofold. 
 
280 ATONEMENT. 
 
 "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 sinner, 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 
 satisfy justice. This may be removed by the satis- 
 faction of justice personally or vicariously." 
 
 This is insisted on by all substitutionists. Not 
 a distinction between criminality and penalty, but 
 between criminality, or demerit, and the liability to 
 a penalty; or, as Hodge expresses it, "the obligation 
 to satisfy justice." The word guilt is used in both 
 senses, but never as synonymous with penalty. 
 
 Burney distorts Hodge in another way : " There 
 is an appreciable distinction between criminality 
 and penalty, between moral corruption and punish- 
 ment. ' ' We doubt if Hodge would have accepted 
 this identification of criminality and depravity. 
 We reject it in toto. But this seems to be Burney 's 
 logical method. He gives his own definitions to 
 his adversaries' statements, and then proceeds to 
 annihilate them at will. By this logical juggling 
 it is easy to avoid the necessity for proof. By 
 making criminality to be corruption, liability to 
 a penalty to be the same as penalty, and then by 
 making this penalty a consequence, he can assume 
 as self-evident and not needing proof, that de- 
 pravity and its consequences are "logically and 
 chronally inseparable. " If Dr. Burney is satisfied 
 with this,_ substitutionists can afford to be. 
 
PENALTY. 281 
 
 Burney. u As to the order of relation between 
 crime and penalty, it seerns superfluous to say 
 that they are related as cause and effect, or as 
 antecedent and consequent, and that crime is the 
 antecedent, and punishment the consequence." 
 Page 113. 
 
 "The penalties of human law are purely arbi- 
 trary are fixed by judicial authority, and have no 
 necessary connection with the crime. The punish- 
 ment, if it conies at all, conies from without, and 
 through the agency of other minds. Hence, the 
 penalty for the same offense is now this, and now 
 that in one State one thing, and in another some- 
 thing different, according to the judgments or 
 whims of the lawgivers. 
 
 "But it is not so in divine law. Criminality 
 and penalty, as I have often said, are causally con- 
 nected, 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 deter- 
 mined. God has immutably fixed this relation be- 
 tween criminality and penalty, and no power short 
 of omnipotence can separate them. But God does 
 not ordain laws in the realms of matter or mind to 
 revoke or modify them on occasion. Hence, the 
 only possible method of escape from penalty is to 
 get rid of the criminality that produces it." 
 Page 115. 
 
 Comment. i. The distinction between human 
 and divine law is only partially true, as we have 
 shown in these pages. God's moral government is 
 exercised upon the earth; it regulates the conduct 
 of man to man. Human laws are founded upon 
 the divine; and if Burney's exposition of penalty is 
 true, all punishment by law would be unjust. 
 
282 ATONEMENT. 
 
 2. Depravity and its consequences, as we have 
 shown, have the relation of cause and effect. Sin, 
 as transgression, and penalty have not. Penalties 
 are not consequences, having, as Burney admits of 
 those connected with human laws, "no necessary 
 connection with the crime." 
 
 3. As we are u by nature the children of wrath," 
 if consequence and penalty are the same, we are 
 madeyb suffer the penalty of another's sin before 
 actual sin has been committed. Depravity and its 
 consequences may be propagated, but law and its 
 penalties never. 
 
 4. If the theory be true, there is no such thing 
 as the "long-suffering" of God. The penalties 
 being always executed, he does not bear with the 
 sinner at all. 
 
 5. There can be no remission. The theory is 
 that we are saved from the penalty by being deliv- 
 ered from the sin. When sin the cause ceases, 
 penalty the effect ceases also. Then there is no 
 remission, simply deliverance from sin. Past sins 
 have been punished; and, as punishment is neither 
 remission nor pardon, there is no remission of 
 these; and the words "for the remission of sins 
 that are past" are unmeaning. 
 
 6. It logically leads to the doctrine of progress- 
 ive regeneration. 
 
 7. It necessitates the idea of punishment after 
 pardon, or else that pardon is unattainable in this 
 life. 
 
 8. In the whole range of human experience there 
 is no example of a legal command with a self-in- 
 
PENALTY. 283 
 
 flicting penalty. It is an impossibility. Therefore 
 the theory must deny all legal relations to the law 
 of God. 
 
 9. There is no place for a judgment. If sin 
 merits punishment, and that punishment is future, 
 the reason for a judgment is readily apprehended. 
 God must retider to every man according to his 
 deeds. But if sin is always followed by its pen- 
 alty, as effect follows cause, what need is there for 
 a judgment? 
 
 10. If Burney is right, we should find no such 
 inequality in the lives of wicked men as now. 
 As cause and effect are always the same, there 
 would be uniformity in the way penalty followed 
 sin. But it is the most certain of truths that no 
 such uniformity exists in this life. The theory is 
 out of harmony with the facts. 
 
 11. If the theory is true, hell is not a place, but 
 a "mental state;" and to be cast into hell is synon- 
 ymous with being turned into one's self. If there is 
 a hell, a place prepared for the devil and his angels, 
 if the sinner is to hear the fearful word u depart," 
 then there is in the future a governmental award, 
 and that distinct from the consequences of de- 
 pravity. 
 
 12. It necessitates eternal sin as the ground of 
 eternal punishment. To argue that the sin might 
 cease and the penalty go on would be fatal to the 
 theory from every stand-point. 
 
 If the penalty does not cease with the sin, the in- 
 tervention of divine power is necessary to save 
 when we believe. If this future punishment would 
 
284 ATONEMENT. 
 
 be justly inflicted, the question would come, can 
 God justly withhold it, and, if so, on what grounds ? 
 Then the whole force of the argument against sub- 
 stitution would be gone. More, if almighty power 
 steps in and saves from future suffering when sin 
 ceases in the believer, why not in the unbeliever ? 
 The distinction we have made between depravity 
 and its consequences and transgression and penalty 
 gives an answer from our stand-point, but not from 
 Burney's. Eternal transgression we believe to be 
 out of harmony with the final triumph of right, 
 and to have no countenance in the word of God. 
 
 13. The theory is in conflict with the Scriptures. 
 This has been shown in the chapter on " Restitution 
 or Retribution;" and here once again we may say 
 that the demand for restitution has no place, if 
 retribution has already been inflicted. 
 
 In Part II., in his preliminary statements, he 
 lays down the following as true : 
 
 Burney. "The invariable characteristics of the 
 divine law are : 
 
 u i. It requires personal obedience. ' Thou shall 
 love,' etc." Page 136. 
 
 Commenl. We believe this is true, and that no 
 one will dispute it. 
 
 Burney. "2. Its penalties are coincident with 
 its transgressions : ' In Ihe day thou eatest thereof, 
 thou shalt surely die.' " Page 136. 
 
 Commenl. i. This identifies the divine law and 
 the command given to Adam, which must be 
 proved. 
 
PENALTY. 285 
 
 2. It is a begging of the question, assuming as 
 true the very thing that is in dispute. 
 
 3. We have already considered this penalty in 
 discussing the subject of death. If what Burney 
 here says means any thing, it is a denial of future 
 punishment. 
 
 Burney. u 3. It excludes the possibility of sub- 
 titutionary obedience. * The soul that sinneth it 
 shall die.''' Page 136. 
 
 Comment. i. This text has reference to physical 
 death as the penalty of the law, "soul" here 
 meaning person. 
 
 " If the wicked will turn from all his sins which 
 he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and 
 do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely 
 live, he shall not die. All his transgression that 
 he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned 
 unto him 
 
 " But when the righteous turneth away from his 
 
 righteousness, and committeth iniquity, 
 
 all his righteousness that he hath done shall not 
 be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath tres- 
 passed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them 
 shall he die." Ezek. xviii. 21-24. 
 
 A careful comparison of the chapter will show 
 that the entire argument is as to the penalty of law 
 under Judaism. If we make it apply to the eternal 
 issues, it teaches salvation by works and the possi- 
 bility of apostasy, things that are unknown to the 
 Bible. 
 
 2. No one, not even a substitutionist, affirms 
 that penalty is threatened against any one but the 
 
286 ATONEMENT. 
 
 evil doer. If this were not true, substitution would 
 be forever impossible. Proof that the penalty is 
 threatened against the offender is not proof that 
 substitution is impossible. "The man that gets 
 drunk shall pay a fine of five dollars," does not ex- 
 clude the vicarious payment of the fine. 
 
 Burney. "4. It excludes the commutation of 
 one penalty for another. * Whatsoever a man sow- 
 eth, that shall he also reap.' " Page 136. 
 
 Comment. In dealing with the New Birth we 
 have shown that there are two natures in the be- 
 liever. Paul, in Galatians, is writing to Christians 
 of the conflict between them "the flesh lusteth 
 against the Spirit." In the sixth chapter he is 
 still following out this thought of the two natures 
 the flesh and the Spirit and this is the true 
 meaning and application of the words that Burney 
 quotes, as the next verse shows. 
 
 While salvation is of grace alone, it is not a 
 matter of indifference how we walk. If we are 
 "carnal" fleshly even babes in Christ (i Cor. 
 iii. i), "walking as men," we will experience that 
 "from" (Ix) the flesh there comes nothing but cor- 
 ruption. No life, no vitality, no power to over- 
 come when we are tempted. But if we " walk in 
 the Spirit " we shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 
 ' * The law of the Spirit of life ' ' gives power, and 
 from (Ix) the Spirit we reap everlasting life. 
 
 This is a different thing from the governmental 
 awards for the transgression of the sinner. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 RURNEY ON ATONEMENTS. 
 
 Burney. "SECTION I. Natural or Human 
 Atonement." Page 145. 
 
 Comment. This is certainly unique. 
 
 Burney. "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." 
 -Page 145. 
 
 Comment. i. That "the sinner is in a strait, 
 not God," is a statement that no one, not even a 
 substitutionist, will deny. The anger of God does 
 not injure or in any way affect the divine perfection 
 or glory, because it is right. The trouble with the 
 sinner is that though God's love would save him, 
 he is in such an attitude that God can not justly do 
 it without an atonement being made. 
 
 2. Dr. Burney admits that God is angry and must 
 be propitiated. This is all that any substitutionist 
 would claim. He, however, makes a distinction 
 between reconciliation and propitiation. God is 
 propitiated, the sinner is reconciled. This is sim- 
 ply a question of words, because by teaching that 
 
288 ATONEMENT. 
 
 God must be propitiated, he holds exactly what the 
 substitutionist does. Why God needs to be propi- 
 tiated is the question. Burney does not answer 
 this directly. We gather from his theory that it is 
 because of sin. In this all agree. God's anger is 
 a demand for the punishment of sin. This Burney 
 can not deny. He holds that this punishment is 
 always inflicted when the sin is committed. We 
 deny. He makes it a consequence. We deny this 
 as to transgression, holding its penalty to be future. 
 How is God propitiated ? We say when the demand 
 for punishment has been satisfied. And when God 
 has been propitiated salvation is possible. Burney 's 
 answer we will consider in its place. 
 
 Burney. "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 obe- 
 dience 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 re- 
 moval of his reatus poencz by a substitute, but 
 reatus culpcz. If this is so, then the remedy must 
 be primarily moral in character, for moral forces 
 alone are capable of producing moral changes in 
 free moral beings." Page 145. 
 
 ' ' 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 ? " Page 146. 
 
 Comment. We would put the issue thus: Are 
 we saved by the I/ord Jesus ' ' delivering us from 
 
ATONEMENTS. 289 
 
 our enmity against God, and restoring us to a lov- 
 ing obedience," or, does he save us from the penalty 
 of the law by dying in our place, and from the con- 
 sequences of corruption by delivering us from the 
 depravity itself? In other words, is the remedy 
 only moral, or is it both moral and legal ? We af- 
 firm the last, Dr. Burney only the first. It is not a 
 question between reatus poencz and reatus ctilpcs, 
 but the demand that both shall be removed. We 
 hold the remedy is both moral and legal. Burney 
 ignores the legal, Calvinism largely the moral. 
 
 Burney. "It is possible to sin against our neigh- 
 bor 
 
 "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 with- 
 out punishment, as penalists persistently affirm; 
 for if a man's sins against his neighbor can not be 
 pardoned without being first punished, then pardon 
 is utterly worthless." Page 147. 
 
 Comment. i. Either the illustration is not per- 
 tinent, or else his own theory is in fault. Every 
 sin is punished when committed, according to Bur- 
 ney; then, if he has any pardon at all, sin pardoned 
 is always punished. If when we sin against a 
 neighbor punishment followed, as effect follows 
 cause, you would have a parallel to Burney 's the- 
 ory. This not being true, the whole card house of 
 natural atonements falls to the ground. 
 
 2. If it is made a universal affirmation, ( * no pardon 
 without punishment," Burney 's criticisms would 
 
 20 
 
290 ATONEMENT. 
 
 have force. But what substitutionist so believes ? 
 We do not like the expression, u no pardon without 
 punishment," and define our own position to be, 
 no pardon without satisfaction. Is not this univers- 
 ally true? 
 
 Burney. "But there is a remedy for these ills 
 which, if faithfully applied, would effectually pre- 
 vent 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. 
 
 u 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 
 forgive is to make yourself, as well as the other 
 party, more or less unhappy, according to the cir- 
 cumstances. If confession is made and pardon 
 granted, unhappiness is prevented. . . . 
 
 u This is atonement- propitiation and reconcilia- 
 tion by moral means and for moral ends." Page 
 147. 
 
 Comment. i. Burney here makes the same mis- 
 take that he does as to law and penalty. The evils 
 of strifes, sins against our neighbors, etc., are all 
 subjective mental states, removed by confession and 
 pardon. There seems to be a vein of idealism in 
 the Doctor's philosophy. The evils are more than 
 
ATONEMENTS. 291 
 
 mental states, they affect health, character, prop- 
 erty, and even life itself. No mental change can 
 alter these. 
 
 2. He makes no distinction between private and 
 public offenses, or between offenses and crimes. 
 Take some illustrations : 
 
 (a) You say something that makes your neighbor 
 angry; you see this, and regret it. You go to him 
 and offer an apology ask his forgiveness. At once 
 his anger is gone and the offense pardoned . This is a 
 simple case. It is pardon without punishment, but 
 it is not pardon without satisfaction. Your apology 
 covers over the offense atones for it and pardon 
 is the result. 
 
 (8) Your neighbor circulates an injurious report, 
 which does you great harm and injures you with 
 the people. Meeting you some time after, he says, 
 "Neighbor, I have done you a wrong, and I ask 
 your forgiveness." What would you do? What 
 would "human instinct" dictate as right? You 
 would demand that so far as possible, he should 
 right the wrong he had done you that he set you 
 right before the people. If he did this, he would, 
 to the extent of his ability, atone for his offense, and 
 forgiveness would be his right. This is pardon 
 with satisfaction. A man who pardoned without 
 this satisfaction would simply show that he had no 
 care for his own honor, no self-respect. Burner's 
 position applied to this case would be that if he 
 undid the wrong there could be no pardon, as the 
 offense would no longer exist. 
 
 (c) A burglar enters your house and despoils you 
 
292 ATONEMENT. 
 
 of your goods. You succeed in catching the thief. 
 He is sorry and begs to be forgiven. Burney says, 
 if you forgive him, peace and harmony are restored 
 atonement has been made. But what of the 
 stolen property ? It belongs partly to you and 
 partly to others. What would u human instinct " 
 dictate as right? If you believed in the sincerity 
 of the repentance and did not wish to invoke the 
 law, what would you demand? Of coiirse, the 
 restoration of the property. The demand is in 
 every case for restitution ; and when this has been 
 made, satisfaction has been rendered, and pardon 
 accorded. In all cases the demand for satisfaction 
 is primary, even if it be only for an apology; and 
 if this is true as to the human, it is also of the di- 
 vine. 
 
 (d) Take still another example. A scoundrel 
 leads your son astray, or commits an outrage upon 
 your daughter. A life is blasted. The offender, 
 full of remorse for his awful crime, asks for forgive- 
 ness. According to Dr. Burney's theory, when 
 forgiveness is accorded, harmony is restored the 
 mental states are all right. What do our readers 
 think of this? Is it in harmony with their "hu- 
 man instincts?" Rather, is it not true, that they 
 would demand that retribution be meted out ? 
 
 There is a demand inseparable from moral being 
 that right doing should be rewarded, and that 
 wrong-doing shall be punished. This demand may 
 partake of the elements of our fallen humanity and 
 degenerate into mere revenge, but it must be met 
 and satisfied. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 293 
 
 There can be no harmony until this is done. If 
 there is such a demand in men there must be in 
 God. It is this that Dr. Burney's theory ignores. 
 Tested by this example, its weakness can be seen 
 by all. 
 
 3. If there is no demand on God's part for satis- 
 faction, there can be nothing absolutely nothing 
 in the way of the universal salvation of all men, 
 but the pleasure of the Deity. A limited atone- 
 ment, or universal salvation, are the logical results 
 of a denial of the demand for satisfaction. Noth- 
 ing but a demand for satisfaction growing out of 
 the divine holiness itself can prevent the universal 
 salvation of our race, unless God wills otherwise. 
 To abandon this ground leaves no logical resting 
 place other than extreme Calvinism or Universal- 
 ism. God's omnipotence can at once remove all 
 corruption by an act of the divine will, or by im- 
 parting life. If there is nothing in the nature of 
 God in conflict with this, there can not possibly 
 be any barrier outside of God; and if there is no 
 real barrier, then all men will be redeemed and 
 saved. As we shall see, Burney is forced to accept 
 the principal of satisfaction when dealing with the 
 atonement of Christ, to avoid these logical issues. 
 
 But in doing this he contradicts himself, for noth- 
 ing is plainer in his theory than the denial of any 
 real need for the death of Christ. The reason for 
 this is obvious. If there is any real barrier, grow- 
 ing out of any demand of God against the sinner, 
 that must be met by the death of Christ before life 
 can be given or imparted, then, logically that death 
 
294 ATONEMENT. 
 
 must have been vicarious. Dr. Burney makes the 
 death aud resurrection of Christ necessary to the 
 impartation of life, in the same way that the educa- 
 tion and training of a physician fits him to cure 
 disease. Then, those who lived before Christ were 
 without salvation; or, the non-penal theory is open 
 to the same objection Dr. Burney urges against sub- 
 stitution, namely, that it "is impossible because it 
 conditions a past event upon a future event." If 
 nothing but the removal of depravity is needed, 
 this being by the power of God alone, we may 
 justly expect that all men will be saved. As the 
 depravity comes without any volition or fault of 
 our own, it would certainly be just to remove it, if 
 power only is needed. The non-penal theory can 
 not escape, logically, from a limited atonement, or 
 Universalism. That we do not misrepresent Dr. 
 Burney when we say that his theory shows no real 
 need for the death of Christ, is evident from his own 
 language : 
 
 " 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 sin and death, and 
 shows himself an all-sufficient Savior, able to save 
 to the uttermost all that trust in him." Page 10. 
 
 4. But underlying all human forgiveness, as 
 taught in the Bible, is the glorious principle that 
 
ATONEMENTS. 295 
 
 we are to forgive "even as God for Christ's sake 
 hath forgiven you." Read this in the light of the 
 trespass-offering, and it will be seen that, underly- 
 ing all "natural atonements" (as Burney calls 
 them), is, after all, the work of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Burney. u The Bible usage of the word atone- 
 ment." 
 
 " 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 
 theological 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." Page 162. 
 
 Comment. i. It is always prima facie evidence 
 of error when a writer is compelled to give to words 
 new meanings, rejecting those recognized by the 
 scholarship of the world. It may be true that the 
 world has been mistaken, but the presumption is 
 that the piety and scholarship of the world is right, 
 and the new idea wrong. To speak of testing "in 
 the crucible of common sense," or similar language, 
 is always the method of new ideas put forth by 
 strong minds. The wildest and most visionary the- 
 orists are those who use such language the most. 
 Truth never needs to make such appeals, as the 
 " true is always the clear." 
 
 In a living language, like the English, words are 
 constantly acquiring new meanings. An English 
 dictionary gives the meanings that words have in 
 use when the dictionary is compiled. So it may 
 reflect the vices of theological writers. But in a 
 dead language it is different. The compiler goes 
 
 / 
 
296 ATONEMENT. 
 
 back to the time the word was in use, and from its 
 usage at that time, defines its meaning. Burney 
 assails either the honesty or ability of those who 
 compiled our Hebrew and Greek Lexicons. 
 
 2. The admission that the dictionaries are against 
 him as to the meaning of the words in controversy, 
 is an admission that the scholarship of the world is 
 against him. 
 
 Burney. "You do not need to be informed that 
 the Hebrew 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 of men and their 
 sins is taken, not in its literal, but in a tropical sense. 
 .... The lid of the ark was intended to protect 
 its contents from injury, rather than to deliver 
 them from injury already existing. But the word 
 is not generally used in this sense. Sin exists and 
 a remedy is required. The remedy is found only in 
 atonement. Thus far all agree. But in what does 
 atonement consist, and how does it deliver from 
 sin?" Page 163. 
 
 Comment.\. "Thus far all agree." That de- 
 pends upon the application of the words. If it 
 refers to all that goes before in the above extract, 
 we think that none would agree. If it means that 
 the remedy for sin is found in the atonement, then 
 we agree. 
 
 2. Dr. Burney 's statement as to kaphar we can 
 not receive; and, after reading the above, no longer 
 wonder that he rejects the dictionaries. 
 
 First. Kaphar is not the name given to the lid of 
 the ark. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 297 
 
 The verb *")3 (kaphar) means primarily "to 
 cover. ' ' 
 
 The corresponding nonn, DHJD (kippurim), 
 means primarily a covering. This primary mean- 
 ing, however, is not their Bible meaning, as they 
 are never so translated. These are the only words 
 translated ' ' atonement, ' ' and neither is applied to 
 the ark. 
 
 Second. The word D*")5 (kapporetti) is the 
 word everywhere translated ( ' mercy-seat, ' ' but 
 never ' ' atonement, ' ' never " lid " or " covering. ' ' 
 It is a cognate word, but not the word for atone- 
 ment. We might as readily say that baptize is the 
 name given to a baptistery. 
 
 The idea that it was to "protect" the contents 
 of the ark has no foundation whatever. Protect 
 from what? 
 
 Third. Was the kapporeth the lid or covering of 
 the ark ? Two questions are embraced in this. 
 
 (a) Was the kapporeth in fact the lid or covering 
 of the ark? We have examined many scores of 
 writers, Jewish and Christian, and, while most of 
 them say that it was, the only proof given is a ref- 
 erence to Bx. xxv. We conclude from this that it 
 is simply an opinion from what is there said. 
 After the instruction to make the ark follows the 
 instruction to make the mercy-seat, or kapporeth; 
 the narrative indicating that they were distinct and 
 separate things. 
 
 "And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold, 
 .... and thou shalt make two cherubims .... 
 in the two ends of the mercy-seat." Verses 17, 18. 
 
298 ATONEMENT. 
 
 "And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon 
 the ark" Verse 21. 
 
 Does this mean that the ark had no top, and 
 that the mercy-seat when placed 011 the ark formed 
 a top, or does it simply mean that the mercy-seat 
 was. placed on the ark ? 
 
 The answer is only an opinion, as there is nothing 
 to guide us but the verse thus quoted. Our readers 
 can form an opinion for themselves. 
 
 (6) Does the name kapporeth express this idea of 
 a covering? This we have no hesitation in an- 
 swering in the negative. 
 
 "The term does not, as many modern critics 
 understand, signify a lid in general ; but being a 
 derivative from Piel, *1$5> it is to be understood 
 to mean an instrument of atonement, .... as 
 the Septuagint correctly translates it, DM.air^nio^."- 
 Oehler. 
 
 Oehler, and many of the best critics, come to the 
 very opposite conclusion to Burney, because they ar- 
 gue that the use of a derivative of kaphar indicates 
 that it expresses atonement and not a covering 
 Many reasons could be given in support of this 
 
 The use of hilasteerion in the Septuagint and in 
 the New Testament to represent kapporeth fixes 
 the meaning of it. Hilasteerion never means a 
 covering. What is said of the " mercy - seat " 
 shows that it designates something different to a 
 lid. Kaphar and its derivatives, being applied to 
 express atonement, are never used in their primary 
 sense in the Bible. The words are set apart to ex- 
 
ATONEMENTS. 299 
 
 press the higher meaning which is always con- 
 nected with every use of the word. That kap- 
 poreth meant more than a mere lid is shown by its 
 modern use. The Jews have a ceremony on the 
 preparation for the Day of Atonement called " Kap- 
 poreth," in which the idea of substitution is 
 forcibly brought out. 
 
 Last, but not least, when we leave the type and 
 come to the Lord Jesus, he himself is the true 
 kapporeth. "Whom God hath set forth." For 
 what? "A propitiation" Greek hilasteerion, 
 Hebrew kapporeth "through faith in his blood. n 
 Christ himself is the kapporeth, the place of mercy, 
 the propitiatory the mercy-seat. But the non- 
 penal theory has no use for a mercy-seat, and so it 
 becomes a lid, or covering. 
 
 3. As Dr. Burney rejects the lexicons, it is disap- 
 pointing to find that this is his only attempt to 
 explain the Hebrew word used. A very sorry at- 
 tempt, at the best. We have a right to expect a 
 clear-cut definition when the dictionaries are re- 
 pudiated. But this Burney does not give, using the 
 word in such a flexible way that it may mean 
 almost any thing. We have looked through 
 his book carefully, and the following extracts 
 give the nearest approach to a definition that we 
 have found : 
 
 Burney. u Here we have atonement in its full 
 sense, including reconciliation, propitiation, and 
 pardon." Page 156. 
 
 "This is atonement propitiation and reconcilia- 
 tion." Page 148. 
 
300 ATONEMENT. 
 
 "The atoning, or propitiating power." Page 
 174. 
 
 ''The atonement or propitiation." Page 190. 
 
 Comment. i. Why is pardon left out in the 
 second, and pardon and reconciliation in the two 
 last ? If it includes all three, it is not synonymous 
 with propitiation, because Burney insists upon the 
 distinction between propitiation and reconciliation. 
 God is propitiated, man is reconciled. As atone- 
 ment is not made to men, but for men, how can it 
 include reconciliation if God is not reconciled ? 
 
 2. In the last two quotations he makes atone- 
 ment and propitiation to be synonymous. This 
 is true as to the original, as the Greek word trans- 
 lated "propitiation" everywhere translates the He- 
 brew for atonement in the Septuagint. 
 
 Burney. "Here we have a real atonement, a 
 deliverance from temporal death, by a turning 
 away or appeasement of God's indignation. "- 
 Page 173. 
 
 Comment. i. What is an unreal atonement? 
 
 2. Burney has been confounding condition and 
 consequent so much when dealing with substitu- 
 tion that it comes back to plague him in his own 
 argument. Atonement is never ' ' deliverance from 
 temporal death, ' ' but we may be (if that is threat- 
 ened) delivered from temporal death by making 
 atonement, or appeasing the anger. 
 
 Burney. "These atonements consisted exclu- 
 sively in turning away God's anger that is, in 
 making him merciful or propitious." Page 188. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 301 
 
 Comment. i. u Making him merciful " is objec- 
 tionable. 
 
 2. After comparing these extracts, it can be seen 
 that Dr. Burney has no well-defined meaning for 
 the word "atonement." 
 
 In connection with them read the definition of 
 Gesenius, as given in our introduction. It is clear, 
 scholarly, and unanswerable. Starting (as all true 
 definitions must) with the root meaning of the 
 word u to cover " Gesenius makes atonement to 
 consist in appeasing the anger of God by a covering 
 over of the offense. Whatever does this satisfies 
 expiates and thus appeases. It is this idea of 
 covering over by making satisfaction that Burney 
 seems to reject. He ignores the root meaning of 
 the word ignores the covering of sin by an expia- 
 tion and makes atonement simply to mean the 
 making God favorable. This is all we can gather 
 from his book. 
 
 The idea "to cover" is primary and essential to 
 the word kaphar in every use of it. Take as illus- 
 trations the two first instances of its use in the 
 Bible. 
 
 (a) Gen. vi. 14: "Pitch it within and without 
 with pitch." 
 
 This is as near its primary meaning as can be. 
 It is like the words "paint it" that is, cover it 
 over, with pitch. The ark was a type of Christ 
 (i Peter iii. 21), the true ark, and hence the use of 
 kaphar here is significant. As one writer says, 
 
 ' The gopher wood, the material of the ark, I 
 can say little of, but it speaks of death (the tree 
 
302 ATONEMENT. 
 
 cut down) as that by which alone death could be 
 met for us. The u pitch " is kopher, .... prob- 
 ably a resin from the gopher wood itself, identical, 
 too, with the word "atonement" in one of its 
 forms. Here, it seems to me, is the first hint we 
 find in Scripture of something beyond death which 
 is implied in and needed for atonement. Not the 
 gopher wood alone would have kept out the waters 
 of judgment. Not death alone lay upon men, and 
 for true substitution not death alone needed to be 
 
 borne The kaphar must pitch the seams of 
 
 the ark of salvation, that it may bring its freight 
 of living souls safelv through the flood." 
 
 (b) Gen. xxxii. : "I will appease him with the 
 present. ' ' 
 
 Jacob had wronged Esau, and fearing his anger 
 he sought to appease (kaphar) that anger by the 
 present that he sent. This present was to "cover " 
 over his offense, and thus appease, or propitiate. 
 
 This present was an expiation a satisfaction 
 and by it he sought to atone for his offense. But 
 we have made sufficiently plain the meaning of 
 atonement. 
 
 Dr. Burney next gives some Bible examples of 
 the meaning of the word, as being out of harmony 
 with the idea of substitution. As they all bring 
 out substitution in the strongest light, we will ex- 
 amine his exegesis and endeavor to show their true 
 meaning. The first example, I v ev. xvi. 20, Atone- 
 ment for the Holy Place, etc. , we have already ex- 
 plained in the chapter on the Day of Atonement, 
 so it only remains to examine the exposition of Dr. 
 Burney. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 303 
 
 Burney. u The holy place had no sins to be 
 punished, but God required it to be relieved of 
 such uncleanness 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 conse- 
 crate to God, and whatever is thus sanctified is ac- 
 ceptable, or well pleasing to him. 
 
 "But to make acceptable is to make atone- 
 ment. . . . 
 
 ' ' 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 thus 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, nothing 
 is incredible." Page 165. 
 
 Comment. i. Dr. Burney sees nothing but "pe- 
 nal " sufferings everywhere. He has spiritual 
 "colorblindness." He can not see that truth is 
 many-sided, that the work of Christ has many re- 
 lations, and is therefore presented under many 
 aspects. No substitutionist holds that there was a 
 vicarious punishment of the holy place, nor is it 
 the logical outcome of their theory. 
 
 2. It was rather a typical purification than a 
 "ritual" (like that for a dead body). It is ex- 
 pressly said, 
 
 ' ' It was therefore necessary that the patterns of 
 things in the heavens should be purified with these-} 
 
304 ATONEMENT. 
 
 but the heavenly things themselves with better 
 sacrifices than these." Heb. ix. 23. 
 
 This verse brings out several things of im- 
 portance. 
 
 First. That the purification was typical of one 
 made for the heavenly things themselves. Does 
 Burney believe this last was ' ' ritual ' ' also ? How 
 will he apply the type ? 
 
 Second. This purification was linked with the 
 blood shed for the "remission of sins; " that is the 
 force of the "therefore." 
 
 Third. The passage does not teach that heaven 
 needed to be purified, but the "heavenly things." 
 As Christians, we are made "to sit together in 
 heavenly places," being "partakers of the heaven- 
 ly calling." This is the result of union with 
 Christ. We are regarded, in reference to our stand- 
 ing, as taken out of the world, as being in the 
 heavenly place. But to bring us there, sin must 
 be remitted; hence the typical atonement for the 
 holy place. See exposition in full in * ' Day of 
 Atonement." 
 
 Burney. "Poll tax atonement " (Ex. xxx. 11-16). 
 Page 168. 
 
 Comment. This title is taking, but misleading 
 and unscriptural. It was not a poll-tax that made 
 atonement (even if we call it a poll-tax), but the 
 money was given ' ''for atonement. ' ' 
 
 Burney. "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 posses- 
 
ATONEMENTS. 305 
 
 sion; 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. 
 
 No blood was shed .... and no sins were re- 
 mitted, because there were none to remit. 
 
 This atonement was not made by a priest, because 
 the particular sin to which it related, not having 
 been committed, no mediator was necessary. Ev- 
 er}' man was his own atoner, just as any man, not 
 guilty of any particular sin, may secure divine favor 
 by avoiding that sin. 
 
 This atonement, called a ransom for the soul, 
 consisting purely and exclusively of personal obe- 
 dience to the perceptive 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." 
 Page 169. 
 
 Comment. It is somewhat difficult to analyze 
 Burney's positions, because he rejects the received 
 meaning of the word atonement, and uses it so 
 loosely. If atonement is to propitiate "by turning 
 away God's anger," where is the atonement from the 
 stand-point of Dr. Burney's exegesis? "It protects 
 from injury," but does not deliver from evils previ- 
 ously incurred. Burney has to juggle with the 
 word to get an atonement out of the ' ' tax. ' ' He 
 leaves out the idea of turning away the anger o: 
 God, and makes atonement to be a keeping away 
 
 21 
 
306 ATONEMENT. 
 
 of that anger, and then has the angels making 
 atonement in heaven! This atonement does not 
 deliver, although a " ransom!" It does not turn 
 away anger, for no sin has been committed, yet it 
 propitiates! On the positive side, he seems to make 
 atonement and obedience to be synonymous " this 
 atonement consisted purely and exclusively of per- 
 sonal obedience." We should think that where 
 there is personal obedience there could be no propi- 
 tiation, unless God is angry because of what we 
 might do, even if it never occurred. 
 
 The true exegesis of the passage is, that the 
 money was given to the Lord, not as making atone- 
 ment, but to "make an atonement." The use to 
 which it was put points this out. 
 
 u Thou shalt take the atonement money of the 
 children of Israerand shalt appoint it for the serv- 
 ice of the tabernacle of the congregation, that it 
 may be a memorial unto the children of Israel 
 before the Lord, to make an atonement for your 
 souls." Lev. xxx. 1 6. 
 
 Here the reason for the u tax" is seen. If God 
 was to take up his abode with his people, it could 
 only be on the ground that gave them a standing 
 before him. Hence, the tabernacle, its ritual, and 
 its service. The blood was the ground of all, u for 
 it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the 
 soul. " It was the tabernacle that God dwelt within. 
 These things entailed expense, hence the gift; or, 
 as Dr. Burney calls it, the u tax." It was that which 
 was done with the money, when by its means the 
 tabernacle was set up, that atonement was made. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 307 
 
 Rich and poor must give alike, all are on common 
 ground, as to atonement. 
 
 Burney, u Atonement in relation to the golden 
 calf." Ex. xxxii. 31-33; Dent. ix. 18, 19. 
 
 ' ' This is expressly called an atonement (verse 
 30)." Page 170. 
 
 Comment. i. This is " expressly " what it does 
 not say. The words are " peradventure I shall 
 make an atonement." In view of this " perad- 
 venture," Burney misses the force of the whole 
 passage. 
 
 The Israelites had solemnly covenanted to keep 
 the law. Three times they had made this covenant, 
 u all that the Lord hath said will we do and be obe- 
 dient." (Ex. xxiv. 3-8; xix. 8.) Before they had 
 entered into this covenant their blessings had been 
 on the ground of grace, so that we find no plague, 
 no fiery serpents. But the history of the world is 
 only that of man's failure and the ruin that sin 
 entails, so we find them, within sight of the cloud 
 and the fire, worshiping a golden calf. Moses 
 breaks the tables of stone, commands that the pen- 
 alty of the law be enforced, and "about three thou- 
 sand are slain." 
 
 The next day Moses upbraids them with their sin 
 and seeks the presence of God, leaving only a 
 * ' perad venture ' ' for the comfort of the people. 
 Moses earnestly pleads for them, u blot me out," 
 etc. What answer does God give? He answers 
 according to the unbending principles of holy law. 
 The one that has sinned, "him will I blot out." 
 
308 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The " perad venture " does not avail, " the soul that 
 sinneth it shall die." 
 
 2. Burney quotes Deut. ix. 19, where Moses tells 
 how he fasted and prayed for forty days and nights 
 and the " L,ord hearkened unto me at that time 
 also," as proof that the intercession of Moses was 
 expressly called an atonement. How does he link 
 them together? Purely by assumption. Moses 
 had fasted forty days when the law was given. 
 When he went into the mount with a " perad vent- 
 ure," we are not told how long he stopped, but 
 this was not the time referred to in Deuteronomy. 
 The only answer God gave to Moses was, "I will 
 visit their sin upon them." (Ex. xxxii. 35.) So we 
 read, after Moses came down from the mountain, 
 that the Lord plagued the people. Deut. ix. 19, 
 has reference to the time when Moses went up a 
 second time to receive the law, and when on his 
 return his face shone, because God had revealed 
 himself in grace, so that he had to cover his face 
 with a veil. A veil that remains for the Jew even 
 to this day. 
 
 The people mourn because of the plague, strip 
 themselves of their ornaments (xxxiii. 6), and repent 
 of their sins. Then Moses takes the tabernacle and 
 pitches it u outside the camp," to indicate that God 
 had withdrawn from his people. The eyes of all 
 Israel are turned in that direction, and Moses passes 
 in to seek the lyord in the tabernacle, and there 
 grace is extended. Many in our day besides Burney 
 are trying to find atonement at old Sinai. But no 
 grace is found on Sinai, and Moses comes down 
 
ATONEMENTS. 309 
 
 with atonement not made, and God's anger not ap- 
 peased. But when he seeks him in the tabernacle, 
 on the ground of the blood, how different ! There, 
 and there only, grace is found! 
 
 Burney. "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." Page 171. 
 
 Comment. Dr. Burney misplaces Deut. ix., so 
 that much of what he says is not pertinent. But if 
 they were pardoned because of the earnest prayers 
 of Moses, it would be something he did, after all! 
 Burney confounds Intercession with Atonement. 
 
 Burney. "No typical beast is slain, or sacrificial 
 blood is shed." Page 171. 
 
 Comment. What an assumption ! If he had 
 said that there was no record of a beast being slain, 
 we would have assented. But when he says, dog- 
 matically, no beast is slain, no blood is shed, we 
 simply ask, How do you know? If there is any 
 meaning or lesson in the fact that grace was found 
 in the tabernacle and not on the Mount, it must 
 have been that the law knows no mercy, while the 
 tabernacle stood in the power of the blood. Why- 
 was the tabernacle set up ? Why did the people 
 look to it in their distress ? Where is it recorded 
 
310 ATONEMENT. 
 
 that the daily sacrifice ceased? It is God's fixed 
 law in every age "that without shedding of blood 
 is no remission;" therefore, whether mentioned or 
 not, the logical inference is that the blood was shed, 
 for it is " the blood that maketh an atonement. ' ' 
 
 Neither exegetically nor typically can he get his 
 non-penal theory out of this scripture. 
 
 Burney. "Atonement for treason. n Num. xvi. 
 41-48. Page 172. 
 
 " 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 neigh- 
 bor as themselves. This was heroic fidelity to 
 their people. 
 
 But they were not less faithful to the other 
 requirement of that law loving the Lord their 
 God with all their hearts. This love they demon- 
 strated by their reverence and prostration on their 
 faces and the burning of incense, which is the 
 divinely appointed symbol of confession, prayer, 
 and supplication." Page 173. 
 
 Comment. i. The conceit that by falling down, 
 Moses and Aaron refused to get out of the way, 
 necessitates a very materialistic idea of the God- 
 head, and the means by which the plague was in- 
 flicted. Dr. Burney seems to think they stood in the 
 way, as if a masked battery was about to be fired. 
 On that supposition, the falling down might have 
 
ATONEMENTS. 311 
 
 been the best plan of getting out of the way ! 
 Moses and Aaron, by falling down, did not stop the 
 plague, nor is there the slightest evidence that they 
 wanted to share the doom of the people. 
 
 2. It is an utter assumption that to share their 
 fate would be a fulfillment of the law of love. The 
 death threatened was the just penalty of the law 
 they had violated. If the law of love required that 
 they should ask to share this penalty, when they are 
 innocent of any part in the sin, then the same logic 
 would require that we ask to share the fate of the 
 lost ! It might have shown their affection for their 
 people, or their national pride, but not obedience to 
 the law of love, the essence of which is submission 
 to the will of God. 
 
 3. If, as Burney argues, it was a command to get 
 out of the way, and they remained /;/, then it logic- 
 ally follows that God commanded something wrong, 
 and was propitiated by disobedience ! Burney ad- 
 mits the last, and in answer to the question, u How 
 could disobedience please God ? " says the command, 
 like that to Abraham, u was a trial of their faith." 
 But Abraham did not disobey, nor would it have 
 been wrong to have slain Isaac. If to obey Moses 
 and Aaron would be required to violate the law of 
 love, then the command was wrong; and by giving 
 it, God contradicted himself. Again, this exegesis 
 holds out the idea that they showed more love than 
 God did, and that the punishment was wrong. We 
 have here a moral fog as to the law of love that be- 
 wilders us in innumerable absurdities. 
 
 4. That Moses and Aaron loved God with all 
 
ATONEMENT. 
 
 their hearts, he thinks is shown by their falling 
 down, and by their burning incense. He can find 
 ' ' perfect obedience, ' ' whenever his theory requires 
 it, in very little things. From these physical acts 
 he reasons they loved God supremely. And that 
 in the presence of an act of disobedience! At the 
 most, in view of this disobedience (from Dr. Burney's 
 stand-point), all that Burney could claim would be 
 that they loved the people better than they did God. 
 
 Was the prostration voluntary, or involuntary? 
 Was it an act of worship or of fear f Does it im- 
 ply that they prostrated themselves as an act of 
 worship, or that the fearful announcement so over- 
 came them that they ' ' fell upon their faces ' ' from 
 fear and horror? Which is the most natural? 
 What would be the emotions aroused at once by such 
 an announcement, worship or fear ? 
 
 Again, Burney's exposition of the incense is out 
 of all harmony with the teaching of the Bible, and 
 is the cause of his failure to see a ' ' real ' ' atone- 
 ment in this place. He makes the incense u the 
 divinely appointed symbol of confession, prayer, 
 and supplication," which it never is. The only 
 verse that links incense and prayer is Rev. viii. 3, 
 which shows that it is not a symbol of prayer. 
 
 "And there was given unto him much incense, 
 that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints 
 upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 
 And the smoke of the incense, which came with 
 the prayers of the saints." 
 
 It was the incense that gave efficacy to the 
 prayers, as the Greek more emphatically shows. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 313 
 
 What is this incense that as a sweet smell goes up 
 to God, and gives efficacy to the prayers of God's 
 people ? 
 
 In this connection we remember that the burnt- 
 offering is, literally, the incense-offering, it being 
 the same Hebrew word that is translated "burnt " 
 and "incense." The brazen altar was literally the 
 incense altar. We have shown the meaning of the 
 burnt-offering in the chapter on the offerings. 
 What was incense at the brazen altar was at the 
 golden, also. The fire on the brazen altar never 
 went out, night or day the infinite value of 
 Christ's work being ever before God. With the 
 fire from this altar, the incense must be burnt, and 
 the death of Aaron's sons shows the fearful result 
 of burning "strange fire." 
 
 When on the Day of Atonement the high-priest 
 went into the holiest with the blood, the incense 
 must first be burnt, the cloud of smoke ascend, and 
 the sweet smell penetrate into every part of the 
 tabernacle. What is it that answers to all this? 
 Nothing, absolutely nothing, but the merits of 
 Christ's atoning sacrifice. This is a sweet smell 
 before the lyord, this is the ground of approach, it 
 is this that gives efficacy to the prayers of saints. 
 To come with any other merit is to bring "strange 
 fire." God grant that Burney's theory may not 
 cause men to come with ' ' strange fire, ' ' only to 
 perish before the L,ord. 
 
 With this exposition, how clear and how grand 
 was the atonement made by Aaron ! Bringing 
 the censer with its burning incense, he swings it 
 
314 ATONEMENT. 
 
 between the Lord and the plague-stricken people; 
 and as the sweet smell of the incense goes np, the 
 all-atoning merit of Christ gives to priestly interces- 
 sion its power, and the plague is stayed. 
 
 In the same way, this is what enabled the live 
 coal from the altar to * ' cleanse ' ' the ' ' unclean lips ' ' 
 of the prophet (Isa. vi.). 
 
 Burney. ''Atonement for seduction (Num. 
 xxv.)." Page 174. 
 
 "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 psychological 
 consequence of his love to God and love to his people. 
 
 "The same love and devotion to God and his 
 people 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 Phinehas 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." Page 175. 
 
 Comment. This is a clear case, and one in- 
 volving a principle of great value as to atonement, 
 showing, as it does, its connection with priesthood, 
 but not from Burney's stand-point. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 315 
 
 Grievous sin had made its appearance in the 
 camp of Israel, and God's anger had been enkin- 
 dled against them. This anger was primarily 
 against those guilty of the wrong, who merited 
 and received the death threatened by the divine 
 law. The anger was also against the entire people 
 (as in the case of Achan), because they tolerated 
 the evil in the camp. This must be remembered in 
 explaining the atonement. This anger could only 
 be propitiated by the infliction of the penalty the 
 death of the offender. Hence, God said to Moses, 
 
 "Take all the heads of the people, and hang 
 them up before the Lord, against the sun, that the 
 fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from 
 Israel. And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, 
 Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto 
 Baal-peor." Num. xxv. 4, 5. 
 
 If there is any meaning in this, it is that those 
 who, by the allurements of the "daughters of 
 Moab," had been led into idolatry, should be slain. 
 This was done, and twenty-four thousand died. 
 This execution of the penalty brought grief and 
 mourning, and the people gathered before the tab- 
 ernacle. At this critical moment, when waiting 
 upon God in penitence, an Israelite brings a 
 Midianitish woman in the sight of all. This was a 
 public outrage. Before, they had failed to punish; 
 now, Phinehas springs forward and at once slays 
 the guilty couple. This zeal for the honor of God 
 relieves Israel of the guilt of indifference, and 
 God's anger is turned away. 
 
316 ATONEMENT. 
 
 First. It was not "atonement for seduction," but 
 atonement for their indifference to the honor of 
 God, in failing to carry out the penalty for adultery 
 and idolatry the last the more heinous sin. 
 
 Second. The guilty idolaters were not saved by 
 the zeal of Phinehas; they had already been slain. 
 The action of Phinehas shows that they were no 
 longer tolerant of wrong, that there was a quick- 
 ened conscience. The prompt execution of the 
 law, as in the case of Achan, appeased God, made 
 an atonement for Israel. A very pointed lesson for 
 the church. 
 
 Third. Phinehas acquired an "everlasting priest- 
 hood " by making this atonement. His atonement 
 was made by the infliction of the penalty, Christ's 
 by bearing it. Both thus acquired a priesthood, for 
 the great lesson is that priesthood rests upon atone- 
 ment made. Both Aaron and Phinehas received an 
 everlasting priesthood,' but with this difference: 
 Aaron was called, Phinehas acquired it, and was 
 afterward consecrated. Christ both acquired his 
 priesthood and was called to it. 
 
 Much confusion exists generally as to priesthood; 
 but mainly because of the theories of theologians of 
 the Calvinistic school. Here is the great weakness 
 of Dr. Burney's theory. He practically accepts the 
 Calvinistic idea of the work of the priest, seeking 
 only a different application of it. With such mis- 
 taken views of priesthood, it is small wonder that 
 he should reject substitution. 
 
 (a) All through his book Burney builds argu- 
 ments and frames objections upon the assumed fact 
 
ATONEMENTS. 317 
 
 that the priest must kill the victim. For example, 
 one section has this heading : ' ' The priest becomes 
 an executioner before he acts the part of a me- 
 diator." The whole section, italics and all, with 
 its play upon "penal sacrifice," etc., is of no force 
 in yiew of the fact that the priestly work did not 
 begin until after the victim was killed! Both 
 the non-penal theory and Calvinism rest upon this 
 same misconception of the priest's work. 
 
 While the killing may be done by a priest as 
 on the Day of Atonement it was generally done 
 by the offerer himself. The offerer was distinct 
 from the priest; and, while the same person might 
 act as both, the offering was entirely distinct from 
 the priestly work. If the killing had been priestly 
 work, it could never have been done but by a priest ; 
 so that when done by others it enables us to distin- 
 guish between the offerer and the priest. 
 
 " If any man of you bring -an offering, .... he 
 shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt- 
 offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make 
 atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock 
 before the Lord; and \hzpriests, Aaron's sons, shall 
 bring the blood." Lev. i. 1-6. 
 
 4 The elders of the congregation shall lay their 
 hands upon the head of the bullock before the 
 Lord; and the bullock shall be killed before the 
 Lord." Lev. iv. 15. See also i. n, iii. 2, iii. 8, 
 iii. 12, iv. 24, etc. 
 
 These texts show the law. The sinner or his 
 representative brings the victim and presents it be- 
 fore the Lord. It is then "accepted for him." 
 
318 ATONEMENT. 
 
 After its acceptance, not before, it is slain by the 
 offerer, whether it be the man or the priest acting 
 as offerer. It was never slain by the priest unless 
 the priest was the one who offered it. After the 
 blood had been shed, the work of the priest began. 
 This fact is of paramount importance in explaining 
 the meaning of the blood, and is utterly out of 
 harmony with the non-penal theory. 
 
 No offering, however, could be completed with- 
 out a priest; because no sinner, as such, can come 
 into the presence of God. But it was the blood, 
 the memorial of accomplished sacrifice telling of 
 the result of that sacrifice that the priest pre- 
 sented to God. 
 
 It is a common thought that Christ's priesthood 
 is linked with sin bearing; but it is not the Bible 
 statement. 
 
 (&) It will help us to understand the priestly 
 work of Christ to remember that it is exercised in 
 the holy place, and began only when he ascended 
 into heaven. 
 
 " For if he were on earth, he should not be a 
 priest." Heb. viii. 4. 
 
 His work on earth qualified him for his priest- 
 hood, as the whole argument in Hebrews shows; 
 but it is on the ground of atonement alone that his 
 priesthood is exercised. 
 
 (c) Beside the work of presenting the blood to 
 God, Christ's work as priest consists of intercession. 
 
 Christ's intercession is twofold. As priest, he in- 
 tercedes with God; as advocate, with the Father. 
 The one is preventive, the other is restorative. 
 
ATONEMENTS. 319 
 
 His intercession as advocate is exercised when sin 
 has been committed and the Father's face hidden 
 from the child. Communion rests upon the blood, 
 confession, and intercession. This is presented in 
 John's Epistle, and links itself with the truth as to 
 "Feet Washing." 
 
 His intercession as priest is distinct from this. 
 Its great object is the prevention of apostasy, the 
 securing of the eternal salvation of the believer. 
 One is connected with standing, securing it always 
 as divinely perfect; the other is connected with the 
 walk. The priesthood of Aaron was exercised in 
 connection with "the law of a carnal command- 
 ment; " that of Christ is " the power of an endless 
 life." 
 
 ' ' But this man, because he continueth ever, hath 
 an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able 
 to save to the uttermost (ro Travre/^c to panteles 
 to the end of time) that come to God by him." 
 Heb. vii. 24; Rom. viii. 34.. 
 
 (d) Christ's work as priest is exercised in making 
 our ivorsJiip acceptable to God. 
 
 " By (&, dia, through) him therefore let us offer 
 the sacrifice of praise to God continually." Heb. 
 xiii. 15. 
 
 "To offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to 
 God by Jesus Christ" 
 
 The incense must give efficacy to the prayers, 
 the praise, the worship of God's people. 
 
 Priesthood rests upon atonement made. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 BURNEY ON THE OFFERINGS. 
 
 Burney. "But, if I have not greatly deceived 
 myself, the facts connected with these tabernacle 
 atonements are strongly adverse to the notion of 
 penality." Page 227. 
 
 Comment. The words "tabernacle atonements" 
 as designating the offerings, are objectionable. 
 The word ' ( offerings ' ' is the one used in the Bible, 
 and where we have Bible terms they should always 
 be used. To substitute others, as in this case, is 
 always to obscure the truth. 
 
 All the offerings were not sacrifices. The meat- 
 offering is separate from the rest in that it did not 
 require the death of a victim, hence it is never 
 called a sacrifice. For the same reason no atone- 
 ment was made by the meat-offering, and no sins 
 were remitted. An offering was, therefore, more 
 than atonement. Atonement as made by the taber- 
 nacle offerings would have been better, and left the 
 truth unimpaired. 
 
 Burney then enumerates the facts connected with 
 the offerings that are opposed to the idea of pen- 
 alty. His statements as to how penalists explain 
 them, we pass by. They are gravely put forth as 
 the views of penalists and doubtless he thinks 
 
OFFERINGS. 321 
 
 fairly, for he says "no penalist can object," yet we 
 doubt if the most extreme substitutionist of the 
 highest Calvinistic order would assent to them. 
 Certainly we reject them, being a mere caricature 
 of the views of penalists. If they embody his be- 
 lief as to what substitution means, small wonder he 
 rejects it ! Who would not ? 
 
 Burney. u i. The sacrificial victim must be per- 
 fect 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 
 the ark of the covenant, or mercy-seat in the holy 
 of holies (see Lev. xvi.)." Page 227. 
 
 Comment. Burney 's facts are not all facts, not 
 even a majority of them, which is unfortunate for 
 the " non-penal theory." Of the five so called 
 facts given above, only two, the first and the third, 
 are such. 
 
 The worshiper brought the offering to * ' the door 
 of the tabernacle '," where it was accepted for him. 
 After it was slain, the priest took the blood and 
 such of the body as was burnt, and the priest 
 brought them to the altar. In the sin-offering, the 
 
 22 
 
322 ATONEMENT. 
 
 body never came to the altar at all, being burnt 
 ' * outside the carnp. ' ' 
 
 Number four we have already examined. As we 
 have shown, the offerer (whether worshiper or 
 priest), not the priest, killed the victim. Burney's 
 trouble is in not discriminating' between the offer- 
 ings. His theory has no use for so many. 
 
 Number five. The blood was put in different 
 places in the different offerings, but never on the 
 ark. The mercy-seat was not the ark. 
 
 In the burnt-offering, the blood was sprinkled 
 "round about" the brazen altar. (Lev. i. 5.) If a 
 bird was offered, the blood was ' ' wrung out by the 
 side of the altar." (Lev. i. 15.) 
 
 In the peace-offering, the blood was sprinkled 
 "upon the altar round about." (Lev. iii. 2.) 
 
 In the trespass-offering, sprinkled upon the side, 
 and poured, or drained out, at the bottom. (Lev. 
 v. 9.) 
 
 In the sin-offering, the blood was not put upon 
 the brazen altar at all. It was sprinkled before the 
 veil of the sanctuary, poured out at the base of the 
 brazen altar, and placed upon the horns of the 
 golden altar. These are all-important distinctions, 
 teaching great truths, and are utterly out of harmony 
 with the non-penal theory. 
 
 That God was made favorable by the blood is true, 
 for it is the blood that makes atonement; but that 
 the blood was ever sanctified, or made acceptable to 
 God, the Bible never affirms. This may be essen- 
 tial to the non-penal theory, but as the planks 
 of its platform are all unsound, this one is also. 
 
OFFERINGS. 323 
 
 They were forbidden to eat blood. Why? "I 
 have given it to you upon the altar to make atone- 
 ment for your souls." What G'od gives does not 
 need to be sanctified. To be sanctified and to be 
 holy is the same, the words translating the same 
 Hebrew and Greek words. The idea that Christ's 
 humanity needed to be sanctified is to deny his holi- 
 ness rank blasphemy. If our readers will look 
 through the type to the antitype, they will see how 
 repulsive to the best instincts of the Christian would 
 be the thought of the blood being sanctified, read 
 in the light of what it would mean. In his mad 
 effort to destroy substitution, Dr. Burney will, if 
 his positions are logically carried out to their ulti- 
 mate analysis, destroy the glory of the person of 
 the Lord Jesus himself. 
 
 The blood placed on the mercy-seat by the high- 
 priest, was for the eye of God the memorial of a 
 finished sacrifice. But when the blood was placed 
 upon the altar, it was for the eye of man, for God 
 says, "I have given it to you upon the altar." 
 How could the blood have been on the altar which 
 even the non-penal theory makes a representation 
 of Christ's divinity if not as God's gift? It turns 
 our eyes to a divine Savior, dying for us, and tells 
 that u God so loved the world that he gave his only 
 begotten Son." Our readers can readily see which 
 exegesis is most in harmony with the facts. 
 
 Burney 's facts being so shaky, we may believe 
 that his whole house is unsafe; and it must be con- 
 demned as uninhabitable by all competent archi- 
 tects. 
 
324 ATONEMENT. 
 
 As to the two facts that are such, Burney gives 
 the following reasons why they are not in harmony 
 with substitution. 
 
 Burney. "It makes the sacrificial kid represent 
 two contradictory things at the same time, viz. : 
 the holiness and innocence of Christ, and the un- 
 holiness and guilt of the sinful worshiper."- Page 
 229. 
 
 Comment. The being * ( without blemish ' ' is the 
 necessary qualification for its being "accepted for 
 him." The idea that the guilt ever becomes 
 Christ's is Burney's, not ours. No substitutionist 
 so believes. Dr. Burney can not see this, because of 
 his views of the relation of sin and penalty. Re- 
 jecting these as in conflict with all the facts, being 
 simply a "fiction" of a theologian, we have no 
 such difficulty. 
 
 Burney. "If the moral government is suffi- 
 ciently 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." Page 230. 
 
 Comment.- i. This means, if God's government 
 admits of substitution. That, of course, is for 
 God himself to say, and is the issue. What follows 
 may be understood in several ways. 
 
 2. Dr. Burney holds that criminality and penalty 
 have the relation of cause and effect; if his argu- 
 ment is from that stand-point, his "if" means 
 nothing, he is simply playing with his readers. 
 
OFFERINGS. 325 
 
 3. If he means that a kid is u incapable of guilt 
 in any sense," and, therefore, on the substitu- 
 tionist's own theory the death has no connection 
 with the sin, we say that he fails to understand the 
 position of the substitutionist. Kent, the great 
 legal authority, says, u a ship incurs guilt by the 
 violation of a blockade." This shows a recognized 
 meaning of the word "guilt" that is, liability to 
 penalty which Dr. Burney constantly overlooks. 
 In this sense of the word, which is perhaps its 
 primary meaning, when the kid is " accepted for 
 him," it becomes guilty liable to the death pen- 
 alty and at once it is slain. This is only a type, 
 but it shows that Burney's statement that it is 
 "incapable of guilt in any sense," is not true. 
 
 4. Substitution being true, we have a penal death 
 without criminality, and in the same sense crimi- 
 nality without a penal death. If the criminality is 
 ours, and the suffering is Christ's, both must be 
 true, as on no other ground is substitution possible. 
 As the criminality does not become Christ's, if he 
 died for us substitutionally, his death must have 
 been " a penal death without sin." On the other 
 hand, if we are saved at all, in any sense, from the 
 "second death," which is after the judgment, we 
 have "sin without a penal death." If Burney 
 means more than this, his meaning is not plain. 
 He runs " amuck " with his penalty and sin causally 
 connected. 
 
 Burney. "The generic import of the rite as 
 used in the Old and New Testaments is benedic- 
 tion." 
 
326 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." Page 
 241. 
 
 Comment. i. To this last we dissent, believing 
 them to be " substantially ' ' different, as any good 
 concordance will show. 
 
 2. Laying on of hands was the sign of identity, 
 and when a benediction was pronounced, as in the 
 case of Jacob, it showed symbolically that the one 
 on whose head the hands were laid was the one 
 identified with the blessing. Thus it was possible 
 to rob Bsau of his blessing. That it is in conflict 
 with substitution is so wild a statement that we 
 can say the very opposite is true, and no substitu- 
 tion is possible without it. (See Spirit Baptism.) 
 
 Dr. Burney next considers the scape-goat. As 
 we have given a full exposition of the Day of Atone- 
 ment, and do not hold the theory of Dr. Hodge, we 
 pass by what he says in review of Hodge. We 
 confine ourselves to an examination of Burney 's 
 own exposition. 
 
 Burney. " Two things are indispensable to sal- 
 vation, viz. : first, atonement in the sense of propi- 
 tiation; and secondly, atonement in the sense of 
 reconciliation. The first pertains exclusively to 
 God; the second to men. God is never reconciled, 
 but is propitiated. Men are never propitiated, but 
 are reconciled." Page 253. 
 
 Comment. i. As we have repeatedly shown, 
 atonement and propitiation is the same thing in the 
 Bible. "Atonement in the sense of reconciliation," 
 
OFFERINGS. 327 
 
 would be the same as propitiation in the sense of 
 reconciliation. 
 
 2. Burney applies every passage which speaks of 
 reconciliation, to the sinner as being reconciled to 
 God. Let us see : 
 
 "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled 
 us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us 
 the ministry of reconciliation, to wit: that God was 
 in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath com- 
 mitted unto us the word of reconciliation. 
 
 u Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as 
 though God did beseech by us, we pray in Christ's 
 stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor. v. 18-20. 
 
 That it is God, and not the sinner, who is here 
 said to be reconciled, the following considerations 
 will show: 
 
 First. The reconciliation is as universal as propi- 
 tiation "the world." When was this done? 
 When Christ was fulfilling his mission. Not God 
 is in Christ, but " was ;" showing that this recon- 
 ciliation for the world was made at the cross. In 
 exactly the same sense in which Christ is a propitia- 
 tion for all, he reconciles all to God. We have 
 fully shown this general view of the cross, which 
 shows why Paul speaks of the reconciliation object- 
 ively rather than subjectively. 
 
 Secondly. The manner in which it is done. Cer- 
 tainly sinners are not reconciled to God by "not 
 imputing their trespasses to them.' ' But God recon- 
 ciles the world to himself "in that way. He can never 
 
328 ATONEMENT. 
 
 reconcile them u to himself," never deal with them 
 in grace, never save, so long as sin stands between 
 them and himself. 
 
 Third. The ministry committed is a "word of 
 reconciliation,'' it is the message of "good-will " to 
 men. God no longer angry. All barriers removed 
 the word of reconciliation. 
 
 Fourth. While God has reconciled the world unto 
 himself, the sinner needs to be reconciled unto God. 
 One tells of what has been done, the other of what 
 has to be. The exhortation to be reconciled is un- 
 meaning if the world has been reconciled to God. 
 This it does not teach. "Reconciling the world 
 unto himself," is not synonymous with the world 
 being reconciled to God. 
 
 3. There is no instance in the Bible where the 
 word is applied to men, where it means any thing 
 else than propitiation. Jacob tried to "appease" 
 propitiate Esau by the present. In the same way 
 God is appeased propitiated by the work of his 
 Son. The atonement discussed in these pages, 
 is made to God, not to men. Nowhere can we find 
 an illustration of an atonement with the double- 
 barrelled action that Burney seems to give it, one 
 aimed at God propitiating; the other at men 
 reconciling. 
 
 Biirney. "Mark this fact, that it was not the 
 sacrificial goat, but the scape-goat that bore, or car- 
 ried away sin" Page 254. 
 
 Comment. He repeats it so often that it is evi- 
 dent he believes it has tremendous force against 
 
OFFERINGS. 329 
 
 substitution. But we emphasize it as strongly as 
 Dr. Burney does. It is the ground of our medium 
 theory. But it is fatal to Burney 's non-penal 
 theory, as we will show when we come to examine 
 him upon the atonement of Christ. 
 
 Burney. "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. 35; 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." Page 255. 
 
 Comment. i. No one disputes that it is the liv- 
 ing Christ who saves. As Christ is alive in heaven, 
 if he saves any one, they must be saved by a living 
 Christ. But while this is what Dr. Burney says, this 
 is not what he means ; for farther on he says, ' 'Who 
 justifies and saves by imparting his own nature to 
 those united to him by faith." In the light of this, 
 it seems he is talking of how Christ saves, not 
 who. In this he has shifted the ground somewhat. 
 
 2. That no text refers our salvation to what Christ 
 did or suffered, is the very opposite of the truth. 
 Not to burden the reader with texts, the following 
 are sufficient to refute this : 
 
 " He was wounded for our transgressions." 
 Isa. liii. 5. 
 
 "Justified by his blood." Rom. v. 9. 
 "Reconciled to God by the death of his Son." 
 Rom. v. 10. 
 
330 ATONEMENT. 
 
 3. Equally with Burney, we believe in the work 
 of a living Christ imparting life to the believer; 
 but unlike him, we believe the death as essential as 
 the resurrection. 
 
 Burney. " 'When thou shalt make his soul 
 (life) an offering for sin.' His death was sacrificial 
 and therefore not penal, for, as we have seen, a penal 
 sacrifice is a contradiction in the adjective." 
 Page 261. 
 
 1 1 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 
 penalties are or can be voluntary, as has been 
 shown. Sacrifice is an act expressive of obedi- 
 ence, reverence, love to God. Penalty is an ex- 
 pression of God's displeasure against the disobe- 
 dient. A penal sacrifice!! 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 worship, the less penalty. Or, shall we say 
 it is a penalty which has the effect of religious wor- 
 ship ? Then Satan and his hosts fare about as well 
 as the worshiping angels." Page 234. 
 
 Comment. i. What a flight of fancy ! ! What 
 does Burney mean here by worship ? If he means 
 what Jesus did when he speaks of the ' ' true wor- 
 shipers," who worship God in spirit and in truth, 
 then we deny that sacrifice was an act of worship. 
 If he means simply that it was part of the religious 
 ceremonies of the Jews, we agree. 
 
 2. His definition of sacrifice "an act express- 
 ive of obedience, reverence, love to God" can not 
 
OFFERINGS. 331 
 
 be received. No dictionary so defines it; it can not 
 be found in the words used. Take for example the 
 one in Isaiah, which Burney gives: u Thy sin- 
 offering" translates the Hebrew word D^K (asham). 
 This word means, primarily, " fault, blame, g^tilt, 
 which one contracts." And from this a sacrifice 
 for fault or guilt a tresfiass-offeriiij*. It is the 
 same word in the Hebrew that is translated " sin " 
 and " sin-offering. " How can Burney get his defi- 
 nition from this, especially when we remember that 
 the trespass-offering, like the sin-offering, was not 
 a "sweet savor." Burney's definition is a pure 
 assumption, for which he will never give any proof. 
 
 3. Burney fails to apprehend the true idea of a 
 worshiper, and the true place of worship. 
 
 Sacrifice was the basis of all acceptable worship. 
 The man must first be forgiven before he becomes 
 a worshiper. How can we approach God accept- 
 ably, how can we enter the holiest as worshipers, 
 unless the question of sin has been settled at the 
 altar, and our feet have been washed at the laver ? 
 A strange medley, a very babel of confusion, 
 would be the worship of Christendom on any such 
 foundation. Alas, we have too much of babel, and 
 not enough of Christ, already ! Spiritual worship 
 can never be rendered where the conscience has not 
 been perfectly cleansed by the blood, and com- 
 munion enjoyed in fullness by the soul. Sacrifice 
 then, not as an act of worship, but as the true basis 
 of worship. Without shedding of blood no remis- 
 sion, and without remission no true worship. 
 
 The whole system of Mosaic sacrifices is, how- 
 
332 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ever, utterly irreconcilable with the non-penal 
 theory. No explanation, when applied to the anti- 
 type, will give us any rational conception of 
 Christ's work. 
 
 Suppose we take Dr. Burney's own explanation, 
 that it is the offering up of the life the consecra- 
 tion of the life to God. Then, logically, the sac- 
 rifice can only represent the sinner, which is in 
 opposition to the Bible, that always represents 
 Christ as the victim. If it represents the consecra- 
 tion of the life of the worshiper, how can this be 
 done by the death of Christ, if not vicariously? 
 
 It is here that we find confusion in Dr. Burney's 
 book. Making the same thing to represent the 
 death of Christ and the offering of the life of the 
 offerer. Dr. Burney finds it impossible to harmo- 
 nize them, and so leaves his non-penal theory, as 
 we shall find, in the fog. 
 
 The non-penal theory will never give a clear-cut 
 explanation of the Mosaic sacrifices, that will be 
 logical, self-consistent, and understood. 
 
 Dr. Burney's idea that God was worshiped by the 
 countless sacrifices of Judaism, reduces the religion 
 of the Jews to the level of heathenism. Skeptics 
 speak of the savage butchery of these sacrifices as 
 an objection to the teaching of the Old Testament. 
 Dr. Burney enters a plea of guilty when he makes 
 this wholesale slaughter an act of worship, ' ' ex- 
 pressive of obedience, reverence, and love to God." 
 He thus places the Mosaic sacrifices on ground that 
 is indefensible by reason, because repugnant to the 
 best instincts of the race. 
 
CHAPTER XXL 
 
 BURNEY ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 
 
 Having followed Dr. Burney in his examination 
 of the types and found him so far at fault, it neces- 
 sarily follows that his theory, in its application to 
 the great antitype, will be also. 
 
 Burney. "Section I. The obedience of Christ 
 in what sense he obeyed the law." -Page 194. 
 
 Comment. His theory reduces the obedience of 
 Christ entirely to law-keeping. "Made under the 
 law," he kept it in every jot and tittle, and this is 
 the sum of what is meant by Christ's obedience, 
 according to Burney. If this be true, we can never 
 have a perfect standing until our life is perfect; or 
 else Christ's law-keeping must be imputed to us for 
 righteousness. Can Dr. Burney ever reconcile his 
 theory with the perfect standing every believer has 
 in Christ according to the Bible? u Ye are clean 
 every whit" is never true from Burney 's stand- 
 point. 
 
 Burney. "The law under which he was born 
 is the great moral law, which is conservative of the 
 harmony and happiness of the moral world." 
 Page 194. 
 
 Comment. i. Then his obedience that led him 
 to come from heaven was law keeping also. 
 
334 ATONEMENT. 
 
 2. The law only required love to a neighbor. 
 
 "It hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
 bor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, 
 love your enemies." 
 
 This went beyond the requirement of law. Christ 
 proclaimed a grander law of love. This must not 
 be forgotten. We are apt to judge the morals of 
 the Jew the imprecations of the Psalms, the man- 
 ner in which they treated their enemies, and the 
 many similar facts in their history by the standard 
 of Christian ethics. This goes far beyond the law 
 as a rule of action. 
 
 Burney" Paul says (Phil. ii. 8) : * Christ being 
 found in 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. 1 8), 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." Page 
 194. 
 
 Comment. i. Phil. ii. 8, teaches that Christ's 
 death was an act of obedience, but it does not 
 teach that it was "obedience to the law" This 
 last is Burney's addition to the Bible. He came to 
 do the Father's will, and his death was obedience 
 to that will, but not to the law. 
 
 2. Christ's obedience was his death, yet Dr. Burney 
 says we are made " partakers of his own personal 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 335 
 
 obedience," which is a sheer impossibility. How 
 can we be made partakers of the personal obe- 
 dience of another? 
 
 3. He makes Christ's death "the one act of obe- 
 dience," "the one act of righteousness." In the 
 last he follows the New Translation. The old reads, 
 "by the righteousness of one." We have exam- 
 ined some six translations besides, and the revised 
 is the only one that so renders it. The Greek reads, 
 
 "Even so by one righteousness toward all men, 
 for justification of life." Or, "by righteousness of 
 one." 
 
 The same word is translated "justification" in 
 verse 16 of the Revised Version, and why it is ren- 
 dered ' ' one act of righteousness ' ' here, we can not 
 understand, nor do we believe it can be maintained. 
 
 The verb datfuoHtes expresses the act of justifying 
 or making righteous. The noun drxfucopa, the state 
 of righteousness or justification that results from 
 this act. How they can get the act out of the state 
 we can not see. 
 
 But even if we accept the new translation, it 
 must be in a sense which excludes Burney's "act 
 of obedience" That most certainly d^auo^a never 
 can be. 
 
 Burney. "I answer, it was preceptive obedience 
 the doing purposely, and even joyfully (Heb. xii. 
 2), just what the law required him to do." Page 
 196. 
 
336 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Comment. A precept is a command intended as 
 a rule of action. An act of obedience (if precept- 
 ive) implies that the specific thing done was com- 
 manded to be done. But Christ's death was never 
 commanded by the law. 
 
 Burney. "If Moses, under a higher degree of 
 mental agony, had died on this occasion [when he 
 said, Blot me out of thy book], he would have died 
 of love, or obedience; from loving God and his 
 neighbor as himself not in their stead, but on 
 their account. 
 
 u We know that the human organism is capable 
 of only a limited amount of mental disturbance. 
 Excessive joy and excessive grief often induce 
 death. Christ's sinlessness probably rendered him 
 pre-eminently capable of love or obedience unto 
 death from mental suffering . . . 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 man 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 ;aw 
 required not &jot more nor less." Page 196. 
 
 Comment. i. This is a strange philosophy. That 
 loving ever directly killed any one is an absurdity. 
 As the love that is commanded by law requires, in 
 order to obedience, an act of the will, it follows 
 that a man may put an end to his own life by an 
 act of will alone, if Burney 's philosophy is true. 
 
 A sudden shock when the constitution is weak, 
 or the heart is diseased, may cause death, or a per- 
 son may pine away from unrequited love, but no 
 one was ever killed by loving. If Dr. Burney means 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 337 
 
 that his love led him to endure great mental agony 
 or suffering, and this suffering resulted in his death, 
 that is another thing. If there was no direct 
 necessity for this agony or suffering, as when a 
 man injures himself in saving the life of another, 
 then the law of love can not require it. The suffer- 
 ing can never be required unless a direct benefit 
 comes from the suffering itself. 
 
 A mother grieves over the waywardness of her 
 son, and this grief leads to her death. But is it in 
 fulfillment of the law of love that she dies? By no 
 means. I^ove to God implies trust and submission, 
 and where this is found there will never be such 
 excessive grief. Such grief is itself a violation of 
 the law of love. Such love is degraded by selfish- 
 ness; and such love God never asks. 
 
 2. Dr. Burney holds that death is the result of 
 the frailty of the "human organism," but clearly 
 holds that there was no such necessary frailty in 
 Christ. He could only die if he so willed. Passive 
 obedience Burney regards as utterly "inconceiv- 
 able; " hence he says, "no act of his ministry was 
 more purely voluntary than was his death, which 
 was in the highest sense an act of obedience 
 not passive, but active." There can be no mis- 
 take here. L,ove itself would never have destroyed 
 Christ; his death had to be his own voluntary 
 act. 
 
 A voluntary death never fulfills any law, unless 
 
 there is a distinct good to be accomplished by that 
 
 death. If that death was essential to the salvation 
 
 of men, love would lead him to endure that death. 
 
 23 
 
338 ATONEMENT. 
 
 If it was not essential, then, if voluntary, it was 
 simply suicide. 
 
 To say that it was necessary, that he might fulfill 
 the law of love, and then to say that the law of 
 love required it because it was necessary, is to 
 reason in a circle. A need for that death must be 
 shown apart from the law of love, before the law 
 could ever demand that Christ should die. This 
 need the non-penal theory can not show. 
 
 Burney. u 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 ourselves, but it does not require useless sacri- 
 fices." Page 197. 
 
 Comment. This evades the issue. Does the law 
 .require me to love until that love shall be so great 
 as to deprive of life ? If the law does not require 
 .this of all, it does not require it of Christ. A use- 
 less sacrifice is no more demanded of Christ than of 
 any one else; and his death would be useless unless 
 a distinct need can be shown for it, and that need is 
 not shown by saying the law of love demands it. 
 
 Burney. "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 sacrifice. 
 
 "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 them- 
 selves in sacrifice in such a manner and for such a 
 purpose." Page 198. 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 339 
 
 Comment. i. That a man should sacrifice his 
 life to save his soul, if necessary, is contradictory. 
 We can not conceive of any case where suicide 
 would be right. 
 
 2. As we can not make such a sacrifice for our- 
 selves, it is equally impossible for us to make such a 
 sacrifice for our neighbors. What good could one 
 man's suicide do another? None, but positive 
 harm. To call such suicide a sacrifice is absurd. 
 We call special attention to this because it is the 
 great effort to explain that which is fatal to the 
 non-penal theory, namely, the utter impossibility 
 of giving a rational explanation of the sufferings 
 and death of Christ. 
 
 Bnrnev. " But Christ was not a mere man, but 
 the God-man. This union of the human with the 
 divine rendered him capable of redeeming human- 
 ity 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. " Page 198. 
 
 Comment. As Dr. Burney admits, the volun- 
 tary death of a mere man would avail nothing, 
 hence, would be simply suicide. But he argues that 
 the death of Christ would avail, because he is the 
 God-man. And because his death would ' c sanctify 
 and save," the law of love demands it We ask, 
 Was this obedience rendered by him as man or as 
 God? If he says as God, then it would be God 
 loving himself. If as man, Burney has shown 
 that man's voluntary death would be of no avail. 
 
 As Dr. Burney repudiates any theandric acts, and 
 
340 ATONEMENT. 
 
 denies the real theandric character of Christ, how 
 will he make Christ's death differ from that of a 
 mere man ? " 
 
 The truth is that the non-penal theory, while 
 professing to avoid the weak places of Calviiiistic 
 substitution, is open to the same objections itself, 
 while bristling with absurdities that Calvinism was 
 never charged with. It is but another illustration 
 of the inconsistencies of error. As Dr. Burney 
 denies that Christ did any thing not purely human 
 or divine, what he here says is unmeaning. 
 
 Burney. " 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 (Luke 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.' ' 
 
 Comment. This is Burney's proof that Christ's 
 death was required by the law, the words in italics, 
 he thinks, indicating this obligation. 
 
 If our readers will examine Luke, they will find 
 that the argument there is that this obligation came 
 from the fact that it was predicted. Having shown 
 that it was taught in the Bible that Christ should 
 die, he asks them, " Ought not," etc. Not one 
 word about the law. 
 
 Burney. " i. But you ask, how comes this lov- 
 ing obedience unto death to be an all-sufficient 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 341 
 
 sacrifice for the sins of the whole brotherhood of 
 h 11 inanity ? 
 
 u 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-appointed 
 priest, commissioned by God as was Aaron, but be- 
 cause 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, 
 offering his own blood or human life as a sacrifice 
 for the sins of the world, that is to say, the divine 
 in 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 con- 
 tact 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 
 sacrifices placed upon it. (i Cor. vii. 14.) 
 
 u 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." 
 Page 200. 
 
 Comment. We quote this and what follows in 
 full, because it is the non-penal theory, and we want 
 it fairly before our readers. 
 
 i. Like Bushnell, he makes the blood a symbol 
 of life. This, we have abundantly shown, is not the 
 Bible thought. Burney, however, makes a different 
 application of the symbol. Bushnell made it a 
 symbol of the worshiper offering his own life, or 
 consecrating that life to God. Burney makes it the 
 
342 ATONEMENT. 
 
 offering of Christ's human life as a sacrifice for the 
 sins of the world, and that is substitution, after all. 
 If he offered that life for himself, it would not be; 
 but if it was offered for others, it certainly was. 
 God's anger is turned away by the offering of 
 Christ's life as a sacrifice. Then, as the sacrifice 
 was not for himself, it was vicarious. 
 
 But we will examine Burney more at length. 
 
 Burney. "For the sake of greater distinctness, 
 I recapitulate as follows : 
 
 u i. 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 human- 
 ity." Page 201. 
 
 Comment. I. The Doctor simply means in his 
 first proposition that Christ, being God, is holy. 
 What he says about Moses and Aaron is foreign to 
 the argument, and confuses it, because they were 
 only holy in the ritual sense of ' ' set apart. ' ' 
 
 2. As to the essential fact that because Christ 
 was divine his humanity was holy, we are fully in 
 accord with Burney. We object, however,, to the 
 statement that his humanity was sanctified and so 
 rendered acceptable to God. The Bible does not 
 teach this. The miraculous conception insured the 
 holiness of his humanity, which never needed to 
 be sanctified, and as holy, could not be. 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 343 
 
 Burney. "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 
 sanctification. 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. 4.)" Page 202. 
 
 Comment. i. The altar, laver, the holy vessels, 
 and the tabernacle, were all sanctified that is, con- 
 secrated or set apart to the service of God. But 
 this was done by Moses and not by Aaron, and done 
 by the blood and the oil. This shows confusion as 
 to the distinction between a prophet and a priest. 
 Moses was a prophet, not a priest, and to conse- 
 crate was the work of a prophet. 
 
 2. He fails to discriminate between sanctification 
 and regeneration. Because Aaron (as he erroneous- 
 ly asserts,) could sanctify in the sense of consecrate, 
 therefore Christ can regenerate. But this is illog- 
 ical and shows a failure to distinguish that is fatal 
 to his theory. 
 
 3. Moses, Joshua, and Samuel are said to sanctify 
 the people. At other times the people are told to 
 sanctify themselves. And again we read of men 
 sanctifying houses and goods. It was not necessary 
 that it should be done by a priest even the ritual 
 sanctification. 
 
 4. It was never said that the sacrifice sanctified, 
 although the blood did. But the blood had this 
 power only because it made atonement. 
 
344 ATONEMENT. 
 
 5. The idea that Christ could impart "real holi- 
 ness" instead of a ritual, because he was a " priest 
 in his own right," is a strange misapprehension of 
 Scripture. What does he mean by u in his own 
 right ? " The Bible shows that Christ, like Aaron, 
 was called to his work (Heb. v. 4, 5), and, like 
 Aaron, was consecrated and set apart. It would be 
 hard to find a greater medley than Dr. Burney gives 
 in this extract. 
 
 Burney. "4. Whatever is offered in sacrifice by 
 priestly authority sanctifies that for which it is 
 offered, so as to render it acceptable to God in either 
 a ritual or real sense." Page 202. 
 
 Comment. This indicates the same mis-concep- 
 tion as to priest and sacrifice. A sacrifice was never 
 offered to sanctify the offerer, but to make atonement 
 for him, and only as it did this was he accepted of 
 the Lord. 
 
 Burney. "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 justifying 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 him, he is the lyord, their righteousness." 
 Page 201. 
 
 Comment. i. He here fully recognizes the im- 
 parting of life, and in this we are in full accord, 
 with this difference : that we look upon it as a part 
 . of redemption, but not the whole. 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 345 
 
 2. The sacrifice of Christ makes all men accept- 
 ablesanctifies all. Then, are they acceptable as 
 sinners, or because sin is not imputed to them ? If 
 sin is not imputed to them, on what ground ? What 
 becomes of it? 
 
 3. This being made acceptable is the same old 
 difficulty in another form. They are made accept- 
 able, and they are not. Christ's sacrifice sanctifies, 
 and it does not. 
 
 4. u 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." Then 
 God could not justly justify the believer without 
 the sacrifice. That is the plain and only meaning 
 of the words. But in the next sentence we read, 
 "God is just in justifying such, simply because 
 they by faith are made partakers of Christ's holi- 
 ness," etc. Here it is just "simply" because of 
 life being imparted. But this contradicts what goes 
 before. This is the logical result of trying to put 
 the non-penal theory into garments made for substi- 
 tution. But let us press the matter a little further. 
 
 Would the impartation of life alone be sufficient 
 to save ? Burney must answer this in the affirm- 
 ative. . He holds that God only requires the re- 
 moval of the criminality. 
 
 If this is all that is needed, why is the sacrifice 
 of Christ required? We pass on to find further 
 light, if we can. 
 
 Burney. U 6. But you wish to know the author- 
 ity for the assertion that Christ by his sacrificial death 
 did sanctify, set apart, or appropriate, humanity to 
 
346 ATONEMENT. 
 
 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. 
 1 Wherefore Jesus, that he might sanctify the peo- 
 ple with his own blood, suffered without the gate.' 
 (Heb. xiii. 12.)" Page 202. 
 
 Comment. i. He here recognizes that men could 
 not be saved by faith without this sacrifice. Does 
 he mean that the sacrifice was necessary to make it 
 just for him to do it, or that it was necessary as the 
 means to the end, the end being the imparting of 
 life. If he means the last, it is a play upon words 
 to speak as he does in the last quotation. 
 
 2. This authority, "clear and explicit," what 
 does it teach? Does it teach that he did or 
 "might " sanctify the people ? If Burney's exegesis 
 is true, it logically results in Universalism. Let us 
 see. ' ' By the which will we are sanctified by the 
 offering of the body of the Jesus Christ once for 
 all." (Heb. x. 10.) This evidently is the same 
 truth, a parallel text. Again, " For by one offering 
 he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." 
 (x. 14.) 
 
 If the truth applies to all men, then all men are 
 saved. The true application is to the Christian. 
 Never in any scripture does the blood of Christ 
 sanctify a sinner. 
 
 Burney. " 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. 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 347 
 
 ' ' It was the grand antitype of the atonement made 
 on the great day of the 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 succeeding year, bring his individual 
 sacrifices before the altar." Page 203. 
 
 Comment. i. Burney's idea as to the relation of 
 the Day of Atonement to individual sacrifices has no 
 Bible foundation. Long before the Day of Atone- 
 ment had a place, sacrifices were offered. The Day 
 of Atonement was special to the Jew, sacrifices were 
 universal as the race. 
 
 2. The work of the Day of Atonement was for 
 all the Lord's people, but not for any beyond. If 
 Burney's parallel is true, then as the Day of Atone- 
 ment was for the chosen people only, logically, we 
 have a limited atonement. 
 
 3. ' ' That he might ' ' does not imply that he did. 
 It only shows availability, leaving the question of 
 actual sane tifi cation to be settled on other grounds. 
 
 Summing up the whole examination, it seems 
 that Dr. Burney holds that all that is needed is the 
 removal of the depraved nature. Yet he recognizes 
 that God is angry, and needs to be propitiated. We 
 frankly say that just here we find it difficult to 
 comprehend the meaning of Burney. Sometimes 
 he seems to make the removal of the sin propitiate, 
 and then again, he seems to recognize more. If we 
 understand him here, the sacrifice of Christ propi- 
 tiates, appeases the anger of God, in such a sense 
 as to make it possible for God to impart life to 
 the believer. In this we are in exact accord. 
 
348 ATONEMENT. 
 
 But the question comes, how does Christ's sacrifice 
 propitiate ? 
 
 Burney. v 'The sacrificial death of Christ seems 
 to propitiate, because it was an act of perfect obe- 
 dience obedience unto death which, as a sacrifice, 
 was to God a sweet-smelling savor, and which fur- 
 nishes an expedient by which justice and mercy 
 fully concur in the salvation of believers and all the 
 prerogatives of God as universal Father and Gov- 
 ernor are fully honored that is, we are saved by 
 grace, not by law, nor in violation of law, but in 
 accordance with law." Page 310. 
 
 Comment. Certainly very disappointing. Bur- 
 ney discusses largely u penal substitution," law 
 and penalty, Bible atonements, etc., but here at the 
 heart of the question where every thing hinges, he 
 has but little to say. How does Christ's sacrifice 
 propitiate God ? Substitutionists say by his meet- 
 ing the demands of God against the sinner, in 
 their stead or place. What Burney says is found 
 in this extract. 
 
 First. It makes Christ's death an act of obedience 
 to law. We have sufficiently examined this. 
 
 Second. It makes his sacrifice propitiate God for 
 us. But how ? We have been impressed that Dr. 
 Burney really gives two answers to this question- 
 one real, the other unreal. This seems to be neces- 
 sitated by the effort to harmonize his theory with 
 Bible language and Bible facts. They are indicated 
 in the double language of the extracts we have 
 given. It propitiates because it was an act of obe- 
 dience. It propitiates because it furnishes an expe- 
 dient, etc. If we understand Burney, he really 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 349 
 
 teaches that the removal of the depravity is that 
 which propitiates God. This depravity is removed 
 by the impartation of Christ's holy life to men 
 when they believe; this can be imparted because it 
 is brought into the sphere of humanity by the union 
 of the divine and the human in Christ. This is 
 the non-penal theory, and all it requires. "To 
 disobey is to be put under penalty." "To return 
 to obedience is to be freed from the penalty." Bur- 
 ney can not show a rational ground for the death of 
 Christ on this theory, nor even for the Incarnation. 
 Divine life could be imparted without either, if 
 nothing more is needed than its impartation. Dr. 
 Burney will hardly hold that we are made partakers 
 of the human nature of Christ, for the word says, 
 "partakers of the divine nature." Nothing less 
 will do. Dr. Burney sees that this, while the true 
 logical conclusion from his premises, will not harmo- 
 nize with what the Bible says of the sufferings and 
 death of Christ. He thus recognizes that God is 
 propitiated by the death of Christ, but as to how, 
 he has no theory at all, for in answer to what is 
 practically the same question, he answers : 
 
 ' ' Omniscience alone, I suppose, could answer 
 the question." Page 311. 
 
 Is there any ground, in justice, for God's anger? 
 Is it more than capricious humor ? If there is any 
 just basis for that anger, must it not be removed 
 before the anger can be ? 
 
 We believe the anger is appeased, because Christ 
 met and satisfied the demand for retribution. 
 
 Dr. Burney believes that the "one act of obedi- 
 
350 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ence" propitiates, yet there is nothing to link the 
 sinner with this obedience, it not being- vicarious. 
 But how it propitiates he fails to tell us. 
 
 Burney. u 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 meto- 
 nymical sense; or, as the cause put for the effect, 
 and is equivalent to death, which is the natural 
 effect of suffering." Page 258. 
 
 Comment. It is one objection to Biirney's the- 
 ory that he has to explain away the force of so 
 many plain scriptures. Suffering and death are 
 never synonymous, and are never so used in the 
 Scriptures. Blood shedding and death are. 
 
 Burney. "Had it been possible for Christ to 
 experience a sacrificial death without suffering at 
 all, either bodily or mentally, the propitiatory sac- 
 rifice would have been accepted." Page 259. 
 
 Comment. i. If the sufferings were unneces- 
 sary, why did he suffer ? He was not under the 
 necessity of death, and, therefore, was not under 
 the necessity of suffering. His death, being in the 
 highest sense voluntary, could have been endured 
 without suffering. 
 
 2. In the text Burney quotes, " Ought not Christ 
 to have suffered these things ?' ' the ought, or obli- 
 gation, was to siiffer as well as to die. Substitu- 
 tion fully recognizes the sufferings of Christ, the 
 non-penal theory does not. Every text that speaks 
 of the sufferings of Christ is therefore a proof text 
 against the non-penal theory. 
 
ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 351 
 
 3. And here we advance an argument that forever 
 destroys the non-penal theory. It is a fact that 
 Christ did suffer, and that those sufferings were the 
 greatest known to men. According to Burney, sin 
 and penalty are causally connected, what, then, was 
 the cause of Chrises sufferings? Can obedience 
 to the law of love causally produce suffering? 
 This, according to Dr. Burney 's own philosophy 
 and logic, is impossible. Can we have an effect 
 without a cause? That, also, is impossible. How, 
 then, are we to explain the sufferings of Christ? 
 What caused them ? We believe that the sufferings 
 and death of Christ are insurmountable obstacles 
 in the way of the non-penal theory, and forever 
 destroy it. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 BURNEY'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTITUTION. 
 
 We begin with those that ought to be the most 
 weighty, his "Scripture proof. 1 ' His first quota- 
 tion is Eph. v. 2 : U A sacrifice to God for a sweet- 
 smelling savor." On this he says: 
 
 Burney. u If Christ's sufferings were penal a 
 real punishment 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." Page 208. 
 
 Comment. i. No substitutionist so holds. To 
 charge it as a logical consequence is to ignore im- 
 portant Bible distinctions between the offerings, 
 those that are sweet-savor offerings, and those that 
 are not. 
 
 2. But while not true of substitution, the objec- 
 tion may be properly urged against the non-penal 
 theory. Dr. Burney does teach that the sufferings 
 of Christ are a sweet smell, which we utterly repu- 
 diate as dishonoring to God, and "repugnant to 
 the instincts that God has endowed us with." 
 He says, ( ( Christ's sufferings were to him a sweet- 
 smelling savor." 
 
 How can God find pleasure in suffering? The 
 non-penal theory, when it advances this heathenish 
 
OBJECTIONS. 353 
 
 idea, affirms that God is cruel having pleasure in 
 suffering when the Bible says that " God is love." 
 Every text that teaches the love and goodness of 
 God is a protest against the non-penal theory. 
 
 Burney. " Every text in the Bible that repre- 
 sents Christ as a voluntary agent, acting in the 
 interests of humanity, is a protest against this pas- 
 sive and penal obedience theory, for the sufficient 
 reason that what is voluntary can not be either 
 passive or penal." Page 212. 
 
 Comment. i. We are not concerned about u pas- 
 sive and penal obedience, ' ' as they are terms we do 
 not like or use. But that substitution requires 
 that Christ should be a stick or stone, entirely des- 
 titute of volition, is certainly an unwarrantable 
 assumption. The essence of his work was in 
 "coming" to do the Father's will, and only as he 
 assumed, of his own volition, our place, could he be 
 our substitute. Just what Burney means by u what 
 is voluntary is not .... penal," is not plain. If 
 he means the penalty, of course it is not; volition 
 belongs to persons only. If he means that the in- 
 fliction of the penalty is not voluntary, then he di- 
 vorces God from it, and it is wrong to speak of God as 
 punishing sin. If lie means that submission to a 
 penalty is not voluntary, we say that many a man has 
 surrendered himself to the law and borne its pen- 
 alty. If he means that its assumption by a substi- 
 tute would not be voluntary, it is manifestly untrue, 
 as to assume is a voluntary act, and no one holds 
 that Christ was a substitute against his will. If 
 he means "penal" in his own sense of a conse- 
 24 
 
354 ATONEMENT. 
 
 quence, it is a begging of the question. We reject 
 his definition of penal in toto. 
 
 2. The only text he quotes is " Lo, I come to do 
 thy will, O God." But this text is squarely 
 opposed to the non- penal theory, because it tells us 
 what Christ's object was in coming. Dr. Burney 
 makes it his object after he came. Then Christ's 
 coining from heaven to earth, his becoming poor 
 when he was rich, was all purposeless. The will 
 Christ came to do was God's will as to the salva- 
 tion of men. The non-penal theory reduces it to 
 Christ's law keeping, hence it necessitates that we 
 are saved by a legal righteousness, whether it be 
 imputed or imparted (if such can be). 
 
 Burney. u Every text in the Bible that specifies 
 the object 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 
 answers, By bearing the punishment of their sins 
 in their stead. The answer is unnatural, not to 
 say impossible." Page 213. 
 
 Comment. The penal theory of Dr. Burney 
 teaches some very strange things. He sees substi- 
 tution in a convex mirror. Our answer to the 
 question would be that the sufferings of Christ, 
 being in their stead, saves from the penalty 
 of transgression, while the imparted life saves 
 from depravity and its consequences, thus fitting 
 for heaven. 
 
 If he saves them, how does the statement that 
 he saves conflict with it? Burney answers, be- 
 
OBJECTIONS. 355 
 
 cause salvation is impossible, according to his 
 opinion, by substitution. As salvation without 
 substitution is impossible, every such text is a pro- 
 test against Burneyism. 
 
 Burney. " Christ ' appeared to put away sin by 
 the sacrifice of himself.' Substitution requires 
 this to mean that Christ came to suffer the punish- 
 ment of sin as a penal sacrifice." Page 213. 
 
 Comment. Dr. Burney here mixes up condition 
 and consequent. In the text he quotes, we have 
 the condition Christ's sacrifice, and the consequent 
 sins put away. Dr. Burney, in his statement, 
 makes a condition of both clauses. To " suffer the 
 punishment (penalty) of sin," and a "penal sacri- 
 fice," are synonymous. To give a fair statement it 
 should be, ' ' Christ puts away sin by offering him- 
 self as a penal sacrifice. ' ' 
 
 As the essential part of the sacrifice was the 
 death of the victim, Dr. Burney, having no logical 
 use for the death of Christ in his theory, the text is 
 a protest against it. 
 
 Burney. u ' 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 
 destroys the works of the devil by enduring the 
 punishment of all the sins Satan is able to insti- 
 gate. This is like saying that physicians destroy 
 disease by suffering the pains that it produces in 
 their patients." 
 
 Comment. i. This is what substitution would 
 say if it ignored (which it does not) the moral 
 aspect of the atonement. 
 
356 ATONEMENT. 
 
 2. As it is u works, " not work, what are these? 
 Is not the exposure to the curse of the law one of 
 the works of the devil? As Burney ignores the 
 legal aspect of the atonement, we may say of the 
 non-penal theory that it is like saving a murderer 
 from the gallows by making a Christian of him. 
 
 Burney. u Every text that gives any insight 
 into the character 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." Page 213. 
 
 Comment. He assumes that substitution requires 
 that Christ should experience the same mental 
 states as the sinner. This we utterly repudiate. 
 He confounds the consequences of depravity, which 
 can never be borne by a substitute, with the pen- 
 alty of transgression. 
 
 Burney. u For God to satisfy his own justice in 
 the place of the sinner would be to suffer the pen- 
 alty of his own law that is, to suffer the conse- 
 quences of not loving himself, which is incon- 
 ceivable. But if this were possible, it would be the 
 same thing as pardoning sin without any satisfac- 
 tion at all." 
 
 Comment. i. Still confusion between penalty 
 and consequence. 
 
 2. The penalty suffered was for the sins of others, 
 not his own, and was endured without any crim- 
 inality on his part. 
 
 3. It is as man that Christ suffers, not as God. 
 
 4. Burney's theory is open to the same argument ; 
 
OBJECTIONS. 357 
 
 Christ died of love to himself, if his logic above is 
 sound. The whole objection ignores the person- 
 ality of the Lord Jesus and the moral government 
 of God, with its claims. 
 
 5. While substitution is not pardon without sat- 
 isfaction, it is to poor sinners the highest grace; 
 and pardon is an act of grace, because the whole sal- 
 vation is provided by Him, and is unmerited by us. 
 
 Burney. "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." 
 
 Comment. i. We do not accept the term "com- 
 pensating," and if any penalist has- used it, we 
 leave him to bear the brunt of Burney's logic, 
 which here is certainly sound. The law-giver de- 
 mands obedience, and threatens a penalty for dis- 
 obedience. Where there is disobedience, there is 
 therefore the demand that the penalty shall be 
 inflicted. This penalty, when borne by a substi- 
 tute, meets satisfies this demand. We abide the 
 logic, that if this is done by a substitute, it must 
 do the same when done by the principals. If this 
 were not true, how would punishment be just? 
 
 2. Bearing the penalty, vicariously or personally, 
 never saves from depravity and its consequences, 
 and gives no title or fitness for heaven. As this 
 comes only from union with Christ, no devil can 
 ever be saved. 
 
358 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Burney. "Sins pardoned are not punished, and 
 sins punished are not pardoned; that pardon is 
 exemption from punishment on conditions satis- 
 factory to the pardoning power." 
 
 Comment. Deliverance is not pardon, nor is 
 pardon deliverance. Past sins, having been pun- 
 ished, can not be pardoned. Sins not commit- 
 ted can not be pardoned, for they have no exist- 
 ence. Then the non-penal theory has no pardon; 
 for, according to its teaching, every sin has been 
 punished when committed. 
 
 : u Sins pardoned are not punished," etc., is true 
 as to an offender in person, but does not apply to 
 substitution, where the conditions are changed. 
 
 Burney. "The non-penal denies that there is 
 .any propitiation in penal suffering." 
 
 Comment. i. Then it is wrong to say, "he has 
 been punished enough," and it is a mistake that 
 there is any thing that prompts us to so speak. 
 
 2. We most certainly deny that there is any pro- 
 pitiation in the non-penal theory. 
 
 Burney. "It is impossible for one person to 
 obey the moral law or to love God, in the room of 
 another, and to suffer the penalty (which is the con- 
 sequence of not loving him) in the place of 
 another; that Christ obeys the law in his own place; 
 that his own personal righteousness or obedience is 
 imparted to believers, in the act of believing, as 
 was Adam's vitiated nature and corruption evi- 
 dently imparted to us by heredity." Page 192. 
 
 Comment. : i. The same old confusion between 
 penalty and consequence! 
 
OBJECTIONS. 359 
 
 2. An imparted obedience is absurd and impos- 
 sible; as well talk of Adam's personal disobedience 
 being imparted. It is life, not obedience, that is 
 imparted. Acts can not be imparced, a nature may; 
 hence, we are made partakers of the divine nature. 
 But if the ace can not be impaled, the mental state, 
 we suppose, can not be awakened; and therefore, to 
 obtain the "mental state," we must have an im- 
 parted obedience. It is the same difficulty again, 
 that we pointed out before, giving the sense of 
 dxoattMHt to dsx 
 
 Burney. "How can penal suffering be as a sweet 
 savor to any being less than satanic ? Page 209. 
 
 Comment. Dr. Burney utterly fails to compre- 
 hend the distinction between sweet-savor offerings 
 and those that are not. Substitution does not teach 
 that Christ's sufferings were a sweet savor. 
 
 Burney. "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." Page 215. 
 
 Comment. i. Sin never determines any thing. 
 To determine is to exercise a judgment, and no one 
 is competent to do this but God. The idea of sin 
 determining and fixing punishment is on the face 
 of it absurd. It is God alone who, in the judgment, 
 will determine the penalty and inflict it. We have 
 explained this, however, in full. 
 
360 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Burney. u Christ, by the obedience which he 
 learned through what he suffered, became our 
 great High-priest, and consequently the author of 
 eternal salvation to them that obey him. But it is 
 pertinent to inquire, is penal suffering penal fire 
 a prerequisite to the priesthood ? If it is, then, 
 of course, Christ suffered 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." Page 217. 
 
 Comment. i. Burney is here commenting on 
 Heb. v. 7-10, and his exposition is that Christ be- 
 came a priest on the ground of his sufferings, and 
 that because a priest, the author of salvation. This 
 misplaces the order of Paul. He learned obedience 
 by suffering; and having been perfected, became to 
 all that obey him the author of salvation. Called, 
 or saluted, by God as a priest. His priesthood rested 
 upon his being the author of salvation, and by his 
 priesthood he finished it. Priesthood is founded 
 upon atonement, as we saw in the case of Phinehas. 
 
 2. It must be remembered that while there was a 
 sweet savor a burnt-offering aspect of the work 
 of Christ, there can be no such to the sufferings of 
 devils. If the sufferings of devils could make atone- 
 ment, the Doctor's argument might have force. 
 
 Burney. "No high-priest or any other priest, 
 Jewish or pagan, ever bore the guilt and punishment 
 of those for whom he ministered. Substitution re- 
 quires no priest. As a theory an executioner is all 
 it needs." Page 27. 
 
OBJECTIONS. 361 
 
 Comment. i. "No priest, Jewish or pagan," 
 was ever both priest and sacrifice. In this Christ 
 is unique. 
 
 2. Christ bore our sins as the lamb, not as 
 priest. 
 
 3. Substitutionists show that after the offerer has 
 slain the victim, a priest is needed to present the 
 blood to God and make intercession for the believer ; 
 this is a real need. His idea of an executioner is 
 a misconception of the priest's work. But as Bur- 
 ney has shown no real need for the death of Christ, 
 the non-penal theory, by rejecting substitution, 
 rejects a priest. 
 
 Btirney. "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."- Page 104. 
 
 Comment. i. It is not a question of "right," 
 but can God consistently clear the guilty ? 
 
 2. While this objection has force against some 
 theories of substitution, it does not apply to that 
 advocated in this book. We do not hold that one 
 penalty is put in the place of another. 
 
 Burney. "A child in rebellion against a loving 
 but indignant parent needs to be changed, not the 
 parent." Page 143. 
 
 Comment. i. The relationship that is here as- 
 sumed has no existence, as nowhere does the Bible 
 affirm that the sinner is a son. Christ repudiated 
 
362 ATONEMENT. 
 
 the claim when made by the Jews, saying, " Ye are 
 of your father, the devil." 
 
 2. Arguments founded upon the natural affection 
 of fallen men, with the moral sense blunted, and 
 the affection supreme over all moral considerations, 
 must be faulty. The relation of God to fallen 
 humanity is totally different from that of a loving 
 father and a rebellious child. This figure is only 
 true as to believers. Such ideas necessitate a fail- 
 ure in seeing the true ground of the need of atone- 
 ment. 
 
 3. Burney recognizes propitiation as necessary; 
 is this a change in the mind of the sinner, or 
 what? 
 
 4. Again, the sinner can not change himself. 
 What then ? On what ground does God regenerate 
 him? 
 
 Burney. u How could Christ's sufferings recon* 
 cile God's justice and love, which had no quarrel? 
 Does sin disharmonize the divine attributes, as well 
 as abnormalize the human soul ? Surely if sin can 
 array one attribute against another, or create dis- 
 harmony in the divine nature, then it must be 
 mightier than God himself." Page 144. 
 
 Comment. This argument properly belongs to 
 the substitutionist. Dr. Burney will agree that God 
 is holy, and that this holiness leads to separation from 
 the sinfulness of the creature and anger against the 
 wrong-doer. He will also agree that God is love, 
 and therefore desires the happiness of all his creat- 
 ures. Substitutionists claim that to save men 
 without meeting the demands of his holiness, 
 
OBJECTIONS. 363 
 
 would be "to disharmonize the divine attributes; " 
 and as this is impossible, men can not be saved 
 without atonement. Dr. Burney teaches that this is 
 done when depravity is removed by imparting life. 
 If this is all, is God able to remove this corruption 
 by an act of will ? If he is able, and this is all 
 that is needed, will he not save all ? To admit that 
 God can and will not, is to admit a barrier in the 
 divine nature to admit that God must be pro- 
 pitiated that he can only save on grounds that are 
 just. In the light of Burney' s objection, we see no 
 logical alternatives but a recognition of the demands 
 of God's holiness, or Universalism. 
 
 To recognize this demand does not "create dis- 
 harmony " in the divine nature, for his attributes 
 remain in all their perfection immutably and eter- 
 nally the same; but so far as men are concerned, 
 the perfection of God renders salvation impossible 
 without atonement. 
 
 Burney. u No man voluntarily, much less joy- 
 fully, encountered penalty. Penalty is necessarily 
 involuntary, for any suffering voluntarily endured 
 in the interest of another is not penalty, but bene- 
 faction." 
 
 Comment. i. When it says, "who, for the joy' 
 that was set before him," it does not mean that his 
 sacrifice of himself was the joy, that would be a 
 contradiction. There is no sacrifice in what is a 
 joy. It means the joy that was set before him in 
 the results the glory coming as the fruit of it; 
 hence, he ( ' endured ' ' the cross. 
 
 2. That if a penalty be voluntarily assumed, it 
 
364 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ceases to be a penalty, is pure assumption. If he 
 simply means that penalty can not be so assumed, 
 because it is a consequence (from his stand-point), 
 then he begs the whole question. That the volun- 
 tary assumption of the penalty by a substitute de- 
 stroys the vicarious nature of the transaction is self- 
 evidently false. Of course, from any theory of the 
 atonement, even the most rigid Calvinistic, salva- 
 tion is benefaction a benefit conferred upon the 
 saved. But what has that to do with the manner 
 in which this benefit accrues to us ? 
 
 Burney. "I repeat with emphasis that the sub- 
 stitutionary theory requires no risen or living inter- 
 ceding Christ" 
 
 Comment. The non-penal theory requires no 
 dead, and therefore no risen, Christ, if it is consistent 
 with its own fundamental principles. Every reader 
 of Burney 's book can see that the death of Christ is 
 an incubus to his theory. The substitution advo- 
 cated in these pages requires necessitates both a 
 dead and a risen Christ. 
 
 Burney. u L,et me emphasize this immutable 
 truth : The penalty can never remove the dis- 
 obedience or guilt of which it is the consequence. ' ' 
 Page 257. 
 
 Comment. i. True, therefore, from any stand- 
 point, on any theory, it must remain eternally true 
 that we did commit the sin, and that its demerit is 
 ours. We all recognize this and sing 
 
 ( 'Amazing grace, how sweet the sound 
 That saves a wretch like me. ' ' 
 
OBJECTIONS. 365 
 
 How an act of disobedience can be undone, or its 
 demerit ever removed, even Dr. Burney fails to tell 
 us. 
 
 2. If he means that bearing the penalty does not 
 remove depravity, we fully agree, as that is another 
 thing. On the other hand, while the removal of 
 the depravity removes its consequences, it remains 
 eternally and immutably true that its removal never 
 saves from penalty already incurred. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 BURNEY ON THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE 
 TRINITY. 
 
 Burney. " Christ possesses both a divine and a 
 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." Page 20. 
 
 Comment. This will not be disputed by any one. 
 While these words themselves are not entities, but 
 only words, they still, as the signs of ideas, repre- 
 sent substantial entities. The word God, it is true, 
 is only a name; but when we use it of the Deity, 
 it represents what is real. When we say that 
 "God is love," we do not mean the term itself, but 
 the Being the word represents to the mind. So 
 with the term man. We suppose Dr. Burney 
 would assent to this. But, if we correctly under- 
 stand him, he holds that, while the terms God and 
 man have substantial entities back of them, the 
 term God-man has not, and simply means, in the 
 reality it expresses, God and man. If this is what 
 he means, it is a denial that the human and the 
 divine are so united that there is a real unity, in 
 virtue of which Christ is one the God-man. 
 Then Christ as God is one person, and Christ as 
 
THE TRINITY. 367 
 
 man another, separate and distinct. Then the 
 Jesus of the Bible was not really divine, and all 
 worship rendered to him is idolatry. 
 
 Burney. "We call Christ a theandric person. 
 But this does not imply that he did or could per- 
 form any theandric acts, or any acts neither strictly 
 divine nor human, but something essentially differ- 
 ent from both. His divine and his human nature 
 were not amalgamated, forming a tertium quid, and 
 of course his acts, none of them, were amalga- 
 mated acts, comprising a human and a divine ele- 
 ment. On the contrary, his every act was either 
 purely human or purely divine. 
 
 " Man has a body and a mind, but all his suffer- 
 ings are purely physical or mental they are not 
 amalgamated 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. Page 21. 
 
 Comment. i. What does Burney mean by phys- 
 ical suffering ? Does he mean that the body feels, 
 that matter is capable of suffering? Then why 
 does not a dead body suffer? And if matter can 
 feel, why can it not know and will ? More, how 
 can it feel unless it knows that it feels? The truth 
 is, there can be no feeling unless there is at one end 
 of the nerve an intelligent mind to receive impres- 
 sions. Dr. Burney's illustration, to be pertinent to 
 his argument, requires that the body should feel 
 independently of the mind. What we call ' ' phys- 
 ical" suffering depends upon the close union of 
 mind and matter. Not amalgamation, but union. 
 
368 ATONEMENT. 
 
 His illustration, therefore, properly belongs to a 
 theandric act. 
 
 2. Dr. Burney denies that there is any such 
 thing as a theandric act that is, an act the 
 human and divine in Christ unite in performing 
 claiming that every action of Christ's was either a 
 God or a man act. But they were all done by the 
 same person, so that every act of Christ's life may 
 be said to be theandric. The whole life of Christ 
 stamps him as being more than a man, so that it 
 would be impossible to separate into God and man 
 acts. We, therefore, properly call them theandric 
 (Greek, Theos, God, and aneer or andros, man) 
 literally, God-man acts. 
 
 For example, meeting the leper, he says, in re- 
 sponse to his appeal, u I will; be thou clean." Who 
 is meant by the u I ? " If there are not two person- 
 alities, then this u I " means the God-man the 
 L/ord Jesus himself. "I will," the living personal- 
 ity addressed responds, and to separate, as Dr. Bur- 
 ney would, the U I" from the "will" is impossible. 
 
 Again, when Jesus came walking upon the sea, 
 was it a human or was it a theandric act ? 
 
 More, as Dr. Burney denies so strongly the exist- 
 ence of three wills in the Godhead, we would ask, 
 what of the L,ord Jesus ? Did he have two wills ? 
 And if he did, were they united in one person, or 
 was Christ two distinct persons? If Dr. Burney 
 holds the first, he answers his own objections to 
 the Trinity. If the last, then we have Unitarian- 
 ism pure and simple the divine manifesting itself 
 through the human. 
 
THE TRINITY. 369 
 
 3. It is so important that we understand this 
 question that we will examine it more at length. 
 
 Dr. Burney rightly denies any amalgamation of 
 the human and the divine (the old Butychian 
 heresy, that had but few followers) in the person of 
 Christ, but he errs in denying any real union 
 between them (the old Nestorian error). Truth, 
 as held by the Church generally, lies between these 
 extremes. 
 
 Mind and matter are not amalgamated in man so 
 that a tertium quid is formed, that is neither mind 
 nor matter, yet their union is real. More, by vir- 
 tue of this union the lower is influenced by the 
 higher. How mind and matter are united we do 
 not know and can not define. So with the union 
 of the human and divine in the one person of our 
 
 The question is, Do the Scriptures teach that 
 the two natures exist in union (not amalgamation) 
 in the one person ? 
 
 First. In many scriptures both natures are predi- 
 cated of the same person. 
 
 Second. The attributes of one nature are predi- 
 cated, while the person is designated by the title of 
 the other. 
 
 Third. The personal pronoun is never used to dis- 
 tinguish one nature from the other. 
 
 Fourth. The person of Christ, as revealed in the 
 Scriptures, is the proper object of worship, which 
 could not be if the person is not one. 
 
 Of the many scriptures that support these prop- 
 ositions, the follow^g^llj'l^ujjjge as proof. 
 25 
 
370 ATONEMENT. 
 
 1. u For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is 
 given, and the government shall be upon his shoul- 
 der; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Coun- 
 sellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the 
 Prince of Peace." Isa. ix. 6. 
 
 The " Mighty God" is the name of the child 
 that was to be born, which can only be understood 
 as we recognize the unity of his person. 
 
 2. " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou 
 be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of 
 thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler 
 in Israel ; whose going forth have been from of old, 
 from everlasting." Micah v. 2. 
 
 "Whose going forth has been from the days of 
 eternity" [margin], is here said of the one who 
 was to be born at Bethlehem, which could not 
 be unless the union was such that he was one 
 person. 
 
 3. "Whose are the father's, and of whom as con- 
 cerning the flesh, Christ came, zvho is over all, God 
 blessed forever." Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 A plain affirmation of the divinity of the same 
 person who was born a Jew. 
 
 4. "Who, being in the form of God, . . . . 
 took upon him the form of a servant." Phil, 
 ii. 5-9. 
 
 Here both natures are spoken of, where only one 
 and the same person is intended. 
 
 5. " I am the root and the offspring of David." 
 Rev. xxii. 16. 
 
THE TRINITY. 371 
 
 How could this be true, if there be not two nat- 
 ures in one person ? u I ' ' the same I is both 
 ( ' root ' ' and ' ' offspring. ' ' 
 
 6. "To feed the church of God, which he hath 
 purchased with his own blood." Acts xx. 28. 
 
 Here the unity of the person is so emphatically 
 brought out that God is said to have purchased the 
 church with his blood. 
 
 7. ' ' Worthy is the L,amb that was slain to receive 
 power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and 
 honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. v. 12. 
 
 Here divine honor and worship is given to the 
 Lamb that was slain. To separate the divinity and 
 humanity, as Dr. Burney does, would make this to 
 be idolatry. 
 
 A careful consideration of these, and similar 
 verses, will show why the church has always held 
 strenuously to the truth of the union of the two 
 natures in one person. 
 
 Burney. "If we choose to predicate three per- 
 sonalities of the divine nature, and do not take the 
 word person in a unique and nondescript sense in 
 a sense utterly exclusive of the will, which is the 
 central attribute of person in its ordinary and proper 
 sense, we are hopelessly involved in Tritheism. For 
 if there are, in some unique and indefinable sense, 
 three personalities in the divine nature, there are 
 not certainly three wills, or if there are, then it is 
 sun-clear that there are three Gods." Atonement 
 and Law, page 212, 
 
 Comment. i. We believe it is true that the ad- 
 vocates of all forms of the Moral Influence theory 
 
372 ATONEMENT. 
 
 of the atonement, have generally held Sabellian 
 views of the Trinity. 
 
 Sabellius denied that there was a trinity of persons, 
 but held that the Godhead was revealed as a trinity. 
 This, however, being simply three different ways in 
 which the same person was revealed, three different 
 points of view from which God may be looked 
 upon, three different relations in which he places 
 himself before the world. In other words, he taught 
 a trinity of manifestations, or offices, instead of a 
 trinity of persons. 
 
 Horace Bushnell, who stands as the foremost 
 representative of the Moral Influence theory in 
 America, held to what he called an " instrumental 
 trinity," or three impersonations of one and the 
 same being. Abelard discussed the Trinity under 
 the divine attributes. Maurice, Young, McL^eod 
 Campbell, and others, all held views that were 
 practically Sabellian. 
 
 A careful examination of what Dr. Burney has 
 written shows that this is. substantially his position. 
 True, he retains the word "person," but it is in 
 ( * some unique and nondescript sense, ' ' and not in 
 u its proper " and " ordinary "meaning. 
 
 In the Cumberland Presbyterian of Feb. 9, 1888, 
 lie uses the following language as to "person : " 
 
 "Will is real, but person is nominal a mere 
 name." 
 
 ' * Assuming (his opponent) that the word person 
 expresses reality and not a mere conception of the 
 mind." 
 
 " I, with my views., of personality, can assert 
 
THE TRINITY. 373 
 
 three persons in one substance, without asserting 
 three Gods." 
 
 Dr. Burney regards the word person as a "mere 
 conception," that can be applied in almost any 
 sense. As the one God has manifested himself in 
 three relations, the distinction between these is ex- 
 pressed by the personal pronoun, and for this rea- 
 son alone he speaks of three persons. 
 
 Person, with Burney, is a "mere name," and does 
 not express reality. Logically, he is on Sabellian 
 or Unitarian ground, and the trinity is simply one 
 of offices or manifestations. 
 
 The great objections to this are: 
 
 First. When the Son became Incarnate, the Fa- 
 ther ceased to be, and with the coming of the Holy 
 Ghost the Son passed away. Or else each represents 
 but a part of the Deity. 
 
 Second. There is no reason why the number of 
 persons should be limited to three. Why not extend 
 the same figure to all offices of the Godhead ? 
 
 Third. The language of the Bible is irrecon- 
 cilable with such a theory of the Trinity. How 
 can Jesus be our Advocate with the Father? How 
 a Mediator ? These and hundreds of similar ques- 
 tions may be asked, all showing how utterly it is 
 out of harmony with the Bible language. 
 
 This has never been the faith of the church, but 
 as expressed in the Confession is substantially that : 
 
 "In the unity of the Godhead there are three 
 persons of one substance, power, and eternity 
 God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Confession 
 of Faith, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Sec. 7. 
 
374 ATONEMENT. 
 
 This embraces the following points : 
 
 1. That there is one and only one God. 
 
 2. While the Scriptures proclaim one God, they 
 reveal three distinct persons, ' ' of one substance, 
 power, and eternity, ' ' and invested with every attri- 
 bute of Deity. 
 
 These appear to be contradictory propositions, 
 but they are taught in the Bible. Everywhere in 
 the Bible these three persons are distinguished con- 
 stantly from each other. To make them different 
 manifestations of the same person, is to violate all 
 the rules of language. We must insist as Bible 
 teaching, the reality, and the distinction of these 
 persons. The doctrine of the Trinity is that these 
 three divine persons "co-exist in a manner incom- 
 prehensible to mortals, as one supreme and ever- 
 lasting God" 
 
 That the Deity exists as a Trinity is taught in 
 many ways other than the use of the personal pro- 
 nouns, and the way in which the pronouns are used. 
 We can not here discuss the great question of the 
 Trinity, but only call attention to a small part of 
 the evidence, of a trinity of persons. 
 
 First. The term "Godhead " implies it. 
 
 Second. It is taught in the first verse in the 
 Bible. The word for u God " in the Hebrew being 
 plural "Gods." 
 
 Third. It is taught in the language used in the 
 account of creation and of the fall. 
 
 u And God said, let us make man in our image, 
 after our likeness." 
 
THE TRINITY. 375 
 
 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is 
 become as one of us, to know good from evil." 
 
 " Go to, let us go down and there confound their 
 language. ' ' 
 
 Fourth. It is taught in Isaiah vi. 8, especially 
 when compared with John xii. 40, and Acts 
 xxviii. 25. 
 
 ' ' I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom 
 shall I send, and who will go for us?" 
 
 Who is meant by us f To whom was God talk- 
 ing ? Does not the whole tenor of the Bible point 
 to the existence of three distinct persons in the 
 Godhead? Yet it does not teach Tritheism three 
 Gods but Tri-unity. 
 
 Burney, "If there are three divine persons, 
 there are not three divine wills; else there would 
 be three Gods." Atonement and Law, page 141. 
 
 Comment. i. Burney here logically denies that 
 there are three persons in the Godhead. The word 
 can not be used in any material sense, and if it has, 
 therefore, any real meaning that is, if it expresses 
 a real distinction in the Godhead (as the church 
 affirms), it must include the will, which, as Dr. 
 Burney says, is ' ' the central attribute of person, 
 in its ordinary and proper sense." 
 
 The denial that the word person, when used of 
 the Godhead, includes will, is, then, a denial of any 
 proper or true personality. Dr. Burney 's ' ' nonde- 
 script" person, however "unique," can not be 
 defined, because it has no real existence. 
 
376 ATONEMENT. 
 
 2. The Bible indicates that the will of the Father 
 is distinct from that of the Son. ' ' Let us make. ' ' 
 Does this not imply separate intelligences and 
 wills? If God made the word, to create requires 
 an exercise of will. If there was but one will acting, 
 then the plural has no meaning. 
 
 Again, we read that God sent his Son into the 
 world. To send, where an intelligent agent is con- 
 cerned, implies the action of two wills when the 
 agent responds and comes. 
 
 Again, it is taught that Christ came to do the 
 Father's will. His descent from heaven was for 
 this purpose. Clearly this implies that it was the 
 Father's will that he should come and that the Son 
 obeyed that will and came. This is all unmeaning 
 if the will of the Son is not distinct from that of 
 the Father. 
 
 Biirney. l< A man with three heads would be a 
 monster, and a man with three wills a maniac."- 
 Cumberland Presbyterian, February 9, 1888. 
 
 Comment. i. We are surprised that any theolo- 
 gian should gravely put this forth as in any sense 
 an objection or argument against the doctrine. 
 A rabid skeptic, ignorant of the doctrine of the 
 church, might be excused, on the score of his 
 ignorance, for such a parody, but that a trained 
 theologian should advance it is almost incredible. 
 
 2. U A man with three heads would be a mon- 
 ster." Yes, and so would a man with four feet. 
 But a horse without four feet would be a monster. 
 The fallacy is that he applies his reasoning- to man. 
 
THE TRINITY. 377 
 
 Again, it is not three heads that is in question, 
 but three wills. His objection could only have 
 force if the doctrine of the Trinity was that God 
 had a material body, with three heads. But as no 
 one so teaches, it is wide of the mark. All mate- 
 rial conceptions must be banished when we contem- 
 plate the Deity. 
 
 3. "A man with three wills a maniac." Not of 
 necessity. If each will had its own appropriate 
 sphere of manifestation, and they were always in 
 harmony, there would be no madness. Dr. Bur- 
 ney's thought was of three wills in conflict, or 
 without any channel for separate action. In other 
 words, three wills and their necessary sets of facul- 
 ties, in a material body. And again it is not a 
 question of a man a finite being with three 
 wills, but of the Deity of three persons in the 
 Godhead. 
 
 Material and mental conceptions drawn from his 
 own experience are the foundation of the difficulties 
 he conjures up. The idea of a set of faculties, such 
 as men possess, existing in the Godhead, is an 
 absurdity. As we have already shown by the ex- 
 tract from R. F. Underwood, in Chapter II., it is a 
 fruitful cause of error to think of God as reasoning. 
 We must take a broader view of the divine intelli- 
 gence than that. We must remember that God is 
 infinite, and that, therefore, he exists as a pure in- 
 telligence, incomprehensible to us with our finite 
 and limited ideas. Then, we may grasp the truth 
 of three persons real persons in the Godhead 
 existing, as a trinity, without being required to 
 
378 ATONEMENT. 
 
 believe that this means three heads upon one 
 body, or madness. 
 
 The doctrine of a trinity of persons (and not of 
 offices), existing in union as one God, has been the 
 faith of the church in all ages. This belief is sub- 
 stantially expressed by Augustine, who says : 
 
 ' ' This Trinity is one God ; . . . . nor do we say, 
 with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nomi- 
 nally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of per- 
 sons." City of God, chapter x. 
 
 From the Apostolic Fathers until Augustine, the 
 three persons are constantly distinguished, while 
 their unity as one God, together with the divinity 
 of Christ, is always affirmed. It is simply impos- 
 sible for any one to read the Fathers without 
 knowing that they believed in a trinity of persons. 
 A few quotations only can be given here. 
 
 "He did not, as one might have imagined, send 
 to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one 
 of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one 
 of those to whom the government of things in the 
 heavens has been intrusted, but the very Creator 
 and Fashioner of all things." Epistle to Diogne- 
 tus, chapter vii. 
 
 ( ' Wherefore also I praise thee for all things, I 
 bless thee, I glorify thee, along with the everlast- 
 ing and heavenly Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, 
 with whom, to thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory 
 both now and to all coming ages." The dying 
 prayer of Poly carp, Epistle of Church at Smyrna, 
 chapter xiv. 
 
THE TRINITY. 379 
 
 " God himself being manifested in human form." 
 Ignatius, Epistle to Ephesians, chapter xix. 
 
 ' ' Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor 
 to persuade you that he who is said to have appeared 
 to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who 
 is called God, is distinct from him who made all 
 things numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. 
 For I affirm that he has never at any time done any 
 thing which he who made the world above whom 
 there is no other God has not wished him both to 
 do and to engage himself with." -Justin Martyr, 
 Dialogue with Trypho, chapter Ivi. 
 
 "And that you may not change [the sense of] 
 the words just quoted, and repeat what your 
 teachers assert either that God said to himself, 
 * Let us make, ' .... or that God spoke to the 
 elements, to wit, the earth and other similar sub- 
 stances out of which we believe man was formed, 
 ' L,et us make ' I shall quote again the words nar- 
 rated by Moses himself, from which we can indis- 
 putably learn that [God] conversed with some one 
 who was numerically distinct from himself, and 
 also a rational being. These are the words : c And 
 God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us." 
 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter Ixii. 
 
 "All types of the Trinity, of God, and his word, 
 and his wisdom." Theophilus to Antolycus, chap- 
 ter xv. 
 
 This last passage is interesting because it is the 
 first time we find the word Trinity (Tpcddoz, Tri- 
 ados) used in history. 
 
380 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch was born within twenty 
 years of the death of John, and as he uses the word 
 as if it were' in common use, it gives almost apos- 
 tolic authority for the use of the word. 
 
 By wisdom he means the Holy Spirit, and indi- 
 cates a trinity of persons. 
 
 The earliest discussions were with Jews, and 
 these Jewish arguments at last found formal expres- 
 sion in the doctrine of Sabellius. This led to fuller 
 statements of the faith of the church. Thus, 
 Novatian combats Sabellianism as a new heresy in 
 the church, and in his argument says : 
 
 u But from this occasion of Christ being proved 
 from the sacred authority of the divine writings 
 not man only, but God also, other heretics, break- 
 ing forth, contrive to impair the religious position 
 in Christ; by this very fact wishing to show that 
 Christ is God the Father, in that he is asserted to 
 be not man only, but also is declared to be God. 
 For thus say they, If it is asserted that God is one, 
 and Christ is God, then say they, If the Father and 
 Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father. 
 Wherein they are proved to be in error, not know- 
 ing Christ, but following the sound of a name; for 
 they are not willing that he should be the second 
 person after the Father, but the Father himself. "- 
 Novatian, Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 
 xx vi. 
 
 Novatian then quotes many texts from both Old 
 and New Testaments in proof of the distinction of 
 the persons, closing the argument by saying : 
 
THE TRINITY. 381 
 
 ' 'And what can be so evident proof that this is 
 not the Father, but the Son, as that he is set forth 
 as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if he be 
 believed to be God the Father, Christ may be said 
 to be subjected to another God the Father." 
 
 As it is the essence of Sabellianism that the 
 Father and Son are the same person under different 
 manifestations, he then examines such texts as are 
 supposed to teach this identity. We close this 
 brief historical sketch with his exposition of John 
 x. 30, which is the best exegesis of this text given 
 by the Fathers : 
 
 u But when he says I, and afterward introduces 
 the Father by saying ' I and the Father, ' he severs 
 and distinguishes the peculiarities of his, that is, 
 the Son's person, from the paternal authority, not 
 only in respect to the sound of the name, but more- 
 over in respect of the order of the distribution of 
 power, since he might have said, 'I the Father,' if 
 he had had it in mind that he himself was the 
 Father. And since he said ' one ' thing, let the 
 heretics understand that he did not say ' one ' per- 
 son. For one, placed in the neuter, intimates the 
 social concord, not the personal unity. He is said 
 to be one netiter, not one masculine, because the 
 expression is not referred to the number, but it is 
 declared with reference to the association of another. 
 Finally, he adds, and says, 'we are,' not 'I am/ 
 so as to show, by the fact of his saying, * I and the 
 Father are,' that they are two persons." Nova- 
 tian, Concerning the Trinity, chapter xxvii. 
 
382 
 
 ATONEMENT. 
 
 For sixteen centuries the doctrines of Sabellius 
 have been rejected by the piety and scholarship of 
 the church, and it is too late to resurrect them and 
 the view of the atonement with which they are 
 logically associated, with any hope that they will 
 be received, even when labeled u new theology." 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 On a careful examination of Dr. Burney 's book, 
 the vulnerable points are legion. A large num- 
 ber of these have been passed by because they 
 have been touched upon already, or because they 
 are mere side issues, or are connected with theories 
 that we have no sympathy with. 
 
 There are, however, some not directly connected 
 with the subjects of previous chapters, that are of 
 sufficient importance in the controversy to demand 
 an examination. 
 
 SECTION I. Burney on the Prodigal Son. 
 
 Burney. " The prodigal's repentance, as evinced 
 by his actual return to his father, was, as to him- 
 self, reconciliation; as to his father, it was propitia- 
 tion, or what pleased him, satisfied him, delighted 
 him, because it brought back to him his son who 
 was lost and dead, but now found and saved." 
 Page 156. 
 
 Comment. i. This teaches that all that is re- 
 quired for salvation is repentance, and that repent- 
 ance is that which propitiates the Father. True 
 that he teaches elsewhere the need of something 
 more, but it is in a vague, unsatisfactory way. 
 
384 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Here it is repentance alone. This is consistent 
 with his theory. 
 
 2. But if repentance propitiates, salvation is by 
 works and human merit. As God could not be 
 pleased with what has no merit, the repentance, in 
 order to propitiate, must have been meritorious in 
 his sight. Clearly salvation by works. 
 
 3. If the repentance propitiates, there is no need 
 for the death of Christ, other than as it may influ- 
 ence the heart and mind of the sinner. This is all 
 that a Moral Theory can make of Christ's death 
 and sufferings. 
 
 4. Propitiation is here made synonymous with 
 what pleases, or delights. As Dr. Burney repudi- 
 ates the dictionaries, an appeal to them would be 
 useless. The only appeal that can be made from 
 the dictionaries is to usage. Dr. Burney appealed 
 from the lexicons to ' ' the crucible of common 
 sense" (page 162), but failed to tell us just how to 
 find this tribunal. We deny that the Hebrew 
 kaphar, the Greek hilasmos, or the English propiti- 
 ation, are ever used in the sense of ' ' please ' ' or 
 "delight." Dr. Burney can never induce scholars 
 to agree to abandon the dictionaries until he 
 shows by the usage that the dictionaries are wrong. 
 
 Burney. "These facts also teach us with suffi- 
 cient fullness and clearness that pardon does not 
 consist, as penalists teach, in the removal of penalty, 
 leaving the soul in its moral pollution or criminal 
 state. A murderer may be arbitrarily pardoned by 
 gubernatorial fiat. This releases him from the 
 gallows, but not from his guilt; but pardon of sin 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 385 
 
 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." Page 157. 
 
 Comment. i. This definition of "pardon" 
 will necessitate that Dr. Burney shall once more 
 repudiate the dictionaries, because none of them 
 define pardon as he does. We venture the asser- 
 tion that no one would get from the word pardon 
 the idea of deliverance from depravity. Nor can 
 Dr. Burney find such a use of the word in any book, 
 ancient or modern, Greek, Hebrew, or English. 
 He simply gives new meanings to old words, and 
 thus tries to uphold his theory. Any theory, no 
 matter how wild or visionary, could be established 
 thus. 
 
 2. This utter repudiation of the legal aspect of 
 pardon might well lead to the inquiry, Why has 
 God selected words having this forensic or legal 
 sense, if he did not mean to teach the legal aspect 
 of atonement? The inspired writers could not pos- 
 sibly have used terms that set forth legal ideas 
 more forcibly than those they do employ. Surely 
 they made no mistake, and we are justified in 
 believing that there is a legal as well as a moral 
 side to the atonement, and that ' l pardon ' ' belongs 
 to the legal. 
 
 SECTION II. Burney on the offering of Isaac. 
 
 Burney. u The atonement is the giving of the 
 blood, or life, to God. The blood and life are 
 26 
 
386 ATONEMENT. 
 
 equivalents. To give one was in intention to give 
 both. Hence, the bloodless sacrifice of Isaac." 
 Page 1 68. 
 
 Comment. What the Doctor says about the 
 offering of Isaac is contained in this one sentence; 
 but, taken in connection with what precedes it, it 
 teaches that Isaac was actually and personally 
 offered up by Abraham, and, therefore, it is possi- 
 ble to have a burnt-offering without the shedding 
 of any blood. 
 
 Is there any authority for such a statement ? 
 Can it be inferred from Bible facts? Most cer- 
 tainly not, and the whole narrative would have to 
 be ignored in every detail of it, before such an 
 assumption could be received. 
 
 1. The only foundation for his assumption is the 
 ; statement that the blood and life are equivalents. 
 This is the opposite of the fact. Blood shedding 
 and death are synonymous, which is fatal to the 
 thought of a bloodless sacrifice. 
 
 2. There can be no dispute as to the fact that 
 Abraham regarded the command to go and offer up 
 Isaac as involving the death of the boy. Not to 
 refer to the wood provided for burning the body, 
 and other facts out of harmony with the thought 
 of a bloodless sacrifice, the Bible plainly affirms it. 
 
 "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and 
 took the knife to slay his son." Gen. xxii. 10. 
 
 4 * By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered 
 up Isaac; and he that had received the promises 
 offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 387 
 
 said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called; 
 accounting that God was able to raise him up, even 
 from the dead ; from whence also he received him 
 in a figttre." Heb. xi. 17-19. 
 
 Abraham had evidently never heard of a non- 
 penal theory, nor had he been taught that blood 
 and life were equivalents, and that he could offer 
 Isaac and still not slay the boy, else his soul had 
 never been tried. God had told him that Isaac 
 should be the ancestor of the Messiah, and he 
 believed what God said. In what way could his 
 faith have been tried, if the command did not im- 
 ply the death of Isaac, and so the putting a barrier 
 in the way of the fulfillment of the promise ? 
 
 3. If Abraham expected to slay Isaac, but did 
 not, and yet, in the language of Paul, "offered up 
 Isaac," how did he offer him? The key to this 
 is indicated by the words "in a figure." 
 
 * 'And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, 
 and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket 
 by his horns; and Abraham went and took the 
 ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the 
 stead of his son." Gen. xxii. 13. 
 
 The narrative shows that Isaac was not offered 
 up personally, but that the ram was offered in his 
 stead. So far from its being a bloodless sacrifice, 
 we have, fully stated, the fact of the shedding of the 
 blood! It is a simple case of substitution, that 
 throws a flood of light upon the meaning of a sac- 
 rifice. This substitutionary offering is called by 
 Paul the offering of Isaac. But Dr. Burney's 
 
388 ATONEMENT. 
 
 " color blindness " as to substitution leads him to 
 ignore the ram, so that he sees nothing but a 
 " bloodless sacrifice." 
 
 SECTION III. Burney on the prayer of Jesus on 
 the cross. 
 
 Burney. "Luke xxiii. 34: 'Father, forgive 
 them, for they know not what they do, ' is irrecon- 
 cilable with the assumption that he suffered penalty. 
 
 "If substitution is true, Christ by enduring the 
 penalty in the place of sinners did by that act 
 really expiate, pardon, take away the reatus poence 
 of those for whom he suffered, and did by that 
 expiation or pardon bring God under obligations to 
 regenerate 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 prayer which when rightly interpreted is a 
 peerless exhibition of moral sublimity and a model 
 for .the world." Page 221. 
 
 Comment. i. Even the most rigid Calvinist 
 could answer Burney by referring to the fact that 
 at the time Christ prayed the debt had not been 
 paid, as Christ had not suffered or died. 
 
 2. He has u pardon" introduced here in strange 
 company "expiation or pardon." We would 
 like to see some of these words pinned down to a 
 definite meaning. Then, again, he assumes that 
 if sin is expiated God would be under obligations 
 to regenerate and save. Can he show that this 
 logically follows ? 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 389 
 
 3. Whatever force there might be in this argu- 
 ment, it can only be against the Calvinistic theory 
 of substitution. Dr. Burney denies that any thing 
 else is substitution, and his readers need to be con- 
 stantly reminded of this in the application of his 
 arguments. This is one of the Doctor's weaknesses 
 giving new meanings to old words. In the theo- 
 logical world the term substitution is used with 
 a much wider application than he gives to it. 
 This being its recognized use, it is idle to deny 
 that any thing else is substitution. We can not 
 take from a word a recognized meaning, and use 
 alone fixes the meaning. Burney has therefore 
 undertaken the impossible. He suggests "salva- 
 tion by sovereign prerogative " and u benefaction " 
 as better terms. But as all salvation by grace is 
 benefaction and by ' ' sovereign prerogative, ' ' there 
 is nothing clear-cut or distinctive in these. They 
 are open to more serious objection than the word 
 he would have them supplant, and, it may be safely 
 said, will never be adopted. Substitution will be 
 used centuries after we are dead. The theory of 
 this book is as truly vicarious as the Calvinistic, 
 and against the "medium theory" Burney's objec- 
 tions do not apply. 
 
 4. The dying prayer of Jesus is "irreconcilable" 
 with the non-penal theory. It is fundamental to 
 that theory that sin and penalty are inseparable. 
 Dr. Burney says : 
 
 U I have elsewhere and repeatedly defined pen- 
 alty of any divine law to be the forfeiture or loss of 
 the good which the law is intended to conserve. If 
 
 27 
 
390 ATONEMENT. 
 
 this is true, how is it possible to transgress God's 
 laws, and yet escape the penalties he has wisely 
 affixed to transgression?" Page 117. 
 
 If so, there being no escape from the penalty, 
 sins committed are always punished, and Dr. 
 Burney is in exactly the same position as the Cal- 
 vinist, with this difference : Dr. Burney's principal 
 suffers the penalty, but the Calvinist's substitute 
 endures it. In both cases the debt is paid. 
 
 The prayer of Jesus, according to Burney, is a 
 prayer for God to forgive them, after they have 
 been punished ! 
 
 If this is what he means by u moral sublimity," 
 we can not agree with his conception of what is 
 "peerless." 
 
 Destroy substitution, and the light and beauty of 
 the cross fade away. It is only in the light of his 
 sufferings being vicarious that the height and 
 depth and moral glory of this dying prayer can be 
 apprehended. 
 
 Burney. " Penalty endured by the principal of 
 a crime is purely infamous, nor could it be less so 
 in the substitute, if penal substitution was pos- 
 sible," etc. Page 223. 
 
 Comment. i. This is one of those glittering 
 generalities that may mean something or nothing. 
 4 * Penalty endured .... is simply infamous." Is 
 this true ? If it was infamous to " endure " a pen- 
 alty, it is right to resist the lawful authorities when 
 attempting to inflict it. No man can be required 
 to submit to the infamous. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 391 
 
 2. This logically makes God responsible for the 
 infamy, for the logical alternative is that there is 
 no infamy if the penalty is not endured. If it is 
 the penalty that makes infamous, then, as God 
 inflicts it, he is responsible for it. 
 
 3. While this is what Burney says, it can hardly 
 be what he means at least we hope so. We sus- 
 pect it is only a new form of the old quibble that 
 you can not separate the demerit from the penalty. 
 Does it render a man infamous who pays (endures) 
 a fine for his friend to save him from prison ? 
 
 SECTION IV. Burney'* s contrasts of the penal 
 and non-penal theories. 
 
 Burney. "Truth and error are generally more 
 clearly apprehended and discriminated when set in 
 contrast with each other." Page 191. 
 
 Comment. Yes, but it does not follow that 
 when two statements are contrasted either one o 
 the other must be true. Nor does it follow that 
 the one seemingly the weakest is therefore an error. 
 There is such a thing as so presenting the views o 
 an opponent as to easily refute them. We call this 
 ' ' setting up a man of straw. " 
 
 Burney. u i. The penal theory asserts that 
 Christ's death was a penal sacrifice made pri- 
 marily to satisfy justice, as the most central attri- 
 bute 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 charac- 
 ter, and satisfies justice, because it serves God's 
 
392 ATONEMENT. 
 
 purposes in meeting the exigencies of man's moral 
 and religions condition." Page 191. 
 
 Comment. i. This is not a satisfactory state- 
 ment of what the penal theory teaches. If meant 
 to represent what Anselm taught, we have no fault 
 to find, except that he should have said, "The 
 penal theory, as taught by Anselm, asserts," etc. 
 To take the extreme utterances of some advocate, 
 and represent them as the teaching of the theory, is 
 not a fair representation. Very few substitutionists, 
 even of the most extreme Calvinistic school, would 
 agree with Anselm that justice was "the most cen- 
 tral attribute of God. ' ' Dr. Burney not only ignores 
 any other theory of substitution but the Calvinistic, 
 but he ignores any other exposition of even that, 
 except Anselm's. If he intended his contrast to be 
 comprehensive, embracing all schools of substitu- 
 tionists, it should have been : 
 
 "The penal theory asserts that Christ's death 
 was a penal sacrifice made primarily to satisfy 
 the demands of God against the sinner.'' 
 
 Substitutionists differ as to the source of this 
 demand, some holding that it arises from the divine 
 justice; others, from the holiness of God; arid still 
 others, from the law. 
 
 2. The last clause of Burney's definition of what 
 the non-penal theory teaches "and satisfies just- 
 ice, because it serves God's purposes in meeting 
 the exigencies of man's moral and religious con- 
 dition" is not distinctive, as any substitutionist 
 would subscribe to it in full. The only part of the 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 393 
 
 statement distinctive to the non-penal theory is 
 found in the words ' l primarily purely moral in 
 character." According to the theory of the book, 
 we are saved by the removal of the depravity, and 
 that is what he means by ' ' moral. ' ' But if we 
 give to the word this meaning, a moral sacrifice is 
 a pure absurdity. If the death and sufferings of 
 Christ were for the purpose of removing depravity, 
 we may look upon the idea of one man drinking 
 poison and another experiencing its effects as no 
 longer an impossibility. Its parallel would be 
 found in a physician committing suicide to cure a 
 patient of disease! 
 
 The whole trouble with Dr. Burney's non-penal 
 theory is that it denies in toto the legal aspect of 
 Christ's death, and the legal, or administrative, 
 penalties of sin. The death of Christ is the one 
 fact utterly out of harmony with the non-penal 
 scheme. 
 
 Burney. u 2. The penal teaches as its ground 
 principle that all pardon is the result of punish- 
 ment; that there is absolutely no pardon without 
 prior punishment as its ground and reason. 
 
 "The non-penal protests, and alleges that sins 
 pardoned are not punished, and sins punished are 
 not pardoned; that pardon is exemption from pun- 
 ishment on conditions satisfactory to the pardoning 
 power." Page 192. 
 
 Comment. i. This statement of what the penal 
 teaches is not true, because many substitutionists 
 reject it. It is no part of a vicarious theory of 
 atonement. A true statement embracing what all 
 substitutionists believe would be : 
 
394 ATONEMENT. 
 
 ' The penal theory teaches as its ground principle 
 that all pardon is the result of satisfaction; that 
 there is absolutely no pardon without prior satisfac- 
 tion as its ground and reason." 
 
 2. The non-penal theory has no pardon, if we ac- 
 cept Dr. Burney's definition above, for, on his theory, 
 there is no exemption from punishment. He says: 
 
 u Sin and its punishment are coterminous, just 
 as cause and effect. ' ' 
 
 Burney. "3. The penal teaches that Christ's 
 death propitiates 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 
 propitiation for the sins of the world." Page 192. 
 
 Comment. i. The penal teaches that Christ's 
 death propitiates because it satisfies the demand of 
 God against the sinner. Dr. Burney fails to dis- 
 tinguish between burnt-offering and the sin-offering. 
 
 2. Burney tells us what the non-penal denies 
 this is distinctive. But when he states what it af- 
 firms, his readers are misled, because he leaves the 
 impression that in this it is in contrast to the penal. 
 Yet every substitutionist believes what is here af- 
 firmed. The penal theory tells how he became the 
 propitiation, the non-penal is mute. 
 
 Burney. "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 be- 
 half, and that God, as an act of justice, regenerates 
 and saves men. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 395 
 
 ' ' The non-penal protests, and affirms that it is 
 impossible 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 Adani's 
 vitiated nature and consequent condemnation im- 
 parted to us by heredity." Page 192. 
 
 Comment. i. This is a cool setting aside of 
 every vicarious theory as unworthy of notice a 
 ruling of them out of court except the most 
 extreme and obnoxious Calvinistic form of substi- 
 tution. We appeal from Dr. Burney to our readers, 
 as to the "self-consistency" of the theory of this 
 book. It is certainly not chargeable with what is 
 here stated as being the penal theory. 
 
 2. Dr. Burney here admits that the double impu- 
 tation of the Calvinistic theory is "self-consistent," 
 when his great guns are aimed at this very thing 
 as a contradiction. For Dr. Burney to speak of it 
 as the ' ' only self-consistent form " is to make his 
 own arguments any thing but "self-consistent." 
 
 3. The non-penal theory, as here stated, is open 
 to many and serious objections. It confounds con- 
 sequence and penalty. It uses legal terms, while 
 denying the legal aspect of the atonement. It 
 presents an absurdity when it speaks of personal 
 obedience being imparted. 
 
 Burney. "5. The penal teaches that to suffer 
 
 the penalty of the law is to obey the law 
 
 "The non-penal objects, and affirms .... that 
 
396 ATONEMENT. 
 
 there is no obedience in penalty, .... or, if there 
 is, .... Satan and his hosts are as truly obeying 
 the divine law as are the saints in heaven." Page 
 193- 
 
 Comment. So far as the writer knows, all Cal- 
 vinistic writers distinguish between, the u active" 
 and "passive" obedience of Christ. Dr. A. A. 
 Hodge thus explains it : 
 
 ' ' His ' active ' obedience embraces his entire life 
 and death viewed as vicarious obedience. His 
 ' passive y obedience embraces his entire life, and 
 especially his sacrificial death, viewed as vicarious 
 suffering." 
 
 It will be seen that these are technical terms, 
 used in a theological sense only, and that the word 
 obedience is used, not as connected with penalty, 
 but with the sufferings of Christ, because they 
 were voluntarily assumed. It is used in the same 
 sense as "became obedient unto death" volun- 
 tarily submitted to death. While we repudiate this 
 distinction, we believe that Burney has not fairly 
 represented the Calvinistic position. We doubt if 
 any theologian would assent to the statement that 
 ' ' to suffer the penalty of the law is to obey the law. " 
 What penalist has so affirmed ? But, leaving the 
 question of this Calvinistic distinction, most cer- 
 tainly the theory of this book does not so teach. 
 
 SECTION V. Burney on the salvation of infants. 
 
 Burney. "Unless it [the infant] has the mind 
 of Christ, it is none of his. This it can not have 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 397 
 
 except by being made partaker of Christ's nature 
 in regeneration. If this regeneration is uncondi- 
 tional, it seems hard to escape the doctrine of a 
 
 necessitated virtue or obedience I think, 
 
 however, that conditional infant regeneration is not 
 an impossible or absurd thing. Page 58. 
 
 Comment. i. Why does Dr. Burney say "the 
 mind of Christ ? ' ' The Bible says : 
 
 "If any man have not the SPIRIT of Christ, he 
 is none of his." Rom. viii. 9. 
 
 Why does he substitute "mind" for "Spirit?" 
 They are certainly not synonymous. 
 
 The Greek pneuma (spirit) is never translated in 
 the New Testament by the word "mind." In the 
 text he quotes from Romans, the whole context 
 shows that the Holy Spirit is meant. 
 
 Just here we would say that we have been deeply 
 impressed with the little use Dr. Burney has for 
 the Holy Spirit in his non-penal theory. In a 
 work on the atonement of four hundred pages, 
 more than three hundred are written before the 
 Holy Spirit is named, while in the whole book it is 
 only referred to about half a dozen times! Has the 
 non-penal theory no use for the Holy Spirit? The 
 Holy Spirit's work in connection with the atone- 
 ment is all-important, as we have shown. Dr. A. 
 A. Hodge has a chapter devoted to the "mystic 
 union ' ' in his work on the atonement. This is 
 utterly ignored by Dr. Burney in " Soteriology. " 
 The doctrine of a vicarious atonement has not been 
 apprehended when this is overlooked. If Dr. Burney 
 fully apprehends the theory of substitution, the 
 
398 ATONEMENT. 
 
 absence of all reference to this union, in a book 
 assailing substitution, is hard to understand. How 
 can we explain his utter silence as to this, which is 
 one of the most important factors? This being 
 omitted, we regret that it is true " that no one can 
 obtain a fair idea of the doctrine of substitution by 
 reading Soteriology. ' ' 
 
 2. We believe that infants must be regenerated 
 to fit them for heaven (if they die in infancy), but 
 do not see any difficulty in this being done uncon- 
 ditionally. 
 
 Dr. Burney says that if unconditional "it seems 
 hard to escape the doctrine of a necessitated virtue 
 or obedience." This would be true if regenera- 
 tion destroyed freedom. 
 
 If an unconditional regeneration, where there is 
 no actual transgression, leads to a necessitated obe- 
 dience, then, logically, an unconditional depravity 
 leads to a necessitated disobedience. But this 
 Burney does not believe. 
 
 Burney. " i. 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 the 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 proportionately increased, and the 
 voluntary acceptance of Christ becomes possible to 
 the infant mind before it has left the body." 
 Page 59. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 399 
 
 Comment. That there is intellectual expansion 
 in the hour of death, as the spiritual world opens 
 to the vision, we believe; but something more than 
 mental growth is needed before faith is exercised. 
 
 ' ' Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the 
 word of God." Rom. x. 14. 
 
 "How shall they believe in him of whom they 
 have not heard? and how shall they hear without 
 a preacher?" Rom. x. 17. 
 
 But the infant is destitute of this knowledge; 
 and as knowledge is essential to faith, how can it 
 be exercised ? The nature and conditions of faith 
 present a fatal objection to this theory. 
 
 Burney. " Bat assuming that no such advan- 
 tageous changes occur, still it is not impossible for 
 regeneration such as is needed to fit the soul for 
 communion with Christ to occur by its normal 
 method. 
 
 U 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, may be 
 so enamored of the loveliness of Christ and the 
 heavenly 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 is bliss. " Page 59. 
 
 Comment. i. The first scheme of infant regen- 
 eration necessitates a false definition of faith, this 
 second "assumption" rests upon a false theory of 
 regeneration. 
 
 The doctrine of depravity teaches that the dispo- 
 
400 ATONEMENT. 
 
 sition to love and trust the Savior is lacking. If 
 Dr. Burney's theory above is correct, it is not dis- 
 position, but want of light or evidence. If the 
 vision of Jesus will cause an infant (with expanded 
 intellect) to become "enamored" of Christ, why 
 not an adult? And if depravity bars the way in 
 one case, why not in the other? 
 
 2. This view of regeneration ignores the work 
 of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that we 
 are "born of the Spirit." Dr. Burney ignores the 
 Spirit's work in the regeneration of the infant 
 utterly, and attempts to explain a supernatural 
 fact (regeneration) by natural means. More, as he 
 says of this that it occurs by "its normal method," 
 and fits "the soul for communion with Christ," 
 the logical inference is, that he ignores the Holy 
 Spirit in the regeneration of the adult. How 
 plainly error as to the atonement leads to error in 
 every vital doctrine of the Bible! 
 
 Burney. "3. We know that very young chil- 
 dren 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 
 approaches the spirit-land, be enamored of the 
 loveliness of the glorified Christ, and seek to 
 appropriate him as it is wont to do with other 
 objects that delight it? " Page 60. 
 
 Comment. If the first of Dr. Burney's theories 
 of infant regeneration requires a false conception of 
 faith and the second erroneous ideas of regeneration, 
 this last embodies a false notion of the object of faith. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 401 
 
 It puts Christ's physical beauty in the place of 
 Christ as a Savior. According to Burney, just as 
 the infant seeks to appropriate a flower or painted 
 toy, the physical beauty of Christ's glorified hu- 
 manity will attract it in the same way. The appro- 
 priation of Christ that saves is not such as this; 
 but from a sense of need and of the ability and 
 willingness of Christ to save, a heart appropriation 
 of him as a personal Savior. Without convictions 
 of this need Christ will never be appropriated. 
 
 Burney. "I do not offer this as a satisfactory 
 solution of the difficult problem of infant salva- 
 tion. It, however, avoids the extreme monergism 
 of Augustinianism, on one hand, and on the other 
 the ungracious notion that infants may be saved 
 without regeneration." Page 60. 
 
 Comment. i. As in neither case have we the 
 infant regenerated, it can hardly be said to avoid 
 these extremes, unless it be in the sense that a man 
 avoids infringing the laws of France who never 
 crossed the sea. 
 
 2. The difficulty of the problem lies in the non- 
 penal theory. There being no actual transgression 
 on the part of an infant (and therefore no penalty), 
 the work to be done is purely moral. But if the 
 salvation of the infant by moral means is purely by 
 the power of God, it would be an unanswerable 
 objection to the non-penal theory. Hence the 
 difficulty. 
 
 According to the doctrine of this book the atone- 
 ment is both moral and legal. Redemption by 
 
402 ATONEMENT. 
 
 purchase delivering from the curse of the law, 
 redemption by power from depravity and its con- 
 sequences. The legal demand that stands against 
 the transgressor has no place in the case of the 
 infant. The need, in the one case, is a remedy 
 both moral and legal; in the other one, purely 
 moral alone. The one demands a vicarious atone- 
 ment, the other does not. Hence, the power of 
 God alone is needed in the case of the infant. If 
 we ignore this distinction between the infant and 
 the adult, the problem of infant regeneration is 
 incapable of solution. The non - penal theory 
 places them upon the same footing exactly, so far 
 as the need and the character of the remedy is 
 concerned. 
 
 SECTION VI. Burney on the harmony of the 
 non-penal theory and science. 
 
 Burney. "The impartation of spiritual life not 
 in conflict with natural law." Page 364. 
 
 Comment. i. We call attention to this section 
 because running through it is the quiet assump- 
 tion that the non-penal theory is scientific, while 
 the penal is not. 
 
 2. "Not in conflict." Does Dr. Burney affirm 
 that a vicarious atonement is ? We challenge the 
 proof. As it lies beyond the sphere of natural law, 
 conflict is impossible. 
 
 Dr. Burney 's analogies are all of the impartation 
 of spiritual life, and as we agree in this, they are 
 analogies of that which is common to both theories. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 403 
 
 But he gives no analogy of his non-penal theory, 
 nor can he. Analogies of substitution, however, 
 can be found, especially if we consult medical 
 works. Vicarious menstruation is a term well 
 known to science, and other illustrations of substi- 
 tution can be found. 
 
VC 4080 1' 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY