YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

The Atonement.

BT THE
REV. ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER HODGE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIDACTIC, HISTORICAL AND POLEMICAL THE0L08Y, IN
THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
AT ALLEOHENT, PA.

PHILADELPHIA :
PEESBYTEKIAN BOAED OP PUBLICATION,
No. 821 CHESTNUT STREET.

Entered according to Act of Congresa, in the year 1867, by
THE TRUSTEES OF THE
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OP PUBLICATION,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the
District of Pennsylvania.

"Westoott a Thomson,
Stereotypers, Philada.

CONTENTS. PART I.
THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I. pace
INTRODUCTORY.
Vital importance of the doctrine — General agreement of the Chris
tian Church in all ages — Danger of Rationalism, and its preva
lence in the present age — All error partial truth — Systems of
doctrine unavoidable — All controversy upon the subject is to be
determined by a simple appeal to Scripture — Objections to the
evidence upon which a doctrine rests to be frankly considered, but
all rationalistic objections to the plain teachings of inspiration
inadmissible — The plan of the following treatise briefly stated... 13
CHAPTER II.
STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE.
The attitude of God, of the individual sinner, and of the moral
universe in relation to the Atonement severally considered — The
Orthodox doctrine shown to be comprehensive and consistent, and
the Moral Influence and Governmental Hypothesis shown to be
partial and inconsistent — The elements of the Orthodox Doctrine
stated in respect to its Motive, its Nature, and its Effects  25
CHAPTER III.
DEFINITION OF TERMS, AND SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS
INVOLVED IN THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Necessity of technical terms, and need of acurate definitions —
Atonement and Satisfaction — The difference between a penal
and a pecuniary satisfaction — Penalty and distinction between
Calamities, Chastisements and Penal Evils — Meaning of the
terms Substitution and Vicarious — Expiation and Propitiation
— Impetration and Application — Redemption and Atonement —
Meritum and Satisfactio, or the distinction between active and
passive obedience — The principal points involved in the doctrine
stated  32
CHAPTER IV.
THE ULTIMATE SIOTIVES OF ALL GOO'S ACTS ARE IN HIMSELF ; AND THE
IMMUTABLE PERFECTIONS OF THE DIVINE NATURE DEMAND THE PUN
ISHMENT OF SIN.
The ultimate motives of all God's actions are in himself proved —
3

4 CONTENTS. PASS
The Scriptures predicate holiness of the divine nature as well as
of the divine will — They assert that God hates sin, and regards
it as intrinsically worthy of punishment — The different answers
to the question, Why does God punish sin ? considered — The hy
pothesis that Disinterested Benevolence is the whole of Virtue,
disproved — The punishment of sin intrinsically right, and essen
tial to the moral perfection of God — Justice voluntary, but not
optional — Grace necessarily a matter of sovereign choice  48
CHAPTER V.
THE CHURCH DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED FROM THE FACT
THAT THE DIVINE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUTABLE.
The divine law shown to be immutable — Dr. Fiske's admissions — The
law ceremonial and moral — The Penalty shown to be an essential
part of law — The admissions and inconsistencies of Fiske and
Barnes — The sufferings of Christ shown not to have been a " sub
stitute for the penalty," to have been not identical with the suffer
ings demanded of his people in person, considered as suffering,
but precisely identical considered as penalty — Scripture teaches
that Christ came with the design of fulfilling, not relaxing the
law — The position of Dr. John Young as to the nature of moral
law, and its penalty stated and refuted  .-.  58
CHAPTER VI.
THE THREE-FOLD RELATION WHICH MORAL AGENTS SUSTAIN TO THE
DIVINE LAW.
The distinction between the Natural, Federal and Penal relations
which men sustain to the divine law stated and applied  72
CHAPTER VII.
ADAM WAS, IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORDS, THE FEDERAL REP
RESENTATIVE OF THE RACE; AND THE ANTENATAL FORFEITURE, OF
WHICH EACH OF HIS DESCENDANTS IS SUBJECT, IS THE PENAL CON
SEQUENCE OF HIS PUBLIC SIN.
The admitted facts of man's birth into an inevitable condition of
sin and misery stated — The Orthodox and the Rationalist agreed
that God could not bring the new-born soul into such a condition,
unless his natural rights had been justly forfeited before birth — The
two questions thence arise, why God allows such a curse to be
transmitted, and how it is transmitted — I. The attempted solu
tions which deny that man is subject to a just antenatal forfeiture
— The Maniohsean doctrine of the absolute impreventability of sin
— Panthoistie hypothesis that sin is a necessary inoident to moral
development — The New England Boot Theory and Plaoseus' doo-
trine — Mediate and Consequent Imputationsta,te& andrefuted — II.
The attempted solutions which admit antenatal forfeiture — Theory
of pre-existence as maintained by Dr. E. Beeoher and Julius Muller
stated and refuted — The Realistic theory of our oneness with Adam
as advocated by Drs. Baird and Shedd, stilted, proved not to have
been the doctrine of the men who wrote the Creeds of the Reformed
Churches, and not to bo true — The Dootriue of President Edwards
— The several points involved in the true dootrine, 1st, As to the

CONTENTS. 5
PAOX
imputation of guilt, and 2d, As to the origination of moral corrup
tion in each new-born soul, stated, and the whole proved from
Scripture, and the consent of Churches  78
CHAPTER VIII.
CHRIST WAS, IN THE STRICT JEWISH SENSE OF THE TERM, A SACRIFICE.
THE JEWISH SACRIFICES WERE STRICTLY MACULAR, AND THEY WERE
TYPICAL OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR LORD.
Heads of argument stated — I. The divine origin of Sacrifices proved
— The primitive Sacrifices were piacular — The principle estab
lished by the common consent of mankind — II. That the Jewish
Sacrifices were strictly piacular, the doctrine of the entire Christian
Church — The opinions of B'ahr, Maurice, Jowett, Bushnell and
Young — The different kinds of Sacrifice — The Orthodox doctrine
proved (a) from the occasions upon which the sacrifices were of
fered, (6) The qualifications and sacrificial designations of the
victims, (c) The ritual of the sacrifice, (d) from their declared
effects, and (c) from the testimony of the inspired prophets, and
of ancient heathens, Jews and Christians — HI. The Sacrifices of
the law were typical of the sacrifice of Christ — This proved from
the words of Christ — from the fact that the Old Testament sacri
fices are declared to be shadows, &o., of which Christ is the substance,
and from the fact the Scriptures explicitly assert that Christ saves
his people by being" offered as a sacrifice for them  122
CHAPTER IX.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED BY THE FACT THAT CHRIST EFFECTED
SALVATION BY ACTING AS THE HIGH PRIEST OF HIS PEOPLE.
The position assumed by the advocates of the Moral Theory as to
the nature of Christ's Priesthood stated — The same as to the
advocates of the Govermental Theory — I. The Priest was or
dained to act in behalf of man in those things which bear upon
God — That the effect of his work primarily terminates upon God,
proved from Scripture — II. The work of the priest secured the
salvation, not the salvability, of those for whom he acted, and he
acted as the representative of certain persons definitely — III.
That Christ was a real and not a metaphorical priest, proved
from Scripture — The inferences from these positions deduced  150
CHAPTER X.
Christ's sufferings were strictly and definitely vicarious.
Bushnell's perversion of the phrase Vicarious illustrated and dis
proved — The true relation of the words, Vicarious, Substitute,
Representative and Mediator, stated — Barnes' definition of a
substitute accepted as true — That Christ is in the strict sense the
Substitute of his people and his sufferings vicarious, proved — ¦
Barnes' inconsistency exposed  161
CHAPTER XI.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SCRIPTURES
DECLARE THAT OUR SINS WERE LAID UPON CHRIST.
Passages which assort the fact cited — Different senses of the word
" sin" in Scripture— The scriptural usage of the phrase " to ini-
1 *

6 CONTENTS. PAGE
pute sin," explained and illustrated and proved— The doctrine
guarded from abuse, and the misrepresentations of adversaries
rebuked— The usage of the phrase, "bear sin or iniquity, botn
in the Old and in the New Testament, illustrated and proved—
Bushnell's extravagant assertions exposed 
CHAPTER XII.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE CHARAC
TER OF THE EFFECTS WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTED TO IT IN SCRIPTURE.
I. The effect of Christ's death as it respects God — The classical and
New Testament usage of the phrase /toraXXacro-Eir stated and proved
— The classical and New Testament usage of the phrase IXiaiceirBat
stated and proved — The Biblical usage of 1BD explained — II. The
effect of Christ's death as it respects the guilt of sin — The objec
tions of Young answered — The Atonement shown to be the effect
and not the cause of God's love for his people — The Orthodox
doctrine shown not to involve Tritheism — III. The effect of
Christ's death as it respects the sinner himself — The Biblical
usage of the terms dyopdgctv, \vrp6oy, Xvrpov explained — This
language proved not to imply that the Atonement was a commer
cial transaction — This usage establishes the Orthodox doctrine —
The Scriptures combine various modes of conceiving of the Atone
ment in the same passages, and thus define the species as well as
the genus of the Atonement as definitely as any one of the Creeds. 179
CHAPTER XIII.
THE TRUE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE NATURE OP
THE UNION WHICH THE SCRIPTURES ASSERT SUBSISTS BETWEEN CHRIST
AND HIS PEOPLE.
The common objection that vicarious punishment is unjust consid
ered — I. The fact that Christ and his people are one proved from
Scripture — The substance of ail-that is revealed as to the nature
of this union stated — II. The fact of this union, as thus proved
from Scripture, shown to be consistent only with the Orthodox
-doctrine of the nature of the Atonement./.  198

CHAPTER XIV.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT,
PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO THE NATURE
AND GROUNDS OF JUSTIFICATION.
I. Justification proved to be a, forensic act of God as Judge, and thus
shown to stand in irreconcilable opposition to the Moral Influence
Theory as to the nature of the Atonement — The arguments of Dr.
John Young answered — II. The view of Justification correspond
ing to the Governmental Theory of the Atonement stated — The
true doctrine, viz. that Justification is not mere pardon, that it is
a Judicial and not a Sovereign act, and that its ground is the per
fect righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, stated and
proved  212

CONTENTS. 7
CHAPTER XV. page
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE ' NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT,
PROVED FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE AS TO THE NATURE
AND OFFICE OF FAITH.
That faith includes trust proved — That faith in or on Christ as the
sole condition of salvation is the gospel preached by the Apostles,
proved — That this fact is perfectly consistent with the Orthodox
view of the Atonement, but utterly irreconcilable with either the
Governmental or the Moral Theory, shown  228
CHAPTER XVI.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT,
PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO ITS ABSOLUTE
NECESSITY IN ORDER TO THE SALVATION OF SINNERS.
Different opinions as to the ground of the necessity of the Atone
ment, stated — The bearing of this question upon the question as
to the nature of the Atonement — The true ground of the neces
sity of the Atonement stated and proved  234
CHAPTER XVII.
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT DETERMINED BY WHAT THE SCRIPTURES
TEACH AS TO ITS PERFECTION.
I. That the Atonement of Christ is intrinsically perfect in its law-
fulfilling and justice-satisfying value — Different views stated and
compared — The true doctrine stated and proved — II. That the
atoning work of Christ is perfect and complete in the sense of
infallibly securing its own application to all of those for whom it
was designed — This point proved (a) in opposition to the Romish
doctrine of the merit of good works and the efficacy of penance,
(b) in opposition to the Protestant advocates of an indefinite
Atonement  240
CHAPTER XVITI.
THE SATISFACTION RENDERED BY CHRIST PROVED TO EMBRACE HIS AC
TIVE AS WELL AS HIS PASSIVE OBEDIENCE.
Ambiguity of the word Atonement — The term Satisfaction precise
and comprehensive — Defect of Symington's book — That the obe
dience of Christ is inseparable from his suffering, proved — General
object of chapter to prove that Christ's obedience as well as his
sufferings is vicarious — Threefold relation mankind sustain to
law — Obedience is as absolutely necessary in order to the promise
of life as is penal suffering in order to the judicial reconciliation
— I. The original covenant was accompanied by two sanctions, a
promise conditioned on obedience and a penalty — The two alterna
tive theories of justification stated, and the truth of the Calvinis-
tic view proved— II. The doctrine contended for shown to be
expressly stated in Scripture — III. Christ's obedience shown to
have been vicarious, from the fact that his person transcended the
the claims of law — IV. Only a perfect righteousness can be the
ground of justification — V. The objection of Piscator, &c, refuted. 248

8 CONTENTS.
CHAPTEB XIX. Tin
THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT
PROVED TO HAVE BEEN THE FAITH OF THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN
CHORCH THROUGH ALL AGES.
I. General statement of the points which the historical evidence to be
adduced arc claimed to prove — II. The historical argument of Dr.
Young stated and refuted, and the testimony of writers from the
time of the Apostles to the present time adduced, together with
citations from the Creeds of the Greek, Roman, Lutheran and
Reformed Churches— III. The result of this historical review
shown to be that the uniform faith of the entire Church has in
cluded the element of expiation, and consequently is inconsistent
with either the Moral or the Governmental Theories of the Atone-
jES-nt  265
CHAPTEB XX.
THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH DOCTRINE STATED AND
ANSWERED.
1st. The objection that our doctrine ascribes vindictiveness to God, dis
proved — Show that both the Moral and the Governmental Theories
resolve justice into benevolence — 2d. The objection of Socinusand
others, that our doctrine excludes grace, disproved — 3d. The gene--
ral principle that the demands of the law are personal shown not
to impugn the truth of our system — 4th. The objection that Christ
was but a single person, and his sufferings finite and of short du
ration, shown not to have weight — 5th. The Church doctrine of
"Imputation" shown not to include the absurd figment of the
" transfer of moral character" — 6th. The objection that Christ
owed obedience for himself, disproved  301
CHAPTER XXI.
THE MORAL INFLUENCE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORIES OF THE
ATONEMENT.
I. The Moral Influence Theory — The object of Christ's death de
fined by Socinus — Statements to the same effect by Bushnell and
Young — The objections to the Moral View are, 1st". The moral in
fluence in question is better effected by the Atonement when con
ceived of according to the Orthodox view — 2d. The Moral Theory
fails, as its advocates confess, to account for the production of the
moral effects — 3d. Inconsistent with true nature and design of a
sacrifice — 4th. Inconsistent with the application of the work of
Christ to those who died before his advent— 5th. This doctrine is
condemned by its historical record— II. The Governmental Theory
—History and statement of the doctrine— Its superiority to Moral
Theory— Objections to this theory are, 1st. The positive truth of
the Governmental Hypothesis better taught by the Orthodox doc
trine — 2d. It, shows no connection between the death of Christ
and its acknowledged effects— 3d. It is founded upon a. false theory
of virtue — 4tb. It represents the work of Christ as au exhibition
of principles not truly in exercise— 5th. Inconsistent with true
idea of law, saorifioo, vicarious suffering and ransom, Ac  6th. It
necessitates the oonolusion that the Atonement was indefinite 

CONTENTS. 9
• PAQX
7th. It is connected with the false theory of co-operative justifica
tion — 8th. Is contradicted by the uniform faith of the Church — 9th.
It was not developed from Scripture — 10th. Its only plausible sup
port is its relation to the figment of an indefinite Atonement —
11th. Its known Arminian origin proves its inconsistency with
Calvinism  315

PART II.
THE DESIGN OR INTENDED APPLICATION OP THE
ATONEMENT. CHAPTEE I.
INTRODUCTORY.
The question as to the design of the Atonement considered as it is
involved in our controversy — 1st. With the Arminians — 2d. With
the Calvinistic Universalists  347
CHAPTEB II.
THE TRUE DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OP THE ATONEMENT ACCURATELY
STATED.
The question stated first negatively and then positively under
several heads  355
CHAPTEE III.
THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE TRUE RELATION WHICH THE PROBLEM AS
TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT SUSTAINS TO THE PROBLEM AS
TO ITS DESIGN, EXAMINED.
The view as to the Design of the Atonement entertained by the advo
cates Of, 1st. The Moral View, 2d. The Governmental Theory, 3d. The
strictly Mercantile View, 4th. The view of the Lutheran Churches,
5th. The view of the Reformed Churches and of the Arminians... 365
CHAPTEE IV.
HISTORY OF OPINION AMONG CALVINISTS UPON THE QUESTION AS TO THE
DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
The use of indefinite language by many strict Calvinists explained
— The different senses in which the phrase " That Christ died
for all men" has been used — The doctrine of Amyraldus and
its reception by the French Synod — The doctrine of the Marrow-
men as to the general reference of the Atonement — The two
classes of the recent advocates of an indefinite Atonement con
sidered  371

10 CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE V. taos
THE QUESTIONS, WHAT WAS THE OPINION OF CALVIN AS TO THE DE
SIGN OF THE ATONEMENT? WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF CALVINISM?
AND WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE ON THIS SUBJECT OF THE WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION AND CATECHISM ? CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.
The true position of Calvin on this subject carefully shown — The
standard of Calvinism shown, and proved to admit only the doe-
trine of a definite Atonement — The doctrine of the Westminster
Confession and Catechism demonstrated  387
CHAPTEE VI.
THE ARGUMENTS STATED UPON WHICH THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO
THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT RESTS.
This proved — 1st. From the very nature of the Atonement, since
Christ suffered as the personal Substitute of his people, and his
work was a satisfaction, and he died with the design of actually
saving those for whom he died — 2d. Christ purchased faith and re
pentance for his people — 3d. He died after half the human race
were already dead — 4th. He died in execution of the terms of an
eternal covenant with his Father — 5th. His motive was the highest
personal love for his own people — 6th. His design declared to be
the salvation of " his sheep/' the " Church," <fcc. — 7th. Christ's
work as High Priest was one work, and proved from the doctrine
of election — 8th. Our doctrine harmonizes all the facts  399
CHAPTER VIL
THE OBJECTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE REFORMED VIEW OF THE
DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT STATED, AND THE ANSWER TO THEM IN
DICATED.It is objected that our doctrine is inconsistent — 1st. "With the general
offer of the Gospel; answer — 2d. "With those passages which de
clare he suffered for " all," or " the world ;" answer — 3d. With those
passages which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom
Christ died; answer  418

PREFACE.

In the fall of 1866 the senior Editor of the "Presbyterian
Banner," of Pittsburg, asked the author of this book to write
a series of articles on the Atonement. The reason assigned was
that our views of the great central doctrines of the gospel were
frequently misrepresented by many outside of our own com
munion, and that for the instruction of our own people a re
statement of the venerable faith of the Reformed Churches was
now very much needed in a form specifically adapted to the cir
cumstances of the present generation. Being in full sympathy
with the reasons given, I wrote the articles, which appeared be
fore the public last winter. Those articles furnish about one
fourth part of the present_ volume, which is now sent forth as the
best contribution within my power to the vindication of the
ancient faith of the Presbyterian Church, and of the unques
tionable and only legitimate interpretation of her standards.
While jealously guarding the essential principles of the Cal-
vinistic system, I have designed to repel with all my might alike
all those positive heresies which attack it openly, and with even
greater solicitude that latitudinarian indifference to exact concep
tions and careful statements of doctrine which tend secretly, yet
not less certainly, to destroy the truth, and which in the present
age is our chief source of danger. I would pray and labour that
11

12 PEEP ACE.
m gaining breadth we may not lose height, and in gaining peace
and love we may not lose purity and truth. With all the very
obvious imperfections of the offering, I trust that the condescend
ing Saviour will graciously accept it, and render it an instrument
of blessing to his Church, to its ministry, and to those hopeful
candidates for its service to whose education my life is devoted.
Allegheny City, Pa., October, 1, 1867.

The Atonement.

PART L
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE doctrine of the Atonement is evidently the
central and principal element of the doctrine of
Justification, which Luther truly affirmed to be the
article of a standing or a falling Church. The truth of
this aphorism is obvious, both because this truth concerns
the foundation upon which our relations to God as our
heavenly Father, and consequently all our present life
and our future hopes, depend, and also because our con
ception of this central principle necessarily determines
our conception of all the other elements of the entire
system of revealed truth ; such as the moral attributes
of God, the nature of his Moral Government, of Law,
Sin and Penalty, the Person of the God-man, the Per
son and Office of the Holy Spirit, the Office of Faith,
and hence the entire character of our religious expe
rience. In contradiction of the assertion of Bushnell, and
2 13

14 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the vague impression of many others, that no consistent
view as to the nature of Christ's redemptive work has
characterized the faith of the Church in all ages, I expect
to show in the following chapters that, although the
Church did not attain to a definite and complete scientific
statement of the Doctrine of Redemption before the
period of the Socinian controversy in the early part of
the seventeenth century, it is nevertheless a fact that the
whole Church, in its historical divisions from the apos
tolic age, and each branch of it in exact proportion to its
general orthodoxy, has held essentially but one opinion
on this subject. On the subject of the nature and objec
tive reference of the redemptive work of Christ there
was no controversy between the Reformers and the
Church of Rome. All the great national churches of
both the Lutheran and Reformed families, and all the
authoritative Church creeds, are here, at the very heart
of the gospel, at one. Even all evangelical Arminians,
such as Arminius himself, John Wesley, and Richard
Watson, by a happy sacrifice of logic, are on this vital
question at one with Calvinists, and opposed to the more
consistent Pelagianizing Arminians.
On the other hand, the lesson of history is none the
less clear, that Rationalism, in all its forms and degrees,
tends to pervert the testimony of Scripture as to the
nature of Redemption, and that erroneous views on this
subject, are invariably connected, as cause or effect, with
erroneous views on every other main principle of the
gospel. Thus Socinian views as to the Person of Christ
have always been accompanied with corresponding views
as to the nature of his work. The same is true precisely
of high Arianism, and again of the semi-pantheistic

INTRODUCTORY. 15
Monism of Schleiermacher and the American Mercers-
berg theology. Arminianism is distinguished by its
peculiar soteriology, corresponding accurately to its an
thropology. Calvinistic advocates of general redemption,
whether of the French, English, or American schools,
have always been constrained to modify to a correspond
ing extent the common doctrine of all the Reformers,
and of all the Church creeds, as to the nature of Re
demption and of Justification. The Pelagianizing spec
ulations of the New England theologians — as to the
nature of sin and of virtue, the extent of man's moral
ruin in the fall, the necessity and nature of Effectual
Calling and Regeneration — have in all their varying
phases been accompanied with corresponding theories of
the Atonement, so called. And every passing school of
German Rationalists, old or new, and the neoplatonizing
Rationalists of the Broad Church school in England and
America, are characterized by the uniformity of purpose
with which in various methods they seek to make void
the teaching of Scripture on this vital theme.
Thus history puts it beyond question that a tendency
to deny, or even to abate or to modify, the full truth on
this subject, is always symptomatic of a tendency toward
a total disintegration of the system of revealed truth.
And all the indications of the present time also warn us
that the whole Church is just now, in a pre-eminent de
gree, exposed to this very influence from many directions.
From the recent amazing advancement of the physical
sciences, and the corresponding development of the prac
tical arts, and the wide extension of the secular interests
and activities of the masses of mankind, and doubtless
from many other causes unknown, the spirit of modern

16 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
philosophy, whether intuitional or sensational, is beyond
precedent naturalistic— that is, disposed to deny the
supernatural as impossible, or to ignore it as unknow
able. The subtle spirit of this mode of thought pene
trates every sphere of mental activity, is diffused through
every species of literature, and is far more influential
over the speculations of even truly religious minds than
many are aware of. It is constantly, by an unfelt pres
sure, tending to lead the theologian away from the sim
plicity of the gospel. This is manifested in many essays
at a rational explanation of the mysteries of revelation
in conformity with the principles of natural reason and
the analogies of human experiences. Doctrines are first
formed to satisfy rational views of what they ought to
be, and then a reference is made to the Bible to elicit
inspired confirmation of truths otherwise derived,.
The two great doctrines just at present most generally
brought into question, and which have suffered most at
the hands of Rationalistic criticism, are those concerning
the nature and extent of Biblical Inspiration, and the
nature of the redemptive work of Christ. These natu
rally stand or fall together. For if the inspiration of
the Scriptures is plenary, then the Church doctrine as to
the nature of Redemption remains impregnable. But
if the authority of the Scriptures may be abated, the
way is open, of course, in due proportion, to theories of
Redemption adjusted to the "finer feelings," the "moral
intuitions," and the administrative experiences of man
kind. Thus we have in Broad Church literature — so
widely circulated in the writings of Jowett, Maurice,
Stanley, Dr. John Young of Edinburgh, and the sermons
of Robertson, and the late elaborate treatise on " Vica-

INTRODUCTORY. 17
rious Sacrifice," of Bushnell, and elsewhere — a re
publication in new forms of that which is in essence
nothing else than the old Socinian heresy on the Atone
ment. A prominent Methodist minister, the Rev. Dr.
Steele, as quoted by the Watchman and Reflector, declares,
concerning that great evangelical denomination, that the
old view that Christ died to satisfy the justice of God is
undoubtedly disappearing among them, and that the
"moral influence," or Socinian view, is generally taking
its place. And it is notorious that the hybrid Govern
mental Atonement theory-4— orthodox in whatever it
affirms and Socinian in all it denies — has for years been
the accepted doctrine of what is called the New England
theology, and of a large class of theologians in Eng
land. There are three points to which I wish to direct the
attention of the reader in this introductory chapter.
1. The first is the fact, too apt to be overlooked by eager
controversialists, that all error, especially all effective and
therefore dangerous error, is partial truth. The human
mind was formed for truth, and so constituted that only
truth can exert permanent influence upon it. But the
truth revealed in the Scriptures is so many-sided in its
aspects, and so vast in its relations, and our habits of
thought because of sin are so one-sided and narrow, that
as a general fact, the mind of any Church in any single
age fails to take in practically and sharply more than
one side of a truth at a time, while other aspects and
relations are either denied or neglected. A habit of un
duly exalting any subordinate view of the truth at the
expense of that which is more important, or of overlook
ing, on the other hand, some secondary aspect of it
2*

18 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
altogether, is certain after a time to lead to a reactionary
tendency, in which that which has been too much exalted
shall be brought low, and that which has been abased
shall be exalted. This principle is abundantly illustrated
throughout the entire history of theological speculation;
as in the ever-repeated oscillations between the extremes
of Sabellianism and Tritheism as to the Trinity, of
Euticheanism and Nestorianism as to the Person of
Christ, and in the history of speculations on the doc
trine of Redemption. Every prominent heresy as to the
nature of the Atonement, as the reader mil find care
fully acknowledged and defined in the following work,
embraces and emphasizes on its positive side an impor
tant truth. The power, and hence the danger, of the
heresy resides in that fact. But on the other hand, it is
a heresy, and hence an evil to be resisted unto death,
because it either puts a subordinate principle into the
place of that which is central and fundamental, or be
cause it puts one side of the truth for the whole, denying
or ignoring all besides the fractional truth presented. It
is plainly the policy as well as the duty of the defenders
of the whole truth, not only to acknowledge the truth
held on the side of their opponents, but to vindicate the
rights of the perfect system as a whole, by demonstrating
the true position and relation of the partial truth ad
mitted in the larger system of truth denied. By these
means we double the defences of orthodoxy, by bringing
into contribution all that is true, and therefore all that
is of force, in the apologies of error.
2. The second point is, that systems of divinity and
definite views of doctrine are not a matter of choice, but
of absolute necessity to the Church, as long as the Bible

INTRODUCTORY. 19
is read with interest. This unquestionable necessity
arises from the logical constitution of the human mind
to which the Christian revelation has been addressed,
and from the self-consistent reason of that infinite mind
from which the revelation has originated. That all
truth is one in God and in man is an invincible axiom.
The man who intelligently denies this is ripe for atheism,,
The human mind — that of the individual and that of
every community — ever strives to introduce unity into the
whole mass of its knowledge. God's plans, purposes,
administrations — whether through nature or from above
nature, and his revelations, whether history or prophecy,
whether doctrine, precept or promise — must all constitute
one system, and hence, all their parts must sustain a con
sistent relation to one another. They cannot be conceived
of truly unless they are conceived of as they are, each
being accurately denned, and understood in their mutual
relations. At present there are two absurdly inconsistent attacks*,
originating in rationalistic sources, directed against that
system of truth which the Christian Church has dis
cerned in the inspired Scriptures. The first attack is
made upon the plea that everything contained in a
supernatural revelation — being a part of a great self-
contained system of truth — must be forthwith explained
and set forth, in all its relations, in the light of the
human reason. Some, arguing from analogy, and
others appealing to their own elementary intuitions and
feelings, determine d priori what God' can do and say,
and therefore what God does do and say, thus using
the materials of revelation in subordination to the
law-giving power of reason. The whole class of

20 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
errorists with whom we have to do, draw their doctrine
in the first instance from rational principles, and they
appeal to Scripture only to show that it may be quoted
in at least apparent conformity with what has been pre
viously discovered and proved on other grounds. The
second attack appears in the form of a protest against
definite views of doctrine, and covers its real denial of
the fundamental articles of the Christian faith under
vague generalities. Coleridge, in his Aids to Reflection,*
denies that the Scriptures reveal anything to us of
"the efficient cause and condition of redemption,"
except the bare fact that Christ has achieved it, and
affirms that all that is revealed to us concerns the
"effects of redemption in and for the redeemed" them
selves. Hence a large class of theologians in England,
and a smaller but growing one in America, are continu
ally pleading for the bare implicit recognition of the
Atonement as a fact, and protesting against all theories
of the Atonement whatsoever ; that is, against all definite
views upon the subject.f
This is at once very absurd and very dangerous, and
none the less dangerous because of its absurdity. The
present, above all other periods of human history, is
intolerant of all vague, undetermined and loosely-held
views. Sharp, clearly-defined logic and earnest faith
will hold the field at the last. Besides, these very men
necessarily violate their own principle, showing that
* Aphorisms on Spiritual Eeligion Indeed, Comment on Aphorism
19. f See Tracts for Priests and People, Tract III., The Atonement
as a Fact and as a Theory. By the Eev. Francis Garden, Sub-dean
of Her Majesty's Chapel Royal.

INTRODUCTORY. 21
practically it serves only as a cover under which their
hostility to the truth is disguised. It is plain enough
that Coleridge held and taught, under all the cloud of
his mysterious language, the old, meagre and oft-dis
carded Moral Theory of the Atonement. The Rev. Sub-
dean Garden, in the Tracts for Priests and People, makes
it very plain that while his professed object is to main
tain the Atonement as a fact, while all human theories
as to its nature are alike rejected, his real interest in the
matter is to reject the principle which has been always
professed by the Church in all its branches, that the
direct and central design and effect of Christ's death was
to propitiate the principle of justice in the divine nature.
The same is true in degree also in the advocates of the
Governmental theory. Its positions are possible only
when vaguely and generally stated. When a strict
account is asked as to what is meant by "a substitute for
a penalty," or as to the connection between the non-penal
sufferings of an innocent person and the forgiveness of
the unpunished sins of the guilty subjects of divine
government, no answer is made, and we venture to assert
that upon their theory no answer is possible. v
In answer to both of these pleas of Nationalism, We
affirm that Christian doctrine has its ground in the in
spired Scriptures alone. These contain the system of
divine truth as a whole, as well as all the separate ele
ments of that system. The true system of Redemption
is in the Scriptures, inseparable from the facts, just as
the true theory of astronomy has been from the creation
with the stars in the sky, whether mankind read them
aright or not. The theologian, like the astronomer, is
nothing more than the interpreter, who observes the

22 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
facts, who gradually reads the system in the facts, and
who teaches to others precisely what he has read in the
book, neither more nor less. We believe that what is
called the Satisfaction theory of the Atonement is as cer
tainly and as demonstrably taught in the Scriptures as it
is in any or in all the creeds of the Reformed Churches.
The teachings of the Holy Scriptures, with respect to the
precise nature of the Atonement, when brought together,
are, as I show at the close of Chapter XII., as definite
as any statement which can possibly be constructed in
the use of human speech. Let us reverently remember
the awful woe which the Holy Ghost denounces upon him
who either " shall add anything unto " or " shall take away"
aught from that which God has revealed in the Scrip
tures. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. It is certainly as impious, and
perhaps more foolish, to refuse to see clearly what God
has revealed clearly, as it is to attempt to understand in
detail great undefined facts which God has seen fit to
leave upon the verge of our horizon. We hear of some
dapper preachers who claim that the age has outgrown"
doctrine. They have advanced around the circle to
the place from which they started, and hope they arS
ready again to enter the kingdom of heaven like little
children, as far as ignorance is concerned. Let it be '
remembered that systematic theology has its essence sim
ply in clear thinking and clear speaking on the subject
of that religion which is revealed in the Scriptures. A
man can outgrow systematic theology, therefore either
by ceasing to be clear-headed, or by ceasing to be reli
gious, and in no other way. I suppose some escape in
their haste by both ways at once.

• INTRODUCTORY. 23
3. In the third place, as to the conditions of the
argument, I have to make three preliminary remarks.
(1.) I insist that, as the Gospel is wholly a matter of
divine revelation, the answer to the question, What did
Christ do on earth in order to reconcile us to God? be
sought exclusively in a full and fair induction from all
the Scriptures teach upon the subject. From a survey
of all the matter revealed on the subject, what, in the
judgment of a mind unprejudiced by theories, did the
sacred writers intend us to believe? The result of such
an examination, unmodified by philosophy or secular
analogies, is alone, we insist, the true doctrine of the re
demptive work of Christ.
(2.) Reasonable objections against the evidences by
which a doctrine is established have force, and should
be duly considered. But rational objections to any
principle fairly established by the language of Scripture
have no force whatever, unless they amount to a palpable
contradiction to other principles certainly known. And
whenever this can be shown, the reasonable inference is,
not that the teachings of Scripture are to be modified in
conformity thereto, but that the Scriptures themselves
are. to be rejected as false. Nothing is more ^senseless
than the attempt to modify the results of the inspiration
of Jehovah in conformity with human reason.
(3.) The force of the argument in behalf of this or
any other doctrine does not lie in special words or
passages, nor in the several arguments regarded sepa
rately. These are like the sticks of the bundle which the
boy in the fable broke one by one with ease. The over
whelming demonstration lies in the fact that all Scrip
ture, both of the Old and New Testaments, when

24 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
naturally interpreted, is as if the doctrine was true. The
number and variety of converging lines are absolutely
inconsistent with doubt as to the meaning intended. Our
opponents are in the habit of demanding that we should
show that each text in detail not only may, but abso
lutely must, teach the doctrine we hold, and none other.
In these tactics they have been greatly excelled by the
more consistent Socinians, who, by a like process, have
satisfied themselves that Christ's proper divinity is not
taught in Scripture.
I propose, then,
First. To state the Church doctrine on this subject,
defining all the points involved, and the terms used in
the definitions.
Second. To present a summary of the several depart
ments of the scriptural evidence by which the doctrine
is established. Third. To prove that the true Church has always,
from the days of the apostles to the present, in all its
branches, been in essential agreement as to the essential
elements of the doctrine, as taught at large in the con
fessions of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches.
Fourth. To state and answer the principal objections
made to the doctrine.
Fifth. To state, comjjare and expose the fallacy of the
several erroneous views held in opposition to the truth.
Sixth. To state and prove the common doctrine of the
Reformed Churches as to the design of the Atonement
with respect to its objects.

CHAPTER II.
STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE.
IT may elucidate the statement of the points involved
in the orthodox doctrine as to the nature of Christ's
Redemptive Work, which I propose to give in this
chapter, if we first take a step backward, and attempt to
estimate those conditions which made that work necessary.
It is assumed that the end to be attained was to reconcile
God and man. What, then, were the difficulties to be
surmounted? What parties are to be affected by the
introduction of such a provision into the administration
of the divine government? And how do they severally
stand in relation to it ?
1. There is God. It is evident that whatever the
nature of God demands, as the condition of this recon
ciliation, must be provided. And it is no less evident
that the conditions, rendered necessary by God's nature,
must take precedence of all others; and, indeed, since all
created natures and relations are contingent upon God's
nature, so all other conditions of redemption whatsoever
must be contingent upon the demands of his nature.
Now we expect to show (1) that the Scriptures teach
that one of the attributes of the divine essence is abhor
rence of sin for its intrinsic sinfulness, both in its aspect
as pollution and in its aspecff as guilt. It is of the
3 ?5

26 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
essence of his moral perfection to forbid it and punish
it. (2.) That God has, from the first enunciation of his
law to Adam, pledged his incorruptible truth that "the
soul that sinneth, it shall die."
2. There is the sinner himself in a certain legal rela
tion, and with a certain moral disposition as it respects
God. (1.) As to his legal relations, the Scriptures clearly
teach that, at his creation, he was put under the equita
ble Covenant of Works for a certain probationary period.
This just constitution provided (a) everlasting well-being
on condition of perfect obedience, and (b) everlasting
ill-being on condition of disobedience. Now, although
under that covenant man failed, it is evident that, never
theless, both of these conditions must be maintained in
their integrity. To relax them would be to violate the
word of God, to dishonour his law, and to render his
promises and his threaten ings alike unworthy of respect.
The penalty, when once incurred, can be preserved in
violate only by being executed. The promise of ever
lasting well-being can be truthfully granted only when
the condition of perfect obedience has been fulfilled.
Suffering a righteous penalty entitles no criminal to a
reward ; and to offer eternal blessedness to such, on terms
denied to unfallen Adam and to all angels, would be
placing a premium on sin.
(2.) As to man's moral disposition toward God, Scrip
ture and experience teach that it is a condition alike of
conscious guilt and of alienation, (a) It is a condition
of conscious guilt. Conscience is an indestructible ele
ment of human nature. It is God's, incorruptible witness
in the soul, in the midst of all its moral corruption

STATEMENT OP DOCTRINE. 27
judging of sin as he judges of it. It is armed with
the vindicatory emotion of remorse, which demands
expiation, and. which never can be pacified by mere par
don. Pardon allays fear; sanctification allays self-
abhorrence; but only expiation can appease remorse.
(6) Man's condition involves a disposition of fear, dis
trust, sullen alienation as respects God. This might all
be removed by an exertion of new creative power. But
God works upon man in consistency with his nature as
a rational and free agent. Such an exhibition of God's
character and disposition toward man must be made,
therefore, as shall tend, according to the laws of man's
moral and emotional nature, to subdue his alienation and
to dissipate his distrust.
3. There is the moral universe, embraced in one gene
ral system of divine government. If sin is punished
in one province, government is strengthened throughout
the empire. On the other hand, if law is relaxed and
sin pardoned by mere sovereign prerogative in any one
province, the government is just so far forth dishonoured
and weakened throughout all provinces and for all time.
Sinful men, therefore, cannot properly be reconciled to
God until after provision has been made to demonstrate
to all the subjects of God's government his immutable
determination to punish sin in all eases without exception.
The orthodox doctrine, provides exhaustively for
satisfying all these conditions of redemption at once, by
the one act of the Lord Jesus, in vicariously suffering
the penalty of the broken law as the Substitute of his
people. His motive was infinite love. The precise thing
he did was to suffer the penalty of the law as the sub
stitute of his people. His direct intention was to satis-

28 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
fy justice in their behalf, and thus secure, on legal
terms, their salvation. In doing this, he also necessarily
satisfied the natural demand of the sinner's conscience for
expiation, and subdued his sullen alienation, and re
moved his distrust of God, by the supreme exhibition
of divine love made on the cross. At the same time,
and by the same means, he gave to the whole moral
universe the highest conceivable demonstration of God's
inexorable determination to punish all sin, just because
he did so punish it even in the person of his Son. The
Socinian, or Moral Influence Theory, supposes that the
sole design and effect of Christ's sufferings was to subdue
the wicked alienation of man by an exhibition of self-
sacrificing love. It is evident that this view is not only
partial and inverted, making the reconciliation of man
to God everything, and the reconciliation of God to man
nothing, but it is also absurd when detached from the
central idea of expiation. Christ's sufferings subdue the
alienation of man because they exhibit divine love.
They exhibit divine love, because they were endured as
the means necessary to remove obstacles otherwise in
superable even by God to the exercise of favour to sinful
men. A tragedy gotten up for the transparent purpose
of affecting our feelings, having no inherent principle or
necessity in itself, would disgust rather than conciliate
enmity. The Governmental Theory, however its principles
may be disguised by vague and general statements,
essentially involves the assumption (1) that justice is
only a mode of benevolence; (2) that the penalty was
not executed on Christ; that his sufferings were not
necessary to satisfy the rigour of divine justice; that, on

STATEMENT OP DOCTRINE. 29
the contrary, he suffered a substitute for the penalty, as
an example of punishment to counteract in the moral
universe, by exhibiting God's determination to punish
sin, the evil effects that would otherwise ensue upon its
pardon. It is even more evident than in the case of the
Socinian Theory that this view is not only partial and
inverted, putting the claims of the moral universe before
those of God, but absurd, also, when detached from the
central idea of expiation, which it was invented to
supersede. For how can his sufferings be an example
of punishment unless Christ really suffered the penalty
of the law? How can they demonstrate God's deter
mination to punish sin unless sin was in very deed
punished therein ?
The orthodox doctrine as to Redemption involves
the following points.
1. As to its Motive. This was the amazing love of
God to his own people^ determining him, in perfect
consistency with his truth and justice, to assume him
self, in the person of his Son, the responsibility of
bearing the penalty and satisfying justice. The same
identical essence and attributes are common to the Father
and the Son. The justice demanding satisfaction, and
the love prompting to the self-assumption of the penalty,
are co-existent states of divine feeling and purpose.
2. As to its Nature. (1.) Christ assumed the law-
place of his people. He owed no personal obedience,
and he had sovereign right over his own life to dispose
of it as he willed. Prompted by the infinite love com
mon to the Father and himself, he voluntarily assumed
all of our legal responsibilities. (2.) He obeyed and
suffered as our Substitute. His sufferings were vicarious.
3*

30 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
By his obedience and sufferings he discharged all our
obligations to the divine law, both in its federal and
penal relations. His sufferings cancelled the claims of
penal justice, and his obedience merited the rewards of
the original covenant of life. (3.) While there was, of
course, no transfer of moral character, he assumed the
guilt (just obligation to punishment) of our sins. All
their shame and pollution remain ours, while all their
guilt (penal obligation) was willingly assumed by, and
imputed to him — i. e., charged to his account. (4.) He
did not render a pecuniary satisfaction, and therefore did
not suffer the same degree nor duration, nor in all re
spects the same kind of sufferings, which the law would
have inflicted on the sinner in person. But he did
suffer the very penalty of the law. That is, sin was
punished in him in strict rigour of justice. His suffer
ings were no substitute for a penalty, but those very
penal evils which rigorous justice demanded of his
exalted person when he stood in our place, as a full
equivalent for all that was demanded of us. The sub
stitution of a divine for a human victim necessarily
involved a change in the quality, though none whatever
in the legal relations, of the suffering. (5.) He did not,
of course, suffer in his divine nature. But because of
the infinite dignity of his person, his finite sufferings
constitute an absolutely perfect satisfaction, sufficient to
expiate the sins of all men.
3. As to its Effect. (1.) It produced no change in
God, any more than do acts of creation and providence.
The efficient purpose existed in the divine mind from
eternity. He acted upon it, as if accomplished from the
fall of Adam. The infinite justice and the infinite love

STATEMENT OP DOCTRINE. 31
exercised in the sacrifice of Christ were in the divine
mind from the beginning. The effect of the satisfaction
was to render possible the concurrent exercise of the
justice and the love in the treatment of the same sinful
persons. (2.) It expiated the guilt of sin. It fulfilled
the demands of law. It propitiated justice. It recon
ciled us to God. \ (3.) It actually secures our salvation,
and does not simply put us in a salvable state. Accord
ing to the terms of the Covenant of Grace, the impetra-
tion of redemption by Christ is infallibly connected with
its application by the Holy Ghost. (4.) Not being the
payment of a pecuniary debt, which ipso facto liberates,
but a vicarious penal satisfaction, it remains, as far as
we are concerned, as a matter of right, in the hands of
God to grant its benefits to whom he pleases, when and
on whatsoever terms he pleases. His granting it in
¦ any case is an act of sovereign grace. But since Christ
acted by covenant, he has acquired by his performance
of the stipulated conditions a strictly legal title to the
salvation of all for whom he acted. As between God
and 'the Mediator, the claim in right is perfect. As
between God and the Mediator and sinful man, it is all
free and amazing grace. (5.) Being the actual execution
in strict rigour of justice of the unrelaxed penalty of the
law in the person of the God-man,)it is the most im
pressive exhibition to the moral universe conceivable of
God's inexorable determination to punish all sin. (6.)
Being an exhibition of amazing love — of the costliest
self-sacrifice, overcoming obstacles otherwise insuperable
to the well-being of its objects — it effects what only
such love can ; it melts the hearts, subdues the rebellion,
and dissipates the fears of sinful men.

CHAPTER III.
DEFINITION OF TERMS, AND SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL
POINTS INVOLVED IN THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE
ATONEMENT.
EVERY science has its tecnnical terms, and much
depends, of course, upon their being accurately
understood and consistently used. There is, moreover,
a constant tendency in the language of theology — as is
the case with all living human speech — to change, to
admit new terms, to drop old ones, and to modify the
sense of others. Advocates of different schools of theo
logical opinions use common terms in different senses,
and one main cause of the futility of theological con
troversy, and of the irritation with which it is accom
panied, is due to the fact that they so inadequately
understand each other's speech. In order, therefore, to
establish a common understanding with my readers, I
shall in this chapter define the sense in which certain
terms are used in the theological writings of the Re
formed Churches, and then enumerate several points
involved in the statement of the orthodox doctrine of
the Atonement before given, to which I desire the atten
tion of my readers directed throughout the subsequent
discussion of that scriptural evidence by which they
are established.
I. Atonement. This word has been generally used
32

DEFINITION OP TERMS. 33
in late years, both in England and in this country, to
express the specific thing which Christ wrought in order
to our salvation. The old term in use ever since the
days of Anselm, and habitually used by all the Re
formers in all the creeds and great classical theological
writings of the seventeenth century, both Lutheran and
Reformed, was Satisfaction. We prefer the old term
to the new one for the following reasons.
(1.) The word Atonement is ambiguous. It is used
many times in the Old Testament to translate the
Hebrew word *i£D — to cover by making expiation. It
appears but once in our English New Testament, and
there (Rom. v. 11) as the equivalent of the Greek word
xazaXXafj, reconciliation. Its etymology is not known,
and is claimed by many to be at-one-ment. This the
Socinians regard as the full force of the word, and as
thus fully expressing the exact nature of Christ's work
— that is, a reconciliation of God and man. Thus the
word is sometimes understood to mean reconciliation, and
sometimes that sin-expiating, God-propitiating work by
which reconciliation was effected. When we say that
we have "received the atonement," we mean that we
have been reconciled to God. But when it is said that
Christ, after the analogy of the ancient sacrifices, has
"made an atonement for us," it means that he has done
that which secures our reconciliation ; i. e., has satisfied
all the demands of law upon which the favour and fel
lowship of God were suspended. On the other hand,
the word Satisfaction is not ambiguous. It always means
precisely that which Christ did in order to save his peo
ple, as that work stands related to the nature of God
and to his law.

34 THE nature of THE ATONEMENT.
(2.) The word Atonement, moreover, is too limited in
its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does
not express all that Scripture declares that Christ did in
order to satisfy all the demands of God's law. It pro
perly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more.
It represents only that satisfaction which Christ rendered
to the justice of God in vicariously bearing the penalty
due to our sins, but it does not include that satisfaction
which Christ rendered in his vicarious obedience to the
law as a covenant of everlasting well-being. The word
Satisfaction naturally includes both of these, while the
use of the word Atonement to express the whole of
Christ's work has naturally led to confused and defective
views as to the nature of that work.
The word Satisfaction is neither ambiguous nor
defective. The Reformed Churches mean by its use (1)
that Christ fully satisfied all that the justice and law of
God required, on the part of mankind, as the condition
of their being admitted to divine favour and eternal
happiness. (2.) As the demands of the law upon sinful
men are both preceptive and penal — the condition of
life being " do this and live," while the penalty denounced
upon disobedience is, "the soul that sinneth it shall die"
— it follows that any work which shall fullv satisfy the
demands of the divine law in behalf of men must in
clude (1) that obedience which the law demands as the
condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands
as the penalty of sin.*
II. The Difference between a penal and a pecuniary
satisfaction. These differ precisely as do crime and debt,
things and persons, and therefore the distinction is both
* Dr. Charles Hodge.

DEFINITION OP TERMS. 35
)bvious and important. Many, who either are incapable
af understanding the question, are ignorant of its history,
3r who are unscrupulous as to the manner in which they
conduct controversy, are continually charging our doc
trine with the folly of representing the sacrifice of Christ
as a purely commercial transaction, in which so much
was given for so much, and in which God was in such a
sense recompensed for his favours to us that however
much gratitude we may owe to Christ, we owe on this.
behalf none to God. Long ago the doctrine of the Re
formed Churches was unanswerably vindicated from such
puerile charges by all its most authoritative expounders.
" Here the twofold solution, concerning which jurists treat,
should be accurately distinguished. The one, which ipso
facto liberates the debtor or criminal because that very
thing which was owed is paid, whether it was done by the
debtor or by another in his name. The other, which ipso
facto does not liberate, since not at all the very thing which
was owed, but an equivalent, is paid, which, although it
does not thoroughly and ipso facto discharge the obliga
tion, yet having been accepted — since it might be refused
— is regarded as a satisfaction. This distinction holds
between a pecuniary and a penal indebtedness. For in
a pecuniary debt the payment of the thing owed ipso
facto liberates the debtor from all obligations whatso
ever, because here the point is not who pays, but what is
paid. Hence the creditor, the payment being accepted,
is never said to extend toward the debtor any indul
gence or remission, because he has received all that was
owed him. But the case is different with respect to a
penal debt, because in this case the obligation respects
the person as well as the thing ; the demand is upon the

36 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
person who pays as well as the thing paid; i. e., that the
penalty should be suffered by the person sinning; for as
the law demands personal and proper obedience, so it
exacts personal enduring of the penalty. Therefore, in
order that a criminal should be absolved — a vicarious
satisfaction being rendered by another hand — it is neces
sary that there should intervene a sovereign act of the
supreme law-giver, which, with respect to the law, is
called relaxation, and with respect to the debtor is called
remission, because the personal endurance of the penalty
is remitted, and a vicarious endurance of it is accepted
in its stead. Hence it clearly appears that in this work
(of Redemption) remission and satisfaction are perfectly
consistent with each other, because there is satisfaction
in the endurance of the punishment which Christ bore,
and there is remission in the acceptance of a vicarious
victim. The satisfaction respects Christ, from whom
God demanded the very same punishment, as to kind
of punishment, though not as to the degree nor as to the
nature of the sufferings which the law denounced upon
us. The remission respects believers, to whom God re
mits the personal, while he admits the vicarious, punish
ment. And thus appears the admirable reconciliation
of justice and mercy — justice which executes itself upon
the sin, and mercy which is exercised towards the shiner.
Satisfaction is rendered to the justice of God by the
Sponsor, and remission is granted to us by God." *
Hence pecuniary satisfaction differs from penal thus:
(a.) In debt, the demand terminates upon the thing due.
In crime, the legal demand for punishment is upon the
person of the criminal. (6.) In debt, the demand is for
* Turretin, Locus XIV. Quaestio 10, j.

DEFINITION OF TERMS. 37
the precise thing due — the exact quid pro quo, and no-"
thing else. In crime, the demand is for that kind,
degree and duration of suffering which the law — i. e.,
absolute and omniscient justice — demands in each specific
case, the person suffering and the sin to be expiated both
being considered, (c.) In debt, the payment of the
thing due, by whomsoever it may be made, ipso facto
liberates the debtor, and instantly extinguishes all the
claims of the creditor, and his release of the debtor is
no matter of grace. In crime, a vicarious suffering of
the penalty is admissible only at the absolute discretion
of the sovereign; remission is a matter of grace; the
rights acquired by the vicarious endurance of penalty
all accrue to the sponsor; and the claims of law upon
the sinner are not ipso facto dissolved by such a satisfac
tion, but remission accrues to the designed beneficiaries
only at such times and on such conditions as have been
determined by the will of the sovereign, or agreed upon
between the sovereign and the sponsor.
3. The significance of the term Penalty, and tlie
distinction between Calamities, Chastisements and
Penal Evils. Calamities are sufferings viewed with
out any reference to a design or purpose in their inflic
tion — that is, suffering considered simply as suffering.
Chastisements are sufferings viewed as designed for the
improvement of those who experience them. When
viewed as designed to satisfy the claims of justice and
law, they are Penal Evils. The sufferings of Christ
were not mere objectless, characterless calamities. They
could not have been chastisements designed for his per
sonal improvement. They must therefore have been
penal inflictions vicariously endured.*
, *Dr. Charles Hodge.

38 the nature of the atonement.
Penalty is suffering exacted by the supreme law
making power of the breakers of law. The penalty in
case of any person and in view of any crime is precisely
that kind, degree and duration of suffering which the
supreme law-making power demands of that person
under those conditions for that crime. Human law is
necessarily generalized in an average adaptation to
classes. But divine law with infinite accuracy adapts
itself to the absolute rights of each individual case of
crime and of punishment, the penalty in each case ful
filling all righteousness, both as respects the person
punished and the crime for which it is inflicted. We
say that Christ suffered the very penalty of the law, not
because he suffered in the least the same kind, much less
the same degree, of suffering as was penally due those
for whom he acted, because that is not at all necessary
to the idea of penalty. But we say that he suffered the
very penalty of the law, because he suffered in our stead ;
our sins were punished in strict rigour of justice in him;
the penal demands of the law upon his people were ex
tinguished, because his sufferings sustained precisely the
same legal relations that our sufferings in person would
have done; and because he suffered precisely that kind,
degree and duration of suffering that absolute justice
demanded of his divine person, when found federally
responsible for the guilt of all the sins of the elect. We
believe that while the sufferer is substituted, the penalty
as penalty, though never as suffering, is identical. We
are willing to call it in accommodation a "substituted
penalty," though we believe the phrase inaccurate. But
the phrase insisted upon by the advocates of the Govern
mental Atonement Theory — viz., "a substitute for a

definition op terms. 39
penalty" — we believe to be absurd. Sin is either punished
or not punished. The penalty is either executed or re
mitted. Justice is either exercised or relaxed. There
can be no manifestation of penal righteousness without
an exercise of penal justice.
4. The meaning of the words Substitution and Vica
rious. These terms are admitted in a loose sense even
by Socinians, and are paraded by Young, Maurice and
Jowett, and very much in the same loose, indifferent
sense by Barnes and the advocates of the Govern
mental Atonement Theory generally. When these
parties say that Christ was substituted for us and his
sufferings are vicarious, they mean nothing more than
that he suffered in our behalf, for our benefit. We hold,
on the other. hand, that Christ was in a strict and exact
sense the substitute of his people; i. e., by divine ap
pointment, and of his own free will, he assumed all our
legal responsibilities and thus assumed our law-place,
binding himself to do in our stead all that the law de
manded of him when he suffered the penalty due us,
and rendered the obedience upon which our well-being
was made to depend. Vicarious sufferings and obedi
ence are penal inflictions, and acts of obedience to law
which are rendered in our place or stead (vice), as well as
in our behalf by our substitute. An alien goes to the
army in the place of a drafted subject. He is the sub
stitute of the man in whose place he goes. His labours,
his dangers, his wounds and his death are vicarious.
5. The distinction between the terms Expiation and
Propitiation. Both these words represent the same
Greek word, lldaxeadai. When construed, as it is con
stantly in the classics, with xbv 6sou or roue 8eou<;, it

40 the nature of the atonement.
means to propitiate by sacrificial expiation. In the New
Testament it is construed with zac, afiapriaz, Heb. ii. 17,
and is properly translated to expiate. Expiation removes
the reatus or guilt of sin. Meatus is that obligation to
suffer the penalty which is inherent in sin. Sanetifica-
tion alone removes the pollution of sin. Propitiation
removes the judicial displeasure of God. Expiation
respects the bearing or effect which Satisfaction has upon
sin or upon the sinner. Propitiation has respect to the
bearing or effect which Satisfaction has upon God. Sacri
ficial expiation among heathens, Jews and Christians has
always been regarded as a true poena vicaria; it is of the
genus penalty; its specific difference is vicariousness.
Propitiation, as a theological term, means that peculiar
method of rendering placable which affects the heart of
a Deity, who at the same time hates the sin and is deter
mined to punish it, yet loves the sinner; and which pro
ceeds by means of expiation, or the vicarious suffering
of the penalty by a substituted victim.
6. Impetration and Application. Arminians and
the Calvinistic advocates of a general Atonement are con
stantly insisting upon the distinction between the Impe
tration and the Application of salvation by Christ.
By Impetration they mean the purchase, or meritorious
procurement by sacrifice, of all of those objective condi
tions of salvation which are offered to all men in the
gospel; that is, salvation made available on the condition
of faith. By Application they mean the actual applica
tion of that salvation to individuals upon faith. The
Impetration they hold to be general and indefinite; the
Application they believe to be personal, definite and
limited to believers. The Reformed Churches, on the

DEFINITION op terms. 41
other hand, teach that while the impetration of salva
tion is both logically and chronologically distinguishable
from its application, nevertheless in the eternal and
immutable design of God the impetration is personal
and definite, and includes certainly and meritoriously
the subsequent application to the persons intended ; for
"to all for whom Christ hath purchased redemption he
doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate tlie
same." 7. Redemption and Atonement. The modern advo
cates of a general Atonement distinguish between the
words Redemption and Atonement after this manner :
Atonement they confine to the impetration of the objec
tive conditions of salvation, which they maintain is gene
ral and indefinite. Redemption they use in a wider sense,
as including the actual personal application in addition
to the general and all-sufficient impetration. Hence,
while they speak of a general Atonement, they deny of
course that there is a general Redemption. It must be
carefully noted, however, that this distinction was not
marked by this usage of the terms Atonement and Re
demption by any of the controversialists, on either side
of the question, during the seventeenth century, when the
authoritative standards of the Reformed Churches were
written. Baxter used the word Redemption as equivalent
to Atonement in his work entitled " Universal Redemp
tion of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ." So also the
Arminian Dr. Isaac Barrow, in his sermons entitled "The
Doctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted and Ex
plained." In the Westminster Confession, let it be re
membered, the word Redemption is used in the sense of
4*

42 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
Atonement, or the sacrificial purchase of salvation for
those for whom it was intended.*
There is, however, unquestionably a distinction to be
carefully observed between these words in their biblical
usage. The precise biblical sense of Atonement (dh£o
— l\aofi6<;) is the expiation of sin by means of a poena
vicaria in order to the propitiation of God. The bibli
cal usage with respect to Redemption (a7ioAuTpwai<;,
&c.,) is more comprehensive and less definite. It signifies
deliverance from loss or from ruin by the payment for
us of a ransom by our Substitute. Hence it may signify
the act of our Substitute in paying that ransom. Or it
may be used, to express the completed deliverance itself,
the consummation of which is of course future. To say
that " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us" (Gal. iii. 13), is precisely
equivalent to saying that he has made atonement for us.
But when we speak of our "redemption drawing nigh"
(Luke xxi. 28), of "the redemption of the purchased
possession" (Eph. i. 14), of "the redemption of our
body" (Rom. viii. 23), or of "the day of redemption"
(Eph. iv. 30), it is plain that the word signifies the de
liverance of our souls and bodies, and the attainment for
us of a heavenly inheritance by means of the payment
of a ransom for us by our Lord — a deliverance which,
although commenced now, will be consummated at a
future day. Redemption being deliverance by means
of the substitution of a ransom, it follows that, although
the ransom can only be paid to God, and to him only as
* See Dr. Cunningham's Historical Theology, vol. ii., p. 327, and
Dr. Henry B. Smith, in his edition of Hagenbach, vol. ii., pp. 356,
357.

principal points involved. 43
the moral Governor of the universe, we may still be said
to be redeemed from all that we are delivered from by
means of the ransom paid in the sacrifice of Christ. Thus
we are said to be redeemed from our " vain conversation"
(1 Pet. i. 18), "from death" (Hosea xiii. 14), "from the
devil" (Col. ii. 15; Heb. ii. 14), from "all iniquity"
(Titus ii. 14), and "from the curse of the law" (Gal. iii.
13, and iv. 5), while it is of course not meant that the
ransom is paid to the devil, or to sin, or to death, or to
the law. It is simply absurd to claim that these differ
ent representations are inconsistent. A captive is re
deemed by a price paid only to him that holds him in
bondage, but by the same act may be redeemed from
labour, from disease, from death, from the persecution
of his fellow-captives and from a slavish disposition.*
8. Meritum and Satisf actio. Thomas Aquinas
(1274) first signalized the distinction between the terms
Meritum and Satisf actio. By Satisfactio he intended
the bearing of Christ's work considered as penal suffer
ing, which satisfies the penal claims of law for the demerit
of sin. By Meritum he intended the bearing of Christ's
work considered as a holy obedience, fulfilling all the
conditions of the original covenant of life upon which
the eternal well-being of his people were suspended.
These are in modern times both embraced under the one
term Satisfaction (which see above), and the distinction
intended by Aquinas is now expressed by the terms active
and passive obedience. The whole earthly career of
Christ, including his death, was obedience in one aspect
and suffering in another. Inasmuch as it was suffering,
it expiated the sins of his people ; inasmuch as it was
* See the closing paragraph of Chapter XII.

44 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
obedience, it merited for them the covenanted reward of
eternal life.
Principal Points Involved. I will now enumer
ate several points involved in the orthodox doctrine
of the Atonement as above stated. It follows, of course,
that every argument which tends to establish either one
of the principles involved in our view, tends just so far
forth to establish the truth of that view as a whole. I
shall give a bare statement of these principles, in order
to bring out as fully as I may the true nature of the
question in debate, and also in order to enable the reader
to see the intended bearing of all the scriptural testimony
about to be submitted. It is not proposed to affer proof
of each one of these points separately; but the reader is
requested to keep them in mind, and- 1»' observe contin
ually whether the unforced language of Scripture is in
their favour or the reverse.
These points are as follows.
(1.) Did the effect of the sacrifices offered by the
ancient typical priests terminate upon the offerer, upon
the spectators, or upon God ? Were those priests ordained
to represent God before men, or men before God? Was
Christ only a Medium through which divine influences
reached man, or was he also and fundamentally the Medi
ator, opening the way for man to return to God in peace?
(2.) Are the actions of God determined by motives
and principles originating wholly in the divine nature,
or may they be properly referred to considerations origi
nating in the creation? We maintain. the former alter
native. God's immutable nature demands the punishment
of sin, and therefore Christ, when made to occupy the
place of sinners, suffered that punishment. The advo-

principal points involved. 45
cates of every other view of the nature of the Atone
ment must maintain the latter alternative, and refer the
sacrifice of Christ to motives originating in the moral
condition and necessities either of the individual sinner
or of the moral universe in general.
(3.) May all virtue be resolved into disinterested
benevolence, and all sin into selfishness? In other words,
is there nothing else that ought to be except benevolence,
and nothing else that ought not to be except selfishness?
Is justice only a form or mode of benevolence — i. e., does
God punish sin simply to prevent its recurrence or to
limit its spread, and for the good of the universe as a
salutary example? Is sin a relative evil only because it
is the invariable cause of suffering to the sinner and to
others? And is it punished simply to limit its influence?
On all these points, the consistent advocates of the
Governmental Theory must take the affirmative. On
the contrary, we affirm that there are many virtues
which cannot be included under the head of benevolence,
and many sins which cannot be reduced to the category
of selfishness; that virtue is that which ought to be for
its own sake, as an absolute end in itself, and for no
reason beyond; that sin is intrinsically evil, and deserves
punishment because of its intrinsic evil, and for no rea
son beyond ; that divine justice is an exalted perfection,
determining God always to treat moral agents as they
deserve, and that he punishes sin because this attribute
of justice demands that sin shall be treated appropriately
to its nature.
(4.) Supposing it to be the purpose of God to make
provision for the salvation of sinners, were the suffer
ings of Christ absolutely necessary to that end, rendered

46 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
so by the constitution of the divine nature; or was the
necessity for them only contingent upon the optional
will of God or upon the conditions of the creature?
(5.) What is the nature of the divine law? Is it a
product of the divine will, or a transcript of the divine
nature? Hence is the law relaxable or immutable? Is
penalty an essential or an unessential element of the
law to which it is attached?
(6.) As a matter of fact, is Christ represented in Scrip
ture as having come for the purpose of fulfilling the law,
or of relaxing it?
(7.) Has God, as a matter of fact, established such a
union between Christ and believers that they are legally
one with him : that his death and his life, his Father and
his inheritance, his standing and his rights, are theirs as
matters of law?
(8.) Did Christ die not only for us, but in a strict
sense as our Substitute, in our law-place and stead?
(9.) Was the guilt (legal obligation to punishment)
of our sin imputed to Christ (justly charged to his ac
count), because of that legal oneness which the divine
will had constituted between him and us?
(10.) Thus bearing justly and legally the guilt of our
sin, did he truly expiate that guilt, and thus satisfy
justice? (11.) Do the Scriptures teach that when the believer
is justified, the righteousness or rewardableness of Christ's
perfect obedience to the divine law in our place is justly
charged to our account; or is Justification mere par
don? (12.) Do the Scriptures teach that the design and effect
of Christ's death is actually to save those for whom he

PRINCIPAL POINTS INVOLVED. 47
died; or was it only to put all men in a salvable state?
Did Redemption secure faith and repentance for those
who are redeemed; or are all men redeemed, and then
left to provide their own faith and repentance?
The central point to be kept always in view is repre
sented by the question, Did Christ truly expiate the guilt
of our sinf
An examination of all the scriptural evidence sub
stantiating this doctrine would occupy us with the study
of nearly every book both of the Old and the New Tes
taments; with an analysis of the nature and relations
of every particular doctrine in the entire system of re
vealed truth; and with a detailed examination of innu
merable words and passages. A bare outline of this
argument is all that will be here attempted. The im
pression I wish to convey, in conformity with my own
clear conviction, is, not that this or that text must mean
what we suppose and nothing else, but that the whole
of what Scripture says on this subject, when brought
together, makes it impossible to doubt what the sacred
writers meant us to believe.

CHAPTER IV.
THE ULTIMATE MOTIVES OF ALL GOD'S ACTS ARE IN
HIMSELF; AND THE IMMUTABLE PERFECTIONS OF TEE
DIVINE NATURE DEMAND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN.
AS our first argument, we will appeal to what the
Scriptures teach concerning the nature of God and
his principle of action. In doing this, I shall attempt
to prove (a) that the scriptural doctrine is that the ulti
mate motive and end of all God's actions are in himself;
and (b) that the intrinsic and unchangeable perfections
of the divine nature, lying back of and determining the
divine will, determine him certainly, yet most freely, to
punish all sin because of his essential holiness and its
essential demerit.
I. Scripture and reason teach us that the ultimate
reason and motive of all God's actions are within him
self. Since God is infinite, eternal and unchangeable,
that which was his first motive in creating the universe
must ever continue to be his ultimate motive or chief
end in every act concerned in its preservation and
government. But God's first motive must have been
just the exercise of his own essential perfections, and in
their exercise the manifestation of their excellence. This
was the only end which could have been chosen by the
divine mind in the beginning, before the existence of
48

THE DIVINE NATURE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT. 49
any other object. It is also infinitely the highest end in
itself, and the one which will best secure the happiness
and exaltation of the creature himself. It is manifest
that a creature cannot be absolutely an end in himself,
but only a means to an end. And he is the most exalted
when he is made absolutely subservient to that end,
which is the highest possible even to the Creator.
The Scriptures are very explicit on this subject. (1.)
They directly assert it. "All things were created by
him and for him." "For of him, and through him,
and to him are all things." " Who is over all, God blessed
for ever." " The Lord hath made all things for himself,
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (2.) The Scrip
tures always make the glory of God the proper ultimate
end of the creature's action. Peter says (1 Pet. iv. 11),
that whatsoever gift a man have, he should exercise it to
the end that God in all things may be glorified through
•Jesus Christ. (3.) They show that, as a matter of fact,
God always acts with reference to that end in all his
dealings with his creatures. Eph. i. 5, 6 : We are pre
destinated "according to the good pleasure of his will, to
the ipraise of the glory of his grace." Rom. ix. 22, 23 :
"What if Gbd, willing to show his wrath, and to make
his power known, endured with much long-suffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction : and that he might
make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."
The ultimate motive, therefore, for the sacrifice of
Christ must have been the divine glory, and not the
effect intended to be produced in the creature. But glory
is manifested excellence. And moral excellence is mani
fested only by being exercised. The infinite justice and
5

50 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
love of God both find their highest conceivable exercise
in the sacrifice of his own Son as the Substitute of guilty
men. II. The great fact concerning the nature of God and
his principles of action, which is most certainly and con
spicuously set forth in Scripture, is, that he is holy.
When laying down the law of ceremonial purification,
he says (Lev. xi. 44), " Ye shall be holy ; for I am holy."
The seraphim which Isaiah saw around the throne in
the temple, and which John saw in the same relation in
heaven (Isa. vi. 3; Rev. iv. 8), "rest not day and night,
saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty." This
best expresses the sum of the results of their insight into
his moral nature.
This, be it observed, is predicated of the unchangeable
constitution of the nature of God, and not merely of the
divine will. (1.) When God commanded the Israelites
to be pure, the reason assigned is not "because I so will
it," but, "for I am holy." (2.) If moral distinctions
are the mere product of the divine will ; if they exist
only because God wills them to exist, and if they are
what they are simply because he wills them to be] so,
then the proposition that God is holy conveys no mean
ing. It is only equivalent to saying that he is 4* he
wills to be; and would be just as true when asserted of a
wicked as of a holy being. (3.) Although God is most
willingly holy, yet holiness is -with him no more optional
than is existence. Hab. i. 13: "Thou art of purer eyes
than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity." 2
Tim. ii. 13: "He cannot deny himself." Heb. vi. 18:
"In which it was impossible for God to lie." (4.) Our
own elementary intuitions give us moral distinctions

THE DrVINE NATURE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT. 51
which are seen to be absolute, eternal and necessary. It
is essentially repugnant to their character to conceive
of them in any sense as contingent. They have their
norm in the eternal and necessary nature of God.
Since God is eternal, his modes of feeling and states
of mind are as eternal as his essence. There are in him
none of those successions of modes or frames, and alter
nations of sentiment and impulse, which characterize our
imperfect moral condition. From eternity to eternity
he abides the same without change of state or affection.
His holiness, therefore, is one infinite perfection of moral
excellence, varied only in its outward exercises and
manifestations, as it operates upon different objects in
different relations.
Now the Scriptures teach us very plainly that this in
finite moral perfection or holiness of God stands to sin
as immutable and eternal hatred and vindicatory justice;
and this not only in some instances and in some relations,
but invariably and under all possible conditions. (1.)
God hates sin. He is said to hate all the workers of ini
quity, and to be angry with the wicked every day. (Ps.
v. 5, and vii. 11.) Both the ways and the thoughts of
the wicked are said to be an abomination to the Lord. This
is manifested with terrible energy. Although the heart
of God remains eternally as calm as it is deep and strong,
the egress of his wrath is terrible. Nah. i. 2: "God is
jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth
and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his
adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies."
(2.) God treats sin as essential ill-desert, as intrinsically
meriting punishment. Deut. iv. 24: "For the Lord
thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." Deut.

52 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
xxxii. 35: "To me belongeth vengeance and recom
pense." Isa. lix. 18: "According to their deeds, ac
cordingly he will repay." Ex. xxiii. 7: "I will not
justify the wicked." Ezek. xviii. 4: "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die." 2 Thess. i. 6: "Seeing it is a
righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to
them that trouble you." Paul (Heb. ii. 2) says that
under the old dispensation every transgression and dis
obedience received a just recompense of reward. Rom.
i. 32: "Knowing the judgment of God, that they which
commit such things are worthy of death." Over and
over again, the reason assigned for inflicting a penalty is
that the transgression is worthy of it (Deut. xvii. 6, and
xxi. 22, &c, &c), and no other reason is assigned. As
God hates sin because of its intrinsic hatefulness, having
in itself the reason of the hatred it excites, so he pun
ishes it because of its intrinsic demerit, having the reason
of its punishment in itself. Sin can no more exist with
out punishableness than it can exist without hatefulness.
As it is inconceivable that God should in a single in
stance fail to hate sin as pollution, so it is inconceiteible
that he should in a single instance fail to punish i| as
demerit. There has often been forgiveness forlthe
sinner, but not a single instance of forgiveness for the
sin; and the sinner is never forgiven except on condition
of the condign punishment of the sin. Paul (Helb. ix.
22), in reviewing the old law, declared as the sum of
the whole that without the shedding of blood there was
no remission. It was the blood that made atonement
for the soul. Lev. xvii. 11. And in order to the salva
tion of sinful men, it was necessary that Christ should
expiate sin by his death, to the end that God might be

THE DIVINE NATURE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT. 53
just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus
(Rom. iii. 26); that is, to enable God to pardon the
sinner without violating his own essential righteousness,
which necessarily antagonizes sin.
To the question, Why God punishes sin, only four
distinct answers are possible. (1.) That all punishment
is designed for the reformation of the offender. This
confounds punishment with chastisement, and is a solu
tion obviously inadmissible in the case of the eternal
perdition of the reprobate and of the vicarious suffer
ings of Christ. (2.) That the reason and necessity of
punishment is to be resolved into the sovereign good
pleasure of God. This position has been held by Dr.
Twisse, prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, and
others, but is not held by any prominent party in these
days. (3.) That God punishes sin in order to deter the
subjects of his moral government from its commission.
This is a necessary corollary of the theory that all virtue
is comprehended in disinterested benevolence. In that
view, justice is one mode of benevolence, prompting
God to punish the individual sinner for the sake of the
th6 greater good of the moral universe to be secured
thereby. (4.) The true view is, that God is determined,
by the immutable holiness of his nature, to punish all
6in because of its intrinsic guilt or demerit; the effect
produced on the moral universe being incidental as an
end, and dependent as a consequence, upon the essential
character of punishment, as that which expiates guilt
and vindicates righteousness.
This is the centre of the question in debate between
ourselves and the advocates of the Governmental and
of the Moral Theory of the Atonement. Both parties
5*

54 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
estimate it as a moral question of the utmost importance,
and incapable of compromise. Dr. N. W. Taylor* says
that to punish sin on account of its intrinsic demerit, or
for any other purpose except the promotion of happiness,
"is beyond the capacity of infernal malice." A recent
writer in the New Fmglander declares that our doctrine
represents Jehovah as acting upon principles that would
disgrace the Jew Shylock. So also Dr. J. Young: "That
wild and daring transcendentalism, which, in a greater
or less degree, essentially affects evangelical theology at
the present hour, is not by any means the most fatal
evil. The doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice is
immeasurably worse in its moral tendency  This,
beyond all comparison, is the deadliest error." f There
is indeed not room for compromise. What these men
blaspheme the inspired Scriptures and the Christian
Church revere and vindicate as an essential element of
that holiness which is the crowning glory of our God.
1. Disinterested benevolence is not the whole of vir
tue. (1.) Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, for
example, the natural parental affection, are purely instinc
tive, 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 immoral. (3.) There are vir
tuous principles incapable of being resolved into disin
terested benevolence, such as a proper prudential regard
for one's own highest good; aspiration and effort after
personal excellence, holy abhorrence of sin for its own
* " Moral Government of God," vol. ii., p. 278.
f John Young, LL.D., of Edinburgh. "Life and Light of Men,"
pp. 476, 477.

THE DrVTNE NATURE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT. 55
sake, and just punishment of sin in order to vindicate
righteousness. Ps. xcvii. 10: "Ye that love the Lord,
hate evil." (4.) The idea of oughtness is the essential
constitutive idea of virtue. No possible analysis of the
idea of benevolence will give the idea of moral obliga
tion. This is simple, irresolvable, ultimate. Oughtness
is the genus, and benevolence one of the species compre
hended in it.
These principles are admitted by some who yet refuse
to accept the Church doctrine of the Atonement as the
necessary consequent. Barnes* argues (a) that pun
ishment is not intended, and does not even tend, to
secure the reformation of the offender; (b) that the sole
end of punishment is not to deter others from a repeti
tion of the offence, and so protect the community; (c)
" that punishment is intended as a proper expression of
what is due to crime." " It is inflicted because it is right
it should be inflicted. It is inflicted because the offence
deserves such an expression."
2. As the essential and irresolvable characteristic of
virtue is oughtness, and of sin its opposite oughtnotness,
so it is an intrinsic and immutable attribute of sin that
it ought to be punished. This obligation to punishment
is an ultimate fact of moral consciousness; it cannot be
resolved into any other principle whatsoever; it is in
trinsic in sin without reference to any other principle.
(1.) This is involved in every awakened sinner's con
sciousness of his own demerit. Ps. Ii. 4: "I have done
this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be just when
thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest." In its
higher degrees this feeling rises into remorse, and can be
* "Atonement," pp. 186-202.

56 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
allayed only by expiation. Thus many murderers have
had no rest until they have given themselves up to the
law, when they have experienced instant relief. And
millions of souls have found peace in the application of
the blood of Jesus to their wounded consciences. (2.)
All men judge thus of the sins of others. The con
sciences of all good men are gratified when the just
penalty of the law is executed upon the offender, and
outraged when he escapes. (3.) This principle is wit
nessed to by all the sacrificial rites common to all ancient
religions, by the penances in some form universal even
in modern times, by all penal laws, and by the synonyms
for guilt, punishment, justice, &c., common to all lan
guages. (4.) It is self-evident, that to inflict an unjust
punishment is itself a crime, no matter how benevolent
the motive which prompts it, nor how good the effect
which follows it. It is no less self-evident that it is the
justice of the punishment so deserved which renders ite
effect on the community good, and not its effect on the
community which renders it just. To hang a man for
the good of the community is both a crime and a blun
der, unless the hanging is justified by the ill-desert of
the man. In that case his ill-desert is seen by all the
community to be the real reason of the hanging. (5.)
That the Bible teaches the same doctrine has been shown
above. In answer to the foregoing, it is claimed that benevo
lence is as essential an element of the divine nature as is
holy abhorrence of sin. It is asked why the sentiment
of justice must, in the case of the elect, be gratified by
punishing their sins in Christ, whereas in the case of the
lost the sentiment of benevolence remains ungratified?

THE DIVINE NATURE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT. 57
Why must one sentiment take precedence of the
other? Nothing can be gained here by refinements of the
speculative intellect. The Scriptures, the moral sense,
and the common judgments of mankind are our only
courts of appeal. Access to them is simple, and their
answer certain. The infinite moral perfection of God
stands affected as benevolence to all his creatures, con
sidered simply as sentient beings. Without any change
in itself, its relations only being changed, it is mercy in
respect to all miserable creatures. Just so, itself un
changed, it stands affected to all guilty creatures as
grace. Now it is self-evident that every exercise of
grace must be optional. It is a matter of free will. But,
on the other hand, holy hatred of sin, and the treatment
of sin as that which ought to be punished, is not optional
with God. He cannot do otherwise than right, and he
cannot exercise grace otherwise than as a matter of
sovereign discretion. This is self-evident. There is no
thing contradictory here. In the case of the reprobate,
God punishes sin in the sinner, and he declines to exer
cise that grace which never can be a matter of right, but
must ever be a matter of choice. And toward the guilty,
benevolence has no existence except in the form of grace.
In the case of the elect, on the other hand, God exercised
both the grace and the justice. The grace, in freely
saving the sinner in spite of his want of merit; and the
justice, in the self-assumption of the penalty and its sat
isfaction in the person of his Son.

CHAPTER V.
THE CHURCH DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED FROM
THE FACT THAT THE DIVINE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY IM
MUTABLE.
THE second testimony as to the nature of the redemp
tive work of Christ which I will adduce is derived
from the absolute immutability of the divine law. I pro
pose to show (a) that God's law is absolutely immutable;
(b) that the penalty is an essential part of the law; (e)
that as a matter of fact, Christ came to fulfil the law in
our place, and not to relax its demands in accommoda
tion to our lowered capacity.
1. The law of God is absolutely immutable. Grotius,
the eminent jurisconsult and theologian of Holland, in
the first half of the seventeenth century, was the first to
give a systematic exposition to what has since been
known as the Governmental Theory of the Atonement.
In his great work — "Defensio Fidei Catholicce De SaMs-
factione Christi" — he maintains that the law of God is
a product of his will, and not a transcript of anything
inherent in his immutable nature. It hence follows that
the law being a simple creation of the optional will of
the lawgiver, he must inalienably possess the power at
all times either to execute, or to abrogate, or to relax it
by sovereign prerogative, as far as his own nature is con
cerned. 58

IMMUTABILITY OP THE LAW. 59
It is true, indeed, that in respect to the conscience of
the creature, every precept is binding because it is the
will of God; but, on the other hand, in respect to the
will of God itself, it is evident, since his will is holy,
and his "commandment holy and just and good," that
he wills the precept because it is intrinsically right. If
this were not so, there could be no meaning in predicat
ing holiness, either of his will or of his law. There
must be an absolute standard of righteousness. This
absolute standard is the divine nature. The infallible
judge of righteousness is the divine intelligence. And
the all-perfect executor and rule of righteousness is the
divine will.
It is true, also, that all duties spring out of relations,
and every relation which a creature can sustain must be
determined by the will of the Creator. For instance,
there could have been no law of chastity unless God had
sovereignly constituted man with a sexual nature. Nor
could there have been a law forbidding murder unless
man had been made mortal. But the instant the rela
tion is constituted by the divine will, the duty necessa
rily springs up out of the relation from a principle
inherent in the divine nature. All moral agents are, by
the very constitution of their nature, immutably bound
by all that is morally good. The essence of all that is
moral is, that it ought to be. Every — even the least —
discrepancy from all that ought to be, even to the utter
most, is of the nature of sin. This of course applies to
every part of the moral law as well as to the whole;
" For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend
in one point, he is guilty of all." James ii. 10. All in
volved in the preceptive part is commanded because it

60 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
is intrinsically right and obligatory, and the penalty is
attached because all that is forbidden is intrinsically
worthy of punishment. The law of God, therefore, as
to its essential principle of absolute moral perfection,
which is embodied in all positive statutes whatsoever, is
not relaxable. Christ's declaration is that, "It is easier
for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to
fail." Luke xvi. 17. If it be claimed that this applies
to the ceremonial law, may we not argue, a fortiori, that
it must hold all the more true of the moral law ?
The Rev. Daniel T. Fiske, D.D., of Newburyport, Mass.,
in his able defence of the Governmental Theory of the
Atonement, admits* (a) that the ultimate end of all God's
actions is within himself; and (6) that the divine law com
mands that which is intrinsically good, and because it is so,
and forbids that which if intrinsically evil, and because it
is so. At the same time he maintains, as the fundamental
principle of his doctrine, that " law as to its origin and
end emanates from a divine purpose to promote by means
of it the highest good of the universe." But this is a
manifest contradiction. For (a) if the ultimate end of
God's actions is in himself — that is, the manifestation of
his excellence by the exercise of his attributes — the red
end and origin of the law can only be the same. The
good of the universe, though a true end, can only be
subordinate to the former. And (b) if the thing com
manded is intrinsically right, then the true reason for the
commandment is in the nature of the thing itself, and
not in its effects upon the universe. But if the real end
and origin of the commandment is the good to be effected
in the universe, then not the goodness intrinsic in the
* Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1861.

IMMUTABILITY OF THE LAW. 61
thing commanded, but the goodness of its consequences,
is the true reason of its being commanded.
The essential principles of righteousness, which are
embodied in all divine laws consequently, have their
ground in the eternal and unchangeable nature of God;
but of course the forms in which the principles are em
bodied, varying endlessly with different times, circum
stances and conditions of moral creatures, are determined
by the infinitely wise, and righteous, and absolutely
sovereign will of God. Hence there is no room for any
puzzling distinctions, as far as concerns this discussion,
between the ceremonial and the moral law. To the
creature the revealed will of God is always an ultimate
and absolute rule of right. Obedience is always a moral
obligation. Disobedience to positive precepts, the rea
son of which is withheld, is no less a sin than disobe
dience to so-called moral precepts, some of the reasons
of which are known. The Mosaic Institute may be
viewed in three different aspects.
(a.) As a national and political covenant, whereby,
under his theocratic government, the Israelites became
the people of Jehovah and he became their God, and in
which Church and State were identical.
(b.) As a system of prophetic symbols or types of
Christ and his glorious work of sacrifice and intercession,
setting forth more clearly than was previously done the
provisions of the Covenant of Grace.
(c.) In another aspect it was a legal covenant, because
the moral law, obedience to which was the condition of
life in the Adamic covenant, was now prominently set
forth in the ten commandments, and made the basis of
• the new covenant of God with his people. Even the
6

62 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
ceremonial system, in its merely literal aspect, and apart
from its symbolical, was also a rule of works; for
"cursed was he that confirmed not all the words of the
law to do them." Deut. xxvii. 26.
Hence it is, that considered as commandments, the so-
called ceremonial law was as much moral as any other,
and just as absolutely immutable. Not one jot or tittle
of it could pass away until the entire righteous purpose
of God in it was fulfilled. The Jews, at the time of
Christ, did not make the distinction between the ordi
nances of God as moral or ceremonial, as binding for
their own sakes, or as binding only for God's sake. The
word law in Paul's epistles stands for the entire genus
" divine law." The law of God, as a whole, condemns
the sinner. Salvation by the law, as a whole, is impossi
ble. By the whole law is the knowledge of sin. The
whole law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, and
he is the end, the complete fulfilment of the whole law,
for righteousness to every one that believeth. And the
law (ceremonial as well as moral) is in its essential prin
ciples, and in respect to the divine purpose in the ap
pointment of its variable forms, absolutely immutable.
2. The penalty is an essential element of the law.
There can exist no law, or authoritative rule of conduct,
for voluntary and morally accountable agents to which
a penal sanction is not attached; and the reason of the
penalty is just as intrinsic and immutable as the reason
of the precept. As we have seen that the reason of the
precept is the intrinsic rightness of the thing commanded,
so the reason of the penalty is the intrinsic demerit of
the thing forbidden. As the chief end of the precept is
the glory of God, that is, the manifestation of his ex-

IMMUTABILITY OP THE LAW. 63
cellence through the exercise of his attributes as they
are concerned in commanding, so the chief end of the
penalty is his glory through the exercise of his attri
butes as they are concerned in punishing. As the moral
principle involved in every precept cannot be compro
mised, so the divine judgment of the ill-desert of sin
involved in all penalty cannot be relaxed. The precept
and the penalty alike express the infallible judgment of
the divine intelligence, on a question of moral obligation
founded on the divine nature.
Fiske admits that the penalty is an essential part
of the law, and he defines it as " suffering to be inflicted
by the lawgiver upon the sinner, proportionate to the
degree of his sinfulness, and to express the lawgiver's
hatred of sin and estimate of its intrinsic ill-desert." At
the same time he maintains that the ultimate end of God
in ordaining or in executing the penalty, is the good of
the universe, and that its "sole value is its efficacy to
enforce the law and maintain its authority, and so ulti
mately help promote the great benevolent end of moral
government." This also is plainly self-contradictory.
If the penalty expresses God's judgment of the intrinsic
ill-desert of sin, then the reason of punishment is the
penalty itself, as an expression of immutable moral obli
gation. But if the sole value of the penalty is to enforce
law, and thus benefit the universe, it is plain that the
ill-desert of sin is not intrinsic or moral, but that it
simply is a matter of policy resulting from the charac
ter of its consequences.
Barnes* defines punishment or penalty as "evil in
flicted by the lawgiver, or under his direction, to show
*" Atonement," p. 39.

64 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
his sense of the value of the law, or of the evil of vio
lating the law." But he also insists that Christ did not
suffer the penalty of the law ; that sin was not truly
punished, nor punitive justice truly exercised in his
death. "That the Atonement (p. 244) is something sub
stituted in the place of the penalty of the law which
will answer the same ends that the punishment of the
offender himself would." But his own definition of the
penalty is, pain inflicted with the design of showing the
evil of violating the law; and now he says that the
Atonement is pain inflicted with the same design; and
yet in making the Atonement, Christ did not suffer the
penalty. Thus God manifested his justice by refusing
to exercise it, and gave an example of punishment when
there was no penalty, and proved his hatred of sin, and
the certainty that under his government sin shall be
punished by not punishing it either in the person of the
sinner or of his Substitute.
The advocates of the Governmental Theory of the
Atonement maintain that Christ did not suffer the pen
alty of the law, but a substitute for the penalty. That .
his sufferings, in some way or other, avail to secure the
same ends that the actual infliction of the penalty on
the transgressors in person would have done. These
parties agree in maintaining that it is essential to the
penalty (a) that it should, in each case, consist in some
precise, definite kind and degree of suffering; and (b)
that it should be inflicted on the wrong-doer in person.
On the other hand, some orthodox divines — as, for
instance, Owen, in his reply to Baxter's strictures against
parts of his work on Redemption — have maintained that
Christ suffered the very same penalty legally due his

IMMUTABILITY OP THE LAW. 65
people for whom he was substituted, and not merely a full
equivalent for it; that is, an idem and not a tantundem.
The motive for this apparently excessive precision of ex
pression was commendable. Those who make such
difficulty in admitting that Christ really suffered the
penalty of the law are no more ready to admit that
what he suffered was a full equivalent, in any strictly
legal sense, for the punishment of his people in person.
They mean that he did not suffer the penalty in any
sense, and their views as to the connection between his
death and our deliverance from condemnation are most
vague and unsatisfactory.
The following points, however, appear to be sufficiently
certain. (1.) Christ did not suffer the same degree or
duration of pain that his people would have suffered in
person, nor in all respects sufferings of the same kind.
Theirs would have been eternal, his were temporary.
Theirs would have involved ever-increasing depravity
of soul and self-accusing remorse, while, on the contrary,
his were consistent with (a) the divinity of his person,
(6) the perfection of his humanity, and (e) the fact that
he was always the well-beloved Son in whom the Father
was well pleased. (2.) On the other hand, it is no less
certain that the identity of the penalty does not consist
either in the precise kind, or degree, or duration of the
suffering, nor in the personal identity of the sufferer with
the sinner; but in the relation of the suffering to the
guilt of some particular sin or sins, and to the demands
of divine justice in the case. Duty in any case is what
ever the moral law says ought to be done. Penalty, in
any case of disobedience, is precisely that kind, degree
and duration of suffering which the same law decides
6*

66 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
ought to be suffered. Of this obligation to suffering in
all cases whatsoever the nature of God is the ground,
and the reason of God is the judge. The execution of
precisely the same sufferings, if it had been possible, in
the person of the God-man, that would have been the
proper penalty of the law if executed in the person of
the transgressors themselves, would have been an out
rageous injustice. It would not consequently have been
the penalty of the law, but an illegal violation of that
absolute righteousness which is the principium essendi of
the law. The substitution of a divine and all-perfect
person in the stead of sinners necessarily involves, as a
matter of justice, the substitution within the penalty of
different kinds and degrees of suffering. Christ suffered
precisely that kind, degree and duration of suffering that
the infinitely wise justice or the absolutely just wisdom
of God determined was a full equivalent for all that was
demanded of elect sinners in person — equivalent, we
mean, in respect to sin-expiating and justice-satisfying
efficacy — and a full equivalent in being of equal efficacy
in these respects in strict rigour of justice, according to
the judgment of God. Consequently, what Christ
suffered is by no means the same with what his people
would have suffered, when considered as suffering, but
is precisely the very same when considered as penalty.
3. The Scriptures clearly teach that, as a matter of
fact, Christ came not to relax the law, but to fulfil it-
He says of himself (Matt. v. 17, 18) : " Think not that I
am come .to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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." The

IMMUTABILITY OF THE LAW. 67
apostle declared (Rom. x. 4), that " Christ is the end of
the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
When discussing the great doctrine of justification by
faith, Paul anticipates the objection (Rom. iii. 31): "Do
we then make void the law through faith?" and answers,
"God forbid; yea, we establish the law." The law pro
nounced a curse upon the sinner, and " Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the law," not by waiving that curse,
but by "being made a curse for us."
If the penalty is an essential part of the law; if the
whole law is immutable; if Christ actually came to fulfil
the law and not to relax its demands; then it follows,
without doubt, that he suffered the penalty of the law
as our Substitute.
John Young, LL.D., of Edinburgh, in two chapters
of his late work (Life and Light of Men), entitled sever
ally "Spiritual Laws" and "Eternal Justice," essays to
overturn the entire conception of law and penalty upon
which the faith of the whole Church, Greek and Ro
man, Lutheran, Reformed and Arminian, has always
reposed. His points are as follows: (1.) The spiritual
laws of the universe have their ground independent of
God in the essential and eternal nature of things. (2.)
They are necessarily and instantly .self-acting. The
penalty of every sin is so connected with the sin itself,
in the nature of things, that "it is impreventable. It
lies in the essential nature of things that it must come
down. Ever and ever justice inflicts an inevitable pen
alty, and exacts the completest satisfaction." (3.) These
laws are self-acting and independent of God; "the God
of purity and love has no part in the punishment of sin."
Sin punishes itself instantly and adequately. "The

68 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
doom of the lost, be it whatever it may, is simply and
wholly their own work. It is all, from first to last, not
only their own doing, but their own doing in despite of
God." (4.) Sin continues to punish itself as long as it
exists. It can cease to be punished only by being anni
hilated. And the instant sin ceases to exist in a sinner's
soul, that is, as soon as he is sanctified, he ceases to be
punishable. (5.) God is not just in the rectilineal hu
man sense at all. He is never less than just. He is never
unjust. But he is always more than just, that is, better
to men than their deserts. Goodness is his grand dis
tinguishing attribute.
This appears to us a very low and material view of
the case. It is incipient Positivism, and Positivism is
infallibly gross materialism. It conceives of the laws
of a spiritual society of persons, personal subjects living
under the righteous administration of a personal God,
acting upon them by the light of truth and the influence
of motives, by commands, benefactions, authority, pro
mises, threatenings, as nothing more nor less than the'
necessarily self-acting physical laws of the material
world or of the human organism. It grounds these laws
in the "nature of things," independent of God. But
what entity in the whole universe exists, except as the
product of the divine will, but the uncreated essence of
God himself? This uncreated essence is, as we have in
sisted above, the absolute norm of all spiritual laws.
But this divine nature never expresses itself outwardly
except through the acts of the divine will. This will,
and not the "nature of things," makes and executes the
moral law of the universe. That God rewards and
punishes, and that he holds forth before men the pros-

\ \

IMMUTABILITY OP THE LAW. 69
pect of future rewards and punishment for present con
duct, is taught too clearly and universally in Scripture to
need proof here. "The idea that the punishment of
sin is only its natural consequences, and that remission
is merely deliverance from the natural operations of
moral evil in the soul, as freedom from the pain of a
burn can be allayed only by allaying the inflammation,
is so repugnant to Scripture and to common sense as to
need no refutation. The expulsion of our first parents
from Paradise; the deluge; raining fire and brimstone
upon Sodom and Gomorrah ; the death of the first-born
of the Egyptians; all the plagues brought on Pharaoh;
drought, famine, pestilence threatened as the punishment
of the Hebrews, were not the natural consequences of
sin, but positive punitive inflictions. Indeed, almost all
the judgments threatened in the Bible are of that cha
racter."* "Taking vengeance" for sin is everywhere set
forth as the personal, deliberate, volitional act of a
righteous moral governor. Deut. xxxii. 35; Ps. cxlix.
7; Rom. iii. 5, and xii. 19. At his second coming,
Christ is to be "revealed from heaven in flaming fire,
taking vengeance upon them that know not God and that
obey not the gospel." 2 Thess. i. 8. This taking venge
ance is a personal act executed for a purpose, at such
times, and under such conditions, and in such modes as
best serves the purpose intended.
That this world is not a scene of rewards and punish
ments; that sin may be forgiven entirely previous to,
and as the condition of, the work of sanctification; and
that a sin, long past and repented of, if not punished in
the past, will continue to demand punishment through
* Princeton Eeview, April, 1866.

70 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
all the future, are facts established by the teaching of
Scripture as clearly as by the universal experience of the
race. " It is not true that sanctification and remission
are ever confounded; nor are they related as cause and
effect. The two things are distinct in their nature, and
are always distinguished in the Bible and the common
sense of men. There neither is nor can be any sanctifica
tion or destruction of the power of sin in the soul, until
there has been antecedent remission of the penalty.
Paul teaches clearly, in the sixth and seventh chapters
of his Epistle to the Romans, that so long as the sinner
is under condemnation he brings forth fruit unto death;
that it is not until he is delivered from condemnation,
by the body or sacrifice of Christ, that he brings forth
fruit unto God." *
That God does not do all he can to remedy sin when
it has once entered upon his domain, is a fact as promi
nent in the history of the different races and families of
men as the great stars are on the face of the sky. The
blessed Saviour said, " I thank thee, O Father, that thou
hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and
hast revealed them unto babes." That God, over and
above being just, is also abundantly merciful, the Chris
tian Church has always recognized as gratefully as Dr.
Young. To us, certainly, he has been always good as
well as just. But it is impossible that he should be un
just, and, as I showed above, justice is as essentially
involved in the infliction of the penalty as it is in the
imposition of the precept. God cannot be unjust, and
it would be unjust not to punish sin. Sin can be ex
purgated as a subjective condition of the soul only by
* Princeton Review, April, 1866.

IMMUTABILITY OP THE LAW. 71
sanctification; but its penalty, which is always eternal
death, can be removed only by expiation, that is, by pun
ishment endured either personally or vicariously. For
the proof of these positions, and consequently for the
refutation of those assumed by Young, I refer the
reader to the entire argument of this book.

CHAPTER VI.
THE THREE-FOLD RELATION WHICH MORAL AGENTS SUSTAIN
TO THE DIVINE LAW.
BUT if the law is immutable, and if its demands are
personal, how can the legal relations of one person
be assumed by another, and all of his legal obligations
be vicariously discharged by the substitute instead of the
principal ? In order to throw light upon this question,
I propose the following considerations. Turretin* well
noted the fact that the relations which men sustain to the
law may be discriminated under three heads — the natu
ral, federal, and penal relations.
1. To every created moral agent in the universe the
law of absolute moral perfection sustains a uniform and
constant natural relation as a standard of character and
rule of action. In this relation the law is absolutely
perfect and absolutely changeless. All that is moral is
eternally and intrinsically obligatory on all moral agents.
All that is not obligatory is not moral. And every
particular and every degree in which any moral agent
comes short of the standard of perfect moral excellence
in being or action is of the nature of sin. The demands
of the law therefore are everywhere and always the same;
they are inherently, and therefore changelessly, obligatory
and incapable of being either intermitted, relaxed, or
* Loc. 14, Qusestio 13, \ 15.
72

RELATION TO THE MORAL LAW. 73
transferred. In respect to this natural relation to the
law therefore, Christ did not, and from the nature of the
case could not, take our law-place. In respect to the in
herent and inalienable claims of right, it is purely impos
sible that the obligations of law can be removed from
one person and vicariously assumed by another. The
law in this relation maintains for ever inviolable all its
claims over all moral creatures whatever ; equally over
angels and devils, men unfallen, fallen, regenerate, in
perdition, and in glory. The hideous heresy of the
Antinomians consists in the claim that Christ has in
such a sense fulfilled all the claims of law upon his peo
ple that they are no longer required to live in conformity
to it in their own persons. This abominable heresy the
entire Church has always consistently rejected with
abhorrence, maintaining that the immutability of the law
and the changeless perpetuity of its claims is a principle
lying at the foundation of all religion, whether natural
or revealed.
2. The federal relation to the law, on the other hand,
has respect to a period of probation, into which man was
introduced in a condition of moral excellence, yet falli
ble; and his confirmation in an immutable holy charac
ter, and his subsequent eternal blessedness is made to
depend upon his obedience during that period. It
appears to be a general principle of the divine govern
ment (1) that every moral agent is created holy, yet (2)
in a state of instable moral equilibrium, and hence (3)
that confirmation in an estate of stable holiness is a
divine gift, above those included in the natural endow
ments of any creature, and always (4) suspended upon
tile condition of perfect obedience during a period of pro-
7

74 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
bation. As a matter of fact, this is precisely, the relation
to the law as a covenant of life, into which Adam (and
all his descendants in him) was brought at his creation.
He was created holy, yet fallible, and for a period of pro
bation put under the law as a test of obedience. Upon
this obedience his character and condition for eternity
were made to depend. If he had obeyed for the period
prescribed he would have attained the reward. The
granting of that reward would have confirmed him in
holiness, and by thus rendering him impeccable, would
have closed his probation and removed him from under
the law in this federal relation for ever, while his sub
jection to the same law, in its natural relation, would
have been continued and confirmed. We know that the
angels have passed through a probation not essentially
different. They were created holy, yet fallible, for some
did fall. And all who stood at the first appear to have
been consequently confirmed in character and the enjoy
ment of divine favour; since there is no intimation that
any have since fallen into sin, and since we cannot
believe that it is God's plan that any of his sinless
creatures should continue permanently or even indefi
nitely in that state of instable equilibrium in which they
were created. We may therefore assume it to be a gene
ral principle of the divine government that every new
created moral agent is introduced into being holy, yet
fallible, and subjected to the law as a covenant for a
period of probation, conditioning upon perfect obedience
ultimate confirmation in holiness and divine favour
for ever.
It is evident that this federal relation to the law is in
its very nature temporary in any event, being inevitably

RELATION TO "THE MORAL LAW. 75
closed, ipso facto, either by giving the reward in case
of obedience, or by inflicting the penalty in case of
disobedience. It is evident also that this relation to the
law has a special end : not the demanding of perpetual
obedience because of its intrinsic rightfulness, but
demanding it as a test for a definite period, to the end
of an ultimate confirmation of a holy character, which
confirmation will terminate the relation itself by securing
the end for which it was designed. Hence this federal
relation to the law, unlike the natural relation, concerns
not at all the unchangeable demands of personal holi
ness, but simply those conditions upon which God's
favours are to be shown. And hence, unlike the natu
ral relation, the federal is neither intrinsic, perpetual,
nor inseparable from the person concerned. Although,
of course, it is ultimately founded upon the essential
righteousness of the divine nature, yet all the variable
conditions of the probationary period and test are
evidently largely dependent upon the divine sovereignty,
and the relation itself ceases as soon as the trial is closed,
either by the grant of the reward or the infliction of the
penalty ; and, if God pleases, the whole relation may be
sustained by a substitute, and its obligations discharged
vicariously, as was the case in the instances of Adam and
of Christ.
3. The penal relation to the law is that which instantly
supervenes when the law is violated. As shown above,
the penalty is an essential element of the law, expressing
the essential attitude in which absolute righteousness
stands to transgression, just as the preceptive element of
the law expresses the attitude in which that righteous
ness stands to the moral condition and action of the sub-

76 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
ject. Whenever, therefore, the law is violated by
disobedience, the penalty instantly supervenes, and con
tinues for ever until it is fully exhausted in strict rigour
of absolute justice.
It is consequently obvious that the penal and federal
relations to the law are naturally mutually exclusive.
The instant a moral agent incurs the penalty his federal
relation to the law necessarily terminates, because the
end of that relation — that is, his confirmation in a holy
character — has definitely failed. Adam was created under
the natural and the federal relation to law. When he
sinned he continued under the natural, and passed from
the federal to the penal, where his non-elect descendants
remain for all eternity. And it is just here that with
respect to the elect the infinitely gracious mediation of
Christ intervenes. If it were not for the sovereign super
vention of a gracious upon a purely legal economy, they
would of course be left, with the rest of mankind, to the
just consequences of their sin. Their probation having
been abused, the promised confirmation in holy character
having been forfeited, nothing but the penalty remains.
But in behalf of the elect Christ comes as the second
Adam, assumes and graciously continues their federal
relation to the law just at the point at which Adam
failed. If he undertakes their case, there is a need be that
he assume both their obligations to obedience, which was
the original condition of their being raised to a stable
equilibrium of moral character and receiving the adop
tion of sons, and their obligations to penal sufferings
incurred by their disobedience. The law in its natural
relation of course remains binding on them as before,
while they are for ever released from all obligation to

RELATION TO THE MORAL LAW. 77
obey it as a condition of life, and are confirmed in an
immutable stability both of character and happiness
through the vicarious discharge of all of their original
obligations by their Substitute.
When we say that Christ as our Substitute assumed
our law-place, the specific thing that we mean is, that he
became the federal head of the elect under the Covenant
of Redemption, which provided for his assuming in rela
tion to them all the conditions of the violated Covenant
of Works. The federal headship of Christ presupposes
the federal headship of Adam. The latter is the neces
sary basis for the former, and the work and position of the
former can be understood only when it is brought in
mental perspective into its true relation to the latter.
The solution of the question as to the true nature of the
federal headship of Adam becomes, therefore, an essen
tial element as to the nature of the Atonement. The
apostle declares that the principles upon which sin and
misery came upon the race through Adam are identical
with those upon which righteousness and blessedness
come upon the_ elect through Christ. No man can enter
tain false views as to the former without perverting his
faith as to the latter. Hence I venture to ask the pa
tience of the reader while I enter upon a digression from
the strict line of scriptural proof bearing directly upon
the nature of the Atonement, to consider the question
whether the Scriptures really teach that in the Covenant
of Works Adam in a strict sense represented all his
descendants, and hence that the sin and misery of that
estate into which they were born are the penal conse
quences of Adam's public sin ?
7*

CHAPTER VII.
ADAM WAS, IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORDS, THE FED
ERAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RACE; AND THE ANTENA
TAL FORFEITURE, OF WHICH EACH OF HIS DESCENDANTS IS
SUBJECT, IS THE PENAL CONSEQUENCE OF HIS PUBLIC SIN.
OUR doctrine is, that God as the legitimate Guardian
of the human race, and acting for its advantage,
ordered its probation under the law as a covenant of life
in the representative agency or federal headship of Adam,
the first root and natural head of the race, in circum
stances and on conditions as favourable for the race as
possible. Adam, although as well endowed and circum
stanced as any individual of his natural order, while yet
in a state of instable moral equilibrium, could possibly
be, nevertheless fell; and his sin, according to the favour
able conditions of their probation, is the judicial ground
of the antenatal forfeiture of his children, of the penal
withdrawing from them of the influences of God's Spirit;
and hence their innate corruption is the penal conse
quence of Adam's sin. We may therefore discuss this
subject by tracing downward from cause to effect the
headship of Adam, the imputation of the guilt of his
sin, and the penal consequences thereof in the sin and
misery of his descendants. Or, on the other hand,
we may trace from effects to causes the experienced
78

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 79
facts as to man's natural condition up to the imputation
of Adam's public sin. I prefer the latter method for
the following reasons : (a.) Because the facts of the case
are indubitably proved by the natural reason and uni
versal experience of mankind, as well as by divine reve
lation. It hence follows that the weight of the facts
bears as heavily upon every system of thought which
admits the existence of an infinite moral Governor as it
does upon any school of Christian theology. (6.) Be
cause this method will afford us the best possible oppor
tunity of contrasting the solution which the Scriptures
give us of the terrible facts of the case, by referring them
to their legal ground in the judicial charging to his
descendants of the guilt of the public sin of our repre
sentative, with every other solution ever suggested by
human genius. This will bring out into clear relief the
fact that the scriptural doctrine of the immediate and
antecedent imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his
descendants, instead of being a repulsive and unnecessarily
aggravated feature of Calvinism, is the most honouring
to God and gratifying to the moral sense of men, of all
the solutions of the awful but undeniable facts of the
case which has ever been attempted. None are more
ready to recognize the real difficulties inherent in the
doctrine of the federal headship of Adam than its
staunchest advocates. But it is certain that these diffi
culties are the same, both in kind and degree, with those
which are inseparable from those broad facts of the case
which are universally recognized by all except theoreti
cal or practical atheists.
These patent facts as to man's moral and spiritual con
dition from birth, which I will here simply state and

80 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
assume as universally conceded, are as follows. 1. Every
individual human being is from birth and by nature
totally depraved. This general truth involves three
subordinate ones. (1.) Every human being habitually
sins as soon as he enters a state of moral agency. (2.)
Each human being is born with an antecedent effec
tual tendency in his nature to sin. And (3) this innate
tendency in his nature to sin, with which every man
enters the world, is itself of the nature of sin and
worthy of punishment.*
2. Every human being is born into and lives under
the power of a social organization called the world, all
the moral forces of which oppose virtue and secure the
prevalence of vice.
3. All men are introduced into existence under the
dominion of an unseen spiritual empire of apostate an
gels, of which Satan is prince, f
These, then, are the portentous facts concerning the
universal moral condition of mankind by nature. Each
individual comes into existence with a nature itself
worthy of punishment, and effectually predisposing him
to sin. They are moreover born into a corrupt and cor
rupting social organization, and subject to the mysterious
and prevalent influence of an apostate spiritual empire.
Yet, notwithstanding this disability under which men
* Dr. Edward Beecher, in his " Conflict of Ages," p. 96, gives his
valuable testimony as follows : " The JPmnceton Review alleges, and
as far as I know correctly, that ' there is not a creed of any Christian
Church in which the doctrine that inherent corruption, as existing
prior to voluntary action, is of the nature of sin, is not distinctly
affirmed.' "
f Dr. Edward Beecher's Conflict of Ages, Book I., Chapters viii.,
ii.., x.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 81
are born, they are still held bound, under further penalty
of eternal damnation, to fulfil in disposition and act the
entire unmodified law of absolute perfection. These
statements, moreover, do not represent the peculiar re
sults of any school either of philosophy or theology, but
the naked and undeniable facts of the case, authenticated
as certain by reason, conscience and experience, as well as
by revelation. The denial of Christianity affords no
escape from them, much less, of course, the denial of the
truth of Augustinian theology. We have no alternative
but to face them in their full significance, and to adapt
our speculations to the unquestionable facts.
It is here that the agonizing but unavoidable question
arises as to the reconciliation of this state of facts with
the character of a just, holy and merciful Creator. If
God had seen fit to shed no light whatever upon this
dark subject, it would still undoubtedly be our duty to
exercise an unquestioning faith in him, and to appease
our reason by the plea of mystery. But men must de
mand, and ought to demand, the full development of
every element of relief from this great moral enigma
which God has graciously vouchsafed to give us in
his word. The ultimate intuitions of right are them
selves a direct revelation from God, and when legiti
mately interpreted and applied, they are of as high
authority as any dogma of theology. It is absolutely
impossible for a devout mind to admit that God can be
the immediate author of sin, or that he can treat a
creature whose natural claims upon him, as a creature,
have not previously been justly forfeited as worthy of
punishment. The most orthodox theologians agree with
the Rationalists on the following points.

82 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
1. God cannot be the author of sin.
2. God cannot originally create agents with an inhe
rent corrupt nature effectually predisposing them to sin,
for that would constitute him the author of sin. And
as a matter of fact he did create mankind and the angels
holy; that is, with a positive, pre-existent disposition
inclining them to virtue.
3. God will not inflict either moral or physical evil
upon any moral agent whose natural claims as a depen
dent creature have not previously been justly forfeited.
4. Hence every moral agent ought in justice to enjoy
a fair probation; that is, a trial so conditioned as to
afford at least as much opportunity of success as lia
bility to failure. Hence arise two distinct and unavoid
able questions, which have been anxiously discussed by
the philosophers and theologians of all times.
1 . Why, that is, on what ground of justice, does God in
flict this terrible evil, the root and sum of all other evils,
upon every human being at the instant his existence com
mences ? What fair probation have infants born in sin
enjoyed ? And when and why were their rights as new-
created moral agents forfeited ?
2. How — since we must believe that God originally
creates every moral agent with a nature predisposed to
virtue ; and since as a matter of fact he did so create the
first man — how, so that the author of the nature is not
the author of the sin, is a sinful disposition originated in
every human being as soon as he begins to exist ?
It is self-evident that while these two questions relate
to the same subject, they are themselves essentially dis
tinct, and they must be treated as distinct, unless we
should leave the entire subject in confusion. It is one

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OP ADAM. 83
thing to inquire how it is possible that sin shall originate
as a connate predisposing cause of sin in every new-born
infant, and yet the Maker of the infant not be the cause
of the sin ; and a very different thing to inquire why, on
what ground of justice, this direful calamity is brought
upon those who have not previously offended in their
own persons. The former question may possibly be
solved by reference to some ascertainable physiological
law of natural generation ; it may have its ground in
some general relation which all individuals sustain to the
genus to which they belong. But the latter question
essentially relates to the administration of the divine
government, and to'the character of those ultimate moral
principles upon which it proceeds. If this important
distinction had always been kept clearly in view, much
of the obscurity, and of the error too, which have marred
speculations and controversies on this subject, would have
been avoided. Endeavoring therefore, to keep it steadily
in view, I proceed to give a summary statement of all
the important solutions of both these questions which
have been offered.
All opinions upon this subject may be classified upon
two distinct principles.
1 . We may classify them as they are, on the one hand, ex
cogitated on purely rationalistic principles, independently
of revelation, or as, on the other hand, they are developed
by a more or less faithful interpretation of Scripture.
Or, 2. We may classify them either as they affirm or
deny the principle that all men have justly forfeited their
rights as new-created moral agents before their birth into
this world. I shall adopt the latter principle of classi
fication, remarking that the two principles come to the

84 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
same practical result in this respect, that nearly all the
purely rationalistic solutions of the problem deny that
men are born subject to antenatal forfeiture; while,
on the contrary, nearly all those solutions which are
professedly derived from the interpretation of Scripture
affirm it.
I. I propose under this head to state briefly those
solutions of the questions above stated which agree in
rejecting the principle that man is born subject to a just
antenatal forfeiture, and liable to the righteous penalty
of a violated law.
1. The first attempted solution is afforded by the Mani-
ehaean dualism, which postulates the independent self-ex
istence of two principles. On the one hand, God, an eter
nal, self-existent, absolutely perfect Spirit, is the Father
of all spirits, and the centre and governor of the whole spi
ritual kingdom of light and purity. On the other hand,
matter, or that ultimate essence of which matter is one
of the forms, is an independent, self-existing principle,
inherently corrupt in itself, and corrupting to all that
comes in contact with it. All spirits being pure in their
origin from God, become vitiated through entanglement
with the matter composing their bodies.* Although the
magnificent speculations in which these opinions were
first embodied have long since been forgotten, except by
a few students of Christian antiquities, the radical idea
of the self-existence and inherent viciousness of matter
has not yet lost place among men's thoughts. Against
the false view of sin embodied in this theory all the
early Fathers of the Christian Church protested. Mani-
chffiism virtually amounts to a denial of the existence of
* Neander's Hist, Christ. Belig., vol. i., pp. 488-506.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OP ADAM. 85
moral evil altogether, because it resolves it into a physi
cal ground, making it an attribute of matter, like attrac
tion, or inertia, or the like. The essence of sin lies in
the fact that it is a spontaneous state or act of a free
moral agent, not in conformity to the law of absolute
moral perfection. Sin is necessarily immaterial, spirit
ual, an attribute of moral agency, inseparable from per
sons. Manichaeism limits Jehovah by the eternal and
necessary co-existence with him of a hostile and inde
pendent principle. It wrongs him by attempting to
vindicate his freedom from all complication with sin by
exhibiting him as helpless to prevent it. And it destroys
all moral distinctions by resolving sin into a physical
accident, exterior to the personal soul, and moral respon
sibility for crime into misfortune.
2. A second method of answering both the questions, how
and why men always commence their conscious existence
habitual sinners as far as that fact relates to the agency of
God in the matter, cuts the knot by affirming the absolute
self-determining power of the human will, and the con
sequent absolute " impreventability of sin." While in
many other respects they differ, yet at this point, touch
ing the agency of God with respect to this estate of sin
and misery into which man has fallen, Pelagians, Soci
nians, and the class of Trinitarians represented by Bush-
nell and Young, are perfectly agreed.* Every man
creates his own character, being free to sin or not as he
pleases. God did all he could to prevent the entrance
of sin at the first, and ever since he has been doing all
that is consistent with the necessary limitations of moral
*See Dr. J. Young's "Evil and God," pp. 180-230, and "Life
and Light of Men," pp. 112-117.
8

86 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
agency, to put each man in the best possible position,
and to bring to bear upon him the best possible moral
and spiritual influences.
Now it is evident that this answer gets rid of the
difficulty by denying the plain fact of the total deprav
ity of each child from birth and by nature, antecedent
to all moral action, which is proved as well by an unex
ceptional experience as by revelation. The self-deter
mining power of the human will may prove that sin is
impreventable, and may account for the existence of sin
in a few cases. As it is absolutely impossible for a man
to believe, when the dice are thrown sixes successively a
thousand times, that the dice are not loaded ; so is it a
thousand times more impossible to believe, when every
human being of all nations and generations, without a
single exception, begins to sin the instant he enters moral
agency, that his will is not biassed by a previous effectual
tendency in his nature to sin. Now the Bible, true psy
chology and uniform Christian experience unite in
teaching that this innate previous tendency to sin is
itself sin and worthy of punishment. The preventability
of sin or the opposite is not the question. The fact to
be accounted for is that all men sin as soon as Hiey begin
to act as moral agents. This universal constitution of
things, which produces such uniformly dire effects, is
God's ordering, and he is bringing new souls into it
every day. It does not help the matter to say, that the
sin of the parent is propagated to the child by genera
tion, or by education and example. For God is the
author of the whole system of human generation and
social relations. The questions remain unanswered,

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 87
why? and howf God either permits or effects such re^-
sults, and yet remains just and holy.
3. The third solution is the one incident to pantheistic
speculations in general, and developed prominently by
the German philosopher Hegel, adopted by Emerson,
and, in a modified form, held by Theodore Parker and
many of the advanced Unitarians of America ; namely,
that sin is a natural and necessary incident of a finite
nature conditioned as man is, and the appointed means
of development and ultimate perfection. Sin, according
to this view, is limitation, the necessary accident of a
process of growth. Even Bushnell regards sin as a
favourable incident of spiritual education, which, train
ing the soul for stable and intelligent virtue hereafter, in
volves necessarily an experiment of evil, and conse
quently a previous fall, and temporary subjection to its
power. This theory at once destroys all proper ideas alike of
God and sin. It is absolutely inconsistent with the in
finite power, wisdom, goodness and holiness of God.
Sin is essentially avoula, and the divine law has its norm
in the divine nature. Sin, therefore, is intrinsically
opposition to God. It is not a limitation incident to
finite existence, nor a condition incident to a stage in the
development of a creature's life, for then it would be
according to law. It is the spontaneous reprehensible
attitude of a creature's will in opposition to God. God
must hate and resist it and punish it, and no natural
constitution of things which he ordains can involve it as
a necessary incident. Sin can originate no otherwise
than in the free, self-determined act of a personal spirit,

88 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
acting in violation of, and not in accordance with, the law
of its being.
4. The common view characteristic of the New Eng
land Theology was generated by an attempt to readjust
the positions of old Calvinism in view of the rationalistic
attacks made upon it by John Taylor, of Norwich, and
the Socinians of America. This view was introduced
by Dr. Samuel Hopkins, and developed by Edwards,
Dwight, Emmons, &c, and has hence passed into gene
ral currency among all the adherents of that form of
modified Calvinism called New England Theology.
They found it necessary to protest in the interest of Ra
tionalism against the principle that the descendants of
Adam should have been judicially held to have justly
forfeited all their rights as new-created moral agents,
simply because of the sinful act of their progenitor, per
formed ages before their own existence. They therefore
deny that human beings come into the world subject to
any antenatal forfeiture, or with any positive moral cor
ruption of nature. In the place of these discarded
positions of old orthodoxy, they explain the facts by
saying that the human race exists under a sovereign
constitution of God, which has provided, that upon the
condition of Adam's sin in the garden, every one of his
descendants shall infallibly sin as soon as he enters
upon moral agency. Thus they ground the whole pro
cedure ultimately upon the sovereignty instead of upon
the justice of God. In answer to the question why this
great evil is inflicted upon creatures just commencing
their existence, they refer us simply to the sovereign
good pleasure of God. In answer to the question HOW
the uniform origination of sin is determined in the first

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 89
responsible act of the recent creatures of a holy God,
some of them content themselves with referring to an
inscrutable divine constitution which secures that result;
while others resolve the matter into the natural physio
logical laws of generation, whereby the parent begets an
offspring morally, as well as intellectually and physically,
like himself; and others again, as eminently Dr. Emmons,
refer the result to a "stated mode of divine efficiency,"
whereby God, upon the antecedent condition of Adam's
sin, proceeds to create a series of sinful acts through the
agency of each of his descendants. This last view,
which refers all human action to a direct, divine efficient
precursus, is virtual pantheism, and evidently makes
God the author of all sin. On this side of divine effi
ciency Emmons developed the New England Theology
to death. Since his time all the advocates of that system
refer the origin of sin in men to their natural descent
from Adam, the organic root and natural head of all
mankind; so that inherited corruption, instead of being
viewed as a penal consequent of Adam's sin, is regarded
simply as a natural consequent of it, transmitted, like
the nose upon the face, by the natural and universal laws
of animal reproduction.
This so-called "improvement" of New England Theo
logy is in principle identical with the doctrine broached
by Joshua Placseus, Professor in the Theological Semi
nary of Saumur, France (circum 1640). He maintained
that Adam's first sin whereby he apostatized, being his
own personal act, could not be imputed to any of his
descendants, because, since it was not their act, they
were not responsible for it, and therefore could not justly
be punished for it. But since Adam's apostasy necessa-
8»

90 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
rily corrupted his own nature, and since, by ordinary
generation, the corruption of his nature determined the
corruption of all those who were descended from him,
it follows hence (1) that all descended from him by ordi
nary generation begin to sin as soon as they begin to act
as moral agents, and (2) that they are justly condemned
and punished for their own sinful acts which thence
result. After this doctrine, which is obviously identical with
that of the New England view above stated, had been
ventilated a number of years, the French National
Synod, meeting at Charenton (Dec. 26, 1644; Jan. 26,
1645), passed with reference to it the following decree:
"There was a report made in Synod of a certain writing,
both printed and manuscript, holding forth this doctrine,
that the whole nature of original sin consisted only in
that corruption which is hereditary to all Adam's pos
terity, and residing originally in all men, and denying
the imputation of his first sin. This Synod condemneth
the said doctrine as far as it restraineth the doctrine of
original sin to the sole hereditary corruption of Adam's
posterity, to the excluding of the imputation of that first
sin by which he fell; and interdicteth, on pain of all
church censure, all pastors, professors and others, who
shall treat of this question, to depart from the common
received opinion of the Protestant Churches, who (over
and besides that corruption) have all acknowledged the
imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity." *
After this, in order to reconcile his doctrine in appear-v
ance with the requirements of the Synod, Placseus in
vented the distinction between immediate and antecedent
* Quick's Synodicon, vol. ii., p. 473.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 91
imputation on the one hand, and mediate and consequent
imputation on the other. By the immediate and ante
cedent imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, he
meant to express the established doctrine of the Reformed
Churches, to wit : that Adam was in such a sense the
covenant head and representative of his descendants, that
their probation was merged into his, and that his action
was made the condition upon which their confirmation
in holiness or rejection and punishment was made to
depend ; and hence that the guilt or punishableness of
his sin was charged to their account immediately upon
their birth, and antecedently to their own action ; and
that consequently the entire corruption of nature with
which they are born is the first consequence and most
awful part of the punishment of that sin charged to them
and punished in them. By the mediate and consequent
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, Placseus meant
to deny the above doctrine of antenatal forfeiture alto
gether", and to teach that the descendants of Adam,
deriving from him corrupt natures by ordinary genera
tion, begin to sin after his example as soon as they
become moral agents, and are consequently, like him,
punished for their own sin. It is as plain as noon-day
that there is no real imputation here at all, no charging
of the punishableness of Adam's first apostatizing act
to his descendants in any honest sense. The application
of the term imputation to this theory by Placseus was
uncandid and sophistical. His cavil was that he also
held that Adam's sin was imputed and punished in his
posterity mediately through and consequently to their own
sin in compliance with his example. Thus Adam sinned,
and was punished for his own sin. For his sin his pos-

92 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
terity are in no way responsible, nor are they punished
on account of it, but only cursed, by means of the natural
law of generation, with corrupt natures. They conse
quently sin, and are all severally punished for their own
sins. Hence, Adam's sin is charged to them mediately
and consequently. This is nothing either more or less
than the New England Root theory above stated, with
this difference, that the New England theory honourably
discards the sophistical and deluding use of the theologi
cal term imputation in a sense not only modified, but so
perverted as to signalize the express denial of that which
from time immemorial all men had used it to affirm.
The objections to this theory are fatal.
1. It fails entirely and obviously to quadrate with the
plain sense of those Scriptures (Rom. v. 12-19) of which,
as I shall show below, the orthodox doctrine is the dog
matic expression. The evidence of this allegation I
will present when I come to exhibit the evidence estab
lishing the truth of the old doctrine.
2. While this improvement was excogitated, as the
younger Edwards said, with the design of reconciling the
doctrine of the fall with the demands of rational justice,
it sets justice at defiance far more directly and uncom
promisingly than does that orthodox doctrine against
the injustice of which it protests. The orthodox doctrine
affirms that God, the rightful Guardian of the human
race, having given them the most favourable trial pos
sible for a race so propagated — a trial, moreover, in
which great and undeserved blessings were made pos
sible, as well as a great loss — it hence follows that they
were justly responsible for the penal consequences of
Adam's failure, and hence that their natural rights were

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 93
justly forfeited before their birth. This "improved"
doctrine, on the other hand, refers the whole result to
the arbitrary sovereignty of God. The orthodox doc
trine demonstrates that every man had a fair probation
in the person of Adam. The "improved" doctrine
asserts that God creates every man into a state of virtual
reprobation, without any probation at all.
3. This theory absurdly attempts to account for the
origination of sin in the children of men severally, as
soon as they begin to act, by a physiological theory of
generation, instead of on a moral principle of righteous
legal responsibility.
4. The whole peculiarity of this view is grounded on
an assumption subversive of the entire foundation-prin
ciples of the gospel ; namely, that it is inconsistent with
justice that, under any circumstances, one person should
be held judicially punishable for a sin performed by
another; while it is a matter of fact that Christ, in
consequence of his federal union with his people, was
justly punished for their sin, and they are justly pro
nounced righteous on the ground of his obedience.
5. This theory is conspicuously inconsistent with the
fact of that parallel which the Scriptures affirm to exist
between the principle upon which we are condemned for
the sin of Adam and that upon which we are justified on
the ground of the righteousness of Christ. The essence
of redemption lies in the fact that Christ was justly
punished for our sins as federally responsible for them,
and that we are justly justified on the ground of his
obedience, because by the terms of his covenant with the
Father the rewardableness of his obedience reverts to us.
If this be so, it follows that the guilt or obligation to

94 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
punishment, accruing from Adam's sin to us, is by the
terms of the covenant justly ours, and hence that native
depravity and all other natural evils are justly inflicted
upon us as the punishment of that sin. While, on the
other hand, if it be held that we first derive corrupt
natures from Adam as purely natural and physical con
sequents of generation, and then are punished for that
innate corruption or for the sinful actions to which it gives
birth, it would necessarily follow, as to the method of sal
vation, that we first derive by regeneration holy natures
from Christ, and are then justified on the ground of in
herent holiness, which is precisely that Moral Influence
Theory of Redemption advocated by Bushnell and
Young. If the ultimate ground of our forfeiture is
our inherent personal corruption of nature derived by
generation, then Paul's words are, even so, the ultimate
ground of our justification must be our inherent personal
holiness of nature derived by regeneration. Dr. John
W. Nevins says : " Our participation in the actual un
righteousness of Adam's life forms the ground of our
participation in his guilt and liability to punishment.
And in no other way, I affirm, can the idea of imputa
tion be satisfactorily explained in the case of the second
Adam." That is, we partake by ordinary generation of
the fallen nature of Adam, and are therefore condemned.
In like manner we partake of the divine-human life of
the incarnate Word through union with the Church and
the efficacy of the sacraments, and are therefore justified.
Thus wonderfully do the latest "improvements" of old
Puritan orthodoxy develop into that Mercersberg theo
logy which has its roots in a pantheistic philosophy and
a Romish religion.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OP ADAM. 95
II. We come now to consider that class of opinions
which agree in maintaining that the members of the
human family come into existence under a forfeiture
justly incurred before their birth. With one singular
exception, all the theories, as far as I know, which main
tain the fact of this antenatal forfeiture, agree in referring
it to the first sin of Adam as its judicial ground.
1. The singular exception referred to is the eccentric
theory that the evil nature with which all men are born
into this world has been self-originated by a free, per
sonal self-determination to evil in a pre-existent state.
As thus generally stated, this theory was first introduced
into the Christian Church by Origen, and revived in the
modern Church by Dr. Edward Beecher in his " Conflict
of Ages," and by Julius Miiller in his great work on the
"Christian Doctrine of Sin." Beecher and Miiller agree
in holding that (a) every child is born with a nature
morally corrupt; (6) that this innate corruption is guilt;
that is, that every new-born soul is from the first mo
rally responsibleandjustly punishable for that corruption;
(c) but since a moral agent can be morally responsible
for a moral character only when it has been self-origi
nated by a previous unbiassed act of will, it follows that
each human person must have had an existence in which
responsible self-determination was possible previous to
his birth in this life.
Beecher's conception of the matter is as follows. In
the beginning all human souls were created like the
angels, free, responsible, moral agents fully developed.
Each stood alone and enjoyed a fair probation in his own
person. Some of the angels stood the trial, and were
confirmed in holy character for ever. Some of the an-

96 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
gels, and all of those spirits subsequently born into this
world as men, fell and became morally depraved, and
righteously condemned because of their own personal
apostasy. For the purpose of bringing this last class
of lost souls under a remedial system of grace, God cre
ated the physical universe for their habitation, and
caused them to be born into material bodies and propa
gated by generation. They all come into the world,
consequently, with their natures depraved and their
natural rights forfeited by their own personal action in
their pre-existent state.
The conception of Miiller, though philosophically
very different from the above, in a theological point of
view amounts to the same. He adopts from the Ideal
ism of Schelling the principle of a transcendental freedom
as an attribute of all personal spirits. "Man in his
origin is a morally undetermined not yet decided essence,
and by virtue of his personality can only be such an
one."* " Only personal essences have a ground in their
own act; it is the possession of freedom in this their now
temporal root which distinguishes the spirit absolutely
from nature."f "In the kingdom of the intelligible,
this silent, timeless, shadowy kingdom is, as it were, the
maternal womb in which the embryos of all personal
essences lie enclosed. Here we find the simple, undeter
mined beginnings of our being which precede its concrete
contents; therefore, one is not in this kingdom to look for
the fulness of the Godlike life, but only the power of de
ciding either in favour of voluntary union with God by
subordination to his will, or for the persistency of self
hood in itself. Which ever way this primitive decision
* Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii., p. 157. •)¦ Ibid., p. 171.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 97
may take place, it forms for these intelligible existences
the transition into space and time, into corporiety and
development, &c." *
This theory, in all its forms, is inadmissible, because
(1.) It is absolutely destitute of any assignable evidence,
either in Scripture or in the sum total of human expe
rience. It is confessedly a pure creation of the human
brain to reconcile the fact that all men are born respon
sible, guilty sinners with the speculative assumption
that a moral agent cannot be responsible for its moral
character, unless that moral character be self-determined
by a previous unbiassed self-decision of the moral agent
himself. (2.) This doctrine is plainly inconsistent with
all the Scriptures teach us, either as to the origin and
original state of man, or as to the origin of sin. As to
the origin of man, it is said, " And the Lord God formed
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul." Gen. ii. 7. As to his original state, it is said, "So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him," Gen. i. 27 ; v. 1 ; ix. 6 ; which image
Paul declares consists in "knowledge, righteousness and
true holiness." Eph. iv. 24, and Col. iii. 10. At the
close of his six days of work God saw everything he
had made, man included, "and behold it was very
good." Gen. i. 31. "Lo, this only have I found, that
God hath made man upright; but they have sought
out many inventions." Eccles. vii. 29. As to the origin
of sin it is said, " by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin." "By one man's offence death
reigned by one." " By the offence of one, judgment came
* Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii., p. 167.
9

98 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
upon all men to condemnation." " By one man's disobe
dience many were made sinners." Rom. v. 12-21. "In
Adam all die." 1 Cor. xv. 22. (3.) This theory is as
much inconsistent with all the experience and phenomena
of human life as it is with the words of revelation. It
is impossible to see or rationally to imagine anything in
a young child and its early growth, except the original
development of the germ of a new existence. This view
represents the unconscious infant, with its slowly un
folding capacities, to be the veteran agent in a high act
of conscious and responsible apostasy, accomplished amid
the scenes of a former life.
(4.) This theory obviously fails, even upon the
hypothesis of its truth, to account for the enigma which
it was invented to explain. There appears to the reason
of man no propriety, no moral significance', in punishing
a moral agent for a personal sin of which he is utterly
and necessarily unconscious. What the Scriptures and
our own consciences condemn us for is our present mo
rally depraved state and actions. This is the burden of
human guilt, and it is impossible that we can be ration
ally or rightfully punished on personal grounds for that
of which we are universally and invincibly personally
unconscious.* It remains for us, hence, to consider onlv those re
maining solutions of the questions in hand which agree in
maintaining these two points : (a) that all human souls
are born into this Avorld subject to a forfeiture justly in
curred before their birth ; and (6) that this forfeiture was
incurred in the guilt of the first sin of Adam.
All possible opinions, embracing both these elements
* Princeton Beview, January, 1854.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 99
in common, may be classed under one of the three fol
lowing heads: (a) that all human souls were created
simultaneously with Adam, and in some way consented
with him in his sin ; (6) that all human souls were
actually in Adam (physically), and, as guilty co-agents,
acted with him in his apostasy; (e) the doctrine of the
Reformed Churches that all human souls were in Adam
(representatively) as our Federal Head, and are therefore
justly liable, with him, for all of the penal consequences
of his act.
1. The first view, which represents all souls being
created with Adam and consenting with him, need not
be considered here, since it is held by no one, and since
it is obviously open, to all the objections alleged . against
the pre-existence theory of Beecher, while it is destitute
of all its advantages;
2. The second view is, that since Adam was the entire
genus homo, as well as the .first individual of the series
into which, by his agency, the genus has been subse
quently explicated, it follows that every individual mem
ber of that series was physically numerically one with
him, and in the entirety of the genus a guilty co-agent
with him in his act of apostasy; and hence that the
whole genus is guilty of that sin, and hence each indi
vidual into which the genus is severally propagated is
really, essentially and inherently as guilty of that sin as
Adam was. This is the Realistic view of the nature of
our connection with Adam, recently advocated by Dr.
Samuel J. Baird, in his Elohim Revealed, and by Dr.
William G. T. Shedd, both in his volume of Essays and
in his "History of Christian Doctrine."
Shedd maintains that sin can be predicated only

100 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of the will, its states and acts, and only of such states.
of the will as are consequent upon its own previous un
biassed self-determination. He does not, however, limit
these responsible self-determinations to single volitions,
in which the soul consciously chooses or refuses particu
lar objects, which is the superficial theory of "the self-
determining power of the will" held by the Arminians ;
but he includes the profound original self-determination
of the whole inward being to evil instead of good, which
antedates consciousness, which corrupted our moral
nature, and which, by thus producing a corrupt nature,
determined the character of all subsequent responsible
moral action. Will, in this sense, by an act of self-
determination to evil before consciousness, is the respon
sible guilty author of its own depravity. And this act
was performed not by each one of us personally, but by
our common nature, the entire genus homo, which
existed as a whole in Adam. Adam he regards not as
a mere receptacle, containing millions of individuals, but
as the entire genus, as well as the first individual of the
series into which it has been explicated. This genus
has since, through Adam's agency, become varied and
manifold through its development by propagation into
a series of individuals. The responsibility and guilt
incured by his apostasy, therefore, inheres necessarily in
the entire nature, and is consequently propagated into
and made the personal attribute of each individual of the
series who have part with the common nature.
Although I object, for many serious reasons, to the
Realistic philosophy of Shedd, I believe it covers a
doctrine of original sin perfectly orthodox. Any doc
trine, to be orthodox in the sense of the Reformed

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 101
Churches, must include the two positions (a) that the
entire moral corruption of nature which characterizes
every human soul from birth is a consequence of Adam's
act of apostasy ; and (6) that it is a most just penal con
sequence of that sin. This Shedd and all the advo
cates of his doctrine can affirm in the most literal sense,
and with their whole heart. .To the question why this
great evil is brought upon all newborn souls, the answer
they give is that we, in virtue of our share in the com
mon nature, were really and numerically one with
Adam, active co-agents with him in his great act of
apostasy, and hence' the depravity of nature in which
they were born is the just punishment of our common
sin. To the question HOW original sin is originated in the
new-born soul, the answer is that it follows by natural
law from the development of the genus through gene
ration into a series of individuals.
It has in the last few years been affirmed that this
Realistic theory of our numerical physical oneness with
Adam is an essential element of the doctrine of the Re
formed Churches as to the imputation of the guilt of his
first sin to his descendants. We believe this to be
utterly and transparently groundless.
(1.) The Realistic philosophy did not prevail in the
schools during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ;
and hence this mode of thought was as foreign to the
general mental habits of men in that age as it is in this.
It hence certainly follows that if this had been the doc
trine of the Reformers and their great successors, they
would have explicitly stated and illustrated this point in
their writings, which it is notorious they have not done.
(2.) The Church from the beginning has been divided
9*

102 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
on the question how the individual souls of men are pro
duced. Now the belief that souls as well as bodies are
produced ex traduce from their parents is consistent with
either the Realistic view of our union with Adam or the
federal and representative view. President Edwards* and
Samuel Hopkinsf both held the Traduce theory, yet both
held the doctrine of Placseus or the Root Theory, which
excludes that idea of antenatal forfeiture which it is the
end and boast of the Realistic theory to vindicate. But,
on the other hand, the doctrine that each soul is severally
and immediately created by God at the instant of con
ception is obviously and absolutely inconsistent with the
Realistic view of human nature. No Creationist can be a
Realist, and no man who doubts between Creationism and
Traducianism can be a conscious and intelligent Realist.
Now, let it be observed (a) that Augustine, who is so
often claimed as a Realist, never decided between Tra
ducianism and Creationism. Tertullian was the advocate
of Traducianism, Jerome of Creationism. Augustine
doubted. He wrote to Jerome, "Teach me now, I beg
of you, what I shall teach ; teach me what I shall hold,
and tell me if souls are every day, one by one, called
into being from nonenity in those who are daily being
born. . . I desire that that opinion may be mine, but I
am not yet certain."! It is simply and absolutely im
possible that a man talking so should be a Realist.
Augustine often says that the whole race, being many,
were one in Adam. Turretin, quoting such an expres
sion, explains it thus: "A unity not specific nor nume-
* Original Sin. pt. 4, chap, ii, f Works, vol. i., p. 289.
X Augustinus : De Origine Aninite, seu Epistola 166, Ad Hierony-
mum, quoted by Shedd.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 103
rical, but partly a unity of origin, because all are from
one blood, and partly unity of representation, because by
the ordinance of God one represented the persons of all."*
(b) The doctrine of the Reformed Churches could not
have been Realistic, because Calvin and the Reformed
theologians, almost to a man, were Creationists. This
Shedd confesses.f HagenbachJ says : " Bellarmine,
Calvin, and the theologians of the Reformed Church in
general, advocated the theory of Creationism." He
quotes in illustration of this, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr,
Bucanus, and Polanus; and he certainly might have
quoted many more, as Heidegger, Turretin, De Moor,
Witsius, Goodwin, Owen, &c. Turretin says with re
spect to Creationism, "Priorem (creationem) Orthodox!
fere omnes sequuntur." Realism is not the doctrine of
the Reformed Churches. The truth is, it was simply
not dreampt of by the men who wrote our creeds.
(3.) Not one of the creeds in question uses any terms
or forms peculiar to Realism. Calvin, Beza, Turretin,
Heidegger, &c, all of whom explicitly repudiate Tradu
cianism, an essential element of Realism, unite in affirm
ing that we were in Adam representatively; that we
really and truly sinned in him because his sin is our sin,
really and truly our sin as to its federal responsibility.
Really and truly, though not physically, but morally ;
not efficiently with respect to personal agency, but virtu
ally with respect to representative agency and just legal
accountability, his act was our act, and we truly sinned
in him. This is precisely what Turretin and Heidegger
say in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, canons 10-12:
"God entered into the Covenant of Works not only
* Locus 9, Quastio 9. f Vol. ii., pp. 24, 25. t Vol. ii., p. 264.

104 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
with Adam for himself, but also in him, as the head and
root, with the whole human race." " There appears no
way in which hereditary corruption could fall as a
spiritual death upon the whole human race by the just
judgment of God unless some sin of that race preceded,
incurring the penalty of that death. For God, the
supremely just Judge of all the earth, punishes none but
the guilty." " For a double reason, therefore, first on
account of the transgression and disobedience which he
committed in the loins of Adam; and secondly, on
account of the consequent hereditary corruption," &c.
Yet it is certain that these men were not Realists. In their
personal writings they specifically explain their meaning
to be that we were in Adam representatively. Our Con
fession and Catechism use the same language in the same
sense. " The first covenant made with man was a
Covenant of Works, wherein life was promised to Adam,
and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and
personal obedience," (the Realists do not claim that we
were in Adam personally).* " They being the root of
all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the
same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to
their posterity, descending from them by ordinary gene
ration ."f "The covenant being made with Adam as
a public person, (here there is a distinct definition of the
representative theory of Adam's oneness Avith the race,
and not directly nor by implication a hint of his being
the genus homo, or of our generic nature acting as an
impersonal co-agent with him in his apostasy,) not only
for himself but for his posterity, all mankind descending
* Conf. Faith, ch. vii., §2. f Ch. vi., g 3.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 105
from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell
with him in that first transgression."
The objections to this Realistic theory are many and
very serious. (1.) No logical dividing line can ever be
drawn between Realism and Pantheism. For (a) if all
men, of all varieties, all generations and local habitations,
are numerically one substance, why may not a higher
genus unite all animals or all entities in one numerical
substance, one in essence, multitudinous in its transient
modes. And (6) if will be not personal, if many thou
sand years before we existed as persons we were guilty
co-agents in a crime in virtue of the ancient existence
of the total genus of which we are personal modes, what
evidence have we left that the personal mode we call
ourselves may not relapse into the essence from which it
sprang, and that all things phenomenal may not be
passing moments in succesive modifications (personal or
otherwise) of one underlying substance?
(2.) This theory has no shadow of ground in the
Scriptures. It is purely a creation of human specula
tion in the effort to reconcile, speculatively, the facts of
human experience with our abstract notions of what
justice requires on the part of God. It therefore, even
if legitimate as a philosophical theory, can never be ad
mitted for one moment to the place of a doctrine.
(3.) But even as an attempted reconciliation between
the fact of innate sin and our ideas of divine justice, it
breaks down utterly. All the ideas we have or possibly
can have concerning sin, moral obligation, guilt, justice
or the like, are derived from our own moral sense and
from Scripture. But the moral sense of every man and
Scripture teaches us nothing about moral agency or re-

106 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
sponsibility which is not personal. An impersonal will,
an impersonal obligation, an impersonal sin, are all as
utterly inconceivable as a square circle or a red sound.
No man's conscience is bound, however much his mind
may be confused by such words. The idea of a generic
nature, acting as a guilty co-agent with a person in a
crime, even if it were true, throws no light upon the
justice of subjecting persons not then existing to a
terrible personal penalty.
(4.) Hence this figment of the numerical union of
every person of the race in Adam practically collapses
into the poor Root theory of Placseus and the New Eng
land divines, which denies that antenatal forfeiture this
Realistic theory was excogitated, to .defend, and maintains
that the guilt of his sin is not ours, and that the de
pravity of his nature, consequent upon his sin, is made
ours by an ordinary physiological law of generation.
The effort to prove man a sinner on this scheme ends by
reducing sin to the category of transmissible physiologi
cal accidents, such as red hair or a prognathous skull.
(5;) If the entire genus was in Adam, the entire post
diluvian race was, in the same sense, in Noah. If we
were guilty co-agents in the first sin of the one, because
of numerical and physical identity, we must be, for the
same reason and to the same extent, guilty of every one
of the sins of Noah. And every existing person must
literally, and by direct consequence of identity of nature,
be as guilty of all the sins of all his ancestors as he is
of his own personal transgressions.
(6.) If the guilt as well as the moral corruption of
the generic nature is inherent in that nature, and passes
into every individual who shares in it, the awful conse-

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 107
quence would follow that the guilt for which the human
race is cursed attaches as much to the human soul and
body of; the Lord Jesus as to any other. Corruption of
nature may be removed by divine power, but guilt never,
otherwise there would have been no need for an atone
ment, for the absolute necessity of which Shedd argues
so earnestly and so admirably ^
(7.) In Romans v. 12-21, Paul asserts that the princi
ple upon which we share in the righteousness of Christ
is identical- with that upon which we share in the guilt
of Adam.' If, therefore, we share in the guilt of Adam,
because we were as to essence numerically one with him,
. and hence, in the totality of the generic nature, guilty
co-agents with him in the act of apostasy, it necessarily
follows that we share in the righteousness of Christ, be
cause the eternal Word took into personal union with
himself the total genus electorum; and because, hence,
we were numerically one with him on the cross, and
, meritorious co-agents with him in his obedience and ex
piatory death. But the Scriptures teach us of the
sovereign election of persons to eternal life. There is no
intimation of the election of a certain slice of the genus
humanum. But if the genus be one spiritual substance,
how can it be divided? After its division, does it cease
to be one? It is too horrible to think of, that Iv- should
be in union with the entire genus includip^ ^e lost. If
generation does not separate the genus into parts, then
Christ must be in union with the whole genus. But if
generation does separate the genus into parts, then it fol
lows (a) that Christ's human soul and body are only
individual parts of the genus, and Christ, therefore, can
sustain no generic relation to us; (b) that the elect who

108 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
were born before Christ were already parts separated
from the genus, and therefore his perfect humanity could
not be propagated through the oneness of the genus to
them; (c) that all infants, being born into the world
corrupt, and being regenerated subsequently to their
separation from the common nature, cannot receive, by
any conceivable form of propagation within the genus
or from the genus from which they are separated, that
perfect humanity which, as second Adam, he communi
cates to his seed.
President Edwards holds a position on this subject
which it is difficult to classify, because it is inconsistent
with itself. His doctrine of identity, which, in his work
on Original Sin,* he applies to our relation to Adam,
allies him, as far as the question of antenatal forfeiture
was concerned, with the high Realistic view just ex
amined. According to him, there is no real causal con
nection between the being, mode or action of any created
thing in any one moment with its being or condition
the next moment. Everything which exists is in
every successive moment the result of the perpetual
efflux of the vis creatrix of God. There is no real
identity, therefore, no real connection of any kind, be
tween the man and his state and acts any one moment
of his life and the same man any other moment. It is
a direct and purely sovereign act of God which consti
tutes the sameness that we call identity between created
moments of being in themselves really different. It is
God's bare will that makes any one of us identical with,
and therefore responsible for, his youthful self. By a
mere volition, he might make the age of one man iden-
* Part 4, chap. iii.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OP ADAM. 109
tical with, and responsible for, the youth of another. As
a matter of fact, he has pleased to make each one of us
identical with (literally), and responsible for, the proba
tionary life of Adam. Hence we are literally, and to
the same degree, and on the same ground, and through
the same method, identical with Adam and responsible
for his sin, as he was himself, and as we are with respect
to our own acts of disobedience. This is the doctrine of
the antecedent and immediate imputation of Adam's sin
to his posterity put upon the highest ground possible.
They are punished for it for the precise reason that he
is punished for it — because they did it as much as they
ever do anything, and because they were he as much as
they ever are anything.
On the other hand, Edwards inconsistently teaches,
and evidently makes his own thoroughly the doctrine
of Placseus and Stapfer, that we are condemned with
Adam only mediately through, and in consequence of,
our having, by natural generation, corrupt natures like
his. The corrupt nature is a natural result of his cor
ruption, and the condemnation is consequent to the cor
ruption. The corruption is not regarded as itself a
punishment, and hence, on this side of his doctrine,
Edwards does not teach the existence of any judicial
ground of forfeiture previous to and conditioning the
birth of mankind.
Having thus, by a process of exhaustion, shown that
all of the prominent alternatives of the orthodox doc
trine on this subject are alike unsatisfactory and un-
authenticated, we have raised a powerful presumption in
its favour, in spite of the large residuum of difficulty
which confessedly remains in the question after all is
10

110 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
said. The doctrine of the Reformed Church is that
every human soul is born into the world under forfeiture
resulting from our just legal responsibility for Adam's
action as our federal head and representative. The
several elements involved in this doctrine* are as follows.
1. By a sovereign creative act Adam was constituted
the natural head and root of all mankind.
2. According to a principle observed in the case of
the angels, and we believe universal, God created Adam
with a nature positively holy and inclined to good, yet
fallible, and made his future character and destiny to
depend upon his obedience for a definite period, called a
probation, during which he remained in a condition of
instable moral equilibrium. The alternatives placed
before him were, that if he obeyed for the term ap
pointed he should be confirmed in moral excellence and
rendered infallible and blessed for ever; and, on the
other hand, if he disobeyed, his trial should be, ipso facto,
closed, and he himself morally degraded in character and
made an heir of misery for ever. This most natural and
reasonable divine constitution is commonly called the
Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Life.
3. In making this Covenant with Adam, and assigning
him a favourable state and definite period of probation,
God, acting as the guardian of the whole human race,
and for their benefit, provided for all Adam's descend
ants the best conceivable conditions of moral probation
for a race of moral agents propagated through an animal
nature such as mankind, by appointing Adam their
federal head and representative, and making their per
manent character and destiny to depend upon his con
duct during his period of personal trial. The ground in

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. Ill
reason and right of this divine appointment of Adam as
the federal head and representative of his descendants, as
far as made known to us, is (a) the indefeasible right of
God sovereignly to order the probation of the subjects of
his moral government according to the pleasure of his
infinitely wise, righteous, and benevolent will. (6) The
evident fact that in the arrangement in question, God as
the faithful Guardian of his creatures, has ordered their
probation under the very best conditions — the holy and
adult Adam in the virgin earth being in a condition for
passing the trials of a moral probation far more favour
able than any single infant or any number of infants
developing into childhood could ever be. (e) Adam's
natural relation to his descendants made him the proper
-person to represent them. Without going the length of
Realism, it appears probable that the divinely ordained
representative and substitutionary constitution, alike of
the probation in Adam and the redemption in Christ, is
conditioned upon the generic unity of men as consti
tuting a race propagated by generation, (d) The head
ship of the first Adam is an inseparable part of that
infinitely glorious system which culminates in the head
ship of the second Adam.
4. It is involved in this covenant headship that all
Adam's descendants were federally embraced in him and
represented by him, so that in case either of obedience
or of disobedience the corresponding reward or penalty is
by the conditions of the covenant as justly and as really
theirs as it is his.
5. It plainly follows that Adam's first sin, which, ipso
facto, closed his probation and theirs, although it be as
respects us a peccatum alienum when it is regarded

112 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
simply as an action, is, notwithstanding, when considered
in respect to its guilt or legal responsibility or obliga
tion to punishment, as justly and as really ours as it is
his, since by the law of the covenant he acted as our
agent, and we are bound by his action. In one sense the
sin is very plainly his, and not ours. It is ours only as
the covenant makes our moral standing to depend upon
his action. The personal character of one man never can
be transferred to another. But, on the other hand, it is
plain one man may be, under certain conditions, justly
and morally responsible for the action of another man.
Now, it is precisely the reatus, the legal responsibility,
the federal obligation to punishment incurred by Adam's
sin, that is justly charged to each of his descendants. In
this sense only is his sin their sin. And in this sense it
is just as much and as really theirs as his.
6. Consequently God, by a strictly judicial, not sove
reign, act, justly imputes Adam's apostatizing act to us :
that is, God simply acts upon the facts of the case, treat
ing us as legally responsible for Adam's sin, and justly
obnoxious to its penalty. This imputation proceeds
upon no fiction, makes no confusion between Adam's
personality and our personalities, between Adam's agency
and our agency, presumes no absurd transfer of Adam's
personal subjective moral character to us, nor confusion
of his subjective states with ours ; but it simply (a) re
cognizes our legal oneness with Adam, and consequent
common responsibility with him for the guilt of his pub
lic sin ; (6) consequently charges the guilt of his sin to
our account ; and (c) most righteously treats us according
to the demerit of that sin.
When we say that Adam's sin was imputed to us, the

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 113
Reformed Churches have always understood by it that
the guilt or legal obligation to suffer the penalty of Adam's
sin is judicially charged to our account as the legal
ground of penal treatment. That this is the true sense
of the scriptural phrase to impute sin will be found suf
ficiently proved in the eleventh chapter of this book.
7. Hence we are all born into the world under an
antecedent just forfeiture of all natural rights, and right
eously subject to all the penal consequences of apostasy
under the terms of the Covenant of Works ; that is, to
the immediate penal withdrawal of that communion and
support of the Spirit of God which is the condition of
spiritual life and blessedness. Connate spiritual death,
therefore, befals us as the just punishment of the public
sin of Adam, the penal responsibility for which is ours
as truly as it is his. This imputation of the guilt of
Adam's sin to us, or this practical regarding and treating
us as responsible for it, is (a) judicial, not sovereign, and
(6) immediate and antecedent to the corruption of our
nature, and to personal sinful actions, not mediately
through them nor consequent upon them. It is to be
remembered, however, that the antenatal forfeiture, in
volving the privation of those spiritual influences upon
which spiritual and physical life depends, is the only
penalty which comes upon us, consequent to Adam's sin,
immediately and antecedently to our own action. Other
temporal and eternal punishments are doubtless neces
sary consequents (unless God mercifully intervenes) of
that withdrawment of God's Spirit which is the imme
diate penalty of Adam's sin ; nevertheless, the Scriptures
always represent these as being properly and immediately
the punishment of our own personal sins of disposition
10*

114 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
and action. This matter is clearly and fully stated, in
the sense I have above given, by Turretin.* The doc
trine of the Reformed Churches he sums up in the follow
ing unmistakable words : " The question returns to these
terms, whether the sin of Adam, not any one, but the
first sin (apostatizing act), not his sinful habit (that is,
subjective state), but his act, is imputed to all his pos
terity proceeding from him by ordinary generation, by
an imputation not mediate and consequent, but immedi
ate and antecedent ? They with whom we are now hold
ing controversy either deny imputation absolutely or only
admit a mediate imputation ; we, on the other hand, with
the orthodox, affirm alike that an imputation is to be
conceded, and that it is immediate and antecedent."
If, then, the question be asked why? on what basis
of justice does God bring new-born creatures into exis
tence under such penal conditions that total corruption
of nature, the sum and root of all other evils in every
case accrues, the answer is, that their natural rights were
forfeited by the public act of their federal representative
before they were born, and that they are in fact as truly,
penally responsible for his sin as he was himself.
If, on the other hand, the question be asked HOW in
herent moral corruption originates in a newly-created
soul and yet the Creator of the soul be not the author
of the sin, it must be confessed, in reply, that the Scrip
tures give us no direct solution, and that various answers
have been given by men equally orthodox.
1. Some have maintained that, according to the great
physiological law that like begets like, the depraved na
ture of Adam has been propagated to his descendants
* Locus 9, Qusestio 9.

Federal headship of ad am. 115
through their bodies, and that each soul newly created
pure is morally corrupted the instant it is brought into
union with its body, in which the vitiating virus re
sides. The fatal objection to this view is that it is inconsist
ent with the essential nature of sin. Sin is a quality
or accident neither of elementary matter nor of material
organization. It can exist only as a moral quality of
a rational spirit. A disordered condition of body may,
as we all experience, occasion in an already apostate soul
inordinate animal passions, but it could never cause in a
holy soul aversion from God, pride, malice and other
purely spiritual sins.
2. Another and by far more prevalent form of the
ex traduce theory is that the souls, as well as the bodies,
of children are propagated from their parents, and that
thus the depraved nature of Adam has, by a natural law,
been reproduced in his offspring in successive genera
tions. Jerome held to the immediate creation of each
soul at the time of conception. Tertullian held to this
doctrine of the generation of souls. Augustine was un
willing to decide the question either way. The Lu
therans have generally held the doctrine of traduction,
and the Reformed almost universally have maintained
creationism. 3. The great majority of the Reformed theologians,
since they maintain that each soul is a new and imme
diate product of creation, have consequently held (a) that
the only penalty inflicted by God on the new-created
soul, as the immediate punishment of Adam's public sin,
is privative, the penal withholding of those spiritual
influences upon which the moral and spiritual life of the

116 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
creature depends, (b.) That (as has been always held
from Augustine to Edwards) sin in its origin* is not a
positive entity concreated in the soul, but a privative vice,
resulting necessarily from the creation of the soul into a
condition of justly incurred condemnation and alienation
from God. Their common declaration was that innate
corruption of nature is propagated neque per corpus,
neque per animam, sed per culpam — not through the gene
ration, either of the body or of the mind, but as a
righteous punishment for crime. Ursinus, in his Expli
cation of the Heidelberg Catechism, of which he was
the principal author, says, "Original sin is communi
cated, neither through the body, nor through the soul, but
through the guilt of parents, on account of which God,
while he creates souls, at the same time deprives them
of that original righteousness and of those gifts which he
had conferred upon the parents upon this condition, that
they should confer them or forfeit them for their pos
terity just as they retained or lost them for themselves."
The Reformed doctrine therefore is, that corruption of
nature is the penal consequent of Adam's sin, and that
it is propagated, not on the physiological principles upon
which it is the glory of the disciples of Placseus and of
the New England Theology to rely, but by the penal
deprivation of the new-born soul of those influences of
the Holy Spirit upon which its moral life depends.
We believe that the doctrine thus stated is substan
tiated by the following considerations.
1. This doctrine of the Federal Representation of
Adam, instead of adding anything either of mystery or
of apparent severity to the undeniable facts of God's
* Edwards' Original Sin, part 4, chap. ii.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 117
providential dealing with the human race, is, as I have
shown by comparison, more rational than any other ex
planation of these facta ever suggested by the ingenuity
of man. On the hypothesis that a race of moral agents,
united to an animal organization and propagated through
it in successive generations, as man is, was to be created,
the conceivable alternatives are — either (a) that a proba
tionary trial, such as it appears God imposes upon all
moral agents as the condition of their being confirmed
in indefeasible holiness and blessedness, should, in their
case, be absolutely forborne, and they be endowed with
the highest graces without passing through the condi
tions required of all other holy creatures; or (6) that
each infant should stand his own trial severally as he
struggles through twilight development of his corporeal *§>
and mental nature; or (c) the probation of the entire
race must be held in the person of its holy adult pro
genitor, in the fresh vigour of his perfect manhood, sur
rounded with the purity of the new-born earth. Of the
propriety of the first alternative we are utterly unable
to judge. The execution of the second alternative
would have certainly involved the whole race in certain
ruin. It is certain, on the other hand, that the third
alternative was the one actually chosen by God as the
infinitely wise and benevolent, as well as righteous,
Guardian of the interests of all rational spirits created
in his likeness, for the benefit of the race in this case
concerned. If Adam had succeeded, and we had re
ceived the excellent graces conditioned on that success,
no human being would have ever doubted the surpass
ing wisdom and justice of the entire constitution.
, 2. The biblical record unquestionably represents

118 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Adam as sustaining a public and representative position.
(«.) He was named Adam, that is, man, the man, the
generic man. (b.) Everything that was commanded, or
threatened, or promised him related to his descendants
as much as to him personally. Thus "obedience," "a
cursed earth," "liability to death," "painful child-bear
ing," concern us and our families as much as they con
cerned him. The Protevangelion, or promise of redemp
tion through the Seed of the woman, which was given
to our first parents in immediate connection with their
fall, of course is a gospel for us as well as for the original
parties. 3. It is an undeniable matter of fact that the very
penalty which God denounced upon Adam has in all
its particulars come upon every one of his descendants,
_from their birth upward. Death, physical and spiritual,
was the penalty denounced and executed on Adam the
very day he transgressed ; and in the same sense it has
been executed upon each of his descendants at birth.
If these were penal inflictions in the case of Adam, they
must be penal inflictions in the case of each one of Ids
children. 4. The truth we contend for is expressly taught in
Scripture, Rom. v. 12-21. In this passage, so plain in
spite of all that men have done to confuse it, Paul says
that death, which is the penalty of the law, came upon
all men through the sin of one man. This great evil
could not be inflicted as a penalty for violations of the
law of Moses, because it had been inflicted for ages
before the law of Moses was given. It could not be
inflicted upon individuals as a penalty incurred by
their personal sins, because it is inflicted upon infants,

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 119
who have never been guilty of personal transgression.
It follows, so Paul argues, that by one man's offence
death hath reigned, and that by the offence of one man
judgment hath come upon all men to condemnation.
Thus Paul in this passage affirms in precise terms the
full doctrine of the Reformed Churches, to wit : (a) that
the law of death, spiritual and physical, under which we
are born, is a consequent of Adam's public disobedience,
and (6) that it is a "judgment," a "condemnation" — that
is, a penal consequent of Adam's sin — see also 1 Cor.
xv. 21, 22.
5. The apostle proves in the above passage that there
is a precise parallelism between the way in which our
" condemnation" follows from the disobedience of Adam,
and in which our "justification" or " being made righte
ous" follows from the obedience of Christ. Rom. v. 18.
" Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came
upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the righte
ousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life." If it be, then, the great central
principle of the gospel that the merit or rewardableness
of Christ's obedience, graciously imputed or set to the
account of the believer, is the legal ground of his justi
fication, it follows of necessary consequence, if the
apostle's assertion of the parallelism of the two is correct,
that the demerit or rightful obligation to punishment
inherent in Adam's sin, imputed or charged to the
account of each of his natural descendants, is the legal
ground of their antenatal forfeiture. These two com
plementary doctrines, thus bound together in the Scrip
tures, stand or fall together. It is an historical fact that
whenever the one has been denied or radically miscon-

120 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
ceived, the other has soon fallen with it, and thus the
whole gospel been subverted.
6. The federal or representative principle upon which
this doctrine is grounded is conformed to the entire
analogy of all God's dispensations with mankind. Wit
ness God's covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and
David. Witness the constitutions of both the Jewish
and Christian Churches, in which the rights of infants
are predetermined by the status of their parents. Hugh
Miller draws the following deduction from a scientific
review of the world and of the history of the various
races and nations of its human inhabitants. " It is a
fact, broad and palpable as the economy of nature, that
parents do occupy a federal position, and that the lapsed
progenitors, when cut off from civilization and all exter
nal interference of a missionary character, become the
founders of a lapsed race. The iniquities of the parents
are visited upon their children. In all such instances it
is man left to the freedom of his own will that is the
deteriorator of man. The doctrine of the fall, in its
purely theologic aspects, is a doctrine that must be
apprehended by faith ; but it is at least something to
find that the analogies of science, instead of running
counter to it, run in precisely the same line. It is one
of the inevitable consequences of that nature of man
which the Creator ' bound fast in fate,' while he left free
his will, that the free-will of the parent should become
the destiny of the child."*
7. It is a very strong presumption in favour of the
truth of this doctrine in the form in which I have
stated it above, that beyond question it is the common
* Testimony of the Bocks.

FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 121
doctrine of the Romish, Lutheran, and Reformed
Churches. It is accurately stated in the writings of
Bellarmine and Pascal. As to the Reformed Church,
the quotations I have given above, from the Formula
Consensus Helvetica, from the Westminster Confession
and Catechism, and from Ursinus and Turretin, must
suffice, in connection with the following from Theodore
Beza, the great pupil and friend and successor of John
Calvin. Writing on Rom. v. 12, he says : " Two things
should be considered in original sin, namely, guilt and
corruption ; which, although they cannot be separated, yet
ought to be distinguished accurately. For as Adam by
the commission of sin first was made guilty of the wrath
of God, then, as being guilty, he underwent as the pun
ishment of sin the corruption of soul and body ; so also
he transmitted to posterity a nature in the first place
guilty, next corrupted. Concerning the propagation of
guilt, the apostle is properly teaching in this passage, in
contrast with which the imputation of the obedience of
Christ is set forth. Hence it follows that that guilt
which precedes corruption is by the imputation of
Adam's disobedience, as the remission of sins and the
abolition of guilt is by the imputation of the obedience
of Christ. Nothing can be plainer."
11

CHAPTER VIII.
CHRIST WAS, IN THE STRICT JEWISH SENSE, A SACRIFICE.
THE JEWISH SACRIFICES WERE STRICTLY PIACULAR, AND
THEY WERE TYPICAL OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR LORD.
OUR third argument is derived from the fact that the
Scriptures constantly represent Christ as dying, and
thus effecting the salvation of his people as a sacrifice.
The points involved in this argument are the following.
1. From the dawn of sacred history the first and every
where prevailing mode in which the true people of God
worshipped him with acceptance was in the use of
bloody sacrifices. From the family of Adam this usage
prevailed among the inhabitants of all countries and the
votaries of all religions up to the time of Christ. And
these sacrifices were universally regarded by those offer
ing them as vicarious sufferings, expiating sin and pro
pitiating God. 2. The sacrifices which God ordained
under the Mosaic economy were certainly expiatory.
3. They were, moreover, certainly typical of the sacrifice
of Christ ; that is, Christ, in dying, expiated the sins of
his own people on precisely the same principles that the
Jewish sacrifices expiated the offerer's violation of the
ceremonial law.
I. That sacrifices originated in the family of Adam,
that down to the time of Christ they continued the in
separable accompaniment of all acceptable worship, and
122

sacrifices piacular and typical. 123
that they were diffused among the people of all lands
and all religions, are simple matters of fact admittecUby
all. It has, however, been much disputed whether they
originated in an immediate divine revelation, and whether
their observance was at first imposed by divine authority.
The early Christian Fathers generally, the learned and
orthodox Outram, the great body of Socinian, rational
istic, and Broad Church writers, as Maurice and Bush
nell, have answered this question in the negative ; while
the Unitarians, Priestly, Dr. John Young, and the
great body of orthodox divines, have decided affirma
tively. This is just as we should have expected to find
it. The question as to the origin and character of the
primitive sacrifices is not necessarily bound up with the
far more important questions which concern the Mosaic
sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ. Men may take
orthodox views as to the divine origin of sacrifice, while
they utterly misconceive its true nature and design. Yet
truth is so self-consistent in all its parts, that it is
eminently natural for all those who believe that the
Mosaic sacrifices were piacular, and that they were typical
of the work of Christ, to believe that the whole system
of primitive sacrifices was ordained by God to be typical
of that great event.
At any rate, their divine origin appears to be estab
lished with sufficient certainty by the following consid
erations. (1.) It is inconceivable that either the
propriety or probable utility of presenting material gifts
to the invisible God, and especially of attempting to
propitiate God by the slaughter of his irrational
creatures, should ever have occurred to the human mind
as a spontaneous suggestion. Every instinctive sen-

124 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
timent and every presumption of reason must, in the
first instance, have appeared to exclude them. (2.) On
the hypothesis that God intended to save men, it is in
conceivable that he should have left them without in
struction upon a question so vital as that concerned in
the means whereby they might approach into his pre
sence and conciliate his favour. (3.) It is characteristic
of all God's self-revelations, under every dispensation;
that he discovers himself as jealous of any use by man
of unauthorized methods of worship or service. He
uniformly insists upon this very point of his sovereign
right of dictating methods of worship and service, as
well as terms of acceptance. The religion of unfallen
men might, well enough, proceed on a basis of natural
reason and conscience acting spontaneously. But since
the salvation of the sinner must be only of grace, the
religion of the sinner, in the principles on which it
rests, the methods by which it is realized, and the very
forms whereby it is to be expressed, must originate with
God, and be dictated by him to us. Thus, all manner
of " will-worship" and " teaching for doctrines the com
mandments of men," are forbidden with equal emphasis
in both the Old and New Testaments. Matt. xv. 9;
Mark vii. 7; Isa. xxix. 13; Col. ii. 23. (4.) As a
matter of fact, the very first recorded instance of accept
able worship in the family of Adam brings before us
bleeding sacrifices, and seals them emphatically with the
divine approbation. They appear in the first recorded
act of worship. Gen. iv. 3, 4. They are emphatically
approved by God as soon as they appear. From that
time down to the era of Moses they continued to be uni
versally the characteristic mode in which the people of God

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 125
worship him acceptably. Gen. viii. 20-22; xv. 9, 10;
xxii. 2-13 ; Job. i. 5 ; xlii. 8.
That these primitive sacrifices were strictly piacular
appears to be certain — (1.) From the manner in which
the sacred record presents the direct effect of the sacrifice
of Noah. Immediately after he left the ark "Noah
builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean
beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings
on the altar. And the Lord smelted a savour of rest;*
and the LordVsaid in his heart, I will not again curse the
ground any more for man's sake," &c. Gen. viii. 20-22.
(2.) Also from what is said of the occasion and design
of the sacrifices of Job : " His sons went and feasted in
their houses, every one his day. . . And it was so, when
the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent
and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning,
and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of
them all : for Job said, It may be that my sons have
sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job
all the days." Job i. 4, 5.* (3.) The bleeding sacrifices
which prevailed among all races of mankind, and the
votaries of all the ethnic religions from the ages preced
ing all written history, were certainly regarded as piacu
lar. This fact is freely admitted by Bahr and by all the
advocates of the Moral Theory of the sacrifice of Christ.
Such writers as Jowett and Maurice, Young and
Bushnell, reject the plain teaching of the Bible on the
subject of vicarious and piacular sacrifices, because it
outrages their instinctive moral judgments and senti
ments. Maurice, Young, and Bushnell maintain that
the sacrifices of the Mosaic institute were not piacular —
* See marginal reading.
11*

126 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
that they were designed to express the repentance and
spiritual aspirations of the worshipper, and not to effect
the propitiation of God. Jowett, more consistent than
they in his Rationalism, as he far surpasses them in
learning and genius, appears to admit that the sacrifices
of the Old Testament were piacular, but denies that they
are so far forth true types of the sacrifice of Christ.
" Heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the
sacrifice of Christ was not than what it was."* Again, he
affirms that " to state this view of the doctrine at length
(that is, the orthodox view) is but to translate the New
Testament into the language of the 01d."f We point
them to the fact that sacrifices, undeniably vicarious and
piacular, have prevailed everywhere among all nations
from before the dawn of history down, at least, to the
Christian era. They respond by admitting the fact al
leged to its utmost extent, but maintain that it is the
result and expression of crude civilization and gross su
perstition. Michaelis attributes the universal prevalence
of piacular sacrifices to a sensus communis, having its
ground in human nature. Thompson argues the same
principle at length in the second of his Bampton Lec
tures. Bishop Butler says:J "By the general preva
lence of propitiatory sacrifices over the heathen world,
this notion of repentance alone being sufficient to expiate
guilt appears to be contrary to the general sense of
mankind." This reduces the question to a direct issue
between the cultivated moral consciousness of a few
" advanced thinkers," self-styled, of the nineteenth cen
tury, on the one hand, and on the other, the natural
* Epistles of Paul, vol. ii., p. 479. f Ibid-, P- 470.
J Analogy, part ii., chap. 5.

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 127
moral instincts of all races and nations. This issue is
made not by us, but by the "advanced thinkers" them
selves. It appears to be a reductio ad absurdum, and a
finished specimen of its kind.
II. That the sacrifices instituted by God, under the
Mosaic economy, were vicarious and expiatory is suscep
tible of abundant proof. The death of the bleeding
sacrifice was a poena vicaria, a vicarious punishment,
the life of the victim being substituted in the stead of
the life of the offerer.
This is the traditional and orthodox view of both the
Jewish and the Christian Churches, held in common by
all writers of authority, from the Rabbins and the early
Fathers down to very recent times. Even among mod
ern German writers it is supported by many rationalists,
such as Gesenius, De Wette, Bruno Bauer, &c, who
have no interest in any relation the Jewish sacrifices
may have to the Christian atonement, as well as ortho
dox expositors of the first eminence for learning and
genius, as Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Lange, Ebrard, Tho-
masius, Kahnis and Kurtz. As I shall show below, this
view is plainly taught by the inspired record of the in
stitution, observance and history of the Mosaic sacrifices,
and also by the entire mass of whatsoever traditions re
lated to the subject remain in the world.
The old Socinian view of sacrifice taught in the last
century by the Latitudinarian Sykes and the Unitarian
John Talor, of Norwich, has in this generation been re
vived and advocated with great ability by Bahr, and
through him 'disseminated among classes of men not
confessedly Socinian, yet unwilling to accept the heredi
tary faith of the Church. His opinion was, that the

1 28 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
death of the victim, instead of being a vicarious punish
ment, was no essential part of the transaction, but merely
incidental as a means of affording the blood. The
essence of the whole sacrificial service, according to Bahr,
was the sprinkling of the blood, as the bearer of the life,
upon God's altar, thus symbolizing the giving away of
the offerer's life to God; "in other words, his returning
back again to God, by repentance and faith and self-
dedication, after being separated from him by sin."
Jowett appears to give up the Jewish sacrifices as being
as entirely unjustifiable as those of the heathen. He
says, "Heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us
what the death of Christ was not than what it was.
. They are the dim, vague, rude, almost barbarous ex
pression of that want in human nature which has re
ceived satisfaction in him only." " The death of Christ
is not a sacrifice in the Levitical sense." " Not the sacri
fice, nor the satisfaction, nor the ransom, but the greatest
moral act ever done in the world — the act, too, of one
in our likeness — is the assurance to us that God in
Christ is reconciled to the world."*
Maurice, not being sufficiently advanced to reject with
Jowett the Old Testament sacrifices as barbarous, must
needs agree with Bahr in making them mere symbolical
expressions of the subjective state of the offerer, who
presented his victim in place of himself as an expression
of " his sense of gratitude, of obligation, of dependence."
He admits that the inspired apostle applied the Greek
words ttaepbc; and IXaoryptov to Christ, as sacrificed for us,
in the sense which those words had always born in class
ical Greek. Yet he says that in its Christian use its
* Epistles of Paul, pp. 477-481.

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 129
uniform "heathen sense must be, not modified, but in
verted."* That is, Paul chose a word which always had
meant, and which could only signify to his readers, the
very opposite of what he intended to say. An admira
ble canon of interpretation, to be applied whenever the
apostle says the opposite of what Maurice is willing to
believe !
Bushnell is essentially in agreement with Maurice
and Bahr. With him the Jewish sacrifices were the
liturgy of the Jewish religion, a transactional liturgy,
expressing the confession of guilt and repentance by the
worshipper before God as a reconciling God. He holds
that the only effect of the sacrifices was lustral. " Here,
then, is the grand terminal of all sacrifice; taken as a
liturgy, it issues in making clean ; purges, washes,
sprinkles, purifies, sanctifies, carries away pollution ; in
that sense absolves the guilty ."f
Dr. John Young, of Edinburgh, holds precisely the
same view of the Mosaic sacrifices. "When a Jew
brought his sacrifice to the altar, two distinct ideas were
presented to his mind. On the one hand, here was a
merciful divine provision for his animal life; on the
other hand, the God who had made this provision was
here laying claim to the reverence and love of his heart,
and demanding his willing return and self-surrender.
Every fresh offering was meant to be a new return and
self-surrender to his God."J
This theory has been fully sifted and refuted by
Kurtz and Fairbairn. Its only ground is a moral (so-
* Doctrine of Sacrifice, pp. 72, 154.
f Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 163, 169.
% Life and Light of Men, pp. 226, 230.

130 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
called) sentiment which refuses to accept the doctrine of
expiation so plainly read by the whole Church in the
words of Scripture. It is utterly without support, either
in the natural sense of the Pentateuch, in the New Tes
tament application of the law to the gospel, or in the
opinions of ancient Jews or Christians, who lived when
sacrifices were in habitual use.
The bleeding sacrifices under the Mosaic law were of
three kinds; the sin and trespass-offering, the burnt-
offering and the peace-offering. The presentation, the
imposition of hands and confession of sins, and the
slaughtering, were the same in all. " But in the remain
ing functions, the sprinkling of the blood, the burning,
and the sacrificial meal, we find characteristic differences,
inasmuch as each one of these three stands out by itself
as a peculiarly emphasized and prominent feature in one
of the three kinds of sacrifice. The sprinkling of the
blood was the culminating point in the sin-offering. In
the others, it evidently fell into the background, the
blood being merely poured around upon the altar; but
in the sin-offerings the horns of the altar of burnt-offer
ing, in which the whole worth of the altar culminated^
were appointed as the object upon which the blood was
to be sprinkled. In some cases even this appeared in
sufficient, and the blood was taken into the Holy Place,
where it was sprinkled upon the horns of the altar of
incense, towards the curtain before the Capporeth, and
sometimes even upon the Capporeth itself, in the Most
Holy Place. In the burnt-offering, rhp, an ascension or
going up, and V^J, the whole, on the other hand, the act
of burning was the culminating point. Lastly, the
sacrificial meal was the main point and real character-

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 131
istic of the peace-offering."* From this we obtain a by
no means unimportant insight into the nature and dis
tinguishing characteristic of the sacrifices. There was
confession of sin and the infliction of death, the vicari
ous penalty, in all alike ; but in the case of the sin and
trespass-offering, expiation of some special sin, the re
moval of some special penalty involving exclusion from
the covenant of grace, is the great thing intended. In
the case of the burnt-offering, atonement was made for
sin as a constant habit and condition in a more general
sense, and together with this there was an expression
made of the entire consecration of the life and substance
of the worshipper to his God. In the case of the peace-
offering, the characteristic feature was, that after the sin
had been confessed, imposed and atoned, the fat and
richer portions of the sacrifice were burnt upon the altar,
and thus given to Jehovah, while the offerer and his
friends feasted upon the remaining portions. "This was
the symbol of established friendship with God and near
communion with him in the blessings of his kingdom,
and was associated in the minds of the worshippers with
feelings of peculiar joy and gladness."f
As it is undeniable that it was the sin and trespass-
offering that were most specially typical of the work of
Christ, and since it was in these that the idea of expia
tion was most explicitly set forth, it will abundantly
suffice our purpose if we establish the truth of our
general position with regard to them. It is, moreover,
altogether unnecessary that we should complicate our
investigation by discussing the long-debated and really
* Kurtz's Sacrificial Worship of Old Testament, § 85.
f Fairbairn's Typology, vol. ii., p. 321.

132 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
obscure question as to the distinction between the sin-
offering and the trespass-offering. Whatever that differ
ence may have been, it can sustain no relation to our
present discussion. As far as expiating sin and propi
tiating God by a poena vicaria is concerned, " as the sin-
offering is, so is the trespass-offering; there is one law for
them." Lev. vii. 7.
I shall attempt to make good my position, that the
sin-offering expiated sin and propitiated God on the
principle of vicarious punishment, by noticing (a) their
occasions; (6) the qualifications and sacrificial desig
nations of the victims; (c) the ritual of the sacrifice;
(d) their declared effects; (e) the testimony of the in
spired prophets, and of ancient heathens, Jews and
Christians. 1. The law of the sin-offering is recorded Lev. iv. — vi.
13. From this record it is plain, (a) that the occasion
of the sin-offering was some special sin; (b) that this in
cluded moral as well as ceremonial transgressions, lying,
stealing, false swearing, licentiousness, &c. ; (c) that sins
were in this respect divided into two classes — those which
admitted of expiation and those which did not. Sins
of ignorance and infirmity fell into the former class, and
sins committed "presumptuously" or "with a high hand"
were embraced in the latter class. The point to be ob
served is, that whenever a priest, or the whole congrega
tion, or a ruler, or one of the common people, became
conscious of a sin, the punishment of which, if unex-
piated, would have involved exclusion from the fellow
ship of the covenant people, he, or in the case of the
whole congregation, their representatives the priests,

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 133
were directed to bring the bullock or the goat and offer
it in his stead.*
2. The bleeding sacrifices, which were to suffer death
in the place of men, were to be exclusively either sheep
or bullocks or goats, or pigeons in a few cases. These
last, in the economy of Jewish life, took the place occu
pied by the domestic fowl among us, and all classes were
chosen from the highest classes of clean animals, those
most immediately associated with man, and therefore of
all possible living substitutes for man's life the most
nearly human. These were to be selected, each indi
vidual the most perfect of its kind as to age, health and
physical excellence. Lev. xxii. 20—27; Ex. xxii. 30;
xxix. 28, &c. This physical perfection of the animal
was symbolical of spiritual perfection in the man, and
indicated that only an innocent and pure life could be
accepted as a sacrificial substitute in the stead of a pol
luted one ; thus typically foreshadowing the character
istics of him who was offered as "a lamb without
blemish and without spot." And yet, notwithstanding
the ceremonial perfection of the selected victim, con
sidered in itself, the common name for them, considered
as vicarious sacrifices bearing and expiating another's
sins, were nxon, sin (Lev. iv. 3; viii. 20-28), and de>k,
guilt (Lev. v. 6, 16, 19, &c, &c.) The victim is called
sin or guilt, obviously because its entire character as a
sacrifice is summed up in this, that it is a substitute for
a sinner, and that its death is the punishment of sin.
In perfect consistency with the type it is declared of the
ever-immaculate Jesus that he who, considered in him-
* See Fairbairn's Typology, vol. ii., p. 301. Outrara, De Sacri-
ficiis, D. 1, 13, I 4, and Kurtz, \\ 39-92.
12

134 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
self, knew no sin, was, as our vicarious sacrifice, "made
sin for us." 2 Cor. v. 21.
3. The truth we contend for is made very plain by
the ritual of the sacrifice, or the prescribed ceremonies,
which preceded and accompanied the slaughter of the
victims. These were —
(1.) The laying on of hands. This is prescribed in
the case of all kinds of bleeding sacrifices, including the
burnt and peace-offering. Lev. i. 4; iii. 2; iv. 4—15;
xvi. 21 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 23. This is a natural and ex
pressive symbol of transfer from the person imposing to
the person or thing upon which they are imposed. Thus
it is used to designate a personal substitute or represen
tative. Compare Num. viii. 10 and viii. 16. Also to
communicate official character and authority. Deut.
xxxiv. 9; Acts vi. 6; 1 Tim. iv. 14. And to communi
cate the virtue which went out from Christ and his
apostles when they wrought miraculous cures. Matt. ix.
18; Mark vi. 5; Acts ix. 12, 17. Now the sacrifice had
its reason only in the sin of the offerer, and the dis
pleasure of God with him in consequence. He appeared
before God with his sacrifice in his hand as a sinner.
He uniformly accompanied the laying on of hands with
the confession of sins. Outram quotes from the rabbin
ical writings the following "Form of deprecation used
by a sinner offering a piacular sacrifice, who said with his
own mouth, while his hands were laid upon the head of the
victim: 'I beseech thee, O Lord; I have sinned, I have
trespassed, I have rebelled ; I have done this or that . . .
but now I repent, and let this be my expiation.' " Aaron
Ben Chajim says, " Where there is no confession of sins,
there is no imposition of hands, because imposition of

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 135
hands belongs to confession of sins."* When the sacri
fice had reference to the sin of an individual, the man
placed his own hands on the head of the victim and
confessed. When it had reference to the sins of the
whole congregation, the elders of the congregation (Lev.
iv. 15) laid their hands upon the head of the bullock
and confessed as the representatives of the whole body.
Hence, in either case, he or they could have transferred
to the victim nothing more than the guilt or obligation
to punishment incidental to his or their sin. This trans
ference is expressly declared to be effected in the case of
the sin-offering for the people on the great day of atone
ment. Lev. xvi. 7-22. The two goats presented at the
door of the tabernacle are expressly said to be one victim ;
"two kids of the goats for a sin-offering," "so that the
sacrifice consisted of two, merely from the natural im
possibility of otherwise giving a full representation of
what was to be done; the one being designed more
especially to exhibit the means, the other the effect of
the atonement." That the two kids form but one sacri
fice is plain from the entire reading of the passage.
They are called so in verse fifth. They are brought and
presented together to the Lord. The Lord decides by
the lot which, shall die and which shall go into the wil
derness. The one stands by and is atoned for by the
dying victim (see Hebrew of verse 10), and then bears
away the sins thus expiated into the land of forgetful-
ness for ever. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands
upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all
the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon
* Outram, De Sacrificiis, D. 1, C. 15, \\ 8, 10, 11.

136 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the head of the goat ; . . . and the goat shall bear
upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inha
bited." *
(2.) The slaying of the victim. The original sen
tence pronounced by God upon all sin, from the com
mencement, was death. Gen. ii. 17; iii. 3, 17, 19. The
apostle declares that the principle abides for ever that
" the wages of sin is death." Rom. vi. 23. To this the
whole Mosaic law was conformed ; for " without shed
ding of blood is no remission." Heb. ix. 22. The sinner
having presented his victim, and laying his hands upon
its head, confessed and transferred his sin upon its head;
" it was accepted for him, to make atonement for him,"
Lev. iv. ; and he executed upon it with his own hands
the penalty incurred by the sins he had transferred.
" For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I have
given it to you upon the altar, to make atonement for
your souls ; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul," Lev. xvii. 11 ; that is, the life or soul of
the victim atones for the life or soul of the offerer, hav
ing been judicially executed as its substitute. Hence the
altar of sacrifice, which was in an eminent sense the
place where Jehovah met and held intercourse with his
guilty children, was called by a name (mrp) which ety-
mologically signifies " the place of slaughter ;" " for the
way to fellowship with God for guilty beings could only
be found through an avenue of death."
(3.) The sprinkling of the blood. All that precedes,
the imposition of hands, the confession of sins, and the
infliction of the vicarious penalty of death, were com-
* Magee on the Atonement, notes 39 and 71. Fairbairn's Typology,
book 3, chap, iii., sec. 5.

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 137
mon to all the bleeding sacrifices. In the case of sin
and trespass-offering, in addition to these there super
vened the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar, and
especially upon the horns or more exalted and sacred
parts of the altar. Lev. iv. 7, 18, 25, 30, 34. In the
case of a sin-offering in behalf of the high priest and
of the whole congregation, the blood was carried within
the Holy Place, and sprinkled before the veil, and
smeared upon the altar of incense. Lev. iv. 5, and fol
lowing. On the great day of atonement, when the most
exact representation the ancient worship could afford of
the all-perfect atonement of Christ was given, the blood
was taken into the Holy of Holies itself, and sprinkled
upon the Capporeth. This brought the blood, which
had thus vicariously discharged the penalty incurred by
the worshipper, into immediate contact with God. It
signified that the vicarious satisfaction was accepted, and
that in each case the soul-bearing blood of the victim
avails to cover from the judicial sight of God the sins
attached to the soul of the offerer.
4. The Scriptures declare that the effect of these
sacrifices was uniformly and actually to expiate the
guilt of the offender and to propitiate God. Neither
the Moral Influence nor the Governmental theories of the
sacrifice of Christ find the least support in the analogies
of the sacrifice of the law. There is not the slightest
indication that the design of any sacrifice was ever to
produce a moral influence upon the transgressor, or to
place him in a position in which the remission of the
penalty was a possibility, or to exhibit God's determina
tion to punish sin. The sin and trespass-offering were
always offered with the single and definite design of
12*

138 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
securing the actual remission of the penalty. The effect
is said " to be to make atonement for sin," " to recon
cile," and the promise always attached is, "and it
shall be forgiven him." Lev. iv. 20, 26, 31 ; vi.
30; viii. 15; xvi. 10. Forgiveness is the immediate
end sought and promised; and this necessarily issued
in that ceremonial purification which Bushnell mis
takenly describes as "the grand terminal of all sacri
fices."* But the forgiveness obviously was the condition
of the purification, not the purification of the forgive
ness. Sin, unexpiated, excluded a man from the society
of the covenant people. When expiated and forgiven,
the person was, ipso facto, cleansed and returned to the
full enjoyment of all ecclesiastical privileges. As we
have seen above, these sacrifices secured the remission of
the penalties denounced by the Jewish Theocratic State-
Church law upon all sins, whether moral or simply
ceremonial, except such as were committed " with a high
hand." As far as this ceremonial State-Church penalty
was concerned, these sacrifices effected a real expiation.
But as far as the penalty attaching to the moral law,
absolutely considered, was concerned, they were of
course only symbolical of the principles upon which
alone remission could be obtained, and hence typical of
: the one all-perfect sacrifice of Christ. " It is not possi
ble that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away
sins," Heb. x. 4 ; that is, sin viewed absolutely. But
they did avail to " sanctify to the purifying of the flesh."
Heb. ix. 13. A member of the theocratic community
broke the law, and incurred the penalty at once of the
ceremonial and of the moral law. He presents a fault-
* Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 469.

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 139
less victim, lays his hands upon its head, confesses his
sins, slays it, giving life for life, and then the penalty is
remitted. That is, the ceremonial penalty is remitted,
ipso facto, upon the completion of a regular sacrifice,
and the penalty of the moral law is remitted if the
offerer, spiritually discerning the evangelical principles
of which these sacrifices were the symbols, acted faith,
however darkly, upon the promise of God relating to
that sacrifice of which they were the types. The sacri
fice of a dumb animal was fully sufficient, when divinely
appointed, to satisfy for the infringement of the law,
when considered simply in its character as a ceremonial ;
while the law, viewed as an expression of absolute
righteousness, can evidently be satisfied with nothing
else than either the full execution of the penalty in the
person of the sinner, or a full equivalent therefor in the
person of an adequate substitute.*
The word habitually used to define the exact nature
of the process through which the Mosaic sacrifices
attained to their constant effect, forgiveness, is 133,
to cover, to make expiation, to atone. Lev. iv. 20, 26, 30,
31, 35 ; v. 6, 10, 13, 18, &c, &c. All admit that the
Greek word IXdaxeoOai, and its cognates lXaap.bc; and
\Xaarfjpiov, have universally and from time immemorial,
the sense, when construed with God, of propitiation, and
when construed with sin of expiation in the strict sense.
And yet it is a fact that the authors of the Septuagint,
three hundred years before Christ, while the Jewish and
ethnic sacrifices were still in constant use, habitually
translated the Hebrew 133 by the Greek IXdaxeadac,
and the rn33 (mercy-seat) they translate IXaorypcov,
* See Candlish on the Atonement, part I., chs. v. and vi.

140 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
propitiatorium, or seat of expiation and propitiation. The
Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament
habitually quoted by Christ and his apostles. Instead
of ever hinting that the inspired Hebrew text was mis
represented by the Greek words used as equivalent, they
adopt the same words themselves when speaking of the
sacrifice of Christ. Christ is said to have been made a
faithful high priest " to make expiation for the sins of
the people," «e rt> IXdaxeadac rac apapriac; rod Xaou.
Heb. ii. 17. See also Rom. iii. 25; 1 John ii. 2, and
iv. 10. See below, chapter twelve.
5. In confirmation of the truth of this interpretation
of the Jewish sacrifices, we can cite the unanimous tes
timony of (a) the inspired prophets and apostles, and
(b) the ancient heathen, (c) Jews, and (d) Christian
writers. In opposition to this ancient external testi
mony to the meaning of sacrifices, the school of Bahr,
Maurice, Bushnell, Young, &c, have not a single wit
ness to cite.
(1.) As to the testimony of the prophets to the piacu
lar character of the Mosaic sacrifices, I cite the witness
of Isaiah liii. 4, 6, 10, &c. Speaking of the Messiah,
the prophet says God " made his soul an offering for sin,"
a sin-offering ; and to this end " laid on him the iniquity
of us all," and hence he was punished in our stead ;
" he was wounded for our transgressions, . . . and the
punishment of our peace was upon him."* As to the
apostolic testimony, in part, compare 1 Cor. v. 7, where
Christ is said to be "sacrificed for us," and 1 Pet. i. 18,
19, where it is said that we are redeemed with the precious
blood of Christ, as "a lamb without blemish and without
* Dr. J. A. Alexander's version.

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 141
spot," with Matt. xx. 28, " The Son of Man came to
give his life a ransom for many." " The prominent idea
of ransom is that of payment — of vicarious substitu
tion — of one thing standing in place of another. No
figure can so fully convey this idea as one drawn from
purchases with money. What a source of misconcep
tion, then, would it have been thus to yoke the idea of
sacrifice to that of vicariousness, if these ideas were not
harmonious, but discordant ? If sacrifice pointed to no
substitution, no expiation, but only to self-surrender of
the penitent worshipper, could any mode of speaking be
devised more likely to mislead than calling the sacrificial
offering a ransom — a Xbxpov — the most potent symbol
of substitution and exchange."*
(2.) It would be entirely a work of supererogation for
us to encumber our pages with citations from heathen
authors, proving that they universally practised their
sacrificial rites and used their sacrificial language in the
sense for which we are contending, since no man living
contests the point, f
(3.) It is certainly important to know the opinion of
the Jews with respect to their own religious rites. And
it is an indisputable fact that the whole body of ancient
Jewish theological literature is unanimous in expound
ing their national sacrifices as vicarious and piacular.
Thus Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson, quoted by Outram, says,
" The imposition of hands was a tacit declaration on the
part of every offerer that he removed his sins from
himself and transferred them to that animal." So also
* Doc. of Atonement, by Eev. J. C. Macdonnell,B.D. — Donnellan
Lectures for 1857, p. 124.
t Let the curious reader see Outram, De Sacrificiis, D. 1, ch. 22.

142 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Isaac Ben Arama : " Whenever any one sins through
ignorance, or even with knowledge, he transfers his sins
from himself and lays them upon the head of the
victim. And this is the design of those confessions, — I
have sinned, I have been rebellious, I have done per
versely, — as appears from the confessions of the high
priest, pronounced over the bullock sacrificed as his sin-
offering on the day of atonement." Rabbi Moses Ben
Nachman says : " It was just that his blood be shed and
that his body should be burned. But the Creator, of
his mercy, accepted this victim from him as his substi
tute and ransom, that the blood of the animal might be
shed instead of his blood ; that is, that the life of the
animal might be given for his life." Rabbi Solomon
Jarchi says, referring to Lev. xvii. 11 : " The life of
every living creature is in the blood : wherefore I have
given it to make an atonement for your souls : life shall
come and atone for life ;" and Aben Ezra, " The blood
makes atonement for the soul ; the meaning is life in
stead of life."*
(4.) Outramf cites the following testimonies from the
early Christian Fathers, and declares, that as far as his
knowledge extended, they were agreed in understanding
that the Jewish sacrifices were vicarious and piacular.
" He laid his hands upon the head of the calf; that is,
he laid the sins of mankind upon his own head : for he
is the head of the body, the Church."}; " On the head
of the victim the offerer laid his hands, as it were his
actions ; for hands are significant of action ; and for these
* These and many more witnesses may be found in Outram, D. 1,
chs. xx.-xxii.
f D. 1, chap. ii. J Origen, Homil. ad Levit. i.

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 143
he offered the sacrifice."* "The priests laid their
hands, not upon all victims, but on those that were
offered for themselves, and especially their sin-offerings ;
but upon others the offerers themselves laid their hands.
This was a symbol of the substitution of the victim in
the room of the offerer for whom it was slain."f "An
attentive observer may learn this very thing, also,
from the law respecting sacrifices, which enjoins every
one who offers a sacrifice to lay his hands on the head
of the victim, and holding it by the head, to bring it to
the priest, as offering the animal instead of his own
head. Wherefore its language respecting every victim
is, Let the offerer present it before the Lord, and lay his
hands upon the head of his offering ; . . . whence it is
concluded that the lives of the victims were given in
stead of the lives of the offerers.";];
III. It onlv remains for us, in this third division of
our argument, to prove that the sacrifices of the law were
typical of the sacrifice of Christ ; that is, that the prin
ciples of vicarious and piacular suffering upon which
they proceeded are identical with those upon which, by
one sacrifice for sin, he has for ever perfected them that
are sanctified.
"Every true type," says Litton, § "is necessarily
a symbol; that is, it embodies and represents the
ideas which find their fulfilment in the antetype; but
every symbol is not necessarily a type; a symbol
may terminate in itself, and point to nothing fu
ture; it may refer to something past. The difference
* Theodoret, Qua^st. i., ad Levit. f Qua^st. lxi., ad Exod.
t Eusebius, Bishop of Oaesarea, Demonstr. Evang., L. i., c. x.
'i Litton' s Bampton Lectures Lee. iii.

144 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
between the two will become evident if we consider that
the learned researches of modern times have made it
more than probable that the religions of antiquity were
all symbolical in character, or so framed as to convey,
under sensible images, the ideas on which they were
respectively based ; but no one would think of calling
the rites of heathenism types ; they were a species of
acted hieroglyphics, which reached the understanding
through the senses, — and here their use terminated. A
type is a prophetic symbol; and since prophecy is the
prerogative of him who sees the end from the begin
ning, a real type, implying as it does a knowledge of the
reality, can only proceed from God."
Now we claim that it can be proved that the Mosaic
sacrificial system was not only symbolical of divine
truth in connection with the then existing dispensation,
but that it embraced types, or prophetic symbols, of the
better things to come in the gospel. This is certain,
because —
1. Christ himself declares that the whole Old Testa
ment Scripture in all its divisions, the law as well as
the prophets and the Psalms, spoke of him and his
work. John i. 45; v. 39; Luke xxiv. 27. "To him
give all the prophets witness, that through his name,
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of
sins." And all these things stood in such a relation to
him that all these things must be fulfilled which were
therein written concerning him. Luke xxiv. 44. And
in what sense this was so, we can trace in John xix. 36.
John, as an eye-witness of the crucifixion, declares that
the exemption of our Lord's person from the mutilation
to which the two thieves with whom he was crucified

SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 145
were subjected, " was done that the Scripture should be
fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken." But the
Scriptures say this only of the Pascal lamb. "Ex. xii.
46; Num. ix. 12. And the Apostle John declares that
the saying this of the Pascal lamb was equivalent to
saying this prophetically of Christ. That the Pascal
lamb was a sacrifice in the strict expiatory sense is
admitted by all modern theologians. It is expressly
called pip (Num. ix. 7), which everywhere means
something offered to God. It is called ror, sacrifice
(Ex. xii. 27), which is, in the Old Testament, only ap
plied to the bleeding offerings presented to Jehovah.
This the apostle distinctly asserts in the very sentence
in which he declares that Christ is the Christian Pass
over; "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed (£tuO-/])
for us." 1 Cor. v. 7.
2. The sacrificial language of the Mosaic ritual is
constantly applied to Christ. Jowett, no mean witness,
admits that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
presents the " New Testament as hidden in the Old, and
the Old as revealed in the New."* But it is not con
fined to the Epistle to the Hebrews, but characterizes the
whole Testament. John the Baptist, the last Old Testa
ment prophet (John i. 29), stood as the index-finger, and
spoke as the voice of the whole Old Testament dispensa
tion, when he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world." Paul (Eph. v. 2)
witnesseth of Christ that "He gave himself for us an
offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling
savour," which certainly means that the effect of his
sacrifice terminates upon God, and not upon either the
* Epistles of Paul, vol. ii., p. 476.
13

146 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
sinful offerer or the moral universe. " Now once in the
end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself . . . having been once offered to
bear the sins of many." " For even Christ our Passover
is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. v. 7. "We were redeemed
with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot." 1 Pet. i. 19. "This man,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat
down on the right hand of God." "By one offering he
hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." He'b.
x. 12, 14.
3. They are expressly said to have prefigured Christ
and his work. These things, Paul says, "are a shadow
of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Col. ii.
17. The law had "a shadow of good things to come,
and not the very image of the things." Heb. x. 1. The
tabernacle and its services were patterns of things in the
heavens, and figures — antetypes — of the true tabernacle
into which Christ has now entered for us. Heb. ix. 23,
24. "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." Heb. xiii. 11,12. In this case,
as in the case of the unbroken bones of the Pascal lamb,
the antetype must conform to the type. The argument
of the apostle, in Heb. ix. 13, 14, necessarily involves the
assumption of this identity of principle between the type
and the antetype. "For if the blood of bulls and of
goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more
shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit

SACRIFICES piacular and typical. 147
offered himself without spot to God, purge your con
science from dead works to serve the living God ?" If
the one can avail to effect the lower end on the same prin
ciple, how much more shall the infinitely better avail to
effect the higher end? Young attempts, in the first
place, to prove that the Mosaic sacrifices signified no
thing more than an expression of the subjective exercises
of the sinner, and then that these sacrifices are not typi
cal of the greater and better sacrifice of Christ. But
the correspondences which the apostles point out cannot
be understood in the vague and general sense which
Young prefers. They not only declare that there is, in
some sense, an analogy between the sacrifices of the
law and the sacrifice of Christ, but they affirm that
the former were patterns, types, shadows, of the latter.
He points out, in particular, wherein the analogy con
sists and wherein it fails. They show that it holds in
all the essential particulars of "bearing sin," Christ
being "made sin" (that is, nxon, sin-offering), of being
vicarious (pTckp bp&v), of "giving his life as a ransom,"
of "redeeming us by his blood," of expiating sin, of
propitiating God, of securing pardon. Matt. xx. 28;
Rom. iii. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. ii. 17.
4. And lastly, the Scriptures habitually assert, in the
plainest and most direct terms that language admits of,
that Christ accomplishes for the man who comes to God
by him just what we have shown that the Mosaic sacri
fices accomplished for the man who approached God by
them, and that he accomplishes it in the same manner.
" He that knew no sin was made a sin-offering for us."
2 Cor. v. 21. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13. He

148 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
says of himself, "The Son of Man came to give his life
a ransom for many." Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45. "The
blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth from all sin."
1 John i. 7. "He is the propitiation (JXaapot;) for our
sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world." 1 John ii. 2. "Herein is love, not that
we love God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to
be the propitiation (IXaapoz) for our sins." 1 John iv. 10.
This making propitiation, the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews declares, Christ effects as our "High
Priest." Heb. ii. 17. Paul says, "Being justified freely
by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
(IXaaTJjpcov), through faith in his blood." Rom. iii. 24,
25. "Much more, then, being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if,
while 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. 9, 10. "Our Lord Jesus
Christ, who gave himself for our sins" (rtept apaprt&v),
which is the very phrase frequently used in the Septua
gint to translate nxan, sin-offering. See Lev. iv. and
xvi.; Gal. i. 3, 4. "In whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace." Eph. i. 7. "But now, in Christ
Jesus, ye, who sometime were far off, are made nigh by
the blood of Christ." Eph. ii. 13. " In whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,"
and, " Having made peace through the blood of his cross,
by him to reconcile all things unto himself." Col. i. 14,
20. " Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren,
that through this man (3ia rouvoo) is preached unto you

sacrifices piacular and typical. 149
the forgiveness of sins: and by him (ev zour(p) all that
believe are justified from all things, from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts xiii. 38, 39.*
We claim that these passages teach the gospel, not in a
figure, but in direct terms, to be understood according to
the ordinary use of language and force of words. All
that Jowett, and those who agree with him on this sub
ject, can say to turn the force of the Scriptures is, that
they are "figurative;" that we must take their "inward
meaning," because their literal meaning is dishonouring
to God, and revolting to the refined moral sense of
advanced thinkers.f
Thus we have the whole heathen world, the Jewish
people, and the entire Christian Church, the Old Testa
ment symbols, and the New Testament historical narra
tives and didactic statements, all on one side, and the
Socinians, Rationalists, Jowett, Maurice, Bushnell and
Young on the other.
* See Macdonnell on Atonement, pp. 76-81.
t Jowett, vol. i., p. 261, and vol. ii., pp. 476, 477.
13*

CHAPTER IX.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED BY THE FACT THAT
CHRIST EFFECTED SALVATION BY ACTING AS THE HIGH
PRIEST OF HIS PEOPLE.
THAT our doctrine as to the nature of Christ's work,
as above stated, is true, we claim is established by
our fourth argument, namely, that the Scriptures clearly
set forth Christ as acting and suffering as the High Priest
of his people. It is essential to the Moral Influence
Theory to consider Christ solely as the medium through
which God exerts a saving moral influence upon man.*
The point of the controversy of the Church with the
advocates of that theory, as was truly stated by Lim-
borch, is, whether Christ, by his death, removed obsta
cles to our salvation existing in the nature of God, as
well as those existing in the nature of man. In oppo
sition to their error, I propose to prove that the charac
teristic function of the ancient priest, and especially the
high priest, was, that he represented the people before
God; that, taken from among men, he was ordained to
act in behalf of men in tlwse matters which have a bearing
upon God (zd npb<; zbv debv), that he may bring near
to God both gifts and sacrifices for sin. Heb. v. 1. It
is essential to the Governmental Theory to assume (a)
that the work of Christ, in itself considered, accom-
* See Young's " Life and Light of Men," p. 27, and note.
150

CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST. 151
plishes only the salvability, and not the actual salvation,
of any, and (6) that it is general and indefinite in its
reference, having respect to no particular individuals,
but to all sinners of mankind as such. In opposition
to their error, I propose to prove that the ancient priest
and high priest (a), in every instance, sought and ob
tained remission, not remissibility — reconciliation, not
merely the possibility of reconciliation — for those for
whom they acted ; and (6) that hence the work of the
priest had a definite reference to particular persons, whom
he represented, for whom he offered expiation, and in
whose behalf he interceded.
I. The distinctive character of the priest was, that he
was divinely ordained to act in behalf of men in those
matters which have a bearing on God. As the general
character of the prophet was that of one qualified and au
thorized to speak for God to men, so the general idea of
a priest is that of one qualified and authorized to treat in
behalf of men with God. When Korah, Dathan and
Abiram, and their colleagues, rebelled against the as
sumption of an exclusive priestly character on the part
of Moses and Aaron, on the ground that it belonged to
every member of the holy nation in common, Moses
appealed to God, saying, " Even to-morrow Jehovah will
show who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him
to come near unto him; even him whom he hath chosen
will he cause to come near unto him." Numb. xvi. 5.
Hence a priest was one — 1. Taken from among men
to represent them. "Every high priest taken from among
men was ordained for men, in things pertaining to God."
Heb. v. 1. Especially did the high priest, in whom the
entire priestly character culminated, act in all respects

152 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
as the literal representative of the whole congregation.
(1.) He bore the names of each tribe graven on his
shoulders and on his breast-plate over his heart. Vit-
ringa,* quoted by Fairbairn, says, " This high priest
represented the whole people. All Israel were reckoned
as being in him." Ex. xxviii. 9-29. (2.) If he sinned,
it was regarded as the sin of the whole people. Lev. iv.
3. (3.) He made atonement and offered intercession
in behalf of the whole people. He placed his hands
upon the scape-goat and confessed the sins of the whole
people, and laid them upon the head of the goat. Lev.
xvi. 15-21.
2. He was chosen by God as his special election
and property. "Jehovah will show who are his, and
him whom he hath chosen to come near unto him."
Numb. xvi. 5. "No man taketh this honour unto
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."
Heb. v. 4.
3. He must be holy ; that is, both morally pure and
consecrated to the service of God. He wore, circling his
7 O
head, a band of pure gold, on which was engraved
" Holiness to the Lord." Ex. xxxix. 30, 31. " They
shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name
of their God : for the offerings of Jehovah, made by
fire, and the bread of their God, do they offer : therefore
they shall be holy." Levit. xxi. 6 ; Ps. cvi. 16.
4. The priest's grand distinction was, that he had a
right to draw near to God. Hence the common designa
tion of priests was " those who draw near to Jehovah."
Ex. xix. 22; Numb. xvi. 5; Ezek. xlii. 13 and xliv. 13.
The distinctive priestly act which marked his great
* Obs. Sac, p. 292.

CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST. 153
function was to bring near, Tipn — -translated habitually
to offer. Lev. xvi. 6, 9, 11, 20, &c. Every offering
which it was the office of the priest to bring near to
God is distinctively called pip, or that which is
brought near to God, or offered, — translated in our
version, oblation, offering, or sacrifice. Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5,
and xxvii. 11, &c. The fat, as the most excellent part
of every sacrifice, was always entirely burnt by the
priest on the altar, and so sent up to God as his portion.
This is constantly called " God's food" or " God's bread,"
which it was the priest's grand prerogative to present to
him. Lev. iii. 11 ; xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22 ; xxii. 25 ; Ezek.
xliv. 7 ; Mai. i. 7, 12. This altar, upon which the
priests presented their offerings to Jehovah, is called
" God's table." Mai. i. 7, 12 ; 1 Cor. x. 17, 21, and Heb.
xiii. 10. The offerings which it was the distinctive
duty of the priest to bring near and to present to God,
when properly presented are habitually said to he" a
sweet savour, an offering to the Lord." Ex. xxix. 18, 25 ;
Levit. i. 9, 13, 17 ; Numb. xv. 7, 14, 24, &c, &c. The
distinction of the priest was that he was the minister
of the sanctuary or temple. Here he came and dis
charged all his priestly functions as the representative
of man and as the familiar of God. Only the priests
could enter daily into the Holy Place, and only the high
priest himself once a year into the Most Holy, in the
presence of the Schekinah — and that in connection with
the expiatory sacrifices — to sprinkle sacrificial blood
on the altar of incense and on the Capporeth, and to
present the incense symbolical of prayer. The constant
biblical designation of the temple, to which all the
priest's functions had reference, was the "dwelling" or

154 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
"house" of Jehovah. Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Deut.
xxiii. 18 ; Josh. ix. 23, and "tabernacle of the meeting ;"
that is, properly the tent of meeting between God and
man, where God, propitiated by blood, met the Church
through their representatives, the priests, who brought
the propitiating blood into his presence.
5. Hence the two grand functions of the priest were
(a) to propitiate with bleeding sacrifices, Heb. v. 1-3 ;
and (6) to make intercession for the people. The nature
of the former function I have sufficiently discussed in
the last chapter. The symbolical design of the presen
tation of incense before the Lord is very clearly set
forth in Scripture to be representative of prayer — the
prayers of God's people in mass; and in the case of
the priests, the representatives of the people, intercessory
prayer. The altar of incense was placed on the outside
of the veil, over against the mercy-seat or propitiato-
rium. Ex. xxx. 6. Incense was daily offered by the
priests before the veil, behind which God sat enthroned.
During the "time of incense" it was customary for the
whole multitude of the people to be praying without.
Luke i. 10. On the great day of atonement it was car
ried within the veil by the high priest, " that the cloud
of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon
the testimony, that he die not." Lev. xvi. 13 ; Ps. cxli.
2 ; Rev. v. 8 and viii. 3, 4. All this proves beyond
any question that the priest, as the representative of the
people, as the minister of God's house, having authority
to come near and to bring near, to present God's food on
his table, and to present to Jehovah sacrifices, affording
to God an odour of a sweet smell, — that in this capacity
the priest was for sinful men the only medium of

CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST. 155
acceptable approach to God. The priest's work termi
nated on God, and made return to God objectively pos
sible to the sinner. The Moral Influence Theory makes
Christ's work terminate on the sinner, causing the sin
ner to be subjectively disposed to return to God. But
herein the New Testament Priest thoroughly corresponds
to the Old Testament type. Jesus testifies of himself,
" I am the way, the truth and the life : no man
COMETH TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME."
II. The work of the ancient priest secured the actual
and certain remission of the sins of all for whom he
acted, and it bore a definite reference to the persons of
all those whom he represented, and of none others.
1. The priest is never in one single instance repre
sented in Scripture as offering a sacrifice, the immediate
design or effect of which was to produce a moral effect
upon the transgressor, or to place him in a position in
which remission is a possibility, subject to other con
ditions, or to exhibit God's determination to punish sin.
The professed and uniform design and effect of the
priest's work was to secure the remission, and not the
remissibility, of the penalty due the sin of the person or
persons, for whom he acted. When an Israelite sinned,
he went to the priest, who presented a sin-offering in his
stead — life for life — and the immediate effect was forgive
ness, remission of the penalty due. The constant pro
mise attached to the command to sacrifice is, " and it
shall be forgiven him." Lev. iv. 20, 26, 31, &c, &c.
The sacrifice, and not something else following the sacri
fice, ipso facto, absolved.
2. The Jewish high priest offered intercession for pre
cisely the same persons — for all of them, and for none

1 56 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
others — for whom he had previously made expiation.
He bore the names of the tribes of Israel upon his
breast. He confessed the sins of the entire congrega
tion, and made atonement for them with the goats of the
sin-offering. He appeared before God, within the veil,
in behalf of all the congregation. The entire work of
the priest was one work. To speak the language of
Christian theology, the office which they discharged,
both in the impetration and in the application of
benefits, had respect to precisely the same persons.
They sacrificed for, they interceded for, they blessed
precisely the same persons, and none others. Numb.
vi. 22-27.
III. Christ was a real, and not merely a metaphorical
priest, and his priesthood was, as to its essential charac
teristics, shadowed forth by the priests of the Mosaic
economy. 1. The entire Epistle to the Hebrews is an inspired
witness to the fact that the Levitical priests were types
of Christ, and that he acted as the literal High Priest of
his people. In this short letter he is called Priest six
times and High Priest twelve times. Of the earthly
tabernacle it is declared that it "stood only in meats
and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances,
imposed on them until the time of reformation. But
Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come
by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with
hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by
the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he
entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eter
nal redemption for us. . . For Christ is not entered into
the holy places made with hands, which are the figures

CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST. 157
of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us. . . For the law having a
shadow of good things to come, and not the very image
of the things, can never, with those sacrifices, make the
comers thereunto perfect. . . But this man, after that he
had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on
the right hand of God. . . For by one offering he hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Heb. ix.
10-24, and x. 1-14.
2. His work of propitiation, therefore, must have been
real and not metaphorical, because it is declared to be
the substance of which the services of the Levitical
priests were the "shadows," "figures," or "types."
But shadows are cast by literal substances, not by meta
phors; and a type or image necessarily implies real
characters and attributes which it represents.
3. This is rendered certain from the following facts.
(1.) He was expressly declared to be a priest both in the
Old Testament and in the New. " Jehovah hath sworn,
and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek." Ps. ex. 4, and Heb. v. 6 ; vi. 20.
Of the man whose name is the branch, it is said that
he shall be "a priest upon his throne." Zech. vi. 13.
(2.) The New Testament account of his person and
character ascribes all the literal characteristics of a real
priest to him. (a) He was taken from among men to
represent them. Compare Heb. v. 1, 2, with Heb. ii.
14-18, and iv. 15. " Forasmuch then as the children
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise
took part of the same. . . Wherefore in all things it
behooved him to be made like unto his brethren ; that
lie migltt be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
14

158 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
npbc, zbv deov, to make reconciliation for the sins of his
people." (b) He was chosen by God to his office. Heb.
v. 4-6. (c) He was perfectly holy. Luke i. 35 ; Heb.
vii. 26. (d) He possessed beyond all others the right of
nearest access to the Father, and the greatest influence
with him. "I came forth from the Father, and am
come into the world ; again I leave the world, and go to
the Father." He said to the Father, " I knew that thou
hearest me always." " If the blood of bulls and of goats
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God," avail to the sal
vation of our souls ? " For Christ has not entered into
the holy places made with hands, . . . but into heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
(brzep jpwv). John xvi. 28 ; xi. 42 ; Heb. i. 3 ; ix.
11-14, 24. (3.) And finally, both the Old and the
New Testaments declare that he literally discharged the
functions of a priest. These are (a) expiation. Is. liii.
10, 12. Daniel declared that after such a time the
Messiah "should be cut off, but not for himself," and
that he would make "an end of sins and reconciliation
for iniquity." Dan. ix. 24-26 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Heb. ix. 26 ;
x. 12 ; 1 John ii. 2.* (b) Intercession. "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 intercession for us." Rom. viii.
34; Heb. vii. 25; 1 John ii. 1.
4. Lastly, we maintain that the priesthood of Christ
was a real and literal priesthood, because the whole
history proves that the elaborate system of Lcvitica}
* See our chapter on the Sacrifice of Christ.

CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST. 159
types, being images or shadows of his work, were pre
paratory to him, and found their fulfilment in him.
Thus, for example, the apostle John declared that the
fact that the soldiers did not break the limbs of Jesus,
as they had done those of the two thieves, was in fulfil
ment of the law with regard to the Pascal lamb. John
xix. 36 ; Ex. xii. 46 ; Numb. ix. 12. The instant of
Christ's death the veil of the temple, which had from the
beginning marked the line between the priests, bringing
near the offerings, and the unapproachable Jehovah,
dwelling between the cherubim, "was rent in twain from
top to bottom." Matt, xxvii. 50, 51. This was true not
only of each type or prophetic symbol in detail, but also
of the entire system as a whole. It is a grand histo
rical fact that the ancient temple, its ritual services, and
its ministers and their functions, prefigured and prepared
the way for the advent and work of Christ for nearly
two thousand years. It is also a grand historical fact
that the priestly work of Christ immediately and definitely
superseded the work of the Levitical priesthood. The
sacrifice of Christ made the Levitical priest, ipso facto,
functus officio.
Hence we argue, since the ancient high priest was a
type of Christ, and since he was a literal and not a
metaphorical High Priest, that it certainly follows —
(1.) That since "Christ is the one Mediator between God
and man" in his character of High Priest (compare
1 Tim. ii. 1, with Heb. ix. 11-15), he cannot be primarily
the medium of divine influences upon men, but, on the
contrary, the mediating person, propitiating God in
behalf of men, acting in behalf of men in those things
which have a bearing upon God. (2.) It follows that

160 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Christ must have been in a strict sense the Representative
of those for whose benefit he acted. (3.) That the
design and effect of Christ's piacular sacrifice of himself
as the High Priest of his people could not have been to
bring all men into a salvable condition, in which the
remission of their sins is possible ; but they must have
been to secure with certainty the actual remission of the
sins of all those for whom he died. And (4) it follows
that Christ must make intercession for all those for
whom he made expiation. But (a) Christ's intercession
is always efficacious. It is offered from a throne at the
right hand of his Father. His formula of intercession
is " Father, I will." His testimony is that the " Father
heareth him always." And (b) he intercedes only for
his "own people." John xvii. 9. "I pray not for the
world, but for them which thou hast GrvEN me."

CHAPTER X.
Christ's sufferings were strictly and definitely
vicarious.
I PRESENT, as my fifth argument, that large class
of Scriptures which teach that Christ's sufferings
were vicarious; that is, that he suffered, in the strict
sense of the word, as the Substitute of his people — not
merely for their advantage, but strictly in their room
and stead.
Bushnell has lately written a remarkable work, the
logic of which may be judged of from the relation
sustained by its title to its doctrine and design. It is
entitled "Vicarious Sacrifice," and its design is to prove
that the sufferings of Christ were not vicarious, but sim
ply philanthropic — in sympathy with men and for their
benefit. " The true conception is that Christ, in what is
called his vicarious sacrifice, simply engages, at the ex
pense of great suffering, and even of death itself, to bring
us out of our sins themselves, and so out of their pen
alties; being himself profoundly identified with us in
our fallen state, and burdened in feeling with our evils."
..." Love is a principle essentially vicarious in its own
nature, identifying the subject with others, so as to suffer
their adversities and pains, and taking on itself the
burden of their evils." ..." Motherhood, friendship,
patriotism, are all vicarious." ..." The eternal Father
14 * 161

162 the nature of the atonement.
before Christ, and the Holy Spirit coming after, and the
good angels both before and after, all alike have borne
the burdens, struggled in the pains of their vicarious
feeling for men; and then, at last, now Christianity
comes in to its issue, in begetting in us the same vicari
ous love that reigns in all the glorified and good minds
of the heavenly kingdom." . . . "What we call the
vicarious sacrifice of Christ is nothing strange as regards
the principle of it — no superlative, unexampled and
therefore unintelligible grace. It only does and suffers,
and comes into substitution for, just what any and all
love will, according to its degree."*
Thus, the only distinction between the relation sus
tained by the sacrifice of Christ to our salvation, and
that sustained by the sympathies and sufferings of our
mothers and pastors, is one not at all of kind, but solely
of degree. The sufferings of Christ on the cross sustain
precisely the same relation to our sins as do the prayers
and tears of our mothers as they intercede for our salva
tion. Angels, the Father himself, and the Holy Ghost,
all are wounded for our transgressions, and suffer, the
just for the unjust, and give their lives ransoms for
many in the same sense that Christ did, and to the same
effect — only as they severally differ in degree. Now it
stands to reason that, as certainly as pantheism is athe
ism,, does this generalizing of vicarious suffering, which
of right is the sole, inalienable and glorious function of
the " one Mediator between God and man," amount only
to a direct and absolute denial of the doctrine of vicari
ous sacrifice, and to the affirmation that the sufferings
of Christ were mere incidental concomitants of his phi-
* Bushnell on Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 41-53.

Christ's sufferings vicarious. 163
lanthropic interpositions in man's behalf. We disprove
this denial of the vicarious character of the sufferings
of Christ by proving that the Scriptures assert in many
ways that they are vicarious.
There are several forms of expression which essen
tially present the same great principles, but with varia
tions. His sufferings are said to be vicarious. He
himself is said to have been the Substitute of his people,
and a Ransom for them, that is, in their stead. He is
also said to have been their Representative before God,
and the one Mediator between God and man. We have
before seen that Christ was accurately prefigured by the
bleeding sacrifice upon the altar, and by the high priest
who brought the blood near to God within the veil.
He was in like manner prefigured, at the same time, by
the slain goat upon the altar, and by the living goat
carrying away the expiated sins of the people into the
wilderness. His office as Mediator included the func
tions at once of Prophet, Priest and King, and yet not
one of his personal types embraced, in one person, moi'e
than two of these, as David and Ezra. The reason for
this, of course, lay in the fact that the type was finite
and transient, while the antetype was infinite and eternal.
He was at once God, and priest, and bleeding sacrifice,
dead and alive again for evermore, offerer and offering.
When we say, therefore, that our blessed Lord is, in the
strict sense of the word, our Substitute or our Ransom,
we do not mean that for any single moment these rela
tions exhaust all the relations borne or functions dis
charged by his infinite person. At the very same
moment he is God, whose justice demands propitiation ;
and Priest, offering himself a sacrifice; and the sacrifice,

164 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
offered to satisfy that justice. Let it be distinctly un
derstood, then, that when we say that Christ was the
Substitute of his people, and his sufferings, in the strict
sense of the word, vicarious, we affirm this to be true of
him viewed in his function as a sacrifice. When we say
that he is the Representative, we affirm this to be true of
him as the second Adam or federal Head, undertaking
and discharging all the obligations of the broken law
in our stead. When we say he is our Mediator, we
affirm that to be true of him as our High Priest, as he
is ordained for man in the things pertaining to God
(zd Tcpbz zbv deov).
The place we occupied was " under the law." We were
placed under it at the creation, and perfect obedience
made the condition of our well-being. By our fall in
Adam we became at once incapable of obeying the de
mands of the law and subject to its unrelaxable penalty.
The law remains over us, therefore, as an inexorable
taskmaster, demanding the impossible, and as the organ
of immutable justice, demanding our death. Christ,
being a divine Person, was of course himself the norm
and fountain of all law, and incapable of being subjected
to any personal conditions of life; yet, as the Thean-
thropic Mediator in behalf of his elect, he "was made
under the law," that is, transferred to that position, "that
he might redeem them that are under the law." Gal. iv.
4, 5. The place he took, therefore, was our law-place.
In taking our law-place he necessarily assumed our legal
responsibilities; for example, obedience as a condition of
life, and suffering as a penal consequent of disobedience.
And he did this "to redeem them that are under the
law;" that is, all he did in our place was for our sake.

Christ's sufferings vicarious. 165
We accept fully Barnes's definition of a substi
tute.* " The idea is, that the person substituted is to
do or suffer the same thing which the person for whom
he is substituted would have done." This is a fair
statement of the true doctrine of substitution, which
necessarily involves the true doctrine of the Atonement.
The advocates of the Governmental Theory are able to
admit that Christ died as our Substitute only in the loose
sense of having died for our sokes. On the other hand,
we maintain, as is implied in the above definition, that
Christ suffered as our Substitute in the strict and proper
sense of having suffered in our place or stead. The
truth of this position is expressly affirmed in Scripture,
as well as indirectly involved in many related doc
trines. 1. We saw, under a previous head, that in the Jewish
sacrifices the victim was in the most literal sense con
ceivable substituted for the offerer to bear the penalty
due him, and thus to discharge his obligations to the
law. Reconciliation was effected through propitiation,
propitiation through expiation, and expiation through
the substitution of life for life. Christ suffered as a
sacrifice, and hence was substituted in a sacrificial sense.
2. The preposition bxep with the genitive, generally
though not always, carries with it the idea of strict sub
stitution. Caiaphas said (John xi. 50,) " It is expedient
for us, that one man should die for (bnhp) the people, and
that the whole nation perish not;" that is, that one
should die in the place of the nation — that is, instead
of their death. Paul (2 Cor. v. 20) says : " We pray
you (pTthp Xptazou) in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to
* Atonement, p. 281.

166 THE NATURE OF the atonement.
God ;" that is, we do in Christ's place what he would
do in person if present. Paul writes to Philemon that
he sends back to him Onesimus, " whom I would have
retained with me, that in thy stead (bnep ado) he might
have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel."
Philemon 13. The same construction is habitually
used to set forth the nature of Christ's substitution for
us. "We thus judge that if one died for all (Imep
ndvzwv), then were all dead." 2 Cor. v. 14. " For he
hath made him to be sin for (bnep) us that knew no sin."
2 Cor. v. 21. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for (bnep) us." Gal. iii.
13. "That by the grace of God he should taste death
for (bnep) every man." Heb. ii. 9. "For Christ hath
once suffered for sins, the just for (bnep) the unjust, that
he might bring us to God." 1 Pet. iii. 18.
3. The preposition dvzi expresses more precisely than
any other word in the Greek language the exact idea of
substitution in the strictest sense of the word. This is
the radical and definite usage of the preposition.*
Thus it is said (Matt. ii. 22), "Archelaus did reign in
Judea in tlve room of (dvzi) his father Herod." Again,
(Matt. v. 38) "An eye for (dvzi) an eye, and a tooth for
(dvzi) a tooth." And when this word is used to express
the relation of Christ to those in whose behalf he acted,
its sense is rendered, if possible, more precise and em
phatic by association with the word XJizpov, redemption-
price. Thus (Matt. xx. 28), "The Son of Man came to
give his life a ransom for many (Xozpov dvzi noXXwv).
The same is repeated in Mark x. 45; and in 1 Tim. ii. 6.
Paul, after his manner, combines in one most emphatic
* See Winer's Gram, of New Test. Diction, part iii., sec. 47.

Christ's sufferings vicarious. 167
formula, the force of all the three words most exactly
expressing substitution, "who gave himself a ransom
(dvz'Ovz pov) for (bnep) all ;" that is, gave himself to be
a substitutionary ransom in the place of all. If the
Holy Ghost did intend us to understand that Christ was
strictly substituted in the law-place of his people, he
could have used no language more exactly adapted to
express his meaning. If this were not his meaning, we
may well despair of arriving at the understanding of his
meaning on any subject through the study of his words
in any department of Scripture.
When the purpose is to express the relation which the
death of Christ sustains not to the persons of his people,
but to their sins, the prepositions used are nepc and
bnep, with the genitive. Robinson says that nepi
dpapzia<z, in this connection, signifies "on account of
sin, or for sin ; that is, for doing away or expiating sin."
Rom. viii. 3 ; Heb. x. 18, 26 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; 1 John
ii. 2, and iv. 10. The same authority renders bnep
when construed with dpapzimv, as indicating the
"ground, motive, or occasion of the action." 1 Cor.
xv. 3. See Heb. v. 1-3, and vii. 27. This usage may
give no additional force to the argument proving that
Christ is our Substitute in a literal sense, which I have
presented above, but it abundantly disproves the moral
view of the atonement in any form it can assume.
Christ died for, because of, our sins. This naturally
suggests, and has, as a matter of fact, always suggested
to the great majority of men, that the immediate reason
of his dying was the removal of sin ; not that our sin
was the remote occasion which rendered his dying pro
per.

168 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Barnes maintains (a) that the idea of substitution
is, "that the person substituted is to do or suffer the
same thing which the person for whom he is substituted
would have done." (6) That Christ suffered and died as
the true Substitute of his people. And yet he affirms
that Christ did not suffer the true penalty of the law;
that is, he did not suffer what they would have done ;
that is, that he was their Substitute, while he lacked that
which is essential to the idea of a substitute. It is true,
as I showed above, that the person upon whom the
penalty is to be inflicted being changed — one divine Per
son being substituted for many human persons — the law
itself, on principles of essential justice, spontaneously
adjusts the quality of the sufferings constituting the
penalty to the quality of the victim. Sinners being
the victims, the penalty includes remorse and eternal
death. Christ being the substituted victim, remorse
and eternal death, ipso facto, cease to be the penalty,
and he, standing in our place, suffers precisely the very
penalty of the law in our stead, that is, all that the law
in rigour of justice demands on the account of our sins,
when that account is settled in his person. In every
substitution there must be a constant as well as a vari
able quantity. A substitute is not a different man in a
different place, but a different man in the same place.

CHAPTER XI.
the orthodox doctrine proved from the fact that
the scriptures declare that our sins were laid
upon christ.
OUR doctrine is explicitly and emphatically taught
in a large class of passages which assert that our
sins were laid upon Christ — that they were charged to
his account, and made his in such a sense that they were
the legal cause of his suffering the penalty due to them.
"The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Is. liii. 6. "He bare the sin of many," Is. liii. 12.
" For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
2 Cor. v. 21. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13.
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."
Heb. ix. 28. "Who his own self bare our sins in his
own body on the tree." 1 Pet. ii. 24.
It is claimed that these expressions cannot possibly be
interpreted literally ; that it cannot be true that Christ
in any literal sense was transformed into sin ; that the
all-perfect Son of God could not have been in any
natural sense of the word a sinner. Those who reject
the orthodox doctrine of satisfaction hence illogically
conclude that since these terms are not to be interpreted
literally, they have no definite and certainly ascertain
able meaning at all, but may be accommodated to any
15 169

170 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
view of the atonement which we have reason on other
grounds to prefer. In opposition to this, we maintain
that the usage of Scripture with respect to the phrases
"sin," "to bear sin," or "iniquity," "to impute" or "to
lay upon" one "sin" or "iniquity," is uniform, and that
their sense is both definite and certainly ascertainable;
and that the meaning of the passages above quoted, when
interpreted in the light of this usage, is unmistakably
clear and consistent only with the doctrine that our sins
were, in strict rigour of justice, laid upon and punished
in the person of Christ.
1. The word sin is habitually used in Scripture to set
forth moral evil in three aspects or relations. (1.) Sin
considered as to its formal nature, that is, as transgres
sion of God's law. 1 John iii. 4. (2.) Sin considered as
a moral quality inherent in the soul of the agent — as
pollution — macula. Rom. vi. 11-13. (3.) Sin considered
with respect to its legal obligation to punishment — as
guilt — reatus. In this last sense it is used in all those
passages which speak of "bearing sin," of "laying on
iniquities," of "imputing sin," &c. In this sense the
Hebrew words for sin (riNBn) and guilt (d^'n) were
used to designate the sacrifices, which were made to
suffer vicariously the penalty clue the ritual transgres
sions of the offerer. In like manner Christ is said to be
made sin — that is, according to constant usage, a sin-
offering — because he is the sacrifice who volunteers to
suffer vicariously the penalty consequent upon our trans
gressions of the moral law.
2. The phrase to " impute sin," or " righteousness," in
its scriptural usage signifies simply to set to one's ac
count, to lay to one's charge or credit as a ground of

OUR SINS LAID ON CHRIST. 171
legal process. The thing imputed may belong to the
person to whom it is imputed originally. In that case
it is imputed in the sense of being simply charged to
him, made the ground of a legal indictment preparatory
to judicial process. Or the thing imputed may not be
originally his, but may be made his by the imputation,
because of the legal connection subsisting between the
person to whom the thing originally belonged and him
to whom it is imputed. Thus, not to impute sin to the
doer of it is of course not to charge the guilt of his own
sin upon him as a ground of punishment. To impute
righteousness without works can only mean to credit a
believer with the rewardableness of a righteousness
which did not originate with himself. Rom. iv. 4-8.
God in Christ not imputing their trespasses unto his
people, is, of course, God for Christ's sake not charging
their trespasses to them as a ground of punishment.
2 Cor. v. 19. Christ must be made sin for us in pre
cisely the same sense that we are made the righteousness
of God in him. 2 Cor. v. 21. But, as will be shown
below, we are justified or pronounced righteous in
Christ forensically, as a matter of legal relation, not
made inherently righteous by the infusion of grace.
The macula or pollution of sin might possibly be
transmitted by generation. Otherwise it must ever re
main the inalienable personal quality of the individual
sinner. It is an absurdity, for which no class of
Reformed theologians have ever been responsible, to
represent personal character, either good or bad, as
transferable from one person to another by imputation.
All that can be imputed from person to person is the
guilt or legal obligation to punishment of any sin, and

172 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
that only in those cases in which the person to whom it
is imputed has become in some way or other justly
responsible for the action of the person the guilt of
whose sin is imputed.
This usage of the word "impute" is not a creation of
"artificial theology," as is asserted by Dr. Young and
by all those who maintain either the "Moral" or the
"Governmental" theory of the Atonement. This is
evident, because (1) this sense is embraced in the classi
cal usage of the word Xofi^opac. Its primary sense is to
count, reckon. Then, when construed with a person in
the dative and a thing in the accusative, it signifies to
set down that thing to the account of that person, and
is thus equivalent to the Latin term imputare.* Ains-
worth defines imputare — "to ascribe, to charge; to lay
the blame or fault on any one." Suidas' Lexicon —
" XofiQco, reputo ; et Xoyiaopac, computabo ; et X.oycoupac,
numerabo, computabo; et Xoym, existimo, ut illud: et
imputatum est ipsi in justitiam."
(2.) The same is true of the usage of the Hebrew
atsri in the Old Testament. The daughters of Laban
complained (Gen. xxxi. 15) that their father "counted"
them strangers — that is, regarded and treated them as
strangers. " If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his
peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall
not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that
offereth it; it shall be an abomination, and the soul that
eateth of it shall bear his iniquity." Lev. vii. 18. The
sacrifice was offered as a matter of fact, but was not set
to the credit of the offerer as acceptable or effective.
The heave-offering of the Levites was to be "reckoned as
* Liddell and Scott.

OUR SINS LAID ON CHRIST. 173
though it were the corn of the threshing-floor, and as the
fulness of the wine-press." Numb, xviii. 27, 30. That
Phineas slew the offending Israelite at Shittim "was
counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations
for evermore." Ps. cvi. 31.
(3.) The same is true with regard to the New Testa
ment usage of the word XoyiQopat. Christ, referring to
Isa. liii. 12, said: "For I say unto you, that this that
is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he
was reckoned among the transgressors." Luke xxii. 37.
"Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness
of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision?" Rom. ii. 26. "Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Gal. iii. 6.
" To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of
grace, but of debt." "To him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness." David speaks of the bless
edness of the man "to whom the Lord imputeth right
eousness without works — to whom the Lord will not
impute sin." "Faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness." Rom. iv. 3-9. " God in Christ recon
ciling the world unto himself, not imputing their tres
passes unto them." 2 Cor. v. 19. "At my first answer
no man stood with me, but all men forsook me; I pray
God that it may not be laid, to their charge." 2 Tim. iv.
16. " He was numbered with the transgressors." Mark
xv. 28. " But also that the temple of the great goddess
Diana should be counted for naught."* Acts xix. 27.
The Scriptures plainly teach, therefore, that all the
guilt or obligation to punishment incurred by the sins
* El's oiiiiv Xoyisdrjyat.
15 *

174 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of his people was imputed or charged to the account of
Christ, as the legal ground of the execution upon him
of the penalty involved in the case. Yet, notwithstand
ing that the guilt of all our sins is thus charged to
Christ, and expiated in him, all their blame, shame,
pollution and power, as inherent personal habits or
principles, remain all the while inalienably ours. These
sins are none the less ours, after their imputation to him,
than they were before, (a.) The very force of the im
putation is to make him "alienor culpa; reus," that is,
penally responsible for another's sin. They must remain
ours in order that they may be to him the sins of an
other, (b.) Because personal moral qualities, and the
pollution inherent in sinful ones, are inalienable and
cannot be transferred by imputation, (c.) Because, as
Owen pointed out long ago, to be "alienos culpa reus"
makes no man a sinner, subjectively considered, unless
he did unwisely or irregularly undertake the responsi
bility, (d.) Because our blessed Lord was a divine
Person, and therefore absolutely incapable of personal
sin in any sense or degree. While, therefore, he bore
our sins, and consequently suffered the penalty involved,
and hence was both regarded and treated by the Father,
during the time and for the purpose of expiation, as
vicariously guilty and worthy of wrath, he was all the
while not one iota the less personally immaculate and
glorious in holiness, and all the more the well-beloved
Son of the Father, in whom he was well pleased.
All this the orthodox have always held and carefully
expressed. We regard it, then, as an evident sign of
weakness, and as an offence against honourable argu
ment, when the advocates of the Governmental Theory

OUR SINS LAID ON CHRIST. 175
(as for instance, Barnes, Fiske, and others), by studi
ously confounding the imputation of guilt with the
transference of personal inherent sinful character, and
by habitually setting forth the coarse and indiscriminat-
ing language of Luther on this subject as a fair repre
sentation of the Satisfaction Theory, disingenuously
insinuate that at least the more self-consistent of the
orthodox have held the blasphemy that Christ was made
personally a sinner when he bore our sins upon the tree.
On this subject, I remark, (1.) No Christian ever did,
or by possibility could, hold the doctrine of imputation
which they thus covertly impute to us. It is nonsense
on the one hand, and infamous blasphemy upon the other.
(2.) Luther's language on this point was, characteristi
cally of the man and of his age, coarse and wild, and
neither to be defended nor imitated. (3.) But Luther
was a good man, and no competent theologian believes,
and no honest one will pretend, that he held a doctrine
in any respect different from that which I have stated
above as that of the Scriptures and of the Reformed
Churches. (4.) But his language renders him pecu
liarly liable to misconception upon the part of the unin-
structed. It is, therefore, an instrument peculiarly fitted
for the use of controversialists, who, lacking argument,
need to excite the prejudices of the uninstructed against
their opponents. (5.) These very same gentlemen, who
thus exhibit Luther to the public as a vile blasphemer,
in order that all who hold the same doctrine of the
Atonement may be silently implicated in the same
charge, nevertheless honour him as a true Christian and
a great reformer. But unless they misrepresent his doc
trine of imputation he cannot be a Christian. Which

1 76 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
alternative will they accept? Will they accept as a true
Christian a traducer of their Lord? Or will they assert
that Luther was no Christian? Or will they acknow
ledge that for purposes of controversy they have mis
represented his doctrine?*
3. This doctrine of the imputation of the guilt of our
sins is clearly proved by the passages above stated, when
interpreted in careful comparison with the usage of the
words translated "to bear sin," both in the Old and
New Testament. Thus (1) the Hebrew word Sao has
the precise sense of bearing — not of bearing away or re
moving, but in the sense of carrying. Thus (Lam. v. 7),
"Our fathers have sinned and are not, and we have
borne (^3D) their iniquities." This can only mean
to bear the penalty of the sins of their fathers. So
of Christ, "My righteous servant shall justify many;
for he shall bear (Sao) their iniquities." Isa. liii. 11.
(2.) The word xtw has a more diversified usage than
bio, yet when construed with sin it always plainly
means "to bear sin" in the sense of "being penally re
sponsible" for it. "Not to bear sin" is not to have sin
charged or imputed as a ground of punishment. If a
husband cause his wife to break a vow made with his
knowledge, "he must bear her iniquity," Numb. xxx.
15; that is, he must be responsible for the punishment
attached. If a soul sin, "he shall bear his iniquity;"
that is, he shall be held guilty and liable to punishment,
and therefore shall he bring a ram, and the priest shall
make atonement. Lev. v. 17, 18. The consequence of
bearing sin is death or penalty. Numb, xviii. 22. "And
* See Cunningham's Reformers and Theology of the Reformation,
Essay 2d — Luther.

OUR SINS LAID ON CHRIST. 177
the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a
land not inhabited." Lev. xvi. 22.
(3.) The authors of the Septuagint translation render
these words sometimes with dtpm, to bear — to bear away ;
but often also with fkpm and dva<p£pa>, which can only
mean to bear in the sense of bearing on one's self in
order to bear away. Robinson, who cannot be suspected
of theological bias, gives the meaning both of fepw and
dvatpepco as "to take up and bear in the place of an
other; to take from another on one's self; to bear the
punishment of sin ; to expiate."
Bushnell* says that Matthew's reference (Matt. viii.
17) to Isa. liii. 4 "is the one Scripture citation that
gives beyond question the exact usus loquendi of all the
vicarious and sacrificial language of the New Testa
ment." The passage in Isaiah is as follows: "Surely
he hath borne (Hebrew, NtM; Septuagint, <pepa>) our
griefs, and carried (Hebrew, Sao) our sorrows." The
reference in Matthew is : " And he cast out the spirits
with his word, and healed all that were sick ; that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the pro
phet, saying, Himself took (iXafle) our infirmities, and
bare our sicknesses." From this datum Bushnell
draws two amazing conclusions: (1.) That the exact
usus loquendi of all the vicarious and sacrificial language
of the New Testament is to be derived from this single
passage. (2.) That the only sense in which Christ bore
either our sins, our sorrows, or our diseases was that he
took them on his feelings — had his heart burdened with
a sense of them.
To the first assumption we answer that the usus
* " Vicarious Sacrifice," pages 43, 44.

178 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
loquendi of the words can be determined only by a care
ful analysis and comparison of all the passages in which
they severally occur in the original Hebrew, in the
Septuagint, and in the New Testament itself.
To the second assumption, we answer that it is a noto
rious fact, admitted by all scholars, that the New
Testament writers quote the Old Testament freely,
accommodating the sense to a present purpose. Isaiah
affirms that Christ bore our sorrows — that is, bore them
on himself in order to remove them. Isaiah uses the
technical words nb>j and Sao ; the Septuagint translates
by <p£pto, but Matthew substitutes eXajSe. There is no
contradiction; only Isaiah emphasized the carried, and
Matthew emphasized the removed. The first pointed
out the means, the other the result effected. The fact
is that he endured visible sorrows, which made men
believe that he was under divine chastisement ; hence it
is said, " We thought him stricken, smitten of God, and
afflicted. . . But he was wounded for our transgression,
the punishment of our peace was upon him.""*
* See Alexander's Isaiah.

CHAPTER XII.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE AS TO THE NATURE OF, THE
ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE CHARACTER OF THE
EFFECTS WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTED TO IT IN SCRIPTURE.
AS our seventh argument, we cite those numerous pas
sages of Scripture which describe in various rela
tions and lights the effects of the redemption work of
our Lord. These are set forth in three capital relations :
(a) as these effects concern God, they are termed propi
tiation, and hence reconciliation; (b) as they respect
sin, expiation ; and (c) as they respect the sinner himself,
redemption. I. The effect of Christ's death, as it regards God, is
revealed to be propitiation, and consequently reconci
liation. The principal words which have been used by
the Holy Ghost to express the effect of the atoning
work of Christ as it regards God, are the Greek words
xazaXXdaaeiv, xazaXXdyrj, IXdaxeoOat, IXaapbc;, and IXaa-
zr/ptov, and the Hebrew word 133.
1. The classical usage of the word xazaXXdaaeiv is
(a) to change, to exchange ; and (b) to change a person
from enmity to friendship, to reconcile. And the usage
with regard to the derivative noun xazaXXapj is pre
cisely similar. When God is said to reconcile us to
himself by Jesus Christ, the expression doubtless com
prehends the whole result effected, and that evidently
179

180 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
includes a mutual reconciliation of God to us and of
us to God. Young and Bushnell, and the advocates
of the Moral Influence hypothesis generally, insist that
the word is used only in the sense of the persuasion of
the sinner by God, through the cross of Christ, to lay
aside his wicked alienation. But that the other sense
of the propitiation, or rendering placable the divine
nature in respect to sinners, is also included, and in
some passages is the main sense intended, is plain from
the following considerations: (1.) In Rom. v. 10, 11,
the phrase, "We were reconciled to God by the death
of his Son," is explained by the parallel phrase, "being
justified by his blood," so as to be "saved from wrath
through him." (2.) In 2 Cor. v. 18-20, the phrase that
" God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,"
is explained by saying in the same sentence, "not im
puting their trespasses unto them." Not to impute sin
is to forgive it. Rom. iv. 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 16. (3.) The
command addressed by Paul to gospel-hearers, "Be ye
reconciled to God," is precisely parallel to that other
command given by Christ in Matt. v. 24 : " Therefore,
if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remem-
berest that thy brother hath aught against thee, ... go
thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come
and offer thy gift." This must mean, Go, cause thy
brother to be reconciled to thee by removing the cause
for his auger. So, "Be ye reconciled to God," must
mean that they should accept Christ as their propi
tiation, as that whereby they might be reconciled to
their God. (4.) The meaning of this word is rendered
plain, and the doctrine I am insisting on is conclusively
established, by the usage of the second Greek verb noted

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 181
above, IXdaxeadai, and its association with the Hebrew
word 130.
2. .In its classical sense the word VAaxeoOat means to
propitiate an offended deity by means of expiatory sacri
fices or penances. This was the universally received
sense of the word and its uniform usage among all
persons who used the Greek language ages before tb«
translators of the Septuagint used it as the proper Gneek
equivalent of the Hebrew 130 ; and it continuedl to
be its sense without shadow of change down to the tisne
when the inspired apostles used it to express the precise
effect of Christ's work as it respects God. This fact Us
acknowledged by Young, although it is radically sub
versive alike of the Governmental Atonement Theoiy
and of his own. Thus Christ is made a faithful higjh
priest, in things pertaining to God, to make recon
ciliation for (IXdaxeadai) the sins of his people. Heb. u-
17. In 1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10, the Lord Jesus is said
to be the \Xaapbc, for our sins — a word used by the\
Seventy to translate Dnaa, expiation. And in Rom.
iii. 25, he is declared to be an IXaazypiov through faith
in his blood — that is, a propitiation by means of an ex
piatory sacrifice covering the sins of his people with his
blood. 3. The Hebrew word iaa is the principal one used
by the Holy Spirit to express the precise effect designed
and accomplished by the sacrifices, (a) in respect to sin
as a covering, and hence (b) in respect to God as a means
of reconciliation. The root-meaning of the word is to
cover, overlay, and this sense is carried with it through
its entire usage. The Holy of Holies, in the temple, was
God's immediate presence-chamber, and the mercy-seat,
lfi

182 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
covering the Ark of the Covenant, was God's throne.
In this ark, as the foundation on which his throne rests,
were placed the two stone tables of the law, on which
were engraven those commandments summarily embody
ing the principles of perfect righteousness, constituting
in this position God's terrible testimony against all sin
and all sinners. The ark was covered with a slab of
pure '. gold, called the maa or covering, rendered in the
Grei sk, IXaazrjpiov ; in the Latin, propitiatorium; and
in ) the English, mercy-seat. Immediately over this
meLrcy-seat, and between the cherubim, habitually dwelt
thde Schekinah, or visible manifestation of Jehovah's
prtesence. ' On the great day of atonement, the high
prjlest entered within the veil, first with the blood of the
bullock slain, as an atonement for the sin of his house;
ailid again with the blood of the goat slain, as a sin-
owfering for the sin of the people; and he sprinkled
ttyem both in turn over the mercy-seat, and seven times
Juefore it. Lev. xvi. 14, 15. Hence, when God looked
down toward his law, on which rests his throne, and
which called for the execution of the penalty upon
every transgression, his eye rested first on the maa, or
covering bearing the sacrificial blood; the sins were
therefore covered, and God was reconciled. Hence this
small slab of gold became the most important part of
the tabernacle — the Holy of Holies being at times
designated as "the house of the maa, or the house
of the blood-bearing covering." 1 Chron. xxviii. 11.*
Hence the word iaa, originally signifying to cover,
came to be used by the Holy Ghost to express the effect
*See Hengstenberg, Gen. of the Pent., vol. ii., pp. 524-526. See
Fairbairn's Typology, vol. ii., chap. v.

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 183
of a sacrifice in expiating the guilt of sin, and hence in
propitiating the infinitely holy God. Hence it is pro
perly translated in our version, in different constructions,
by the words to make atonement, to appease, to pacify,
to reconcile, to purge, to purge away. Ezek. xvi. 63;
Gen. xxxii. 20, 21; Ps. Ixv. 3, 4; lxxviii. 38; 1 Sam.
iii. 14; Numb. xxxv. 33. And hence also the cog
nate word, Dnaa is translated atonement, and "iaa is
translated sometimes ransom; Ps. xlix. 7. "If there
shall be laid upon him a sum of money (an atonement,
something to cover his offence), then he shall give for
the ransom of his soul whatsoever is laid upon him."
Ex. xxi. 30. "I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One
of Israel ; I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and
Seba for thee." Isa. xliii. 3; and sometimes satisfaction.
Numb. xxxv. 31, 32. Thus under the Old Testament,
as well as under the New, sacrificial expiation is declared
to be of the nature of a ransom ; that is, of some person
or thing given for another as the conditiorr^f deliver
ance. But the fixed idea of the basis of tne whole
usage of the word and its derivatives is, that (a) God is
reconciled to the sinner only by covering his sin, and (b)
that sin is covered only by sacrificial blood. Thus, in
Lev. x. 17, it is said that the "sin-offering is given to
make atonement (that is, covering of sin by blood) for
them before the Lord." Paul declares, as the sum of
the Old Testament ritual, that "without shedding of
blood is no remission," and "where remission of these
is, there is no more offering for sin." Heb. ix. 22
and x. 18. The Seventy habitually translate this word
"iaa (to cover sin by blood) by the Greek word UAa-
xeadai, the fixed meaning of which was to propitiate by

184 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
expiation. And the apostles, following the Seventy,
apply the same word to Christ and his work. His
"blood is shed for the remission of sins." Matt. xxvi.
28. He is the ttaopoc; (1 John ii. 2) and the IXaazrj-
piov, or mercy-seat, covering our sins with sacrificial
blood. II. The effect of Christ's sufferings, as it respects the
sins of his people, was expiation of guilt. Propitiation
has reference to the bearing or effect of satisfaction upon
God. Expiation has reference to the bearing of the
same satisfaction upon the guilt of sin. It does not, in
the least degree, remove the pollution or moral turpitude
of sin. It removes only its guilt or moral obligation,
and hence its legal exposure to punishment. The same
words, alike in classical Latin and Greek, and in the
originals of both the Old and the New Testaments, are
used in different constructions to express this double
bearing of a bloody sacrifice, now upon God and now
upon sin. (a.) The words IXdaxopac and iXaapoc:, trans
lated in the English New Testament by the word propi
tiate, were habitually used by the Seventy to translate
iaa, which can only, as a general thing, signify expia
tion by covering with blood, (b.) The word IXdaxopat,
when construed with God, evidently and confessedly is
used by both classical writers and the Seventy in the
sense of propitiation; but when it is construed with
sin, it can only be used in the sense of expiation. Heb.
ii. 17. Christ was made a faithful High Priest in things
pertaining to God (IXdaxeadat zdc; dpapziat; zoo Xaou), to
expiate the sins of the people. In 1 John ii. 2 and iv.
10, Christ is twice declared to be the expiation for our
sins, (c.) The Hebrew word iaa is sometimes con-

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 185
strued with God when it must be rendered propitiation,
as, for instance, Ezek. xvi. 63: "When I am pacified
toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord."
See Gen. xxxii. 20. Whereas the same word is gene
rally and more immediately, in accordance with its radi
cal meaning, construed with sin, or with the person or
thing in which the sin inheres. Isa. vi. 7 ; Dan. ix. 24 ; and
Lev. iv. 20; v. 6, 10; xvi. 6, 12: "And Aaron shall
bring the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for him
self, and shall make an atonement for himself and for his
house; . . . and he shall take a censer full of burning
coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his
hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it
within the veil : and he shall put the incense upon the
fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may
cover the mercy-seat (maa or covering) that is upon
the testimony, that he die not. And he shall take of the
blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger
upon the mercy-seat eastward : and before the mercy-seat
shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven
times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering
that is for the people, and bring his blood within the
veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood
of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and
before the mercy-seat: and he shall make an atonement
(covering by sacrificial blood) for the holy place, because
of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because
of their transgressions in all their sins." Although a
different word is used, this is evidently the idea of David
when, in Ps. xxxii. 1, he says, "Blessed is the man
whose sin is covered;" which he explains by the parallel
phrases, "whose sin is forgiven," and "to whom the Lord
16*

186 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
imputeth not iniquity." And Paul, in Rom. iv. 5, de
clares that this is the principle on which, in the gospel,
God justifies the ungodly without works, and reckons
faith for righteousness.
Young supposes that he overthrows this entire body
of proof by noticing the fact (a) that the Seventy
sometimes translate the word "iaa by the Greek terms
dycd^eiv, to consecrate, and by xadapi^etv, to purify,
although he admits that their characteristic rendering is
IXdaxeadat. (b.) That in those cases in which the word
iaa is used to set forth the ceremonial atonement for
the sacred instruments of religion, as the altar (Ex. xxix.
36, 37), and for the plague of leprosy in the walls of a
house (Lev. xiv. 48-53), it cannot possibly be used in
the strict sense of making expiation for sin.* We an
swer to the first point, that the very thing expressed by
the habitual and always consistent usage of this word
is, that a sinner can be reconciled, and his sin cleansed,
and soul made holy, and his life consecrated to God's
service, only as his sin is covered and so atoned by sacri
ficial blood. Remission of sins, the immediate effect of
an acceptable offering, is in order to sanctification —
sanctification is not in order to remission. But since
sacrificial blood, by making expiation, and so securing
remission, always effects purification, it is eminently
proper that the instrumentality should be differently
designated, as one or other effect might be in the special
case most prominently thought of. To the second point,
the answer is obvious, that the sin of man really brings,
in a true sense, under condemnation with himself, his
body, his world, and the very instruments of his daily
* Young's " Life and Light of Men," pp. 237^239.

187
life and religious service. The disease of leprosy was
chosen as a type or image of sin. Leprosy in the walls
of a house was treated as an image of that in man.
The priest was directed to slay a bird, to sprinkle the
house seven times to make an atonement for the house.
This is of course a figure from beginning to end ; but a
figure of what? The leprosy is a figure of human sin
fulness, involving guilt and pollution. The atonement
is a figure of human redemption from sin. In both
cases the cleansing comes through the atonement or cover
ing, and the covering is effected through sacrificial
blood. When it is said that the Atonement had a bearing
upon the divine nature, and in some real sense pro
pitiated God's justice and so reconciled him to the sinner,
it is by no means forgotten (a) that God is absolutely
unchangeable in his states and moods, as well as in his
essence, or (b) that instead of the Atonement being the
cause of God's love for his people, it is itself the effect
of that love pre-existing from eternity. For "God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son."
John iii. 16.
The scriptural doctrine of propitiation is no more in
consistent with the divine unchangeableness than the
Scripture doctrine with respect to the real efficacy of
prayer. We may not be able to define the method of
that consistency, yet it is not difficult to believe that the
atoning work of Christ was present, like every act of
prayer, in the divine mind from eternity. It by no
means follows that because there are no chronological
successions in God, there are therefore to be traced no

188 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
relations of cause and effect through his thoughts, pur
poses or actions.
In like manner, our doctrine is not in the least incon
sistent with the glorious truth that the love of God for
his own people is eternal and self-originated — the cause
and not the effect of the Atonement. The fact is, that
his love for their persons, and his holy displeasure for
their sins, were co-existent states of mind from eternity.
And yet the apostle takes upon himself to say that the
very elect themselves, so beloved, were, because of God's
righteousness, " by nature the children of wrath, even as
others." Eph. ii. 3. The wrath of God is a verity,
being revealed from heaven, and coming even now upon
the children of disobedience, and in many cases fearfully
treasured up against the day of wrath to come. Rom. i.
18; ii. 5. But it is asserted over and over again that
"we shall be saved from wrath through Christ" (Rom.
v. 9), and that " Christ delivered us from the wrath to
come." 1 Thess. i. 10. Absolutely considered, God is
unchangeable. But such a change in our relations to
God was wrought by the work of Christ, that his infi
nite righteousness coincides with his infinite love in all
their blessed manifestations and operations towards his
own people for ever.
Young complains that our doctrine of Satisfaction
leads inevitably to the conception of two different Gods.*
" The one God is angry with the other God ; and the
incarnate God is represented as bearing the wrath of
the first." He admits, that " When we bow in ador
ing reverence before the eternal essential Unity, it is
not hard to think of distinct aspects blending mysteri-
* Life and Light of Men, pp. 284, 285.

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 189
ously and harmoniously in one being, or of distinct
agencies and influences springing out of one source."
Although we have not time to dwell upon the point, it
is impossible not to notice the very significant fact that,
although he professes to be, and doubtless is in his
heart, a devout believer in the real divinity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, yet having adopted the Unitarian theory
as to the nature of Christ's work, he necessarily gravi
tates towards the Unitarian theory as to the constitution
of his person. In the above extract, which harmonizes
with the tone of his whole book, he distinctly excludes
the scriptural doctrine of the three-fold distinction of
persons in the unity of essence. If the first clause, in
which he speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as
" distinct aspects," stood alone, we would credit him with
being a Sabellian, holding that God is one single person
as well as one single essence, and admitting a modal
three-foldness in respect to manifestation and operation.
But in the second clause, which doubtless he intends to
be exegetical of the first, he represents the divine in
Christ and the Holy Ghost to be "agencies or influences"
springing out of a divine source. Neither Strauss nor
Renan would object to such a statement of the Trinity
as involved in a rational conception of the person of
Christ. Let the reader, for the purpose of tracing the
connection, compare Bushnell's book on the "Vica
rious Sacrifice," in which he gives the Unitarian view
as to the work of Christ, with the radically defective
view of the person of our Lord given in his " God in
Christ." To the charge that our view of Satisfaction necessarily
involves Tritheism, we answer — (L) That the eternal

190 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
subsistence of three distinct persons, capable of mutual
personal interaction in the unity of one indivisible
essence, is a truth clearly revealed in Scripture, yet one
which no man can distinctly construe in his own mind.
As it is presented in different relations in Scripture,'
every person who, with competent clearness of thought,
observes his own mental states, knows that his mind
oscillates between the extreme of too widely separating
the persons (Tritheism), and the opposite extreme of too
closely pressing the unity toward the extinction of the
personal distinction (Sabellianism). Nevertheless, there
are no truths more clearly taught in Scripture than
these: (a.) That the true God is one God. (6.) That
Christ, in the highest sense the word bears, is the great
God in person, (c.) That, at the same time, he is a dis
tinct person from the Father. (2.) We answer, that our
doctrine of the execution, by the Father, of the penalty
of the law upon the person of the God-man as the Sub
stitute of his people does not bear a tritheistic appear
ance any more than the undeniable representations given
in Scripture of the relations sustained by the Son to the
Father. They mutually love and are beloved by each
other. The Son is commanded, is sent by the Father;
prays to him; addresses to him the pronoun thou;
uses, with reference to him, the pronoun he. When the
Son came in the place of men, and suffered in their stead
(avzi), then the Scriptures declare that the Father laid
upon him the iniquities of us all, and made him to be
sin and a curse. On the cross the Son cried in agony,
the whole world darkening in sympathy, "My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me f"
III. The Scriptures set forth the effect of the atoning

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 191
work of Christ, as it bears upon the sinner himself, as a
redemption; as a deliverance from the curse of the law
by the payment of an equivalent as a ransom-price. The
words which express this effect are of frequent recur
rence, and are such as dyopd^ecv, to buy. "Ye are
bought with a price," 1 Cor. vii. 23 ; " Redeemed us to
God by thy blood," Rev. v. 9; ' Esayopd^etv, to redeem,
to buy out of the hands of; "Hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Gal.
iii. 13. Also Xjjzpooj, mid., to ransom, to redeem by
payment of a ransom ; " For ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the
precious blood of Christ." 1 Pet. i. 18. Christ is called
our Xuzpov, ransom (Matt. xx. 28), and our dvziXuzpov,
substituted ransom (1 Tim. ii. 6). Aozpocu is very fre
quently used by the Seventy to translate the Hebrew
hxi and ma, words of very frequent occurrence, and
translated in our version by redeem and ransom. The
Jehovah of the Old Testament habitually is described
as the Redeemer of his people of Israel. Isa. xii. 14;
xliv. 24, &c. And the people of the Lord are con
stantly set forth as those who have been bought with a
price — ransomed. Isa. xxxv. 10; li. 11; Ixii. 12, &c.
It has often been charged against the supporters of
the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement that, by unduly
pressing the literal sense of a few passages like those
just cited, we have been led to represent the work of
our Lord as purely a mercantile transaction. This ob
jection is utterly unfounded. The orthodox have from
the first carefully distinguished in statement, and in
argument triumphantly vindicated their doctrine, in view
of the distinction between a pecuniary satisfaction on

192 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the one hand and a penal satisfaction on the other.*
In a matter of pecuniary indebtedness, the claim respects
exclusively the thing due, and not at all the person of
the debtor. A pecuniary satisfaction, therefore, being
the payment of the money due, which was all the claim
required, ipso facto, liberates, no matter whether the
debtor pays or another pays for him. The receipt in
full of the creditor is purely a business acknowledgment
that his claim is satisfied, and therefore extinguished by
the simple force of the payment, and without any room
for the exercise of grace on his part. In a ease of debt,
moreover, the demand is for the precise amount due.
Nothing satisfies but the payment of the very thing
nominated in the bond. Now the orthodox doctrine is,
that the sufferings of Christ are a penal satisfaction to
the demands of the law. In this case the claim of the
law essentially respects the person of the criminal as well
as the penal debt incurred. The claims of law, precep
tive and penal, are all personal, and can be transferred
from person to person only by the prerogative of the
sovereign as a matter of gracious will. As a matter of
mere law, no satisfaction can find acceptance other than
the literal suffering of the penalty by the criminal in
person. If the sovereign admits a substitute in the
place of the criminal, it is a matter of pure grace. Even
if the sovereign does admit a substitute, the solution of
the penal debt by that substitute does not give any
claim to the criminal represented, nor, ipso facto, liberate
him from the legal bonds in which he is held. The
only rights which the vicarious solution of a penal debt
can give rise to accrue to the substitute, not the criminal,
* Turretin, Locus 14, Qucestio 10.

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 193
and the criminal receives the benefits thereof purely as
a matter of grace, and at such times and under such
conditions as may be settled between the sovereign judge
and the substitute. In the case of a penal infliction, the
demand respects not any constant and definite kind and
degree of suffering. The demand is for whatever kind
and degree of suffering the infinitely righteous intelli
gence of God sees in each given case to be morally right;
the crime to be expiated and the person to suffer being
both taken into consideration.
The commercial language, above quoted, is not the
invention of orthodox theologians. It is the spontane
ous and very frequent language of the Holy Ghost,
deliberately chosen to set before our minds the true
nature and method of Christian salvation. It is more
over plain that this language, taken in its obvious sense,
is most appropriate to the subject, if our view of the
nature of the Atonement be true, while it is certainly
unnatural and misleading if either of the alternative
views should be true.
On the Moral Influence" Theory the language must
be emptied of all sense, and the ideas it suggests must
not only be modified, but totally ignored. As a moral
impression, the work of Christ terminates upon the
heart of the sinner. But as a ransom, as an act of re
demption out of the hands of justice for a price paid, it
must respect the deliverance of the sinner from the claim
and power of some person exterior to himself.
The Governmental Atonement Theory sets forth the
sufferings of Christ as having only a general and imper
sonal relation to the mass of sinners, and a very indefi
nite relation to the law and its penalty. The sufferings
17

194 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of Christ, in this view, secured no claim upon God
on Christ's part any more than on ours. It simply
makes it consistent with governmental expediency to
offer salvation on easier terms, and it puts the sinner in
a salvable, not a saved condition. But this characteristic
scriptural language of ransom, buying with a price,
redeemed out of the hands of, &c, necessarily carries
with it the ideas (a) of a personal reference to the indi
viduals redeemed, that is, paid for; (b) of these persons
being really saved by redemption, not simply put in a
salvable condition ; and (c) of Christ having acquired a
right to that for which he had paid the price. There is
an exact correspondence between the representation that
Christ assumed our law-place, and as our Substitute
suffered, in our stead and belxalf, the. penalty of the law,
and this scriptural language above quoted, that Christ
is the ransom of our souls, the price paid for our re
demption ; that is, by which we were bought off from
the claims of that law by which we were held.
There are three several generic forms of conception
under which the work wrought by Christ for the salva
tion of men is set forth. These are (a) that of an expia
tory offering for sin ; (b) that of the redemption of the
life and liberty of a captive by the payment of a ransom
in his stead; and (c) the satisfaction of the law by the
vicarious fulfilment of its demands. These different
conceptions are designed both to limit and to supplement
each other in a manner strictly analogous to the com
bination of the different perceptions of the same object
by the different bodily senses. The sense of "sight,
although when educated in connection with the concur
rent and mutually limiting and supplementing percep-

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 195
tions of the organs of touch and hearing, it is unmatched
as to the extent and accuracy of its information, yet
would, if left to itself, never have risen beyond an
infant's vague perception of a surface variously shaded,
without any sense of relation in space. All our know
ledge of the material world, considered as an object of
sense, arises from the education of our minds in the use
of our bodily senses in combination, and the habits of
judgment and inference which are thus produced. Men
learn to interpret the impressions made upon them
through their eyes by means of other impressions made
upon them, in connection with the same objects, through
the senses of touch and hearing, and vice versa. In like
manner our knowledge of the true nature of the work
of Christ and its bearing upon us results from all the
various forms in which the Scriptures set it forth in
combination, each at once limiting, modifying and sup
plementing all the others. It should be noticed, more
over, that the Scriptures do not present these several
views as different sides of the same house to be taken in
succession, but habitually present them in combination,
as lights and shades blend together in the same picture
in producing the same intelligible expression. Thus, in
the same sentences, it is said, " We are redeemed with the
precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and
witlwut spot." 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. Christ came "to give his
life a ransom for many." Matt. xx. 28. "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
for us." Gal. iii. 13. "He hath made him, who knew
no sin, to be a sin-offering for us, that we might be ma.de
the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v. 21.* That
* Macdonnell's Donnellan Lecture for 1857, pp. 115-125.

196 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
is, he redeems us not in the sense of making a pecuniary
payment in cancellation of our debts, but by his vicari
ous suffering, like the bleeding sacrifices of the Mosaic
ritual, of the penalty due our sins.
The fact here noticed, that the same inspired sentences
represent Christ at the same instant and in the same
relations as a ransom and as a sin-offering, and as made
to endure the curse of the law for us, is worthy of
careful study. The teaching of Scripture is not that
Christ is a sacrifice, and a ransom, and a bearer of the
curse of the law, but it is that he is that particular
species of sacrifice which is a ransom ; that his redemp^
tion is of that nature which is effected by his bearing
the curse of the law in our stead, and that he redeems
us by offering himself a bleeding sacrifice to God.
Thus, the teaching of the Holy Ghost is as precise as
any ecclesiastical theory of Atonement. Christ saves
us by being a sacrifice. But not any one of the many
kinds embraced in the whole genus sacrifice. He is
specifically a sin-offering in the Jewish sense, because
this was declared, while the temple was still standing,
by a Jewish apostle to Jewish readers. More specifically
yet, the offering of himself as a sin-offering is declared
to have been equivalent to his making himself a ransom
for us, and to his bearing the curse of the law in our
stead, and that the design and effect of this ransom-
paying, curse-bearing sacrifice of his is, that he redeems
us from the curse of the law. It is not any kind of a
sacrifice, but a ransom-paying, curse-bearing sacrifice.
It is not any kind of redemption, but a sacrificial
redemption. A given line of latitude a thousand miles
long may be a very indeterminate definition of the

EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S WORK. 197
geographical position of a city ; but the precise point of
intersection of a line of latitude and a determinate line
of longitude marks a mathematical point with meta
physical precision. The Holy Ghost has ideally repre
sented the work of Christ as marked by the precise
point of convergence of the bleeding sacrifice, of re
demption by the substitution of a personal ransom, and
of the vicarious bearing of the curse of the law by a
substitute in the stead of the criminal.*
Besides this, these different expressions are sometimes
applied to different subjects. When it is said that
Christ "has redeemed us by his blood" (Rev. v. 9), the
term redemption of course is used to designate the nature
and designed effect of" his sacrifice, which he finished on
the cross. But when it is said that Christ "obtained
eternal redemption for us" (Heb. ix. 12), and that we
are " sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemp
tion," the word is of course used to include, in addition
to the means whereby Christ obtained our salvation, also
its application and complete realization by us — when not
only the remission of sin and the complete sanctification
of our souls will have been attained, but upon the con
summated adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies,
"the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God." Rom. viii. 21-23.
* See Chapter iii., Definition 7.
17*

CHAPTER XIII.
THE TRUE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE
NATURE OF THE UNION WHICH THE SCRIPTURES ASSERT
SUBSISTS BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE.
AS our eighth argument, I propose to establish, by an
induction of scriptural passages, the fact that a
union of such a kind subsists between the Lord Jesus
and his people, as — however mysterious it may be in its
own nature — yet when once admitted, on the ground of
divine testimony, as a fact, involves, as a natural result,
the consequence of his bearing our sins, and our being
clothed upon with the rewardableness of his obedience,
and which is utterly anomalous and meaningless if our
doctrine of literal substitution and of penal sufferings
is rejected. The main objection alleged against the doctrine of
vicarious expiation of sin by its opponents is, that it
confounds all our elementary and necessary ideas of
justice. This objection, in substance, though variously
modified in form, is made by the Unitarian and Trinita
rian advocates of the Moral Influence Theory, such as
Socinus, S. Crellius, Bushnell and John Young, and
by all classes of the adherents of the Governmental
Atonement School. It may be considered in two rela
tions: (1.) As it respects Christ, it is claimed that the
judicial treatment of the innocent as if he were guilty
198

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 199
is an outrageous injustice, involving the confusion of
every moral principle. (2.) As it regards his sinful
people, in whose stead Christ is said to have died, it is
claimed that his punishment in their stead can, as a
matter of abstract justice, avail them nothing, for the
plain reason that the precise and only thing which justice
demands is not the suffering of so much pain, but the
judicial infliction of the pain upon the sinner in per
son. Both Fiske and Barnes insist, as do the Socin
ians, that it is essential to the idea of the penalty that
it is pain inflicted by the lawgiver upon the transgressor
in person. As to the first side of the objection, we
admit that, in the common judgment of all men, to re
gard and treat a man as responsible for a sin for which
he is not truly responsible is beyond question unjust.
But this plain principle does not apply to the case of
Christ suffering the just for the unjust; because (a) he,
being the equal of God, the fountain of all law, and
owing no obedience to the law on his own account, and
having an unlimited right to dispose of his services and
of his life as he pleased, voluntarily assumed our obliga
tions and made them his own. As far as Christ is con
cerned, therefore, there is obviously no injustice in the
Father's exacting from him all the conditions of a sure
tyship which he has spontaneously assumed and volun
tarily yields. Besides this, it is admitted on all hands
that Christ suffered for his people. The advocates of
the Moral Influence and Governmental theories of the
Atonement maintain that our sins are the occasion of his
sufferings. We say that they are the judicial ground of
his sufferings. We all agree in maintaining that his
sufferings are caused by our sins, and that they are self-

200 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
assumed by him with the utmost freeness and spontaneity
of love. If this be so, it is evident that there is no
injustice in the one view of the case any more than in
the other. (6.) Since the sufferings' of Christ satisfy
God, and maintain the honour of his law and the in
terests of his government, even better than the punish
ment of each sinner in person would have done, there
can, of course, be no injustice involved in the arrange
ment as far as the interests of God and his government
are concerned, (c.) This vicarious suffering is an in
finite benefit to those sinners who are saved, and no
disadvantage whatsoever to any who may be left to bear
the penal consequences of their own sins. Therefore, if
there be no injustice done to any one of the parties con
cerned, there can be no injustice in the case.
As to the second side of the objection above made, we
confess that the divine administration, both as to the
coming in of the curse through Adam, and as to the
redemption from the curse through Christ, rests upon
principles higher and grander than those embraced in
the ordinary rules of human law. Our doctrine, although
never contradicting reason, does not rest upon it, but
upon the supernatural revelation given in the Word.
But while the complete satisfaction which absolute jus
tice finds in the vicarious sufferings of a substituted
victim may transcend reason, it by no means conflicts
with it, because (1) it is no part of the teaching of Scrip
ture that sin can be imputed to any one, or its guilt be
expiated by the sufferings of any one to whom it does
not truly belong. There must be, of course, in every
case such a union as shall in the unerring judgment of
God be a firm foundation in justice for this imputation.

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 201
It is no mere mental assumption on the part of God of
that which is not true in fact. On the contrary, it is a
most wise and righteous recognition of the exact respon
sibility of each party in the relations in which he stands
in the eye of law to all others. Grotius, who discussed
the subject with great learning and ability, and certainly
with sufficient deference to the claims of reason, main
tains that while it is necessary to the essence of a
penalty that it be inflicted on account of sin, it is not
necessary that in every case it should be inflicted on
the person of the sinner, if only there be such a union
between the person who sinned and the person who is
punished as justifies the imputation.* Turretin saysf
that there are three kinds of union known to us which
justify the imputation of sin, because they are of such a
nature that, in the case of certain actions, the moral re
sponsibility for the sin is common to all the parties
involved. These are — (a) natural, as between a father
and his children ; (6) moral and political, as between a
king and his subjects; and (c) voluntary, as between
friends and between an arraigned criminal and his
sponsor. Now the union of Christ with his people rests
on stronger ground than any of these considered alone.
It is, as we have seen, voluntary upon his part, who
spontaneously assumed all the obligations he bore. But
it was, moreover, the eternal and sovereign ordinance of
the three divine Persons in council, whose behests are
the foundation of all law, of all rights, and of all obli-
* Defensio F. C. De Satisfactione Christi, chap. iv. See also " The
Grotian Theory of the Atonement," translated from the German of
Dr. F. C. Baur. Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. ix., p. 259.
j- Locus 9, Qua«. 9.

202 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
gations. If it be a revealed fact that such a union
subsists on such grounds, it is surely futile for a mortal
to claim that it is a pure mental fiction, and that the
judicial action that proceeds upon it is unjust. (2.)
Providence constantly, as a matter of fact, proceeds upon
principles which appear to be identical with that upon
which the substitution of Christ in the place of sinners
ultimately rests. God, as the Creator, Father and Guar
dian of the human family, acting for its advantage,
placed the moral probation of the whole race in the con
duct of Adam, the natural head and covenant repre
sentative of that race, during a limited period and
under the most favourable conditions, in the Garden of
Eden. Adam sinned, and as a matter of unquestionable
fact, the penalty of that sin has been executed in com
mon upon him and on each of his descendants from
birth. The penalty denounced and actually executed
upon him included spiritual death, mortality of body,
the earth cursed with briers and thorns, the necessity of
winning bread by the sweat of the brow, and of bring
ing forth children in pain. Each one of these elements
of evil has been executed upon his descendants univer
sally, and literally in the same manner in which they
were executed on him. They are not the mere natural
consequences of his sin. If they were penal evils in his
case, they are penal consequences of his sin in our case.
This the apostle explicitly declares, Rom. v. 19: "As
by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, So
[that is, upon the same principle] by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous." As a matter of
daily experience, also, we find the penal consequences
of many sins passing over upon those who are provi-

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 203
dentially bound up with the sinful agents. Ex. xx. 5.
God does actually, as he says, visit the iniquities of the
fathers upon the children to the third and fourth genera
tion of them that hate him.
Now we propose to prove (1) that the Scriptures
plainly teach that God has established between Christ
and his people a union sui generis, transcending all
earthly analogies in its intimacy of fellowship and re
ciprocal copartnership, both federal and vital, and hence
called by theologians " mystical " in the sense of being
mysterious, in perfection and completeness transcending
all analogy. And (2) that the fact of this union being
established, it goes far to explain his community with us
in the guilt of our sins, and our community with him
in the rewards of his righteousness.
I. The Scriptures teach that such a union exists as a
matter of fact.
As might be supposed, the Scriptures present this
union to us simply as a matter of fact, to be credited
solely on the ground of divine testimony. They attempt
no rational explanations of its nature. We can under
stand its essential nature no more than we can the coex
istence from eternity of the three divine Persons in the
unity of the one essence; or the union of the two natures
in the one person of the God-man ; or the union of the
whole race in the person of Adam. As it transcends all
natural analogies, the Scriptures set forth its variety and
fulness, element by element, by means of many partial
analogies. Thus they liken it to the relation the founda
tion of a building sustains to the superstructure erected
upon it, configured to it, and supported by it (1 Pet. ii.
4-6) ; to a tree and its branches. John xv. 4, 5. "Abide

204 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
in me, and I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, ex
cept ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches.
He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth
forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing." It
is also likened to the organic union of the different
members of one body : " For as we have many members
in one body, and all members have not the same office;
so we, being many, are one body in Christ." Rom. xii.
4, 5. " For as the body is one, and hath many members,
.... so also is Christ  Now ye are the body of
Christ, and members in particular." 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27.
"We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones. This is a great mystery ; but I speak concerning
Christ and his Church." Eph. v. 30, 32, and iv. 15, 16.
Also, to a husband in his relation to his wife. Eph. v.
31, 32; Rom. vii. 4; Rev. xix. 7-9; and xxi. 9. And
more particularly to the relation sustained by Adam to
his descendants. Rom. v. 12—19; and 1 Cor. xv. 22
and 45-49. He is called "the last Adam," and the
" second man." It is a simple matter of fact, as we have
seen, whatever philosophical explanation we may give
it, that "In Adam's fall we sinned all."
The literal penalty in all its parts has been from the first
universally executed upon the entire race, in the same
sense it was executed upon Adam. The apostle calls it
a "judgment " and a " condemnation." The same infalli
ble authority declares (a) that " even so," that is, we are
made righteous through the obedience of Christ, upon
the same principles as those upon which we have been
made sinners through the disobedience of Adam. And

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 205
(6) that our union with Christ is of the same order, and
involves the same class of effects as our union with
Adam. We call it a union both federal and vital.
Others may call it what they please, but it will neverthe
less remain certain that it is of such a nature as to
involve an identity of legal relations and reciprocal
obligations and rights. "For as by one man's disobe
dience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous." Rom. v. 19. He
is said to have " borne our sins in his own body on the
tree." 1 Pet. ii. 24. We are said to " be made the right
eousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v. 21. To have been
chosen in him before the foundation of the world. Eph.
i. 3-5. " Of his fulness have all we received, and grace
for grace." John i. 16. We are declared to be "com
plete in him, which is the Head of all principality and
power." Col. ii. 10. To be circumcised in Clirist, to be
buried with him in baptism, Col. ii. 11, 12; and to be
quickened together with Christ, and made to sit together
in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Eph. ii. 5, 6. In
ourselves we are declared to be dead, and our life hid
with Christ in God, and Christ to be our life. Col. iii. 3,
4. We do not live, but Christ liveth in us. Gal. ii. 20.
We are baptized into Christ (Gal. iii. 27), and sleep in
Jesus when we die (1 Cor. xv. 18; 1 Thess. iv. 14), and
our bodies are members of Christ. 1 Cor. vi. 15. His
death is said to have been virtually our death (Rom. vi.
8-11; and 2 Cor. v. 14, 15), and his resurrection from
the dead to involve the certainty of ours. 1 Cor. xv.
20-22; Phil. iii. 21; 1 John iii. 2. In him we have
redemption — through his blood the remission of sins.
Eph. i. 7. We share with him in his righteousness (1
18

206 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Cor. i. 30), in his sufferings (Phil. iii. 10, 11), in his Holy
Spirit. Rom. viii. 9. We are declared to be joint heirs
with him, ordained to have fellowship hereafter with
him in his glory, as now in his suffering (Rom. viii. 17),
and to sit with him on his throne. Rev. iii. 21. As St.
Augustine long ago noticed, "Such is the ineffable close
ness of this transcendental union, that we hear the voice
of the members suffering, when they suffered in the Head,
and cried through the Head on the cross, 'My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?' And, in like man
ner, we hear the voice of the Head suffering, when he
suffered in his members, and cried to the persecutor on
the way to Damascus, ' Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me?'" The nature of this union is further set forth by means
of several titles applied to Christ in view of his relation
to us. Thus he is called our "second or last Adam" (1
Cor. xv. 45-47), our "Head" (Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; Col.
i. 18), our "High Priest" (Heb. ix. 11 and v. 1): "For
every high priest is ordained for men in things per
taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacri
fices for sins." As I have abundantly proved,* the
function of the priest was uniformly to represent man
before God, and not God before man. The efficiency of
his work was designed to terminate upon God, and not
upon man. He is called also our "Mediator between
God and man" (1 Tim. ii. 5), which is explained by the
accompanying phrase, "who gave himself as a substitu
tionary ransom in the stead of all." And in Heb. viii.
3-6 and ix. 11-15, he is set forth as Mediator in his
capacity of High Priest. Hence he cannot be Mediator,
* See Chapter ix.

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 207
as Young insists he is, in his constantly referred-to
note,* in the sense of being the medium through which
God produces a moral impression upon us. It must be
interpreted in the sense of a medium through which we
approach a reconciled Father. He is also called our
"Advocate with the Father." "If any man sin, we
have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous; and he is the (lXaapb$) propitiation for our
sins." 1 John ii. 1, 2. And finally, he is called our
Surety (eyyuot;). In its classical sense eyyooz means
"Bondsman" or "Bailsman" with the Father. Heb. vii,
22. This cannot mean, as the Socinians and their fol
lowers have, from the beginning, striven to prove, that
Christ was Surety for the truth and fidelity of God to
us. It must mean that he was our Surety for the solu
tion of our legal obligations to God, because it is ex
plicitly declared, in the only passage in which the word
occurs, that he was Surety for us in his function as High
Priest. "The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:
By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better
testament." We here, of course, attempt no philosophical explana
tion of the essential basis of that union. We can know
it only so far as its nature and its consequences are made
known to us by direct revelation. The disciples of
Schliermacher, and Realists in general, maintain that
this union essentially consists in the fact that the eternal
Abyoz, in his incarnation, assumed the entire substance
of human nature, and thus becomes, ipso facto, in the
most literal sense, responsible for all the sin of that
* Young's " Life and Light of Men," p. 27.

208 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
nature. This view we have rejected for reasons assigned
in a preceding chapter,* and, whether true or false, it
is no part of Christian doctrine, because no part of re
vealed truth, but at best a human attempt at the ra
tional explanation of the truth revealed. All that is
clearly taught in the Scriptures, and, therefore, all that
ought to be received as Christian doctrine as to the
nature of this union, is, (1) that it is a real union, such
as in the infallible judgment of God lays the foundation
in right for his being punished for our sins, and for our
being credited with his righteousness — that is, so far as
to answer all the federal demands of the law upon us.
(2.) That it is, in some way to us unexplained, condi
tioned upon the fact that our nature is generative, hence
that the whole race is made of one flesh, and that he
became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. (3.)
That it is" conditioned upon the eternal counsel of Father,
Son and Holy Ghost. (4.) That our legal responsibili
ties were voluntarily assumed by the Logos, to be dis
charged by him as Theanthropos. (5.) That provision
is made, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, for
his becoming to all his people a "quickening spirit"
(nveupa ^toonocow), 1 Cor. xv. 45, and for their being
made living members of that spiritual body of which
he is the Head.
This much, and far more, the Scriptures teach to the
same effect, the whole of which, taken together, conspires
to form one perfectly self-consistent representation of a
union most real and practical, though transcending all
analogies. I do not deny that, by skilful selection and
apposition, the advocates of each of the heterodox theo-
* See chapter vii.

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 209
ries of the Atonement may show that the majority of
these passages, treated separately, are not absolutely in
capable of being reduced into conformity with their
views. And this follows necessarily from the fact that
each of their hypotheses, as is the case with respect to
every heresy which ever existed, is a partial truth.
But— II. I submit that the induction of scriptural passages
I have presented makes certain the following points:
(1.) That the entire class of passages above presented
are not only without exception consistent with, but when
taken together naturally suggest, the central principle
of our doctrine, viz., that Christ, in the strict and proper
sense of the term, was substituted in the law-place of
his people. (2.) That the existence of this ineffable
union, when established as a fact by infallible authority,
goes very far to explain the relation which Christ has
sustained to the penal sanctions of the law, and the effect
which his work of active and passive obedience accom
plishes in expiating the sins of his people, and in enti
tling them with himself to a glorious inheritance. And
(3) that neither of the views which I oppose can, by any
possible ingenuity, be adjusted to all that the Scriptures
reveal concerning the union of Christ to his people,
taken together as a whole. On neither hypothesis can
a rational explanation of the application to the subject
of such language in such variety and involution be
afforded. With respect to the Moral Influence Hypothesis, the
truth of this assertion is more than sufficiently evident.
If Christ comes to us merely that by a revelation of
divine love he may persuade us to lay aside our wicked
18 *

210 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
enmity to God, in what sense, consistent with the honest
use of language, can he be said to be our "second Adam,"
our "Priest," our "Ransom," our "Advocate with the
Father," the "Propitiation for our sins," our "Surety,"
or Bailsman before God? In what sense were we "pre
destinated in him," "baptized into his death?" In what
sense was his death virtually our death, or his life virtu
ally our life? In what sense is our life hid with Christ
in God? In what sense do we have fellowship with him
in his sufferings and in the power of his resurrection?
In what sense is he our righteousness and we made
righteous by his obedience?
The same essential incongruity will appear when we
attempt to adjust the great central truth taught by these
passages to the Governmental Hypothesis. If Christ
was not strictly a Substitute in our place, and if he did
not literally bear the penalty and expiate the guilt of
our sins ; if all he did was, by sufferings which were not
of the nature of punishment, to prove that God will
punish sin, and thus make it consistent with God's
rectitude as King for him not to save any, but to put
all in a salvable state; if this represents the whole truth
revealed as to the nature of redemption, — then it neces
sarily follows that, after all the Holy Ghost has said
about it, the union between Christ and his people is not
real, but only figurative. He helps us materially to
help ourselves. But he never was literally one with us
in the eye of the law. We are not truly of his flesh
and of his bones, and he was neither our Ransom, nor
our Bailsman. We are not truly joint heirs with him,
but only beneficiaries. His obedience does not make us
righteous, but his sufferings open the way for God's

THE MYSTICAL UNION. 211
giving us an opportunity of becoming so. He did not
bear our sin, and we are not clothed upon with his
righteousness. Our sin was only the occasion of his
suffering; and the same suffering is only the occasion,
by means of which we may, if faithful, become person
ally righteous.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH
AS TO THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF JUSTIFICATION.
AS the ninth argument in support of the truth of our
doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement, I cite
the clear and indubitable teachings of the Scriptures as
to the nature of justification and the grounds upon
which it proceeds. For the ends of my argument, I
shall define and establish by Scripture the true doctrine
of justification,^^ on that side on which it immediately
antagonizes the Moral Influence Theory as to the nature
of the Atonement, and secondly, on that side on which it
refuses to coalesce with the Governmental Theory of the
same. I. Those who hold that the entire design and effect
of the vicarious sufferings of Christ was to produce a
moral influence upon the sinner, and thus to reconcile
man to God instead of propitiating God in behalf of
man, must, of course, hold justification to be a divine
work, effecting, by appropriate means, a subjective
change in the moral condition of the individual. Judged
from their point of view, it must signify to make in
herently or personally just or morally good.
In opposition to all heretics of this class, as well as in
opposition to the Papists, the Evangelical Protestant
212

\ \

doctrine of justification. 213
Church has always maintained, with an overwhelming
weight of scriptural evidence, that that justification
which God effects, of which Christ's sacrifice is the
meritorious ground, and the people of Christ the subjects,
is not an infusion of grace effecting a subjective change
in moral condition, but a declarative act pronouncing
the believer to be forensically just, and thus effecting a
change of legal relation, and not a change of moral
character. This principle was the precise truth, the dis
tinct and forceful enunciation of which, made the great
Reformation of the Seventeenth Century what it was to
the men of that and of all subsequent generations. It
has been proved over and over again by such conclusive
scriptural references as the following.
1. The common sense in which our English word to
justify is used and understood in all secular speech and
literature, is to declare a man to be in the right — never
to make or to constitute him inherently so. To justify
is to assert or to vindicate his innocence ; it is to pro
nounce him to be in fact innocent, or clear of all the
claims of that law or standard of conduct or character
by which he is tested. This is not only the theological
usage of the term, but the sense in which it is universally
used in the common intercourse of life. The Latin
words justificatio and justifico were never used by classi
cal writers, but were newly-coined terms of ecclesiastical
writers for the purpose of expressing theological ideas,
and hence neither their etymology nor their usage can
throw any additional light upon this subject.
2. The word which the Holy Ghost has chosen to
express the truth he intends to reveal on this subject is
dexaibw. In classical Greek this word has substantially

214 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the same usage which the word to justify, by which it
is translated in the New Testament, has in English.
Suidas' Lexicon — "dixaeouv, to justify, has two senses: 1,
punire; 2, justum censere. So Herodotus, &c." Liddell
& Scott's Lexicon — " dtxaibcu: 1, to hold as rigid or fair,
to think right or fit; 2, to do a man justice; hence (a) to
condemn, punish, and (b) to make just, hold guiltless,
justify, N. T."
3. The Hebrew word pis, in the vast majority of in
stances translated by the authors of the Septuagent by
the Greek word dixaiom, and in our version by the Eng
lish word to justify, is always used in the sense of think
ing or pronouncing just, acquitting, and never in the
sense of making good by the exercise of a moral influ
ence. Job ix. 20: "If I justify (pis) myself, mine
own mouth shall condemn me; if I say I am perfect, it
shall also prove me perverse." Job xxxii. 2 : The
wrath of Elihu was kindled against Job, "because he
justified (p"w) himself rather than God." Deut. xxv.
1: "Then shall they [the judges] justify the righteous,
and condemn the wicked." Prov. xvii. 15: "He that
justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just,
even they both are an abomination to the Lord." See
also Isa. v. 23; Ex. xxiii. 7; and Ps. Ii. 4.
4. The word dixaibco occurs thirty-nine times in the
New Testament, and in every case, without a single ex
ception, it signifies to esteem, to pronounce, or to treat
as righteous, and never once to make or constitute per
sonally, inherently righteous. Sometimes the word is
used to declare the fact that a person is inherently
righteous, as Luke vii. 29: "And all the people that
heard him, and the publicans justified God;" and Matt.

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 215
xi. 19: "Wisdom is justified of her children." But in
the great majority of instances it is evident that it was
used in the sense of pronouncing and treating a person
as just, not intrinsically, but in relation to the demands
of law as a covenant or condition of life and favour.
That is, in the simplest words possible, it is a declaration
that all the claims of the law are satisfied. Thus Gal.
ii. 16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even
we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works
of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh
be justified." Gal. iii. 11: "But that no man is justi
fied by the law, in the sight of God, it is evident." See
also Acts xiii. 39; Rom. v. 7-9; 1 Cor. vi. 11. If
Christ died as God's medium of moral influence upon
the sinner, and not as propitiating Mediator in behalf
of men with a justly offended God, then to justify must
mean to make just, to sanctify. What sense, in that case,
can be put upon those passages which speak of our be
ing "justified," that is, sanctified, "without the deeds
of the law?" What meaning can be imported into such
phrases as, "By the deeds of the law no flesh can be
'sanctified'" (Rom. iii. 20), or, "Christ is become of
no effect unto you, who are 'sanctified' by the law;
whosoever of you are 'sanctified' by the law, are fallen
from grace" (Gal. v. 4), or, "Whom God hath set forth
to be a propitiation, ... to declare at this time his
righteousness, in order that he [God] might be holy, and
the 'sanctifier' of him which believeth in Jesus."*
* That Bushnell shall say, as he does on page 420, that he has
established his point, that fata«Sw is not used in a declarative or judi-

216 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
5. The phrases, "to justify" and "justification" are in
the Scriptures constantly used as the opposite of "to
condemn" and "condemnation." "Who shall lay any
thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justi-
fieth: who is he that condemneth?" Rom. viii. 33, 34.
"Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came
upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteous
ness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justifi
cation of life." Rom. v. 18. See also Rom. viii. 1; and
John iii. 18. Now the phrase "to condemn" must be
taken in a legal sense. Therefore, "to justify" must be
legal also. The opposite of " to sanctify " is to pollute,
but the opposite of "to condemn" is to justify.
6. The same truth is established by the character of
the terms which in Scripture are used interchangeably
with dixaibo) to bring out the full sense of Christian
justification. These are such as, " To impute righteous
ness without works;" "to forgive iniquities;" "to cover
sins;" "not to impute or charge sin to account." Rom.
iv. 6-8. "Justified by his blood;" "saved from wrath;"
"being sinners and yet reconciled to God by the death
of his Son." Rom. v. 9, 10.
7. The same truth is proved by Paul's argument as
to the gratuitous character of justification, Rom. iii. 27,
28 and iv. 3-5: "Where is boasting then? It is ex
cluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the
law of faith. . . . Abraham believed God, and it was
counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that
cial sense, but means to make morally good, " in a manner that
leaves no room for dispute," is an exhibition of the very insanity of
self-conceit. So far from the word in Scripture always having that
sense, it never has it. — Princeton Review, April, 1866.

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 217
worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness." But if justification be only setting a
man subjectively right, making him to be good in
fact, why should "sanctification" by works be a ground
of boasting any more than "sanctification" by faith? It
is easy to understand how a man can be forensically just
without works, on the credit of the works of a " surety."
But what mortal can construe in thought the thing
meant by saying that a man is personally holy without
works of righteousness? How can faith be counted for
"sanctification" in the case of a man who has no works,
but believes in a God who "sanctifies" the ungodly?
8. The sense in which Paul used the terms in ques
tion is put beyond all doubt by the nature of the objec
tions which he introduces into his Epistle to the Romans
as likely to be made to his doctrine. The question
whether, being justified by grace, we should continue in
sin in order that grace might abound, is both obvious
and plausible, if the phrase, "being justified/' be taken
in the forensic sense attributed to it by the Protestant
Church in all its branches. That is, will not the free,
gratuitous acquittal of the sinner, without either obedi
ence or punishment on his part, inevitably lead to licen
tiousness? But the question whether, being "sanctified"
by grace, we shall continue in sin that grace may abound,
has not even a decent appearance of plausibility, because
utterly devoid of sense.
This doctrine, that justification is forensic, and that it
is based upon imputed righteousness, was the watchword
of the glorious Reformation — the one word of power
19

218 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
which dissolved the venerable power of the Papacy,
awakened the people from the sleep of ages, introduced
the new world of modern history, and the stupendous
career of progressive liberty and civilization which has
issued from it. The state of the world as a whole, to
day, when compared with all the past, is a witness to its
truth. All the achievements of modern Christianity,
in all departments, are a monument to its value. Yet
Bushnell says of this, "articula stantis, vel cadentis
ecclesia, I could more easily see the Church fall than
believe it."* The presumption appears overwhelming
that Protestantism is right, and that Popery, Socinian-
ism and the nondescript genus of Bushnells and Youngs,
are wrong.
The work of Dr. John Young, of Edinburgh, entitled
the " Light and the Life of Men," is, as far as the pre
sent writer knows, the most thorough, able and honest
of all the modern essays in advocacy of the Moral Influ
ence Theory of Redemption. In his chapter on Justifica
tion, in the face of all the facts above given relating to
the uniform usage of the Hebrew, Greek and English
words involved in the question at issue, he claims that
the analogies of the English language demand that we
should substitute the word "to righten," in place of the
word "to justify," as the English equivalent of the
Greek dtxatbco. As we have in Greek dixaioc;, Stxacoauvr],
dixaimpa and dtxaibco, so we would have in English the
uniform class of words, right, righteous, righteousness or
Tightness; and to righten or rectify, or set right.
But the only advantage Young gains in favour of
his argument by this substitution results from the
* " Vicarious Sacrifice," p. 439.

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 219
fact that his newly-coined term "to righten," having no
established usus loquendi, is necessarily ambiguous. The
word may with equal propriety be understood either in
the sense of rigldening a man subjectively, that is, mak
ing him inherently good, or of Tightening the man foren-
sically, or vindicating his claim to be regarded and
treated as standing in a right relation to the divine
law. The entire plausibility of Young's argument in
the chapter in question results from this ambiguity of
his chosen word. His theory of the nature of Christ's
work demands that "to righten" shall mean to make a
man subjectively right. On the other hand, as I have
shown, the Scripture usage of the words pis and dixatbo),
which are used by the Holy Ghost in the Old and New
Testaments, to express his mind upon the nature of this
"Tightening," demand that they be represented by an
English equivalent which, like the word to justify, means
precisely to pronounce a man to be just in the eye of law
— to be free of all legal demands. The newly-invented
term may be convenient to veil the real issue involved,
but it is impotent to avoid it. Sense, candor, and a
Hebrew and a Greek Concordance of the two Testa
ments, will settle this question both speedily and finally.
II. The advocates of the Governmental Theory of
the Atonement, while they agree with us that justifica
tion is, as above shown, a forensic act, yet, nevertheless,
are forced to differ from us as to the nature of justifica
tion in the following particulars.
1. As Christ, according to their view, did not suffer
strictly in the law-place of his people, and as their sins
were not really imputed to him, and as he did not die
with the purpose of expiating the sins of any particular

220 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
individuals, but to put all men generally into a salvable
state, it follows that his righteousness is not imputed to
the believer, and that it is only in some sense the occa
sion, but not at all the strict judicial ground, of our
justification. 2. As Christ's righteousness is not imputed to the be
liever as the ground of his justification, it follows that
that justification cannot be an act of God as Judge, pro
nouncing his judgment according to the fact that the
man is righteous — that is, free of all unsatisfied claims
of law, and entitled to the covenant rewards of right
eousness; it can only be a mere executive pardon pro
nounced by God as King, remitting the penalty due to
sin. 3. As justification is mere pardon, as it is a sovereign
and not a judicial act, and since it is not founded on
imputed righteousness, it follows that it must proceed
upon a relaxation of law by sovereign prerogative — an
exercise of prerogative in this case wisely guarded from
abuse by the governmental device of an atonement.
This wise relaxation of the claims of law, in which all
the interests of God, of the moral universe and of the
sinner are reconciled and provided for, involves two
things; (1) the admission of the sufferings of Christ,
in themselves of incomparably less value, in the place
of the real penalty of the law; and (2) the admission
of faith and evangelical obedience, in the place of that
perfect obedience which the law demands as the ground
of the sinner's j ustification. The first relaxation prepares
the way for the second, and renders it consistent with
the good of the moral universe. This makes faith the
ground and not the mere condition of salvation, and

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 221
assimilates the Governmental Theory, as to all essential
points, with the Arminian Soteriology.
In opposition to this view of the nature of justifi
cation, the Scriptures fully support the truth of the
doctrine common to all the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches, including the following points.
1. Justification is not mere pardon executed in virtue
of his kingly prerogative, but it is a judgment pro
nounced by God as Judge, to the effect that the believer
is in all respects free of the claims of law as a covenant
of life.
2. The ground upon which justification proceeds is
neither the sovereign prerogative of God, nor the faith
nor gracious obedience of the believer accepted in view
of Christ's exemplary suffering, but it is the all-perfect
righteousness of Christ, which, in the just judgment of
God as a matter of fact, belongs to the believer by the
terms of the covenant and for the purpose of justifica
tion, and which hence fulfils, in the rigour of justice, all
the demands of the law upon us.
1. Justification is not mere pardon.
It is of course believed on all hands (a) that justifica
tion includes pardon of sin as one of its main elements,
and (b) that this pardon in relation to the unworthy
subjects of it, who are selected from the great mass of
humanity neither better nor worse than themselves, is a
matter of grace absolutely sovereign. Hence justifica
tion is often set forth in Scripture as pardon (Isa. Iv. 7),
remission (Acts x. 43), forgiveness (Eph. i. 7), and the
non-imputation of sin (Rom. iv. 8), &c. But that justi
fication is not mere pardon is evident from the following

19

222 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Mere pardon is (a) the act of a sovereign waiving the
claims of the law and discharging the penalty, (b.) It
proceeds upon sovereign prerogative and the proprieties
of governmental policy to relax the demands of law,
but does not declare them satisfied, (c.) The effect of
mere pardon is simply to remit the penalty; it does not
advance the pardoned man to any positive favour, nor
entitle him to any positive reward.
But, on the contrary, justification is a judicial act of
God proceeding upon the fact that all the demands of
law upon the persons concerned are satisfied, and it pro
nounces believers to be entitled to the rewards condi
tioned upon obedience to the law as a covenant of life.
This is certain (1) from the uniform classical and New
Testament usage of the words dixacot;, dixatoauvrj, dixaiwpa,
dixaioa). The dixaioc; was " a person observant of rules,
hence observant of the rules of right," the moral law,
and hence a just man, or rectus, dixawawrj was the
character of the dfxatot; ; that in the man which conforms
to and fulfils the law.* Aixatbm is to proclaim a man
to be dixaioi;, that is, to possess a dixaioobvrj, or righteous
ness. No person confounds in Greek any more than in
English the ideas of justification and mere pardon ; and
the language which is uniformly used to express the one
cannot, by any fair interpretation, be held to convey the
other. The language necessarily suggests the function
of a judge, not of a sovereign, and it implies that the
law is satisfied, not relaxed, and that the person declared
to be just is entitled to whatever benefits have been
graciously made to depend, by covenant, upon the con
dition of perfect conformity to the law.
* Liddell & Scott's Lexicon.

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 223
(2.) The Scriptures declare that justification proceeds
upon the ground of a righteousness. " The righteous
ness of the law," " their own righteousness," is contrasted
with "the righteousness of God," "the righteousness of
faith." The former is declared not to be, but the latter
to be, the ground of justification. Hence Christ is said
to be "the Lord our righteousness" (Jer. xxiii. 6), and
"the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth" (Rom. x. 3-6); and we are said to be the
" righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v. 21, and 1 Cor.
v. 30. Justification is paraphrased as "the imputation
of righteousness without works," and "faith" is said to
be " imputed for righteousness." Rom. iv. 6, 22. " They
who receive the gift of righteousness shall reign in life
by Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even
so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon
all men unto justification of life. For as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Rom. v. 17-19. The essence of pardon is that a man is
forgiven without righteousness. The essence of justifica
tion is that a man is pronounced to be possessed of a
righteousness which fulfils the law.
(3.) According to his eternal covenant with the Father,
the work of Christ secures for his people not merely
pardon, but both (a) remission of the penalty due to sin,
and (b) a title to the purchased possession. Eph. i. 14.
Pardon effects nothing more than remission. But the
promise is that "the just by faith shall live." Eph. iii.
11. Justification carries with it the effects or conse
quences of "peace with God," "access and rejoicing in

224 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the glory of God," "reconciliation with God and salva
tion." Rom. v. 1-10. The blood of Christ is said to
effect not only remission of sins, but also "inheritance
among them that are sanctified," and the elevation of
those for whom it was shed, to be "kings and priests
unto God." Rev. i. 5, 6; Acts xxvi. 18.
2. The ground upon which God pronounces the justi
fication of shiners is not sovereign prerogative, but the
all-perfect "righteousness of Christ imputed to us and
received by faith alone."
When we say that justification is a judicial and not a
sovereign act of God, it is by no means intended by the
most rigid adherent of the old Calvinism that ever
lived to deny either of the following great and precious
truths, (a.) That the substitution of the person of
Christ in the place of his people, for the purpose of ful
filling both the precept and the penalty of the law in
our place, was an act of absolute sovereignty, the only
reason of which is the "counsel of his own will." Nor
(b) that the election of any individual sinner to a part
in that body which Christ represents in his obedience
and suffering was an act of sovereignty. Nor (c) that
as far as any claims of any sort on the part of the elect
sinner himself is concerned, the application of this re
demptive work of Christ to him in the gift of faith,
repentance and their gracious sequences is any the less
absolutely and unconditionally sovereign. These princi
ples belong fully as much to the old Calvinism as to the
New England Theology. But what we do mean to
affirm is precisely this: that God having, as Sovereign,
admitted the substitution of Christ in the law-place of
his elect, and having sovereignly chosen a given indi-

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 225
vidual to a place in their number, and having, according
to his promise to the Son, but sovereignly as far as con
cerns the man himself, conferred upon him the gift of
faith, he then proceeds as Judge to pronounce the fact that
the law is satisfied with respect to that man, because of
the perfect work wrought in his behalf by his Substitute.
Justification is precisely this judicial decision, recogniz
ing the believer as righteous (forensically), and providing
for his being so regarded and treated for ever.
Now the foundation of this act must be the righteous
ness of Christ, because (1) justification has been proved
above to be a forensic and judicial act, and not to be
mere pardon, but a pronouncing a man to be right before
the law. It must, therefore, proceed upon the ground
of a righteousness of some sort — that is, upon the appli
cation to the case of that which will in the sense of strict
justice satisfy the demands of law, and not the self-will
of the Sovereign.
But (2) the law demands either perfect obedience, past
and present, or the execution of the penalty. Conse
quently, "by the law can no flesh be justified," if respect
be had to their own imperfect obedience.
(3.) When the Scriptures declare that justification
does not proceed on the ground of human works, they
always use the words in a general sense to include works
of whatever kind. This excludes, of course, faith and
evangelical obedience, as well as obedience to the law of
the Adamic covenant. " And if it be of grace, it is no
more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But
if it be of works, then it is no more grace : otherwise
works is no more works." Rom. xi. 6. "Now to him
that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but

226 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. Even as David describeth the blessedness
of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness with
out works." Rom. iv. 4-6.
(4.) The fact that this justification of the sinner pro
ceeds upon the ground of Christ's righteousness made
forensically the sinner's righteousness by imputation is
directly asserted in Scripture. As we proved in a pre
ceding chapter that the guilt or obligation to punishment
attaching to our sins was charged upon Christ and ex
piated in his person, so we now see that the Scriptures
teach with equal clearness the correlative truth that the
rewardableness attaching to Christ's righteousness is
actually credited to the believer, and rewarded in the
whole process of his salvation. Christ is called "the
Lord our righteousness." Jer. xxiii. 6. He is said to be
" the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth." Rom. x. 4. He is "made unto us wisdom,
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 1
Cor. i. 30. " He was made sin for us, who knew no sin,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
2 Cor. v. 21. "Therefore as by the offence of one, judg
ment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men
to justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so BY the obedience op ONE
SHALL MANY BE MADE RIGHTEOUS." Rom. V. 18, 19. It
is often said that faith "is imputed for righteousness."
Rom. iv. 9, 22. But the specific faith which justifies is
faith in or on (etc; or iitt) Christ Jesus. Acts ix. 42 ; xvi.
31; Gal. ii. 16. Its very essence, therefore, is trust

DOCTRINE OP JUSTIFICATION. 227
upon him and his sin-expiating and life-purchasing
merits. Its very essence consists in its self-emptying,
self-denying, Christ-grasping energy. The phrase "to
impute or reckon faith for righteousness " represents no
thinkable idea, unless it means to reckon as the right
eousness of the sinner that righteousness which his faith
trusts and appropriates. The mere act of leaning will
never support a fainting man, unless he leans upon some
object capable of supporting his weight. In that case it
is the object which is reckoned his support, and not his
act of leaning. The act of leaning is the same whether
a man leans upon a broken reed or upon a rock, while
the results differ. The act of trusting is the same
whether a man trusts a false foundation or to Christ.
The difference in the result arises from the fact that the
righteousness of Christ, upon which his faith reposes, is
made his so far forth as to answer all the conditions and
to secure all the rewards of the Covenant of Life.

CHAPTER XV.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE,
AS TO THE NATURE AND OFFICE OF FAITH.
OUR view of the nature of the Atonement, and of the
federal union subsisting between Christ and his
people, is the only one consistent with the teaching of
Scripture as to the nature and office of faith.
The most prominent and important characteristic of
the gospel preached by the apostles is, that they habitu
ally presented salvation to all their hearers as an instant
gift to follow immediately upon the exercise by them of
faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing beside this
was required. No other condition was necessary in
addition to this in order to render it effective. When
ever this condition was present, the gift of salvation was
in no case either denied or delayed. The single direc
tion given to every inquirer was, " Believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Now it is susceptible of demonstration that this faith,
as set forth in Scripture as the condition of salvation, is
not mere assent of the mind to the claims of Christ's
person or to the truth of his doctrine, but that, together
with this assent, it includes trust or reliance upon him
and his finished work. This is certain, because —
1. To believe "in" or "on" a person necessarily in-
228

NATURE AND EFFECT OF FAITH. 229
volves trust, reliance, of which his character and his
doings are the ground, as well as credit or assent to the
truthfulness of his communications. And it is a fact
that the sole condition of salvation is habitually pre
sented in the Scriptures by the phrases, " to believe in or
upon Christ Jesus ;" e«c ov.ini zbv Xpiazov, and ej'c zb ovopa
Xpiazou, and iv r<p Xpiazut. John iii. 18: "He that
believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." John
iii. 36 : " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life." John vii. 38 : " He that believeth on me, as the
Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of
living water." Acts ix. 42; xvi. 31: "And they said
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (ini zbv Kupiov, &c),
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Gal. ii. 16 :
"Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might
be justified by the faith of Christ."
2. We are said to be saved by faith in or upon Christ,
nlarii; elz zbv Xptazbv and ev Xpiaza). Acts xx. 21 ;
xxvi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; Col. i. 4.
3. This one special act of faith, which is the single
• yet indispensable condition of salvation, is in Scripture
illustrated by a variety of paraphrases, describing in
other words the nature of the thing to be done. These
are such as, " Coming to Christ ;" John vi. 35 : "I am
the bread of life; he that cometh to me, shall never
hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never
thirst." Receiving Christ; John i. 12: "But as many
as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
Flying to Christ for refuge; Heb. vi. 18: "That by
20

230 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
two immutable things, in which it was impossible for
God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who
have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before
us." Committing all our interests to his keeping; 2
Tim. i. 12: "For I know whom I have believed, and
am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have
committed unto him against that day."
4. The effects inseparable from this faith are of such
a nature as to show that the faith itself is an act of the
whole soul embracing Christ, relying upon him and
appropriating his whole work as the basis of our future
life and happiness. By faith we are united to Christ.
He dwells in our hearts by faith. Eph. iii. 17. It is
by faith that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the
Son of God. "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." John vi.
56, &c.
It must be remembered that this form of presenting
the gospel is not one form among several others, but it
is the one sole way in which the gospel was offered by
the apostles to sinners in their day, and it is the form in
which the gospel has always been presented, when it has
been accompanied with the witness of the Holy Ghost, •
. from the day of Pentecost until the present time. And
if the Church doctrine of the literal substitution of Christ
in the law-place of his people, and his vicarious suffer
ing of their penalty in order to expiate them and pro
pitiate God, is acknowledged, then all this scriptural
usage with respect to faith in Christ as the sole condition
of salvation is very plain. If his sufferings exhaust the
penalty for which we were bound — if his obedience
merits an eternal reward for us — then all we can have to

NATURE AND EFFECT OF FAITH. 231
do is to accept and appropriate his finished substitution
ary work, and to trust upon it implicitly as the legal and
meritorious foundation on which our entire hope is built.
And such a faith, when once exercised, will immediately
secure its end. The instant we believe, the righteousness
of Christ in all its fulness and federal rights is ours for
ever. And the instant we exercise such a faith, we are
united forensically to its object in an ineffable and per
petual communion (xoivwvia) of all relations, honours
and rights.
On the other hand, according to the Moral Influence
Hypothesis, a sinner may with evident propriety be
called to credit the communications of the divine
Messiah, and to yield obedience and sympathy to the
spiritual influence of the heavenly Medium of the Fa^
ther's love to man. But on this hypothesis, it is only
in a very far-fetched sense that we could be said to trust
on him, and to commit all our interests to his charge.
And it is simply preposterous to pretend that the Scrip
tures would make trust in Christ the one sole and essen
tial thing to be done in order to the remission of sins,
if the whole design and effect of the work of Christ
. was to produce a moral impression upon ourselves, that
is, save us by persuading us to be good. If that were
so, the one characteristic point of the gospel would be
to make us look inward and reform. On the other
hand, as above shown, and as the whole world knows,
the one characteristic point of the gospel is to make us
look outward to Christ, and trust self-abandoningly upon
him. It is true, also, that the scriptural language with re
spect to faith refuses absolutely to coalesce with the

232 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Governmental Hypothesis. If it be true that Christ
did not suffer in the strict sense as our Substitute; if he
did not occupy our law-place in the covenant upon the
fulfilment of which our life was suspended; if he did
not suffer the penalty of the law in our stead; if his
righteousness is not credited to our account as the ground
of our justification ; if the effect of his death is actually
to save none, but to put all men indiscriminately in a
salvable state; — then, in such a case, there can obviously
be no propriety in our being required to believe on
Christ as the one sole condition of salvation. In such a
case it would be congruous enough to require us to sub
mit to God as Sovereign, and to credit the personal
claims, the official character, and the infallible teaching
of Christ. We may even with sufficient propriety be
required to trust to his work as far as it is concerned in
putting us in a salvable condition. But it plainly would
be absurd, in that case, to make the one sole condition
upon which remission of sins and actual salvation is
instantly suspended to be trust upon Christ — ignoring
the fact that his work, costly as it is, is only one of the
. independent grounds on which our salvation depends.
On the Governmental Hypothesis, faith must be either
(a) the sovereignly imposed condition of salvation, or
(b) as including evangelical obedience accepted in the
place of perfect legal obedience for Christ's sake, as the
ground of our justification. But since saving or justify
ing faith, as above shown, involves trust, its very essence
excludes the possibility of its being itself the ground
upon which justification depends. Faith is in its nature
self-emptying, appropriating and building upon that on
which its trust terminates. If belief in or upon Christ

NATURE AND EFFECT OF FAITH. 233
is the sole condition of salvation, if it is the one thing
to be done by the inquirer, and if salvation invariably
follows upon its exercise, then it is beyond question that
Christ's person and work, on which the faith terminates,
must be the ground, the meritorious principle, on which
the salvation rests, and the efficient virtue by which it is
effected. Thus the very nature of saving faith, as set forth in
the constant language of Scripture, makes it evident
that it is the instrument whereby we are united to Christ
and made participants in his righteousness, and in all
the covenanted consequences thereof.
20 *

CHAPTER XVI.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
ATONEMENT PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH
AS TO ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IN ORDER TO THE SAL
VATION OF SINNERS.
THE orthodox doctrine of the nature of the Atonement
is further certainly established by the teaching of
Scripture as to the sense in which the expiation of sin
by Christ was an absolutely essential prerequisite in order
to the salvation of sinful men, and therefore necessary
to that end. It is earnestly maintained by all Calvinists
that since all men are sinners, whose natural claims as
mere creatures upon their Creator are justly forfeited,
salvation must spring, up, if at all, out of grace as a
product of the sovereign will of God. If, therefore,
salvation be a matter of grace and sovereignty, it cannot
be a matter of necessity in any sense of the word what
soever. But on the hypothesis that it is the purpose of
God to save guilty men, the question must arise, In what
sense, and on what grounds, was the atoning work of
Christ necessary to that end?
This question has been much discussed among theo
logians, and different answers have been given by
different classes of them, in correspondence with the
fundamental principles of their respective systems. The
Socinians hold that the work of Christ, as a whole, was
234

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 235
one of doubtless many plans subject to God's selection,
by which he could soften the hearts of men and bring
them to repentance. The advocates of the Govern
mental Theory hold that his sufferings and death were
necessary in order to make a moral impression on the
subjects of God's moral government generally, so that
the honour of the law may be upheld, and its subjects
duly impressed with the evil of sin and the certainty of
its punishment, notwithstanding the special instance of
impunity allowed in the case of sinners among mankind.
Dr. Twisse and others held it to be necessary simply
because God had determined that he would forgive sin
on no other condition. Thomas Aquinas* held that it
was impossible that the punishment of sin could be re
mitted absolutely — that is, inflicted neither upon the
sinner nor upon his substitute — if justice be taken into the
account. Yet he maintained that because of God's abso
lute sovereignty, it would not have been unjust in God,
if he had so willed it, to ignore the claims of justice, and
to remit sin by simple prerogative, without any satisfac
tion at all. The great body of the Church, on the other
hand, have uniformly held that it is essential to the
very nature of justice (a) that it should be ^luntary,
that is, spontaneous and free in the divine nature, but
(b) that its exercise should not be optional. Hence the
Church doctrine has always been, that if the sinner is to
be forgiven, an adequate satisfaction to divine justice, in
the real expiation of the sin, is absolutely necessary to
that end.
It is obvious that this question is identical with one
discussed under a former head, viz., What is the reason
* Shedd's Hist. Doct., pp. 305-307.

236 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
why God punishes sin ? Is that reason to be found in the
bare fact of his own will; or in the moral state of the
individual sinner; or in the moral impression it is de
sirable to make on the general community subject to the
divine government; or does it lie in the immutable
nature of God himself? It is evident that, if it depends
upon the bare will of God, the necessity for its provision
is purely contingent upon his will. If the reason for it
results from the obduracy of sinners otherwise irreme
diable, or in the exigencies of the divine government, or
in conditions of the public mind of the subjects of that
government in general, then the necessity alleged is still
contingent on the will of God, because these grounds
or occasions for the Atonement might, of course, one
and all, be removed by the gracious power of the Holy
Ghost acting directly upon the hearts of his creatures,
and inducing whatever moral state he desired, if he had
so willed. But, on the other hand, if the necessity in
question results from the immutable demands of the
divine nature, it is obviously absolute in order to the
forgiveness of the sinner, and contingent neither upon
the divine will nor upon the moral condition of the
creature,s Hence, conversely, if the necessity for the
Atonement be absolute, it follows that it must have its
ground in the divine nature, and not in the exigencies
of government or the condition of the creatures. The
argument in both directions is conclusive, alike when it
proceeds from the nature of the Atonement to its neces
sity, and when it proceeds from its necessity to its nature.
I have in a previous chapter proved the necessity of the
Atonement, and consequently its nature, from the holiness
of the divine nature, and from the immutability of the

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 237
divine law. At present, I propose to present those bib
lical statements which directly establish the fact that
the necessity for the Atonement of Christ to the end of
the remission of sins is absolute, and which, by imme
diate and unavoidable inference, establish the conclusion
that the ground of that necessity must lie in the divine
nature, and neither in the obduracy of the sinner nor in
the exigencies of the divine government.
The fact that the necessity for the Atonement, in order
to the salvation of sinners, is absolute, is to be certainly
inferred from the following scriptural data.
1. It may be inferred from the amazing greatness of
the sacrifice. The Scriptures constantly speak of the
sacrifice of the Son by the Father as an unparalleled
wonder. All else that God will or can do is as nothing
in comparison with the gift of Christ. If God "spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how
shall he not with him also freely give us all things ?"
Rom. viii. 32. This sacrifice would be most painfully
irrelevant if it were anything short of absolutely neces
sary in relation to the end designed to be attained — that
is, unless it be indeed the only possible means to the
salvation of sinful men. God surely would not have
made his Son a wanton sacrifice to a point of bare will.
Christ certainly would not have been sacrificed if divine
wisdom could have devised, or if divine power could
have executed, any other process capable of effecting the
end designed — that is, the redemption of men from the
curse of that law.
2. The same truth is asserted in effect in Gal. ii. 21 :
" If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead
in vain." In the original there is no article before the

238 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
word vbpoc; (law). The affirmation of the text is, that
if righteousness by law (dia vbpoo), by any law whatso
ever, were possible for man, then Christ is dead in vain.
So great a sacrifice as this is misplaced, is to all intents
in vain, thrown away, made without adequate purpose,
if any other means could have attained the end.
3. Again, in Gal. iii. 21, it is said: "If a law had
been given which could have given life, verily righteous
ness should have been by the law." God can give no
law whose requirements fall short of absolute perfection,
otherwise he would deny himself. There can be no
change or compromise of righteousness. But in the case
of man this all-perfect law can only demand and con
demn. It is not the function of law to empower, nor to
remit, nor to give life, nor to atone. Verily Christ
would never have been sacrificed if righteousness could
have been by law.
4. God expressly measures his love to his people by
his gift of his Son to die for them. " God so loved
the world that he gave his only-begotten Son." John
iii. 16. "God COMMENDETH HIS LOVE TOWARD US,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Rom. v. 8. " In this was manifested the love of God
toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son
into the world, that we might live through him." 1 John
iv. 9. This is an amazing truth, and it is true just be
cause the sacrifice of Christ was necessary to secure the
salvation of those God loved ; and hence the greatness
of his love to us is measured by the greatness of his
sacrifice for us. But if the sacrifice was not necessary
in tile strict sense of that term, then there must have
been some one or more alternatives at God's disposal,

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 239
and hence the sacrifice of Christ, the alternative chosen,
could be in no true sense a measure of his love for his
people, but only of his own unwillingness to adopt any
other one of the possible alternatives.
5. Paul declares, Rom. iii. 25, 26, "That Christ was
set forth to be a propitiation (iXaazypiov, expiation)
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins that are past." That is, the
expiatory work of Christ is set forth as the vindication
of the righteousness or essential holiness of God, in re
spect to the fact that he had remitted sins in time past.
And he proceeds " to declare, I say, at this time his right
eousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus." It is absolutely necessary
that God should be just. This he eternally is. But
that he should be just while he justifies the unjust, it was
necessary that Christ should be offered a piacular sacri
fice for sin. Therefore the sacrifice of Christ, considered
as a means to the justification of sinners, was an absolute
necessity. And therefore it follows, as shown above, that
the ground of that necessity must lie in the divine na
ture — which is the one only absolute ground of necessity
in the universe. And if the ground for the necessity
for the Atonement is in the constitution of the divine
nature, it follows that the Atonement, as to its nature, is
a satisfaction by vicarious penal sufferings of the de
mands of the divine nature.

CHAPTER XVII.
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT DETERMINED BY WHAT
THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO ITS PERFECTION.
THE question as to the PERFECTION of the atoning
work of Christ has often been agitated in the
Church. It relates to two distinct points, (a.) Is that
work perfect as to its intrinsic justice-satisfying value?
Does it fully satisfy all the demands of the law by rea
son of its own inherent merit. And (b) as to its appli
cation and effect, is the atoning work, of Christ so
complete in itself that it secures the salvation of those
for whom it was made? Or does it only put the sinner in
a salvable state, leaving the result to depend upon other
conditions? I. The first point, it is evident, would have no rele
vancy whatsoever on the supposition of the truth of the
Moral Influence Theory. If the one design of Christ's
sufferings is to touch our hearts and subdue our affec
tions, the efficiency of the work must depend upon every
man's subjective appreciation of Christ's person, of his
motives, and of the necessity and value of his interven
tions in our behalf. The advocates of the Governmental
Theory deny that Christ suffered the penalty of the law,
or that his sufferings were in intrinsic value a full
equivalent for the penal sufferings in person of all those
in whose behalf he suffered. They maintain that since
240

PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 241
these sufferings are an expedient to secure certain ends
in the administration of the divine government, they are
introduced and acted on in the remission of sins by God
in his capacity of a Sovereign, and not as a Judge. He
wills to accept the satisfaction of Christ, not because in
its intrinsic nature it is a full equivalent in rigour of
justice for the personal punishment of his people, but
because his wise and benevolent mind sees that he may
do so with perfect safety to all the best interests of his
general government.
Duns Scotus, referring the necessity for the Atonement
ultimately to the will and not to the nature of God,
consequently maintained that God could have forgiven
sin without any satisfaction; that if he had so willed,
he might have proposed conditions of forgiveness other
than those fulfilled by Christ; and that the temporary
and finite sufferings of Christ are accepted by God, in
the gracious exercise of sovereign prerogative, as a sub
stitute, but not as a full, legal equivalent for the eternal
sufferings of men. This principle Scotus expressed by
the term acceptilatio, borrowed from the Roman law,
and defined as "the optional taking of something for,
nothing, or of a part for the whole."
Grotius, in his great work De Satisf actione, rejected
the term acceptilatio, but retained substantially the
idea. He refers the necessity of the Atonement to the
interests of good order in the universe. He considers
the optional will of God the ground and origin of law,
and maintains that the demands of law may of course
be relaxed by the choice of the same will that creates
them. He held that Christ did not pay in the stead of
sinners a quid pro quo but an aliud pro quo, which God
21

242 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
graciously accepts; that is, God's law is not satisfied in
rigour of j ustice by what Christ has done, but he has
sovereignly relaxed it, so that it is virtually, that is, in
practical effect, satisfied thereby. Limborch says: "The
satisfaction of Christ is so called (by some) because that
he for our sakes endured all the penalties charged against
our sins, and by fully discharging them he made satis
faction to divine justice. But that opinion has no
foundation in Scripture. The death of Christ is called
a sacrifice for sin ; but sacrifices were not payments of
debts, neither were they full satisfactions f»r sins; but
the penalty was gratuitously remitted on condition that
the sacrifice was offered."* . . . "In this they greatly
err, because they consider the price of redemption to be
in all things equivalent to those miseries from which
redemption is secured. The price of redemption was
determined by the estimation of him who held the cap
tive, and did not release the captive on the ground of
merit." f
Curcellaaus says: J "Christ did not, therefore, as is
commonly thought, make satisfaction by suffering all
those penal evils which we merited for our sins; for, in
the first place, this does not pertain to the nature or
purpose of sacrifice; for sacrifices were not the payment
of debts : secondly, Christ has not suffered eternal death,
which was the penalty deserved by our sin, for he hung
upon the cross only for a few hours, and rose again the
third day. Even if he had undergone eternal death, it
does not appear how he could have made satisfaction for
all the sins of the whole world ; for this would have
* Apol. Thes. iii. 21, 6. f Ibid. 21, 8.
% Institutio Eel. Christ., vol. v., chap, xix., \ 5.

PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 243
been only one death, which never could have equalled
all the deaths which individual men merited for their
respective sins. . . . Fourthly, this opinion cannot possi
bly be made consistent with the gratuitous remission of
all sins, which the Scriptures everywhere teach that God,
in his infinite mercy, concedes to us in Christ."
The Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Churches have
held, ou the other hand, that the penal satisfaction made
by the sufferings of Christ to the law and justice of
God is in its own intrinsic value a full equivalent in the
strict rigour of justice for the penal sufferings of all
men for ever, and that God accepts and acts upon this
satisfaction in the justification of believers in his capacity
of Judge, not in the exercise of sovereign prerogative,
acknowledging its intrinsic value and full adequacy
to the end designed, as a matter of fact, and not
by any gratuitous acceptilation or gracious estimation,
arbitrarily raising the sacrifice up to the level of the
law, nor by any sovereign relaxation letting down the
law to the level of the substituted penal sufferings. We
do not here appeal to the perfection of the Atonement
to prove the truth of our view of its nature. On the
contrary, we rather prove that 'our view, as to its in
herent perfection, is correct from what has been already
sufficiently proved as to its nature and necessity. If the
Atonement was absolutely necessary in order to satisfy
the immutable justice of God, and if it consisted in
Christ's bearing in our stead the literal penalty of the
law in full rigour, then it is plain that, in its intrinsic
value, it was fully equal to all that the law demanded
of those for whom he acted. Since he was a divine
person, Christ was of course above all the possible claims

244 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of law. In virtue of his human nature a divine Person
was made vicariously under the law for us. Hence hia
obedience, both active and passive, was evidently, as far
as he himself was concerned, a work of supererogation ;
demanded not of himself; needed not by himself; and
wholly accruing to the credit of those for whom he acted.
And since he was the eternal Son of God, who conde
scended to suffer and obey, to suffer terribly and shame
fully, to fulfil all his obedience, the details of "all
righteousness," although it were but for a time, it is
evident enough that the intrinsic value of his work is
more than equal to all that his people could have suffered
and obeyed under any possible conditions for any possi
ble time. The difficulty which a Christian experiences
is surely not to believe this, but rather to understand
why infinite wisdom saw it to be necessary to exact so
much of such a Sufferer.
II. The second point debated concerning the perfection
of Christ's satisfaction relates to its application or effect.
Thomas Aquinas taught that the passion of the Re
deemer was not only a sufficient but a superabundant
satisfaction for the sins of men. The Romish Church
adopted this idea, and adjusted it to their hierarchical
system. Christ's merit is superabundant. It belongs
to the Church, its depository and authorized dispenser.
This merit avails directly, through the instrumentality
of baptism, to the removal of the guilt of original sin
and of all those actual transgressions which preceded
baptism. The penalty accruing for the guilt of post-
baptismal sins has, in virtue of Christ's merit, been
transmuted from eternal death to temporal pains, and all
such temporal pains are accepted as sufficient only for

PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 245
Christ's sake. Nevertheless, a person guilty of post-
baptismal sins must, in order to their forgiveness, expiate
them either by penances and works of charity, or in the
next world by the pains of purgatory; all of which are
necessary and possess, for Christ's sake, a real expiatory
virtue. And hence also the efficacy of sacramental
grace, priestly absolution, plenary indulgences, &c, re
sults from the fund of merit lodged in the Church,
accruing from the superabundance of Christ's satisfac
tion. The advocates of the Governmental Theory of the
Atonement, and indeed all the advocates of an in
definite Atonement generally, necessarily hold, with
respect to the designed application or effect of Christ's
satisfaction, that it actually avails to save no one, but
only by removing legal obstacles to make the salvation
of all men possible. In this view, his satisfaction is only
one of the conditions upon which the salvation of all
men depends, but it is not its great efficient cause, carry
ing with it as subordinate to it all other causes and con
ditions. The work of Christ is thus in itself considered
so far imperfect that it may totally fail of any saving
effect in a single case, and it needs to be rendered per
fect as an efficient cause of salvation by some co-operat
ing cause ah extra, derived either (a) from the sovereign
decree of God, or (b) from the free wills of men.
In answer to the Romanists we affirm —
1. The Bible represents all the sufferings of believers
in this life as disciplinary, designed to advance their
moral and spiritual improvement, and having no respect
whatever to the expiation of guilt. The removal of
condemnation is referred solely to the work of Christ
21 *

246 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
(Rom. viii. 1, 33, 34), and the design of discipline is
referred solely to the paternal purpose of improving the
persons exercised thereby, "for our profit, that we may
be partakers of his holiness." Heb. xii. 5-11.
2. The Scriptures declare that "the blood of Jesus
Christ cleanseth from all sin." 1 John i. 7. And that
" by one offering for sin he hath for ever perfected them
that are sanctified." Heb. x. 12, 14. And that all
Christians "are complete in him, which is the head of
all principality and power." Col. ii. 10.
3. Trust in the one sacrifice of Christ is made the
sole condition of acceptance and favour at all times.
But this act of trust necessarily, from its very nature,
excludes all dependence whatsoever upon the expiatory
value of our own sufferings, or upon the merit of our
own services.
In answer to the Protestant impugners of the absolute
perfection of the satisfaction of Christ as the alone pro
curing cause of the salvation of his people, I call to
witness, in addition to what has been cited against the
kindred position of, the Romanists, the fact, that the
Scriptures habitually and characteristically, and in every
variety of form, assert that the satisfaction of Christ
effects the deliverance, the redemption, the salvation, the
adoption, the sanctification, &c, &c, of his people.
Every reader of the Scriptures knows that they con
stantly declare that the Father gave the Son to death,
and that the Son submitted to die, for the purpose of
effecting these, things. Every reader knows that the
Scriptures constantly declare that the obedience and
sufferings of Christ actually effect these things. They
do, as a matter of fact, "save us," "redeem us," "recon-

PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 247
cile us to the Father," secure for us "the adoption of
sons," "the indwelling" and all the "fruits of the
Spirit." If this be so, then unquestionably Christ, by
his expiatory sacrifice, did not merely make salvation
possible. His sacrifice must secure that salvation as a
whole, and all that is included in it. Not the end with
out the means, but the end through the means ; not eter
nal life without faith and obedience, but faith and
obedience in order to eternal life. In this respect the
redemption of Christ is like the eternal decree of God.
It does not alter any natural relation sustained by the
several elements involved in the believer's life to the
means of grace, the exercises of free will, and the neces
sity for gracious affection and obedience, but it does
render the event it was designed to secure certain, and
in order to that end secures all the antecedents and con
ditions upon which that event depends or to which it is
related. We will not be saved without faith and obe
dience, but our precious Saviour left no such conditions
unprovided for. The faith, the obedience, and the per
severance to the end were as surely purchased by the
great all-perfect sacrifice as were the remission of the
penalty and final salvation.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE SATISFACTION RENDERED BY CHRIST PROVED TO EM
BRACE HIS ACTIVE AS WELL AS HIS PASSIVE OBEDIENCE.
I PROPOSE to prove, in conclusion, that our blessed
Lord, having assumed our law-place, and, as our Sub
stitute, become responsible for all our obligations to the
law in its federal relation, has discharged them by his
obedience as well as by his sufferings — having, by his
sufferings, cancelled the claims of penal justice, and by
his obedience merited the rewards of that original Cove
nant of Life under which all men were held.
In the third chapter I have stated the reasons why
the word Atonement fails unambiguously and compre
hensively to express the entire nature of the work
wrought by our Lord for our redemption, (a.) While
it properly, as the English equivalent for the Hebrew
13D, means to make expiation for sin by means of a
vicarious infliction or endurance of the penalty, it is
nevertheless used by many to express mere reconciliation,
at-one-ment. (6.) Even when it is settled that the word
"to atone" is equivalent to the phrase "to make expia
tion," the difficulty still presses, that it is too narrow for
the use to which it is put, and cannot properly cover all
that Christ has done for the discharge of our legal obli
gations. The Scriptures teach us plainly that Christ's
obedience was as truly vicarious as was his suffering,
248

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 249
and that he reconciled us to the Father by the one as
well as by the other. Now the word Atonement sig
nalizes only the expiation of our guilt by Christ's vica
rious sufferings, but expresses nothing concerning the
relation which his obedience sustains to our salvation, as
that meritorious condition upon which the divine favour
and the promised reward have by covenant been sus
pended. On the other hand, the word Satisfaction ex
actly and exhaustively expresses all that Christ has done
as our Substitute, in our stead, for our sakes, to the end
of satisfying in our behalf the federal demands of the
law, and of securing for us the rewards conditioned upon
their fulfilment. His whole work was of the nature of
a satisfaction. As far as it consisted of penal suffering,
it satisfied the penalty of the law and the justice of the
Law-giver; and as far as it consisted of obedience, it
satisfied the conditions of the covenant upon which the
divine favour towards his people was suspended.
The great defect of Symington's otherwise orthodox
and excellent work on the Atonement is that, while he
admits Christ's obedience to be vicarious, and to have
merited for us the rewards of the Covenant of Life, he
yet insists that the work of expiation, under the title of
"Atonement," ought to be discussed separately, while
his vicarious obedience, and its relation to the rewards
of an impeccable moral character and eternal felicity, is
left out of sight. On the contrary, I affirm —
1. In opposition to Symington — who, while admitting
that Christ's obedience and sufferings were alike vicari
ous and alike essential in order to our salvation, yet
unnaturally separates them — that since they are in
separable parts of one perfect work of satisfaction, which

250 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
are never separated either in the mediatorial work of
Christ or in their effect upon the covenant-standing of
his people, therefore, they cannot be properly separated
in any complete account of his work. The whole
earthly life of Christ, including his birth itself, was one
continued self-emptying even unto death. His birth
and every moment of his life, in the form of a servant,
was of the nature of holy suffering. Every experience
of pain during the whole course of his life, and emi
nently in his death on the cross, was, on his part, a
voluntary and meritorious act of obedience. He lived
his whole life, from his birth to his death, as our re
presentative, obeying and suffering in our stead and
for our sakes; and during this whole course all his
suffering was obedience and all his obedience was suffer
ing. The righteousness which he wrought out for his
people consisted precisely in this suffering obedience.
The righteousness of Christ, which is imputed severally
to each believer as the ground of his justification, con
sists precisely of this obedient suffering. His earthly
life, as suffering, cancels the penalty, and, as obedience,
fulfils the precept and secures the promised reward ; but
the suffering and the obedience were not separated in
fact, and are inseparable in principle, and equally neces
sary to satisfy the law of the covenant and to secure the
salvation of the elect.
2. In opposition to all those who deny that Christ's
obedience was vicarious, or, strictly speaking, any part
of his work of redemption, I propose to show, that his
obedience is an inseparable element of that righteousness
which he wrought in our stead, and which is imputed to
us as the ground of our justification.

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 251
In the sixth chapter I distinguished the three distinct
relations which men may sustain to the law — the natu
ral, federal and penal. The natural relation is that into
which each moral agent is introduced by the very fact
of his creation, and under which he continues necessa
rily to exist as long as he has being. It is unchangeable
and inalienable, incapable of relaxation, intermission,
modification or transfer; and under it the same law con
tinues perpetually the standard of moral character and
obligation, alike to angels and devils, to men under pro
bation, fallen and unregenerate, in perdition, regenerate
and confirmed in glory. The federal relation is that tem
porary and special relation under which it, has pleased
God to introduce all of those orders of moral agents
with which we are acquainted immediately after their
creation. They are brought under it in the character
of those created holy yet fallible, in a state of unstable
moral equilibrium. The relation is special, because it
has for its end the special design of affording those sub
ject to it an opportunity of rendering obedience, while
open to the full force of temptation and liable to seduc
tion, as the condition of their being endowed by God
with the supernatural grace of a confirmed and impecca
ble moral character, and the blessedness thence resulting
for ever. This relation is temporary, because from its
very nature it must, in every event, be terminated, ipso
facto, either by the first sin which brings in the penalty,
or by the granting of the promised reward when the
conditions upon which it has been suspended have
been accomplished. The penal relation comes in when
the law has been broken, and the trial has ceased. It
springs out of the essential nature of the law, and con-

252 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
tinues in force until that perfect righteousness of which
the penalty is the outward expression is completely
satisfied. It is notorious that, as a matter of fact, men have
sustained all of these relations to the law, and that by
reason of sin they are condemned in each. They are
under perpetual obligation to be conformed to the law
as a standard of character and as a rule of action, but
they are wholly unable to meet the obligation. Their
hopes of eternal well-being were all suspended upon the
conditions undertaken by the first Adam in the garden,
but all this is already and for ever forfeited by past dis
obedience. They are justly subject to the penalty of
eternal death. They must be restored to conformity to
the law, in all these respects, by a power exterior to
themselves, or they cannot be saved. As a matter of
fact, believers are restored to conformity to the law, in
its natural relation, as a standard of character and as a
rule of life, by the Holy Ghost regenerating and sancti
fying them. But their restoration to conformity to the
law, in its penal and federal relations, is accomplished
by Christ through his one work of obedient suffering
even unto death. If he assumed our place, so as to
suffer the penalty in our stead, he must, at the same time,
have secured our title to the reward conditioned upon
obedience by means of his perfect obedience, which was
inseparably implicated with his sufferings, and which was
rendered in the same covenant relation in our stead as
well as in our behalf. All that Christ did on earth he did
as Mediator. He was acting in our stead while he was
obeying as well as while he was suffering. The active
and passive righteousness of Christ were never, in fact,

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 253
separated from each other, and therefore, except in their
logical discrimination, we should never exhibit them as
separated. They were wrought together by Christ as
our Substitute as his one work of redemption. It was
with reference to both of these conjointly that Jesus is
called "the Lord our righteousness." So says John
Wesley, as quoted by Richard Watson.* Therefore no
view of the nature, relation and effects of the one which
excludes all consideration of the other can be accurate,
and much less can it be complete. They consequently
should never be separated, but should be regarded as
the inseparable parts of one organic whole, and signal
ized by a title capable of embracing both. Satisfaction
is the genus including the two complementary species,
obedience and penal sufferings.
The principle which lies at the bottom of this distinc
tion was first discriminated by Thomas Aquinas, f and
by him denoted by the terms satisfactio and meritum.
By satisfactio he meant the complete fulfilment of all
the claims of law and justice with respect to the penalty.
By meritum he meant that which secures, by virtue of
the divine promise, the favour of God and everlasting
well-being. Both the Lutheran and the Reformed
Churches, recognizing the validity of this distinction,
have maintained in their Confessions that Christ, as the
second Adam, assumed all our covenant responsibilities
precisely at that point in the process to which the first
Adam had brought them when he fell. The penalty he
exhaustively discharged, in strict rigour of justice, by
means of all his life-long sufferings culminating in his
death. And the condition of perfect obedience, on which
* Theo. Inst., vol. ii , p. 224. 1 Died, 1274.
22

254 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the promised reward was suspended, by the unfailing obe
dience of his entire life. Through the whole of Christ's
life there ran an element of infinite humiliation, especially
in his death. Every act, therefore, was, in one aspect,
an item of vicarious suffering, and in another aspect, an
item of vicarious obedience to the will of his Father.
Both elements were necessary, and they are as insepara
ble as color and surface, or as matter and form. Yet it
is necessary to discriminate them as to both their essence
and their effects. That is, the perfect and painful obe
dience of his life and death must be viewed (a) as a
guilt-expiating endurance of the penalty of the law in
the stead of his people, and (6) as that which by God's
free promise has been made, to all those represented
by Christ, the condition of divine favour and of eternal
well-being. In the one aspect, the obedience is called
passive, to signalize it as penal suffering. In another
aspect, the same obedience is called active, to signalize it
as the doing of that which is commanded. "The ques
tion then returns, Whether the satisfaction rendered by
Christ in our place is to be confined to his death, or to
those sufferings which preceded and accompanied it; or
whether it truly embraced all those things which Christ
did and suffered for us from the beginning of his life even
unto the end ? Which last we affirm."* The truth of
this position is established by the following considera
tions. I. The law, as a covenant of life, was accompanied
by two sanctions : (a.) The promise of divine favour and
eternal well-being, conditioned upon perfect obedience;
and (6) the penalty of "death" suspended on disobe-
* Turretin, Locus 14, Qutes. 13.

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 255
dience. Moses declared that the legal condition of
salvation was, that "the man that doeth these things
shall live by them." Lev. xviii. 5. Compare Rom. x.
5, and Gal. iii. 12. Christ declared the principle of the
law to the young ruler thus: "If thou wilt enter into
life, keep the commandments." Matt. xix. 17. Eternal
life, the adoption of sons, the eternal inheritance, are
conditioned only on obedience. The gospel does not
proceed upon the ruins of the law, but "Christ is the
end of the law for righteousness to every one that be
lieveth," and the object for which he came in the flesh
was "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled
in us." All the conditions, therefore, must be met. If
the whole work of Christ's satisfaction ended in his
suffering in our stead the penalty due our sins, his peo
ple, as a consequence, would be replaced and left just
where Adam was before he fell. There are then four,
and only four, conceivable alternatives, one or other of
which must be true. (1.) Either God must alter the
conditions of human probation, and grant the rewards
of the Covenant of Life to sinful men on very different
and far lower conditions than those upon which they
were offered to innocent Adam, or to the human race
originally in him, or to any other order of creatures as
far as revealed in their several probations. (2.) Or we
must continue for ever destitute of any share in those
rewards which were conditioned on obedience, that is,
without confirmation in a holy character and without
eternal blessedness. (3.) Or we shall be left to the
necessity of fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant of
Works in our own persons, rendering therefor perfect
obedience of heart and life, and that, too, before we re-

256 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
ceive grace and as the condition of our reception of it.
(4.) Or Christ must fulfil this part also of the require
ments of the law as well as the penalty in our stead and
behalf. As to the first alternative, it is evident that if eternal
blessedness is granted on any conditions short of perfect
obedience, then the entire Covenant of Life, God's own
ordinance for the human race, fails, and is dishonoured
instead of honoured, is broken and supplanted instead
of being fulfilled and magnified by the gospel. The
essential principles of eternal justice would be violated
if to mankind, as one of the consequences of their sin,
confirmation in a permanent impeccable moral character,
eternal life and the favour of God, were granted on
conditions denied to newly-created angels and to Adam
in innocency.
As to the second alternative, it is plain that we cannot
endure to remain destitute of those % rewards which the
great original ordinance, which gives law to all that fol
low it, suspended upon the condition of perfect obe
dience. Moreover, the promises of the gospel and the
experiences of Christians, inspired and uninspired, assure
us that we are not required to remain destitute of the
rewards so essential to life.
We are, therefore, shut up to the choice presented in
the third and fourth alternatives above stated, the former
representing the Arminian and the latter the Calvinistic
theories as to the legal grounds upon which the positive
justification of the believer in Christ proceeds. The
Arminian holds that, in some way never defined, the
sufferings of Christ make it consistent with the rectoral
justice of God to remit the penalty of the law in the

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 257
case of believers, and to offer them on the lowered con
ditions of faith and evangelical obedience the same
blessings that were originally conditioned on perfect
obedience. The Calvinist holds that Christ, acting as
our Representative in a strictly legal sense, has suffered
in our stead the penalty of the law, in order to free us
from eternal bondage to the same, and obeyed the pre
cept in order to secure for us the blessings so conditioned.
There is no third plan that can be substituted in place
of these. Every conceivable plan of justification that
admits the facts of the gospel at all, can, in its last
analysis, be reduced to one or other of these. All logi
cal Arminians have uniformly chosen the former. The
Romish theory of co-operative justification (Christ's
merits and the merit of good works) amounts to the
same thing. The Governmental Atonement men, when
ever they condescend to a definite statement of the na
ture of the grounds of justification, must come to the
same conclusion. Emmons,* for instance, maintains (a)
that "justification, in a gospel sense, signifies no more
nor less than the pardon or remission of sin." (6.)
" That forgiveness is the only favour which God bestows
upon men on Christ's account." (c.) " The full and final
justification of the believer, or their title to their eternal
inheritance, is conditional. They must perform certain
things, which he has specified as terms or conditions of
their taking possession of their several legacies." (d.)
"That God does promise eternal life to all who obey his
commands or exercise those holy and benevolent affec
tions which his commands require." Good John Wesley
and Richard Watson waver between the two views of
* Vol. iii., pp. 3-61.
22 *

'258 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
justification stated, alike unable to acquiesce in either,
or to find any stable position between them. The same
must inevitably be the case with all those who, while
holding the truth with respect to the nature of sin, of
grace and of expiation, refuse to accept, in their plain
biblical sense, the complementary truths with respect to
the sovereignty of God, the extent of the Atonement,
and the imputation of sin and of righteousness.
Now we maintain that the Calvinistic side of this
alternative must be true, (1) because, as proved in the
fourteenth chapter, Christ's righteousness is the ground
of justification. (2.) Because faith, which includes trust
as well as assent, from its essential nature, excludes the
possibility of its being itself the ground upon which
anything can rest, and renders it certain that its true
office is to apprehend as an instrument the righteousness
of Christ upon which the trust terminates ; which right
eousness, consequently, must be the real ground upon
which the justification proceeds. (3.) The law of God,
which cannot be relaxed, demanded at the beginning, and
must continue to demand to the end, perfect obedience,
which, obviously enough, transcends the best gracious
ability of any saint. Faith and evangelical obedience
can never take its place. (4.) Every Christian knows,
in his inmost heart, that he deserves nothing, and that
the adoption of sons and eternal life are given to him
freely, and on identically the same terms as the remission
of sins itself.
(5.) The Scriptures everywhere set forth the truth,
that the adoption of sons, eternal life, &c, are given to
the believer freely for Christ's sake, as elements of that
purchased possession of which the Holy Spirit is the

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 259
earnest or first instalment. "In him also we have
obtained an inheritance." " In whom also, after that ye
believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of pro
mise." Eph. i. 11-13. The Spirit of the Son is called
"the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father;
and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and. joint heirs
with Christ." Rom. viii. 15, 17. "Who gave himself
for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present
evil world." Gal. i. 4. "Christ hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law . . . that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal. iii. 13, 14.
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear."
Acts ii. 33. We are said to be blessed with all spiritual
blessings in Christ. Eph. i. 3. "He gave himself for
the Church that he might sanctify and cleanse it, that he
might present it to himself a glorious Church, not hav
ing spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish." Eph. v. 25-27.
" Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which
he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour." Titus iii. 5, 6. "God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, that (Jva) he
might redeem them that were under the law, that (iva)
we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. iv. 4, 5.
We are told to ask for everything we desire for Christ's
sake alone. John xiv. 14, 15, and xv. 16. And in
heaven all the redeemed say continually, "Unto him
that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own

260 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God
and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever
and ever." Rev. i. 5, 6, and vi. 9, 10.
II. The Scriptures expressly declare that Christ saves
by his obedience as well as by his sufferings. "There
fore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all
men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one,
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sin
ners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made
righteous." This is an explicit affirmation of the
principle for which we are contending. The phrase
"obedience" of Christ, is evidently to be interpreted in
its natural sense, because it is directly set in contrast
with the "disobedience" of Adam. In the same sense
in which the disobedience of the one is the ground of
our condemnation, is the obedience of the other the
ground of our justification.
III. Christ was a divine and eternal Person, and as
such he was under no obligation to obey the law. He
was himself, in the essential ground of his being, a law
unto the whole moral universe, and therefore could not
be, as concerns himself, conditioned by any law exterior
to himself. The divine nature is the norm of all moral
principle, and the divine will is the ground and measure
of all those relations from which many of the obliga
tions of his creatures result. Therefore, the divine Be
ing cannot be himself subject to any law except the
spontaneous law of his own being. And Christ, who,
though embracing a human nature, was always a divine
Person, of course always transcended the claims of law,
because these claims necessarily terminate upon persons,

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 261
and not upon mere natures as such. Yet, as our Repre
sentative, he bore in the unity of his divine personality
our nature impersonally (" a true body and a reasonable
soul "), in order that he might thus be made vicariously
under the law, to the end that by his purely vicarious
obedience he might "redeem them that were under the
law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal.
iv. 4, 5. This means necessarily (a) that Christ was
made under the law, that he did not belong there natu
rally, but was transferred to that position by an act of
divine sovereignty. (6.) That he was placed there, not
for himself, but in our stead, (c.) That he was made
under the law for the purpose of securing for us, not the
mere remission of sins, but also the adoption of sons;
whereby we became "heirs of God through Christ" (did
Xptazod), Gal. iv. 7; all of which is conditioned, not upon
suffering, but upon obedience. All that Christ did on
earth he did as our Mediator, and all that he did as
Mediator he did in the stead of those for whom he
acted as Mediator. Therefore he said (Matt. iii. 15),
"For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness
(nuaav dixaioauvijv)," that is, all that God requires of his
people. IV. The inability of the law to justify resulted
from the fact that it necessarily demands perfect obe
dience, which the weakness of the flesh, because of sin,
makes it impossible for the sinner to satisfy. Rom. viii.
3, 4. God remedies the matter by sending his own Son,
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, into our law-
place, and executing the penalty upon him, and so con
demning sin in the flesh, and also accepting his obedience
instead of our obedience; that thus, through our Sponsor,

262 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULFILLED
in us. Rom. viii. 3, 4.
The phrase dixaioauvrj, or bixaimpa zou vbpoo, is used
in the New Testament to express the totality of that
which the law demands as the condition of favour. In
Adam, before he fell, the righteousness of the law was
perfect obedience. In the case of all his descendants,
since the fall, the righteousness of the law is perfect
obedience plus the suffering of the penalty. To justify
is to pronounce a man to be just, righteous, dixaiot;.
Righteousness, dcxaioauvy, is the character of the dixaioi;,
that in him which satisfies the law. It is that, there
fore, upon which justification proceeds. Moses declares
the righteousness which is of the law when he says^
"the man that doeth these things shall live by them."
Rom. x. 5. Since the law demands of us perfect obe
dience and the endurance of the penalty, it is perfectly
impossible for us to achieve a legal righteousness by our
own personal agency. Hence, in the Scriptures, the
"righteousness of the law" is unfavourably contrasted
with the "righteousness of faith." Rom. x. 5, 6. That
is, the attempted satisfaction of the demands of the law,
made by the sinner in person, is contrasted with the
vicarious satisfaction of the same by Christ, which faith
apprehends and appropriates. To the same effect our
own righteousness is contrasted with God's righteousness.
Rom. iii, 20-26, that is, our method of satisfying the
law with God's method. "To declare at this time his
righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus." " For they, being ignorant
of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their
own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 263
the righteousness of God." Rom. x. 3. The grand require
ment of the law was perfect obedience as the condition of
favour. Obedience, therefore, is of the essence of right
eousness. But " Christ is the end of the law for right
eousness to every one that believeth." Rom. x. 4. By
means of his work "the righteousness of the law is
fulfilled in us." Rom. viii. 4. We are said "to be made
the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v. 21. He is
called "the Lord our righteousness." Jer. xxiii. 6. He
is said to be " made unto us wisdom and righteousness."
1 Cor. i. 30. Paul declares his desire to " be found in
him, not having my 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.
V. Piscator and Richard Watson object that the Cal-
vinistic view represents Christ as rendering two distinct
satisfactions to the law in behalf of his people. They
maintain that obedience and penalty are alternatives,
the presence of one excluding the demand for the other.
If Adam had rendered perfect obedience, he would not
have been required also to satisfy, by suffering, the
penalty. Therefore, they argue, if Christ has satisfied
the law by suffering the penalty due the sins of his peo
ple, he cannot be also required to render it in their stead
the additional satisfaction of obedience.
We hold this to evince a very confused view of the
case. God surely did not give Adam the choice between
obedience and death, as between two equally legitimate
alternatives. The simple facts are (a), that God placed
Adam at his creation (and federally the whole race in
him) in a middle position, with a character holy, yet lia
ble to fall, Such a position is a fair one. It has its

264 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
advantages and also its terrible risks, (b.) God pro
mised Adam an advancement far above the position into
which he was created, on condition of perfect obedience
rendered for a definite period, (c.) He threatened him
with that penalty which is inseparable from all moral
law, of death in case of disobedience. The endurance
of the penalty, therefore, is required of Christ's people
in order that their sin may be expiated. And perfect
obedience is required for a definite period, in order that
they may be righteously advanced to the grace which
had, from the beginning, been offered only on that con
dition. The active and passive obedience of Clirist, the
suffering of the penalty for the remission of sin, and the
obeying of the law for life, do not therefore constitute
two satisfactions, but are one complete and perfect satis
faction of the whole law in all its relations.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
ATONEMENT PROVED TO HAVE BEEN THE FAITH OF THE
ENTIRE CHRISTIAN CHURCH THROUGH ALL AGES.
IN this chapter I propose to prove that the doctrine
which has been in the preceding chapters set forth,
in connection with its scriptural evidence, has in its
essential principles been the faith of the great body of
God's people from the beginning; and especially that
this has been the case in every particular age and section
of the Church precisely in proportion to its general
orthodoxy and spiritual vitality. If truth be an essen
tial prerequisite in order to holiness, the general fact
that a given system of belief has been found in associa
tion with all the vital godliness that has ever existed, is
strong presumptive evidence of the truth of that system.
And this presumption is very much strengthened if it
can be shown to be historically true that, as a general
fact, the evidences of spiritual life are obscured in pro
portion as the central and characteristic principles of the
system are ignored or misconceived, and that they have
never continued to exist at all where these principles
have been intelligently denied. In order to apply this
method of argument to the subject we have in hand, I
will attend to the following points in their order. 1.
To state precisely the several positions which I believe
23 2«5

266 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
that the historical evidence accessible to us will fully
prove. 2. To present, in as condensed a form as possi
ble, quotations from representative theologians, and
Church creeds which establish the points proposed to be
proved. And, 3. To apply the historical facts as to the
general faith of the Church, thus established, to our
main argument, indicating what inferences from the uni
versal consent of the Church of Christ to the truth of
doctrine appear to be legitimate.
I. I have, then, in the first place, to state the points
which I believe can be established with reference to the
faith of God's people, as a general and characteristic fact,
in all ages, with reference to the nature of Christ's re
deeming work.
1 . It is not pretended that the doctrine of Satisfaction
as received in common by the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches was conceived of in all its elements or stated
with scientific accuracy in the early ages of the Church,
or that in this complete sense it is possessed by all parts
of the Church in modern times. Such a statement
would not be true either historically or actually of any
single doctrine embraced in the entire system of revealed
truth. All the elements embraced under the heads of
Theology and Anthropology, as well as Soteriology,
Avere at first conceived obscurely, stated vaguely, and
mixed with incongruous and even inconsistent elements,
and have reached the mature form in which they are
at present embraced by all evangelical Christians only
through a process of growth. The fact is admitted that
the early fathers wrote like children in the childhood of
the Church on this as upon all other subjects.
But, 2. We maintain over against the advocates of the

HISTORY OF OPINION. 267
Moral Influence Theory that the following points are
susceptible of historical proof. (1.) There is abundant
evidence that from the first the faith of the true Church
has uniformly embraced Christ on the cross as a sacrifice
expiating sin and propitiating God. It is true that this
element of their faith is often left to a remarkable de
gree in the background, and mixed up confusedly with
other elements of truth or superstition, but indubitable
traces of an objective bearing of the passion of Christ
upon obstacles in the way of man's deliverance exterior
to himself are always- visible. (2.) That the doctrine
that the central design of the Atonement is to produce a
subjective effect upon the sinner has never prevailed
among any considerable number of people for any length
of time. That, on the contrary, even every false doc
trine which has taken strong and permanent hold upon
the human mind has always embraced in it precisely
that principle which the theory in question excludes,
viz., that the sufferings of Christ were necessary to re
move obstacles to our salvation existing exterior to our
selves. This fact is conspicuously illustrated in the
prevalence of the eccentric idea that Christ was delivered
up as a ransom-price to Satan for the purpose of redeem
ing sinful men from the power of the usurper, which so
long confused and disfigured the ideas of ecclesiastical
writers upon the subject of Redemption. (3.) We main
tain it can be proved that the doctrine that Christ has
redeemed men from the claims of divine justice by his
vicarious sufferings has always been more clearly con
ceived and more frequently and emphatically insisted
upon in the exact proportion as the Church has been
faithful in the profession of other fundamental truths

268 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
and abundant in the fruits of the Spirit. The best of
the earlier Church teachers teach the truth we contend
for. Those who were most eminent in the defence of
the truth as to the supreme divinity of our blessed
Lord, as Athanasius the Great; those who stood to the
last faithful in resisting the inroads of Popery, as Claude,
bishop of Turin (821-839) ; the best of the schoolmen,
as Anselm, Hugh St. Victor, Bernard, Bonaventura and
Thomas Aquinas; both of the two great sections (Greek
and Roman) into which the Church divided; the great
evangelical teachers who, in the immediately preceding
centuries, prepared the way for the Reformation, as
Wycliffe and John Wessel; the Vallenses who, isolated
among the mountains, preserved the primitive apostolic
faith through all the dark centuries of the Papal supre
macy; Zwingle and Luther and Calvin, each indepen
dent in his origin, drawing from different sources, and
marked by many profound characteristic differences from
the others; and with them, all the four great spontane
ous movements of reform, in Switzerland, Germany,
France and Britain, each of which was so truly original,
and marked by characteristic differences, which still sur
vive after three centuries of change; and finally, all of
the great evangelical denominations into which the
Churches of the Reformation have been developed, who
now embrace the sum total of Christ's kingdom on the
face of the earth ; — all these, and whatsoever persons or
bodies of this kind have ever existed, in whatever else
they have differed, have agreed in maintaining that the
virtue of the redemption of Christ resides in its power
to expiate sin and thus to propitiate God. (4.) We
maintain also, in the fourth place, that true religion has

HISTORY OF OPINION. 269
never flourished when this doctrine of expiation has
been explicitly denied, but that the invariable sequence,
if not consequence, of its denial may be read in the his
tory of the ancient Gnostics and Arians, in that of such
heretics as Scotus Erigena and Abelard during the Mid
dle Age, of the Socinians of the sixteenth century, and
of their successors, the Unitarians of England and
America, and the Neologians of Germany, during the
eighteenth and nineteenth.
3. We maintain over against the advocates of the
Governmental Theory of the Atonement: (1.) That it
is susceptible of proof that, with few exceptions, the
whole Church from the beginning has held the doctrine
of Redemption in the sense of a literal propitiation of
God by means of the expiation of sin. (2.) That this
view of the nature of Redemption has been held most
definitely and earnestly, as a general fact, by those men,
and in those branches and ages of the Church which
have exhibited the most decided evidence of the Saviour?s
presence and favour. (3.) That each one of the great
sections into which the Christian Church has been
divided — the Greek and Roman, Lutheran and Reformed
— unite in maintaining that the gospel is founded upon
the expiation of guilt. (4.) That all of the later and more
perfect Confessions, both of the Lutheran and of the Re
formed Churches, agree in teaching in the fullest terms
the strictly vicarious character of both Christ's active
and passive obedience, and the imputation of that per
fect obedience to the believer as the strictly judicial
ground of his justification. And (5.) That the origin
of the Governmental Theory of the Atonement among
the semi-Socinian Dutch Remonstrants, and its affilia-
23*

270 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
tion with the speculations of the heretical French Pro
fessors of Saumur, give but a doubtful indication as to
its possible connection, for a protracted period, with
spiritual health and fruitfulness.
II. I now proceed to present the evidence which, I
think, proves the points above stated. Let it be remem
bered that, as a matter of course, all that can be pre
sented here is a mere specimen of much more that
remains behind. Let it be remembered, also, that our
position, assumed in the first statement of our doctrine,
is not that either of the heterodox theories we are here
combating is false, but that they are each essentially
defective. Hence it will in no way weaken the force of
our argument if it be proved that the positive principles
maintained by either or both of them have been taught
generally or uniformly in the Church. If the principle
of literal expiation be admitted at all in connection
with those principles specially signalized by each of the
other views, then, from the very nature of the case, the
fact of expiation, since it concerns God, must be central ;
and the other principles, since they concern the creation,
must be subordinate to it. It will be abundantly suffi
cient for all the purposes of my argument, therefore, if
I succeed in tracing the principle I contend for as a con
stant element, more or less clearly discriminated, of the
faith of God's people.*
* I have drawn the testimonies cited from the following sources :
Hagenbach's History of Doctrines. Edited by Rev. H. B. Smith,
D.D., New York.
Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. New York.
Dorner's History of Development of Doctrine of the Person of
Christ. Clark's Edinburgh Edition.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 271
The Rev. Dr. John Young, of Edinburgh, has re
cently gone over the monuments of Patristic theology,
&c, for the purpose of tracing the history of the origin
and growth of the doctrine of Satisfaction. He claims
that there is no trace of this doctrine in the Scripture;
that it has its root in the ignorance and depravity of
human nature; that it emerged in the Christian Church
as a manifest corruption; and that it was developed into
its present portentous form only slowly and after the
lapse of centuries. His historical argument may be
reduced to two heads. (1.) He draws this conclusion
from the comparative silence of the early writers on this
subject, even when they were treating of topics which
rendered allusions to this doctrine, if it was in fact be
lieved, apparently inevitable. (2.) From the imputed
character, intellectual or moral, of certain men to whose
agency he refers the origination and diffusion of the
corruption; as, for instance, Athanasius and Calvin.
To the first of his points we reply by confessing that
to an extraordinary degree his allegation is true, but that
(1) it is at best but a negative argument, and avails no
thing in opposition to the positive testimony presented
Ullman's Reformers before the Reformation. Clark's Edinburgh
Edition. Neander*s Church History. Torrey's Translation.
Eev. G. S. Faber's Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses.
De Sacrificiis, Gulielmo Outramo Autore.
" The Life and Light of Men," by John Young, LL.D., Edinburgh.
Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der Verschiedenen
Christlichen Kirchenpartsien. Von Dr. Geo. Bened. "Winer.
Hase, Libri Symbolici Eccle. Evangelicse.
Niemeyer : Collectio Confessionum, &c.
Streitwolf : Libri Symbolici Ecclesise Calholicse, vol. i. and ii.

272 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
on the other hand. As we have shown above, from the
essential nature of the principle involved, if its presence
can be traced, however faintly, the conclusion will be
inevitable that it is an essential part of the faith of the
Church, and the central principle to which all others
will ultimately be subordinated when all the elements
of that faith are accurately discriminated and adjusted.
And (2) that the force of his objection is greatly abated
by the consideration of the fewness, and of the fragmen
tary condition, and the immaturity and confusion char
acteristic of the writings of the early Fathers, and the
crudeness of their views upon many other subjects of
Christian doctrine.
To his second point we answer, that the position we
assume, as distinctly stated above, is not that certain
men have taught the doctrine of expiation, but that it is
the doctrine of all the representative Church teachers of
all ages ; that it has again and again, with amazing co
incidence, been revived by great and good men acting
entirely independently of each other; and that it has
always been the more emphasized the more true spiritual
religion has flourished; and, finally, that true spiritual
religion has never flourished among those who have ex
plicitly denied it. Very little light can be thrown upon
the origin or value of such a doctrine by criticising the
spirit or associations of individual men. The broad fact
would remain to be accounted for, that the idea to which
Athanasius, for the first time, gives a logically defined
expression had appeared again and again in the writings
of the best men who preceded him, and in the devo
tional writings of Augustine and his followers; that
Claude, Bernard, Wycliffe, Wessel, the Vallenses, and

HISTORY OF OPINION. 273
all the best saints of the ages preceding the Reforma
tion, held the same; that Anselm, in the Latin Church,
and Nicolas of Methone, in the Greek Church, the two
great systematizers of the Church's faith on this subject,
wrought entirely independently of each other, although
almost cotemporaneously; that not only Luther and
Calvin, but Zwingle also, the most independent and
rationalizing of the Reformers, and that all the branches
of the Church, Greek, .Roman, Lutheran and Reformed,
in all their subdivisions, hold the same faith. Any
attempt to account for such facts as these by reference to
the personal character of individual men, however great
or numerous, is manifestly absurd.
[A.J The doctrine of Fxpiation was received, though in a
crude, unscientific form, and in connection with much error,
by the ante-Nicene fathers. With respect to the writers
of this period, Young admits that "Injustice would
be done to them, unless it be understood that most of
them make use, though not frequently, of the New Tes
tament language with regard to the death of the Re
deemer, and also that in some instances they apply
passages of the Old Testament — such as the liii. chapter
of Isaiah, and the xxii. Psalm — to that death. It is
fully admitted that the ultimate and real question goes
back to the meaning of the New Testament itself. No
one could fairly dispute, that if the doctrine of Satisfac
tion be there, it is also in the post-apostolic writings.
But if it be wanting there, as we have sought to show
that it is, then unquestionably it has no place in
them."* In answer to this position, thus candidly assumed,
* "Life and Light of Men," p. 422.

274 THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
I present the argument to the contrary under the follow
ing heads.
1. It is unquestionably a strong presumptive evidence
in favour of the truth of our position, that the most
learned, impartial and minute students of the original
sources of all knowledge on this subject, such as Neander,
Dorner, Faber,* Shedd, Schaff, &c, all in effect bear inde
pendent testimony to the substantial truth of the judg
ment pronounced by the first named in his Church history.
" As it regards the work of Christ as the Redeemer of
mankind, we find already in the language used by the
Church fathers on this point, in the period under consid
eration, all the elements that lay at the basis of the doctrine
as it afterwards came to be defined in the Church."f
2. Young confesses that the early Fathers applied
to the work of Christ the ordinary sacrificial language
borrowed from the Old and New Testaments. But in
chapter viii. I showed that Outram has presented evi
dence to saturation that the heathen, Jews and Chris
tians of that age all agreed in understanding this
sacrificial language as signifying, in a strict sense, the
vicarious suffering of penal evils on the part of the vic
tim in behalf of the transgressor. It will suffice for our
purpose, at present, to cite only the testimony of the
great Metropolitan, Cosmopolitan, learned Controversi
alist and Church Historian, Eusebius, Bishop of Csesarea.
His words are as follows: "An attentive observer may
learn this very thing also from the law respecting sacri
fices; which enjoins every one who offers a sacrifice, to
lay his hands on the head of the victim, and holding it
* George Stanley Faber's " Primitive Doctrine of Justification."
f Neander's Church History, vol. i., p. 640.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 275
by the head to bring it to the priest, as offering the ani
mal instead of his own head. Wherefore its language
respecting every victim is, Let the offerer present it be
fore the Lord, lay his hands upon the head of his
offering; and this was observed in every sacrifice, no
victim being offered in any other way ; whence it is con
cluded that the lives of the victims were given instead
of the lives of the offerers. . . . For as pious persons,
who were familiar with God, and had their minds en
lightened by the Divine Spirit, saw that they needed a
great remedy for the expiation of deadly sins, they con
cluded that a ransom for their salvation ought to be
presented to God, the disposer of life and death. ... As
long as men had no better victim, none that was great,
valuable and worthy of God, it behooved them to offer
him animal sacrifices in ransom for their own life, and
as substitutes for their own nature."*
3. I proved, also, in chapter viii., by arguments drawn
directly from the Scriptures, that the Old Testament
sacrifices did actually expiate offences by means of vica
rious penal sufferings, and that they, by God's appoint
ment, were eminent types and symbols of the redemptive
work of Christ. It hence follows that the conditional
admission of Young, that "if the doctrine of Satisfac
tion be there [in the sacrificial institutions and language
of the Old Testament], it is also in the post-apostolic
writings," becomes a simple statement of unquestionable
fact. 4. In connection with and in addition to the foregoing
evidence, our allegation is conclusively proved by the
* Demonstr. Evang., L. 1. c. 10, pp. 270-340. Quoted by Outram,
Pis. 1., chap. xvii.

276 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
positive statements of many of these early writers,
which, as will be seen, involve in explicit terms the
essential elements of the doctrine of expiation.
Polycarp (a pupil of John), in his Epistle to the Phi-
lippians,* quoted by Shedd, says: "Christ is our Saviour;
for through grace are we righteous, not by works; for
our sins he has even taken death upon himself, has be
come the servant of us all, and, through his death for us,
our hope and the pledge of our righteousness. The
heaviest sin is unbelief in Christ; his blood will be de
manded of unbelievers; for to those to whom the death
of Christ, which obtains the forgiveness of sins, does
not prove the ground of justification, it proves a ground
of condemnation. Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered him
self to be brought even to death for our sins; .... let
us, therefore, without ceasing, hold steadfastly to him
who is our hope and the earnest of our righteousness,
even Jesus Christ, ' who bare our sins in his own body
on the tree.' "f
Clement Romanus, a disciple of Paul, died circum,
A. D. 100. In his Epistola ad CorintJios (quoted by
Dorner), he writes thus : " His 'blood has been shed for
us, for our salvation ; he has, according to God's will,
given his body for our body, his soul for our soul."
"Every interpretation of this passage," says Dorner, "is
forced which does not recognize in it the idea of substi
tution, and that as well subjective, Christ's substitution
ary design, as objective, the actual fulfilment of that
design, and its objective results. There is connected
therewith the fact that with Clement, as in the Epistle
* Chapter i. 8. f Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, p. 168.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 277
to the Hebrews, the name 'High Priest' is frequently
applied to Christ."
Justin Martyr (A. D. 114-168), quoted by Neander,
says : " The law pronounced on all men the curse, be
cause no man could fulfil it in its whole extent. Deut.
xxvii. 26. Christ delivered us from this curse in bear
ing it for us."*
The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, which is ad
mitted by all to date from the early part of the second
century, consequently, in the generation immediately
succeeding the death of the Apostle John, and which is
usually published among the works of Justin Martyr,
says, as quoted by Dorner : " Thus God delayed, that we
might be made conscious of our own guilt and impo-
tency. But as that was filled up, and it was rendered
manifest that punishment and death duly awaited us, the
one love continued true. It hated not, it departed not,
it remembered not evil; but was long-suffering and
bore; nay, itself took on our sins. It gave his only
Son as a ransom for us ; the holy for the unholy, the
sinless for the wicked, the pure for the vile, the immor
tal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins
than the righteousness of him? Whereby could the
unholy and ungodly be justified but by the Son of God?
Oh! sweet substitution! Oh! what an unsearchable
device, what unexpected blessing ! The unrighteousness
of the many to be hid by the righteous of the One; the
righteousness of the One to justify many sinners !"
[B.] The doctrine of vicarious expiation accomplished by
the sufferings of Christ was professed yet more explicitly,
though still in a crude form and mixed with much error, by
* Dial. c. Tryph. Jud. c. 30, f. 322.
24

278 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the Nicene Fathers and their successors up to the time of the
Schoolmen. From the commencement of this period it is
well known that a strange fancy, entertained by Origen
(A. D. 185-254) and Irenseus (f200), to the effect that
Christ was provided by God to ransom his people out of
the hands of Satan, as captives are ransomed by friends
from the hands of pirates, continued for a long time to
tinge the meditations of Christian writers upon the subject
of Redemption. This fact, both curious and lamentable,
is, of course, made much of by all those whose interest, for
any reason, it is to show that the Church of Christ has
never been committed to any fixed view as to the nature
of Redemption, but has always drifted among various
opinions of human origin, more or less rational. With
respect to this view I would remark (a) that there is no
evidence that it represented the definite and total con
ception of any one of the ancient Fathers as to the nature
of Christ's work. It was a general and indeterminate
form in which that work was conceived of in one of its
aspects, suggested by such scriptural passages as Col. ii.
15, and Heb. ii. 14; and however inconsistent as a mat
ter of logic, nevertheless coexisting in the same mind
also with vague conceptions of the very views which are
common to the modern evangelical Churches, (b.) This
view, grotesque as it is, involves, in common with the
orthodox Satisfaction Theory, a principle which is utterly
inconsistent with the Moral Influence Theory, and that
principle is, that the direct design and effect of the suffer
ings of Christ were to redeem sinners from an obstacle to
their salvation exterior to themselves. The prevalence
of this fancy, therefore, in connection with more correct
views as to the nature of Redemption, contributes to

HISTORY OF OPINION. 279
prove the truth of our allegation that all Christians
have from the beginning, without exception, felt the
need of being ransomed from a power under which they
were held, and which they were impotent to resist. The
following witnesses also make it evident that, in spite of
the general prevalence of this form of error for a time,
the true doctrine of the need of propitiating divine jus
tice was never absent from the faith of the Church.
Irenseus (f202) says: "We were God's enemies and
debtors, as Christ in his priestly work fulfilled the law."*
And again, "And on account of this in the last times the
Lord, through his own incarnation, restored us into
friendship, having been made Mediator between God and
man ; truly propitiating the Father, against whom we had
sinned, in our behalf."")"
Eusebius of Csesarea (A. D. 270-340), quoted by Shedd,
says : " How then did he make our sins to be his own,
and how did he bear our iniquities ? . . . The Lamb of
God did not only these things for us, but he underwent
torments, and was punished for us; that which he was
no ways exposed to for himself, but we were so by the
multitude of our sins; and thereby he became the cause
of the pardon of our sins; namely, because he under
went death, stripes, reproaches, transferring the thing
which we had deserved to himself; and was made a
curse for us, taking to himself the curse that was due
to us; for what was he but a price of redemption for our
souls?"| Athanasius the Great — champion of the absolute
* III. 18 ; cited from Thomasius (iii. 176) by Hagenbach, vol. i.,
p. 184. t Ibid'> xvii. !•
% Demonstratio Evangelica, Lib. x. c.

280 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
divinity of Christ (A. D. 278-373), leading and represent
ing a Church party very different from that represented
by the former witness, the compromising Eusebius of Cse-
sarea (as quoted by Dorner) — says: "The death, which is
termed his, the death of the Logos, was a ransom for the
sins of men, and a death of death."* " Laden with guilt,
the world lay under the condemnation of the law; but
the Logos took the judgment (krima) up into himself,
and suffering in the flesh for all, he bestowed salvation
upon all."f "The first and principal ground of the
Logos' becoming man was that the condemnation of the
law, by which we are burdened with guilt and eternal
punishment, might be removed by the payment of the
penalty."! Cyril of Jerusalem (f386), quoted by Shedd, says:
" Christ took sin upon his own body. He who died for
us was no insignificant creature, he was no mere animal
victim, he was no mere man, he was not an angel ; but he
was God incarnate. The iniquity of us sinners was not
so great as the righteousness of him who died for us; the
sins we have committed are not equal to the Atonement
made by him who laid down his life for us." §
Chrysostom (A. D. 354-407), quoted by Milner, says:
" What a saying? What mind can comprehend it? He
made a just person a sinner that he might make sinners
just. But the apostle's language is still stronger. He
doth not say he made him a sinner, but sin, that we might
be made, not righteous, but righteousness, even the right
eousness of God."T[
* Contra Arianos, 1, 45. g Catecheses, lib. 13, sec. 33.
t Ibid., 1, 60. fl Horn, ii., on 2 Cor., chap. v.
X De Incarnatione, c. 11-14.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 281
The great and good Augustine (A. D. 354-430), spend
ing his whole strength upon the defence of the truth re
vealed in Scripture as to human sin and divine grace,
against able and active opponents, was undeniably, to a
great extent, in the dark as to the true nature of the piac
ular work of Christ. He generally uses the term justifica
tion in the general and indefinite sense in which it is now
used by the Roman Catholic theologians, as including the
remission of sins and the infusion of grace. Nevertheless,
as Young candidly acknowledges, "we find, especially
in his Confessions, and in the touching utterances of his
religious experience, that which plainly involves the
idea, though the distinctive term is not employed, of a
satisfaction to divine justice on account of human sin."*
As quoted by Milner: "He was made sin, as we are
made righteousness, not our own, but of God; nor in
ourselves, but in him, as he was made sin, not his own,
but ours, nor was he appointed so in himself, but in
us."f " But Christ without guilt (personal) took upon him
self our punishment, in order that he might thus expiate
our guilt, and do away with our punishment."!
"All men are separated from God by sin. Hence
they can be reconciled with him only through the re
mission of sin, and this only through the grace of a
most merciful Saviour, and this grace through the one
only Victim of the most true and only Priest."§
Gregory the Great (f604), the most distinguished and
* Life and Light of Men, p. 445.
¦f- Enchirid. ad Lauren., c. 41.
% Contra Faust. Manich, 14, 1, quoted by Hagenbach.
§ Augustinus, De pec. mer., I. lvi.
24*

282 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
influential representative of the Latin Church of his age,
in his Moralia in Jobum,* quoted by Shedd, says : " Guilt
can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice.
But it would contradict the idea of justice if, for the sin
of a rational being like man, the death of an irrational
animal should be accepted as a sufficient atonement.
Hence a man must be offered as the sacrifice for man ;
so that a rational victim may be slain for a rational
criminal. But how could a man, himself stained with
sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must
be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary
course would be free from sin? Hence, the Son of God
must be born of a virgin, and became a man for us. He
assumed our nature without our corruption. 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."
John of Damascus (f750), the greatest representative of
the Greek Church in his age, in his Fxpositio Fidei, quoted
by Shedd, says : " He who assumed death for us, died,
and offered himself a sacrifice to the Father; for we had
committed wrong towards him, and it was necessary for
him to receive our ransom, and we thus be delivered
from condemnation. For God forbid that the blood of
the Lord should be offered to the tyrant."f
[C] The doctrine of Redemption by the expiatory suf
ferings of Christ was held in common by all the prominent
witnesses for pure Christianity during the Dark Ages,
including the Vallenses of Piedmont, and the immediate
forerunners of the Reformers ; and it was positively rejected
* xvii, 46. f Expositio Fidei, iii. 27.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 283
only by such open heretics as Scotus Erigena and Abelard.
Claude, Bishop of Turin (A. D. 821-839), the faithful
champion of the truth against the inroads of the ever
growing Papal superstitions and doctrinal and ritualistic
corruptions, is a witness of special interest, because he is
supposed to have been immediately associated with those
heroic mountaineers (the Vallenses) who profess to have
preserved their doctrine unchanged from the days of
primitive Christianity. He says, in his Commentary upon
the Epistle to the Galatians,* as quoted by Neander:
"Christ underwent the penalty designed for those who
failed to obey the law, that he might liberate those be
lieving upon him from all fear of such penalty." " Gal.
iii. 16. They are forced to confess that man is justified
not by works of the law, but by faith." "Gal. v. 4.
Now he," the apostle, "comprehends the whole law
generally, by saying that they will profit nothing by the
work of Christ who believe themselves to be justified
by any kind of legal observance whatsoever."
The Vallenses, whom this faithful Bishop of Turin
in his day nourished and encouraged, existed as a small
but precious body of evangelical witnesses long before,
and they continue essentially unchanged to the present
time, with their head-quarters in the same mountain city.
In the year 1530 their teachers sent a deputation to
GDcolampadius, at Basle, making, in their Confession,
presented on that occasion, the following declaration:
" In all things we agree with you, and from the very
time of the apostles, our sentiments respecting the same
have been the same as your own." In 1544 they pre
sented a Confession of their Faith to Francis I., King
* Fol. 151.

284 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of France, through Cardinal Sadolet. Concerning it,
they affirm, that "this Confession is that which we have
received from our ancestors, even from hand to hand,
according as their predecessors in all times and in every
age have taught and delivered." As to the nature of
the Atonement, they say : " We believe and confess that
there is a free remission of sins, proceeding from the
mercy and mere goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who
died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, who took
away our sins in his own body on the cross; who is
our Advocate with God, the price of our reconciliation;
whose blood cleanses our consciences from dead works,
that we should serve the living God ; who alone made
satisfaction for the faithful, so that their sins are not
imputed to them, as to the unbelieving and to the repro
bate." The first attempts to develop the doctrine of Re
demption in a manner scientifically accurate and com
plete were made almost at the same time, yet in entire
independence of each other, in each of the two great
divisions of the Church, by Anselm, Archbishop of
Canterbury, in the West; and Nicholas, Bishop of Me
thone, in Messenia, in the East. From the fact that the
essential principles involved in Christ's work of vicari
ous expiation were, by these men and their successors
during the entire era of Scholasticism, made the subjects
of a more thorough and systematic investigation than
ever before, the enemies of the truth have often pre
tended to believe that these principles were inventions
of the Schoolmen, and have disparagingly designated our
doctrine the " Scholastic Theory of Satisfaction." This
notorious fact makes it unnecessary for me to quote the

HISTORY OF OPINION. 285
words of the representative theologians of those ages to
prove that they understood the work of Christ in the
same sense as ourselves. Anselm of Canterbury and
Nicholas of Methone acted as the organs of a spontane
ous movement of the whole Church. It is undeniable,
also, that the advocates of the doctrine of the literal sat
isfaction of divine justice by Christ, such as Anselm, Ber
nard, Hugh St. Victor,* Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas,
&c., were, with all their faults, the best, in every Chris
tian sense, of the Schoolmen. It was the Pantheistic John
Scotus Erigena (circum 860) who denied this truth. It
was the semi-Pelagian Duns Scotus (A. D. 1265-1308)
who depreciated the value of Christ's vicarious sufferings,
and the necessity for satisfaction — placing that necessity
in the optional will instead of the immutable justice of
God, and making the satisfaction of Christ but putative
only — a satisfaction (so called) of love, and not of justice.
And it was the infamous Abelard (A. D. 1142) who
taught in precise terms the Moral Influence Theory of
Socinus and Bushnell and Young, and others. As
we might expect, the latter was earnestly combated on
this, as upon other points involving deadly error, by the
deeply religious Bernard of Clairvaux (A. D. 1153),
quoted by Milner and by Hagenbach. After noticing
Abelard's Moral Influence Theory, he says: "Is this the
whole then of the great mystery of godliness — this
which any uncircumcised and unclean person may easily
penetrate? What is there in this beyond the common
light of nature?" "For if one died for all, then were
all dead, that the satisfaction of one might be imputed
* Christus ergo nascendo debitum hominis Patri solvit et moriendo
reatum hominis expiavit. — De Saeram. cap. 4. Hagenbach.

286 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
to all, as he alone bore the sins of all; and now he who
offended, and he who satisfied divine justice, are found
the same, because the head and the body is one Christ."
Of such " Reformers before the Reformation " as Wy-
cliffe (A. D. 1324-1384) and Wessel (A. D. 1419-1489)
Hagenbach* testifies " that they attached importance to the
theory of Satisfaction in its practical bearing upon evan
gelical piety, and thus introduced the period of the Re
formation." Wycliffef (quoted by Baur) says: "And
since, according to the third supposition, it behooves that
satisfaction should be made for sin, therefore, it behooves
that the same nature of man should satisfy for as much
as it had become indebted in its great progenitor, which
no man was able to do, unless he was at the same time
both God and man." "It is a light word to say that
God might, of his power, forgive this sin (Adam's)
without the aseeth (satisfaction) which was made for it,
for God might do so if he would ; but his justice would
not suffer it, but requires that each trespass be punished
either on earth or in hell. And God may not accept a
person to forgive him without satisfaction."! Milner
quotes the following sentences from an Apology for
Wycliffe, preserved in the library of the Cathedral
of York, by Dr. Thomas James, some time librarian at
Oxford, the contents of which are chiefly extracts from
Wycliffe's own manuscripts : " He persuaded men to trust
wholly to Christ, to rely altogether upon his sufferings,
and not to seek to be justified in any other way than by
his justice." "That unbelievers, though they might
* History of Doctrines, vol. ii., p. 47.
f De Incarnatione et Morte Christi.
X Tracts and Treatises of Wycliffe, p. 84,

HISTORY OF OPINION. 287
perform works apparently good in their matter, still
were not to be accounted righteous men ; that all who
followed Christ became righteous through the participa
tion of his righteousness, and would be saved."
John Wessel, of Groningen (quoted by Ullman), says :
"According to the second or servant form, the Lord
Jesus is not only Mediator between God and man, but
is rather Mediator for man, between the God of justice
and the God of mercy; for it behooved that the whole
law of justice should be fulfilled without failure of one
jot or tittle; and as this has now been achieved by
Jesus, it is easy to find the way in which mercy can
flow forth in streams of compassion. The wisdom of
the Father, however, made this way by the device of a
Mediator."* "Among all the miracles, not the least is
the same justice which is armed with divine and eternal
laws against man, not only restrains the sword in judg
ment, but also the sentence, and not only absolves the
criminal whom it had determined to condemn, but
orders him to be exalted to dignity, honour and glory.
Who is not here surprised to mark how the truth of the
threatenings has been changed into the truth of the pro
mises, and upon both sides the truth secured? These
things, so contrary to each other, the gentleness of the
Lamb alone has blended. For Christ, being himself
God, and Priest, and Sacrifice, has satisfied himself, foi
himself and by himself."! "Our loving Father has
willed thee his loving Son to be a Surety, Sponsor, Bails
man, for the fully obeying and the fully suffering (satis-
* De Caus. Incarnat., cap. 17, p. 453.
f De Magnitud. Pass., cap. 14, p. 480.

288 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
faciendo et satispatiendo), by an equal pledge on account
of all my disobedience and misery."*
[D.J At the opening of the Reformation, Zwingle, Luther,
Calvin, Knox and Oranmer, the organs of independent
movements of reform in five different nationalities, differing
among themselves in almost everything not essential to the
integrity of Christianity, all, without exception, agree in
teaching the doctrine of vicarious expiation. And as far
as this principle is concerned, the Greek and Roman
Churches agreed with the Protestant.
There is no need of illustrating the truth of this posi
tion by quotations from the writings of Luther, Calvin
or Knox. Their opinions will not be questioned, and
it will fully answer our present purpose to show that
Zwingle and Cranmer accurately agree with them on the
question. Zwingle (A. D. 1484-1531) was the first, as he was
intellectually the most independent and rationalistic, of
all the Reformers. In his Expositio Christianas Fidei
De Christo Domino,^ he says: "But he suffered, for the
purpose of expiating our crimes, a most humiliating
form of suffering." " Wherever sin is, death of neces
sity follows. Christ was without sin, and guile was not
found in his mouth. . . . And yet he died this death,
he suffered in our stead. He was willing to die, that he
might restore us to life; and as he had no sins of his
own, the all-merciful Father laid ours upon him."! " He
is the sacrifice and victim, satisfying for the sins of all
the world for ever."§
Archbishop Cranmer (A. D. 1489-1554), in his De-
* Seal. Medit. Exempli., i., p. 544. % Zwingle, Opp., I., p. 204.
t Section 6. I Ibid., p. 253.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 289
fence of the True Doctrine of the Sacraments,* says:
" One kind of sacrifice there is which is called a propiti
atory or merciful sacrifice ; that is to say, such a sacrifice
as pacifies God's wrath and indignation, and obtains
mercy and forgiveness for all our sins, and is the ransom
for the redemption from everlasting damnation 
There is but one such sacrifice, whereby our sins
are pardoned and God's mercy and favour obtained,
which is the death of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus
Christ." The " Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apos
tolic Eastern Church" — composed by Petrus Mogilas,
Metropolitan of Kiew (A. D. 1642), and sanctioned by the
Synod of Jerusalem (A. D. 1672)— says :f "The death of
Christ was of a very different kind from that of other
men in these respects : first, because of the weight of our
sins; secondly, because he wholly fulfilled the priest
hood even unto the cross: he offered himself to God
and the Father for the ransoming of the human race.
Therefore even to the cross he fulfilled the mediation
between God and men."
"Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, on account
of his great love wherewith he loved us, merited justifi
cation for us by his most sacred passion on the tree, and
satisfied God the Father for us."! " Tfle &rsb aQd most
excellent satisfaction is that by which whatever is due
by us to God, on account of our sins, has been paid
abundantly, although he should deal with us according
to the strictest rigour of his justice. This is said to be
that satisfaction which we say has appeased God and
* Book v., \ 3. t Winer, Page 85.
X Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter vii.
25

290 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
rendered him propitious to us; and for it we are indebted
to Christ the Lord alone, who, having paid the price of
our sins on the cross, most fully satisfied God."*
[E.] Luther and Calvin, and the fully pronounced Creeds
of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, all teach the full
doctrine embraced in the statement given in tlie second
chapter of this book, to the effect that the Satisfaction
rendered by Christ includes both his active and his passive
obedience, and infallibly secures for the believer alike re
mission of the penalty incurred by his sins and a title to the
covenanted rewards of obedience.
"Another principal part of our reconciliation with
God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobe
dience, should by way of remedy oppose to it obedience,
satisfy -the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin.
Therefore our Lord came forth very man, adopted the
person, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead
obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the
price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in
the same flesh pay the penalty which he had in
curred."! " When it is asked, then, how Christ by abolishing
sin removed the enmity between God and us, and pur
chased a righteousness which made him favourable and
kind to us, it may be answered generally, that he accom
plished this by the whole course of his obedience. . . .
In short, from the moment in which he assumed the
form of servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay
the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, the more
certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it
* Catechismus Romanus, 2, 5, 63.
f Calvin's Institutes, book ii., chapter xii., \ 3.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 291
peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ 
Still there is no exclusion of the other part of obedience
which he performed in life."*
"A man will be justified by faith when, excluded from
the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the
righteousness of Christ, and, clothed in it, appears in
the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous.
Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance
with which God receives us into his favour as if we
were righteous, and we say that this justification consists
in the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ."! "Hence when God justifies
us through the intercession of Christ, he does not acquit
us on a proof of our own innocence, but by an imputa
tion of righteousness, so that, though not righteous in
ourselves, we are deemed righteous in Christ."!
"By which the apostle means that we are accepted in
his (Christ's) name by God, because he has expiated our
sins by his own death, and his obedience is imputed to
us for righteousness. For since the righteousness of
faith consists in the remission of sin, and gratuitous
acceptance, we attain both through Christ."§
The Heidelberg Catechism — one of the most generally
adopted of all the Reformed Confessions, composed in
1563 by Ursinus and Olevianus — in answer to Question
60, "How art thou justified in the sight of God?"
says: "Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that
though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly
transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept
* Calvin's Institutes, book ii., chapter xvi., \ 5.
f Ibid., book iii., chap, xi., \ 2. X Ibid., \ 3.
\ Commentary on 1 Cor. i. 30.

292 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
none of them, and am still inclined to all evil ; notwith
standing God, without any merit of mine, but only of
mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satis
faction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so,
as if I never had had, nor committed, any sin; yea, as
if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which
Christ hath accomplished for me; inasmuch as I em
brace such benefit with a believing heart."
The Second Helvetic Confession — composed by Bullin-
ger in 1564, and of very high authority among the Re
formed Churches — says:* "For Christ has taken upon
himself and borne our sins, and satisfied the divine jus
tice. God, therefore, on account of Christ as having
suffered and risen, is propitiated with reference to our
sins, neither does he impute them to us, but reckons the
righteousness of Christ as ours, so that we are now not
only cleansed and purged, or rendered pure from sins,
but are also endowed with the righteousness of Christ,
so that we are absolved from sins, death or condemna
tion; and, in fine, righteous and heirs of eternal life.
Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and
he only justifies us on account of Christ, not imputing
our sins, but imputing to us his righteousness."
The Gallic Confession (A. D. 1559), Article 18, says:
"Therefore we utterly repudiate all the other grounds
upon which men think they may be justified before God;
and every thought of virtues or merits being cast aside,
and entirely rely upon the obedience of Jesus Christ
alone, which is indeed imputed to us, so that both are
all our sins covered, and also we attain to favour before
God." * Chapter xv., De Vera Justificatione.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 293
The Belgic Confession was drawn up by Von Bres, in
1561. "In 1571, it was revised and adopted by the
entire Church of Holland in the sixteenth century.
After another revision of the text, it was publicly ap
proved by the Synod of Dort, 1618." Article 22 : " But
we by no means understand that it is faith itself, pro
perly speaking, which justifies us, or that we are justified
on account of faith, for that (faith) is only an instrument
by which we apprehend Christ our righteousness. There
Christ, imputing to us his own merits, and very many
most holy works, which he accomplished for us, is our
righteousness." The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,
produced in their present form in 1562, Article 2: . . .
"One Christ, very God and very man; who truly suf
fered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his
Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original
guilt (non tantum pro culpa originis), but also for all
actual sins of men." Article 31: "The offering of
Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation
and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both
original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction
for sin, but that alone."
The Formula Concordise — drawn up by Andrea and
others (A. D. 1577), the most scientific of all the Lu
theran Confessions — says: "That righteousness which
before God is of mere grace imputed to faith, or to the
believer, is the obedience, suffering and resurrection of
Christ, by which he for our sakes satisfied the law, and
expiated our sins. For since Christ was not only man,
but God and man in one undivided person, so he was
not subject to the law, nor obnoxious to suffering and
25*

294 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
death (raiione suo3 persona) because he was Lord of the
law. On which account his obedience (not merely in
respect that he obeyed the Father in his sufferings and
death, but also that he for our sakes willingly made
himself subject to the law and fulfilled it by his obe
dience) is imputed to us, so that God, on account of that
whole obedience (which Christ by his acting and by his
suffering, in his life and in his death, for our sake ren
dered to his Father who is in heaven), remits our sins,
reputes us as good and just, and gives us eternal salva
tion."* "We are pronounced and reputed good and
just on account of the obedience of Christ, which Christ
from his nativity until his ignominious death upon the
cross accomplished for the Father in our behalf."!
The Westminster Confession — (A. D. 1648) which all
the Presbyterians of Scotland, Ireland and America
profess to embrace sacredly and candidly as the Confes
sion of their own personal faith — says: "The Lord
Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself,
which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up to
God, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father; and
purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting
inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those
whom the Father hath given unto him."! "Those
whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth;
not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardon
ing their sins, and by accounting and accepting their
person as righteous, . . . not imputing faith itself, the
act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to
* Formula Concordise ; p. 684, Hase's Libri Symbolici.
t Ibid., p. 686.
X Westminster Confession, chapter viii., § 5.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 295
them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obe
dience and satisfaction of Christ unto them."*
The Formula Consensus Helvetica — "composed in
Zurich (A. D. 1675) by Heidegger, assisted by Francis
Turretin of Geneva, and Gereler of Basle," and designed
to rebuke the errors introduced by the Professors of the
French Theological Seminary at Saumur, who taught a
mixed system, in general character the same with that
system among us styled "New England Theology" —
says: "But by the obedience of his death, Clirist, instead
of his elect, so satisfied God the Father, that in the esti
mate, nevertheless, of his vicarious righteousness and of
that obedience, all of that which he rendered to the law,
as its just servant, during the whole course of his life,
whether by doing or by suffering, ought to be called
obedience. For Christ's life, according to the apostle's
testimony (Phil. ii. 7, 8) was nothing but a continuous
emptying of self, submission and humiliation, descending
step by step to the very lowest extreme, even the death
of the cross; and the Spirit of God plainly declares that
Christ in our stead satisfied the law and divine justice
by his most holy life, and makes that ransom, with
which God has redeemed us, to consist not in his
sufferings only, but in his whole life conformed to the
law."! When the name of Edwards is spoken, all men think
of one man — President Edwards, Sr., the great writer
on the Will and Original Sin. Surely all honest use of
language demands that if any doctrine be styled the
"Fdwardean Theory of the Atonement," it should be his.
* Westminster Confession, chapter xi., (S 1.
f Formula Consensus Helvetica, canon 15.

296 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
He, as all his readers know, maintained on this point
precisely the doctrine of Luther, and Calvin, and
Turretin. Yet the prestige of his great name has un-
candidly been perverted into the support of the Govern
mental Theory, which he never taught. "As there is
the same need that Christ's obedience should be reck
oned to our account, as that his atonement should; so
there is the same reason why it should. As, if Adam
had persevered and finished his course of obedience, we
should have received the benefit of his obedience, as
much as now we have the mischief of his disobedience;
so in like manner, there is reason that we should receive
the benefit of the second Adam's obedience, as of his
atonement of our disobedience. Believers are repre
sented in Scripture as being so in Christ, as that they
are legally one, or accepted as one, by the supreme
Judge : Christ has assumed our nature, and has so as
sumed all in that nature, that belongs to him, into such
a union with himself, that he is become their head and
has taken them to be his members. And, therefore,
what Christ has done in our nature, whereby he did
honour to the law and authority of God by his acts, as
well as the reparation to the honour of the law by his
sufferings, is reckoned to the believer's account."*
III. It remains for us now only to indicate the
conclusions as to the truth of the doctrine we advo
cate, which the historical facts, now approved, appear to
sustain. We have already conceded to our opponents that the
facts show that the mind of the Church advanced more
slowly in the development of the doctrine of the Atone-
* Edwards' Works, vol. v., pp. 399, 400.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 297
ment than in the case of any other of the great funda
mental doctrines of Revelation. But we claim that the
men and confessions quoted above truly represented the
Church of their respective ages, and that in their char
acter as representatives they fully prove that the Church
of Christ had, as a general fact, always understood the
redemptive work of the Lord to be a vicarious expiation
of sin in order to propitiate a justly-incensed though
loving God in behalf of sinners. If this be so, we
argue against all who deny this great truth, that it is
impossible that Christians should thus have mistaken
Christianity. The question is not whether grave, or
even fatal, errors have prevailed in the visible Church,
nor whether true Christians may or may not fall into
grievous misconception as to important truths. But the
real question involved is, whether it is possible that the
whole Church in all ages, as a general and characteristic
fact — and whether with especial uniformity the more
spiritual and fruitful portion of the Church — should
have entirely mistaken the nature of that foundation
upon which their trust reposes, and of that redemption
of which they have been the subjects.
As far as the Moral Influence Theory is concerned,
the adverse presumption raised by the history of opinion
on this subject is overwhelming. The spiritual followers
of Christ have always lived a life the conscious princi
ple of which was faith in a sin-expiating sacrifice. So
cinians and Rationalists have believed in the Moral
Influence Hypothesis when they have seen fit to believe
anything. Let the doctrines be judged by their fruits,
and by the seal of the Holy Ghost on the hearts of their
respective professors.

298 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Young says of the Evangelical Churches from the
Reformation down to the present hour: "If there has
been success anywhere in the spread of Christianity, if
there has been manifest power, power for highest good,
anywhere, it has been in connection with them. Unde
niably God has been in them and with them, and the
Spirit of God has marvellously wrought, through them,
for the conversion and moral regeneration of the world."*
Yet he continues a few paragraphs after : " That wild
and daring transcendentalism which, in a greater or less
degree, essentially affects evangelical theology at this
hour, is not by any means the most fatal evil. The
doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice is immeasurably
worse in its moral tendency. . . . This, beyond all com
parison, is the deadliest error."! This is a sheer
absurdity. The faith in the work of Christ as an ex
piation of guilt has been a constant element in the liv
ing Church. The partial prevalence of the doctrine
advocated by Young has been a constant symptom of
the decay of spiritual life and fruitfulness when these
have reached the crisis of death. Young hates the
doctrine of the satisfaction of justice. He will have
none of it. But his will, like the Pope's bull against
the comet, is impotent, as well to expunge it from the
page of history as from the page of revelation.
The adverse bearing of this historical review upon
the position of those who advocate the Governmental
Hypothesis is not less evident. The Governmental, as
well as the Moral Theory, necessarily denies that the
effect of Christ's death was to expiate the guilt intrinsic
in sin, or to propitiate the justice intrinsic in God. Both
* " Life and Light of Men," p. 467. f Ibid., p. 476.

HISTORY OF OPINION. 299
these theories agree in making the direct and essential
effect of the Atonement to be simply exemplary and
moral; a display of principles, not a veritable exercise
of divine attributes. On the contrary, the history
proves beyond question (1) that the one point held in
common by all the people of God in all ages is precisely
this, that like the function of the ancient priest and the
virtue of the ancient sacrifice, the effect of Christ's
death terminates, not on the sinner nor on the universe,
but on God. The simplest and constant form of the
Confession is, that Christ, by his sacrifice, has expiated
sin and propitiated God. This theory of Satisfaction, as
thus generally stated, is the faith of the Greek and Ro
man, of the Lutheran and Reformed and Arminian
Churches in all their branches ; and what is true of the
Church to-day has been true of the Church from the
beginning. (2.) All the creeds of the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches teach the full doctrine stated and
advocated in this book, and they can, by no amount
of ingenuity, however able or unscrupulous, be explained
away into even a plausible conformity with the charac
teristic positions of the Governmental Hypothesis. Nor
can its advocates truly claim that while accepting and
conserving all that is essential and valuable in the older
faith of the Church, their doctrine is simply to be re
garded as an "improvement in theology" in the line of
legitimate progress. We believe in such progress. We
thank God that it has been made by the Church in its
comprehension of this very doctrine in the past. We
acknowledge that there is both room and need for more
such progress just here. We hope that the Spirit may
soon lead us to more truth in this direction as in all

300 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
others. But it is absurd to propose that as an improve
ment which essentially consists in the denial of the
original and uniform faith of the Church in the pre
mises. When Grotius, in his celebrated work, written pro
fessedly to defend the common doctrine of the Church
from the attacks of the Socinians, first developed the
Governmental Theory, and admitted that the Atonement
was not designed to satisfy an immutable demand of the
divine nature, but to produce a sin-deterring effect upon
the universe, all saw that he had betrayed the very
life of the cause he had professed to defend. Even the
great Arminian theologian, Limborch, saw clearly that
this was so, and said, in criticising the work of Grotius,
"that the gist of the matter in respect to the doctrine of
the Atonement lies in the question, 'An Christus morte
sua, circa Deum aliquid effecerit?' "* This is indeed the
heart of the question. The whole Christian Church,
Apostolic Fathers, Schoolmen, Reformers, Greek, Roman,
Lutheran, Reformed, and even the Arminian Churches,
all answer in one voice in the affirmative. The Arians,
Socinians, Rationalists, and advocates of the Govern
mental Hypothesis, answer together in the negative.
Let them not pretend, therefore, that their doctrine is an
improvement of that old theology the root of which it
destroys. Their doctrine is as strange to the history of
the Church as it is to the page of Revelation.
* Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii., p. 371.

CHAPTER XX.
THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH DOCTRINE
STATED AND ANSWERED.
MY original scheme embraced the purpose of devoting
a separate chapter to the discussion and solution of
the various objections which have been brought against
the Church doctrine of the Satisfaction rendered by
Christ to divine justice, and another chapter to the dis
cussion and refutation of the several erroneous views
held in opposition to the truth. I have, however, found
it to be impossible to avoid noticing and answering these
objections, and stating, contrasting and refuting these
rival theories, as they were severally brought to notice in
the development of the true doctrine at the different
points upon which they severally bear. I could not
define the true doctrine without excluding the false
doctrine coterminous with it at each several point. I
could not prove the true doctrine without, eo ipso, dis
proving the false alternative, and solving the objections
which were made to the doctrine we advocate or to the
evidences by which it is substantiated. I will in this
place, consequently, do nothing more than repeat — for
the sake of perspicuity and impression — very briefly,
the principal objections made against the doctrine of
Satisfaction, and the answers to them. I wish, however,
in the first place to repeat, with emphasis, the second of
26 301

302 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the three conditions of argument which I laid down in
the Introductory Chapter of this book: "Reasonable
objections against the evidences by which a doctrine is
established have force and should be duly considered.
But rational objections to any principle fairly established
by the language of Scripture have no force whatever
unless they amount to a palpable contradiction to other
principles certainly known. And whenever this can be
shown, the reasonable inference is, not that the teaching
of Scripture is to be modified in conformity thereto,
but that the Scriptures themselves are to be rejected as
false. Nothing is more senseless than the attempt to
modify the results of the inspiration of Jehovah in
conformity with human reason."
We maintain that it is proved beyond gainsaying
that the doctrine of the Christian Church as to the nature
of the satisfaction of Christ is explicitly taught in Scrip
ture. Our opponents have only one of three things to
do : (a) show that the Scriptures do not teach our doc
trine; (b) accept that doctrine themselves; or (c) reject
the Scriptures. We notice their objections to the doc
trine, not for the purpose of erecting the demonstration
of its truth upon the demonstration of their insufficiency
or total falsehood, but simply for the purpose of show
ing that the teachings of God's word do not contradict
the teachings of that reason with which he has endowed
us. 1. All our opponents deny that justice in our strict
and absolute sense of the word is a virtue. Hence they
deny that it is a divine attribute. Hence they object
that our doctrine revolts their moral sense by ascribing
vindictiveness to God.

OBJECTIONS stated and answered. 303
(1.) The advocates of the Moral Influence Theory deny
that the disposition to punish every sin irrespective of
any ulterior object is an absolute perfection of the divine
nature. Socinus said, " If we could but get rid of this
justice, even if we had no other proof, that fiction of
Christ's satisfaction would be thoroughly exposed and
would vanish."* Priestly says that "justice in the
Deity can be no more than a modification of that good
ness or benevolence which is his sole governing princi
ple."! Young! denies that there is any such thing
as rectilineal justice in one sense in God at all. He
admits that God is just in the sense of never defrauding
any one of any good thing due to him, but he denies
utterly that any moral excellence demands the inflic
tion of evil upon a repentant sinner. In like manner
Bushnell,§ through all his dishonouring caricatures of
the faith of the Church, denies that there is any ex
cellence in the divine nature determining him to treat
sin according to its intrinsic ill-desert, and that the
punishment which God inflicts upon sin is in any way
different from paternal chastisement designed for the
good of the offender.
(2.) All the advocates of the Governmental Theory
of the Atonement, although they talk of justice in a
manner very different from the class just referred to, yet
hold an opinion which in its last analysis comes to the
same thing. They both deny that the disposition to
treat sin as it deserves, because of its own intrinsic evil,
is an excellence, or that it belongs to God. They both
* De Servatore, iii., 1. t Theol. Kep., I., 417.
X " Life and Light of Men," chap. 4.
I Vicarious Sacrifice, Part III., chaps, i.-iii.

304 the nature op the atonement.
hold that the sole motive for the penal evils attached to
the violations of the divine law is that simple benevo
lence "which," in the words of Priestly, "is God's
sole governing principle." The only difference is that
the advocate of the Moral Influence or Socinian view of
the Atonement makes the good of the individual con
cerned, in every given case, the absolute end of the
benevolence of God in his chastisement, while the
Governmental Atonement Theory makes the good of
the subjects of God's moral government in general the
the absolute end of that benevolence. Dr. N. W.
Taylor says:* "Justice, on the part of a perfect moral
Governor, is a benevolent disposition to maintain, by the
requisite means, his authority as the necessary condition
of the highest happiness of his kingdom." "Justice
always implies a correspondent right somewhere to some
good or benefit which is the object of the right 
As punishment is in no respect a good to the trans
gressor, it can in no respect be the object of a right on
his part, and therefore cannot, in this respect, be an act
of justice to him, nor an act of justice to him in any
sense, except that he, by his act of transgression, has
created a right to his punishment on the part of the
public;" that is, because his punishment will directly or
indirectly contribute to the happiness of the public.
That is, both of these false theories of the Atonement
resolve justice into benevolence. We hold this to be a
metaphysical absurdity. We challenge the world either
(a) to prove that mankind are destitute of the ideas of
"right," of "oughtness," of "justice," &c, or (b) to trace
the generation of either one or all of these ideas from
* Moral Government, vol. ii., p. 280.

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 305
the ideas of benevolence or of happiness. We agree
that benevolence respects the happiness of others, and
that benevolence is a moral excellence which ornaments
the divine nature, and which men ought to possess and
to exercise. But the idea of oughtness is more elemen
tal than the idea of benevolence, and it cannot be
analyzed into anything more elemental. It is an inde
pendent and ultimate idea which stands by itself. But
if the idea of moral obligation is ultimate and indepen
dent, it follows, from its very nature, that it is intrinsi
cally supreme and absolute. Its dictates may coincide
with those of benevolence, but if not, they must take
precedence of them. The man would prove himself to
be a moral idiot who could question whether that which
is right ought to be done in preference to that which is
the cause of happiness, no matter to whom. Besides
this fact, that no metaphysician has ever been able
to trace the genesis of the ideas of " Tightness,"
"oughtness," "justice" out of either of the ideas of
"benevolence" or "happiness," every sane man in the
spontaneous judgments of his life distinguishes between
benevolence and justice as things generically distinct.
Every human being judges practically of sin in himself
and others that it is intrinsically ill-deserving. A re
pentant sinner would deserve punishment as much if he
was the only creature in the universe as he would in a
thronged world.
The form in which the principle upon which this
objection to our doctrine rests, as entertained by the
advocates of the Governmental Theory, is bad enough,
but it is much worse as it is pressed by the advocates of
the Moral Influence Theory. Their sickly sentiments
26*

306 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
are in obvious contradiction to all the sacred and profane
history of God's providential dealings with men from
the beginning until now, to all the moral judgments
of men, to the principles of all human laws and reli
gions, and to all the revealed principles of the Scriptures.
That God does not do all within his power to save all
men; that all the penal consequences with which he
follows sin are not designed to benefit the offender; that
God does punish some sinners eternally, and that eter
nal punishments cannot be designed to benefit the vic
tims upon whom it is inflicted, are facts absolutely
certain, and unquestionably inconsistent with the funda
mental principles upon which Socinus, Priestly, and
Young and Bushnell push their objections to the venera
ble faith of the Church. Vindictiveness is a miserable
vice festering in the heart of a sinful Creature, cherished
against a fellow-creature because of a personal injury.
But an inexorable determination to treat all sin accord
ing to its intrinsic ill-desert is a peerless excellence
crowning all the other moral attributes of a wise, right
eous and benevolent Ruler.
2. In the same spirit with the last objection our oppo
nents insist that the theory of Satisfaction excludes the
element of grace from having any share in the salvation
of men. Socinus insisted that penal satisfaction and
remission or forgiveness mutually exclude each other.
If a sin is punished, it is not forgiven ; if it is forgiven,
it is not punished. This is evidently a miserable quib
ble, founded upon that very confusion of persons and
things that they falsely charge upon us. The sin is
never that which is forgiven, but the sinner is forgiven
and the penalty due his sin not executed upon him. As

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 307
far as the sinner is "personally concerned, his forgiveness
is no less free and the remission of the penalty is none
the less perfect because the penalty is executed upon a
Voluntary Substitute than if it was sovereignly abrogated
altogether. Our unfriendly critics are very much in the habit of
charging us with regarding the Atonement as a mere
commercial transaction, and then in their criticisms fall
ing into the same miserable mistake themselves. Thus,
they argue that if Christ by his obedience and sufferings
fully satisfied all the federal demands of the law in the
stead of his people, then there is no grace exercised in
the forgiveness of men. They assert that our doctrine
puts the Father and the Son in very opposite attitudes
in respect to the salvation of mankind. The Father
inexorably demands the payment of the uttermost far
thing of the debt due to him, and will relax his claims
not one iota in order to spare his helpless creatures or his
suffering Son. The Son, in order to propitiate the inex
orable Father in behalf of the helpless objects of his
displeasure, takes pity upon them and pays their debt
with his own blood.
This whole talk foolishly or wilfully confounds a
pecuniary with a penal satisfaction. We did not owe
God money. God is not vindictive, bent upon fining
us for a personal injury. God is infinite in moral per
fection and must do right. We are sinners and ought to
be punished. The claim terminates not upon the thing
done, but upon the person sinning. Vicarious satisfac
tion does not, ipso facto, liberate, but can be admitted,
if at all, only as a matter of sovereign grace. Christ is
not of a different nature from the Father, but is of one

308 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
essence, nature, feeling, mind and purpose with him
from all eternity. He did not die to make the Father
cease to hate us, but was given because God so loved
the world, in order to reconcile that infinite love with
his infinite justice in their concurrent exercises with re
gard to their common objects — that is, those whom the
Father had given the Son. God would of necessity
have to sacrifice either his elect, or his Son, or moral
principles. It is self-evident that God shows immeasura
bly more grace in saving his elect at the expense of his
"beloved Son" than he could do either by a sacrifice
of moral principle, or, in case it had been possible to
save us, without any sacrifice at all. No exhibition of
human depravity that has ever disgraced the earth is
more amazing than this denial, that the self-assumption
of the penalty of the broken law of God in the stead
of his elect is an exercise of sovereign and disinterested
love. Christ is the one satisfied as well as the one satis
fying, the one punishing as well as the one punished ;
but he loves us enough to punish himself in our place.
This is the wonder of eternity. This is the inexhausti
ble theme of the heavenly song of adoration and grati
tude for ever.
3. By far the most plausible objection that is brought
to our doctrine is that the demands of justice for penal
satisfaction are essentially personal. The Church argues
that there is an immutable principle in the divine nature,
lying back of, not determined by, but itself determining,
the optional will of God demanding the just punishment
of all sin, and hence the absolute necessity of a penal
solution of the claims of the law in the case of every
sinner. But this demand is that the agent sinning, and

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSAVERED. 309
not another person, shall suffer therefor. If God is
able, in the exercise of sovereign prerogative, to substi
tute person for person, the objectors urge, why is he not
able, by the same prerogative, to dispense with the pun
ishment altogether? It is asserted, that in the view of
the moral sense of all men there is and can be no con
nection between the punishment of the sin of one man
and the sufferings of a different person. That vicarious
punishment, in the strict judicial sense of those terms, is
a simple absurdity. How can the demands of the divine
nature be satisfied by pains inflicted upon a person arbi
trarily substituted in the place of the criminal by the
divine will?
There is force in this objection, and, I think, it must
be conceded by all that justice cannot demand and exe
cute the punishment of a sin upon any party that is not
truly and really responsible for it, and that the sin of
one person cannot be really expiated by means of the
sufferings of another, unless they be in such a sense
legally one that in the judgment of the law the suffer
ing of the one is the suffering of the other. The Real
istic doctrine of the numerical oneness of the race, and
the actual coagency of all the race in Adam and of all
the elect in Christ, was excogitated to meet this difficulty.
We object to it because it makes the oneness to be physi
cal and not moral. Now, the eternal Logos, in council
with the Father and Holy Ghost, assumed the responsi
bility of the federal relations of his elect to the law from
all eternity. They were created and permitted to fall
to the end of their redemption in Christ. All God's
dealing with them, from the very beginning, has had
reference to their relation to Christ, and to Christ's

310 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
covenant responsibility for them. The conditions are
all absolutely unique. The case is without parallel ex
cept in that of Adam, who was made the representative
and agent of the whole race for their benefit in those
transactions upon which their eternal confirmation in
holiness and happiness or everlasting loss depended.
Surely in a case embracing conditions so unparalleled, it
is absurd for human reason to decide that the God-man
was not, in the eye of omniscient justice, really and truly
penally responsible for the sins of his people, and in
such a sense morally one with them; that is, his suffer
ing the penalty due to their sins is in full legal effect
equivalent to the execution of the penalty on them.
In the body of this book I have shown that if the
Scriptures are true, then Christ does sustain this unique
relation to his people. The negative decision of reason
in the case ought to be very direct and certain if it is to
be admitted as of sufficient force to balance reasonably
all the external and internal, natural and supernatural,
historical, moral and spiritual evidences of the Christian
religion. 4. Socinus objected that the temporal sufferings of
Christ were in no sense an equivalent for the execution
of the penalty of the law in the persons of all sinners.
Each and every sinner had incurred the penalty of eter
nal death for himself severally. But Christ did not
suffer eternal death, and his temporal death is only one.
For both reasons, therefore, because it was temporal, and
because it was but the death of one man, it could not be
intended to be a satisfaction to divine justice in the stead
of the eternal death of an incalculable multitude. On
this ground Socinus consistently rejected the atonement

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 311
of Christ altogether. Duns Scotus (A. D. 1308), Grotius,
the great author of the Governmental Atonement Theory,
and the Arminian theologians Episcopius, Limborch and
Curcellseus, all admitted the fact that the single and
temporal death of Christ was no equivalent for the eter
nal death of all men severally, but they refused to
admit the inevitable conclusion that therefore the for
giveness of sins was based ultimately upon a simple act
of sovereign prerogative, and that justice was in no sense
propitiated, because it was not in strict rigour satisfied.
Scotus held that God graciously "accepted" the single
and temporal death of Christ as a sufficient satisfaction.
Grotius held that the demands of the law were so far
sovereignly "relaxed" by God that the intrinsically
inferior work of Christ was found sufficient. The Ar
minians said that God graciously "estimated" Christ's
work for more than its intrinsic value.
The principle upon which this objection proceeds is
both rational and conclusive if the Socinian view of
Christ's person is true, but it is both preposterous and
insufferable from the mouth of any one professing to
believe in the supreme divinity of our Lord. Christ
suffered solely in his human nature. But his person is
infinite and divine. All legal relations and obligations
whatsoever, whether original or vicarious, are necessarily
personal. We cannot of course explain psychologically
the relation between the two natures and their concur
rent experiences and interactions in the unity of the
theanthropic Person. But this much we do know — the
humanity was necessarily impersonal. It began and
continued to exist only within the eternal personality of
the Logos. The eternal, august, supreme, second Person

312 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of the Godhead obeyed and suffered in the stead of sin
ners. The heavens darkened and the earth trembled
in the presence of the amazing fact. Away with all
blasphemous impertinence with respect to the "relaxa
tion " of the law in order to lower it to the terms of such
a satisfaction, or of the gracious "estimation" of such a
satisfaction in order to raise it to equality with the de
mands of the law ! On the contrary, the law is " magni
fied " by such an obedience and by such a penal suffering,
as it could not be by the several eternal sufferings of all
creatures actual or possible; and justice is not only satis
fied, but glorified, borne aloft and set ablaze in the crown
of God.
5. It is constantly objected by the advocates of the
Governmental Atonement Theory that the Church doc
trine necessarily involves an absurd theory of imputa
tion. They insist that the "Satisfaction Theory," as
they call it, has always been associated with the doctrine
that the personal, sinful character of his people was
transferred to Christ, and that the personal good charac
ter of Christ was transferred to them. This objection
would be crushing indeed if it happened to contain a
single grain of truth. But since it is utterly false as a
matter of history, and absurd as a matter of criticism,
its effect is to be seen only in its recoil upon its origina
tors. The Church doctrine always has been simply that
the legal responsibilities (penal and federal) of his peo
ple were by covenant transferred to Christ, and that he,
as Mediator, was regarded and treated accordingly.
The sinful act and the sinful nature are inalienable.
The guilt or just liability to punishment is alienable, or
no sinner can be saved. Our evil nature remains in-

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 313
alienably our own until we are changed by the Holy
Ghost in regeneration and sanctification. The obligation
to punishment, according to the terms of the eternal
covenant, has been taken from the elect and fully dis
charged in the sufferings of our Substitute.
They object that although Christ did not owe punish
ment for himself, yep like every other created nature his
humanity was conformed to the law of moral perfection
as the condition of its own excellence, and hence that it
was incapable of any works of supererogation, and
hence he must have been incapable of rendering a vica
rious obedience in the stead of his people.
These objectors should, however, remember that that
obedience which Christ rendered in our stead was not
that which the law demands of all moral agents, un
changeably and inalienably in its natural relation, but
precisely that obedience which God, as Sovereign, moral
Governor and Guardian of all human souls, required as
the probationary condition of their being confirmed in a
holy character for ever, and being endowed with "the
adoption of sons." Christ, in his divine nature, is from
eternity the essential embodiment of this law of absolute
moral perfection. In his human nature he was gene
rated by the Holy Ghost into perfect conformity to this
law, and ever since sustained therein. As to his person,
however, he is absolutely divine and sovereign. The
federal claims of law all necessarily terminate upon per
sons and not upon natures. The law can claim nothing
of his divinity, because his nature is itself the fountain
of all law, and his will its rule and expression to the
entire creation. When he, therefore, condescends to be
" born of a woman, to be made under the law," and un-
27

314 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
der the conditions of human life thus " to fulfil all right
eousness," surely such obedience, performed with such
design, is, as far as his divine Person is concerned, a
work of supererogation; that is, demanded by no law,
except the free-will law of electing love ; and hence such
an obedience may, by the terms of the covenant between
the Father and the Son, be rendered vicariously by him
in the stead and for the benefit of his people.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE MORAL INFLUENCE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORIES
OF THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT DISCUSSED AND RE
FUTED.
ALL the theories of the Atonement which men in this
age of the world have any interest to consider may,
as I have already several times declared, be grouped
under one or other of the following heads, (a) Those
which regard the sufferings and death of Christ as
designed solely to produce an effect terminating as a
moral impression in the subjective condition of the indi
vidual sinner, (b) Those which, while including the
preceding idea, regard them as chiefly designed to pro
duce an effect terminating as a moral impression in the
public mind of the subjects of the moral government of
God. (c) Those which, while including both of the pre
ceding ideas in their order, regard Christ's sufferings and
death as a vicarious penalty, designed to produce a
justice-propitiating effect, terminating upon God. The
last of these views is that taught in Scripture, professed
by the Church of Christ in all its branches, and advo
cated in this volume. The other two I will now very
briefly discuss in their order.
I. The general view that the great end of the death
of Christ was to produce a moral impression upon the
hearts of sinners, and thus lead to their moral and
315

316 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
spiritual reformation, has been taught in various forms
by many successive teachers, and has been uniformly
rejected as a heresy by the Church. Hagenbach* says
that " Socinus defined the object of Christ's death posi
tively as follows: (1.) The death of Christ was an
example set before men for their imitation. (2.) It was
designed to confirm the promises made by God, thus
giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins. (3.) It was
the necessary means, preparatory to his resurrection, by
which he entered into glory. ' Christ died that through
death he might attain to resurrection, from which arises
the strongest confirmation of the divine will and the
most certain persuasion of our own resurrection and
attainment to eternal life.' "f Thus, according to
Socinus, the designed effect of Christ's death is wholly
a subjective impression upon the minds of sinners, to
stimulate them to emulate his heroic virtue ; to prove
and to illustrate the love of God and his willingness to
forgive sin upon the repentance of the sinner ; to con
firm the truth of all the doctrines he had taught and of
the promises which God had made through the prophets
or through himself; and by giving opportunity for his
resurrection from the dead to demonstrate the fact of a
future life, and to prove and illustrate the future resur
rection of his people. The modern theories of Jowett,
Maurice, Bushnell, Young, &c, differ from that of
Socinus only in being rhetorical where his is logical,
confused where his is clear, and narrow and partial
where his is comprehensive. The lines between truth
and error with regard to this central doctrine of the
gospel were already definitely drawn in the first half
* Vol. ii., p. 360. t Cat. Eacov., p. 265.

MORAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 317
of the twelfth century, at the very opening of the
Scholastic era. As to the entire essence of the doctrine,
Anselm then stood precisely where the whole Church of
Christ in all its branches has ever since stood ; and the
infamous Abelard taught in every essential respect the
doctrine maintained by Socinus, and by Maurice, Bush
nell, and Young, in our own day. Baur, as quoted by
Hagenbach,* says: "Thus the two representatives of
Scholasticism in its first period, when it developed itself
in all its youthful vigor, Anselm and Abelard, were
directly opposed to each other with respect to the doc
trines of redemption and atonement. The one considered
the last ground of it to be the divine justice, requiring
an infinite equivalent for the infinite guilt of sin ; that
is, a necessity founded in the nature of God. The other
held it to be the free grace of God, which, by kindling
love in the breast of man, blots out sin, and with sin its
guilt." To the same effect Bushnell says: "The true and
simple account of his (Christ's) sufferings is, that he had
such a heart as would not suffer him to be turned away
from us, and that he suffered for us even as love must
willingly suffer for its enemy."! "Vicarious sacrifice
was in no way peculiar to Christ save in degree."!
"The Holy Spirit works in love as Christ did, and
suffers all the incidents of love — compassion, wounded
feeling, sorrow, concern, burdened sympathy, violated
patience — taking men upon him, to bear them and their
sins, precisely as Christ himself did in his sacrifice. "§ '
He "simply came into the corporate state of evil (sum
* Vol. ii., pp. 47, 48. t Ibid., p. 107.
t Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 108. \ Ibid., p. 74.
27 *

318 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT,
total of natural consequences of sin), and bore it with
us — faithful unto death for our recovery."* He "came
simply to be the manifested love of God."! " Christ
became incarnate to obtain moral power" (that which
belongs to a developed character). " The understanding
is to obtain through him, and the facts and processes of
his life, a new kind of power; viz., moral power — the
same that is obtained by human conduct under human
methods. It will be divine power still, only it will not
be attribute power. That is the power of his idea (that
is original power, intrinsic to the divine nature). This
new power is to be the power cumulative, gained by him
among men as truly as they gain it with each other.
Only it will turn out in the end to be the grandest,
closest to feeling, most impressive, most soul-renovating,
and spiritually sublime power that was ever obtained in
this or any other world."!
To the same effect, also, Young writes over and over
again in many passages exquisitely beautiful, and true
also when accepted as an expression of one side of the
truth — an inestimably precious side too. "The infi
nite Father in boundless pity looked down upon his
undutiful children, and yearned to rescue them by re
gaining their hearts and drawing them back to alle
giance and to peace. With God-like mercy he unveiled
all that was possible of divine purity, and truth, and
beauty, and sweetness, and lovingness, and compas
sion. He humbled himself, descended to the level of
his creatures, walked among them, spoke with them face
to face, and appealed, as he still continues to appeal, to
their hearts through the gentleness, the tenderness, the
* Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 514. f Ibid., p. 141. J Ibid., p. 188.

MORAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 319
wisdom, the meekness, the patience, the sufferings, the
tears, the blood and the death of Jesus Christ.
"The distinction here is radical and fundamental.
The sacrifice was not offered up by men at all or by a
substitute in their room; and it was not required to
appease God's anger, or to satisfy his justice, or to render
him propitious. The sacrifice was not offered by men to
God, but was made by God for men and for sin, in order
that sin might be for ever put down and rooted out of
human nature. This stupendous act of divine sacrifice
was God's instrument of reconciliation and redemption,
God's method of conquering the human heart, and of
subduing a revolted world and attaching it to his
throne — pure love, self-sacrificing love, crucified, dying
love."* The objections to this view are conclusive.
1. The precious truth which it undeniably contains
has always been held by the Church as an integral part
of the orthodox doctrine of the piacular sacrifice of
Christ. All that is negative in the Moral Influence
Theory is refuted by the overwhelming evidence we
have recited in establishing the Church doctrine as to
divine justice and vicarious punishment, while all that is
positive in that theory is maintained with far greater
consistency and illustrated with far greater force on our
view of the nature, necessity, and design of his sacrifice
than on theirs. We believe that God could have
changed man's subjective moral condition by the direct
action of his Holy Spirit upon the human soul, without
the objective exhibition of his love by means of such a
sacrifice as that made in the person of his Son. The
* " Life and Light of Men," pp. 301, 302.

320 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
position that this is impossible is unreasonably pre
sumptuous and entirely unsusceptible of proof. If,
then, there remains the conceivable hypothesis that God
might have attained his end in the moral regeneration of
human souls in some other and less expensive way than
the one chosen, it follows that the infinite love of God
for man is less luminously exhibited, upon the suppo
sition that the necessity of his dying was only as one of
two or more alternative instrumentalities to subdue the
distrust and alienation of the human heart, than it is
upon the supposition that he died because his death was
the absolutely necessary means of removing obstacles to
the salvation of men posited in the unchangeable nature
of God. It is all the greater love, because the sacrifice
was absolutely necessary to attain its object. It is all
the sweeter and holier love, because, while making such
entire sacrifice of self, it refuses all sacrifice of principle.
As a matter of practical experience, that view of the
sacrifice of Christ which maintains its strictly piacular
character has inspired all the hymns of the Church and
has melted the hearts of all the multitudes either in
Christian or in heathen lands who have been won by
the story of redeeming love to the discipleship of
Christ. It is the Church doctrine, and not the Moral
Influence understanding of the character of Christ's
death, which has been preached in all revivals and been
carried forth by all missionaries, and which has kindled
the flame in the hearts of the Lollards and Vallenses,
Lutherans, Puritans, Moravians, and Methodists ; while
it is the boasted Moral Influence Theory which has just
claim to whatever of moral regeneration and spiritual
life distinguish the history of Abelard and his dis-

MORAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 321
ciples, of Socinians, Unitarians, Rationalists, and what
ever other of this sort Young and Bushnell may please.
Bushnell, with singular simplicity, after having
written a volume to prove that the doctrine of piacular
sacrifice as held by the Church is revolting to the moral
sense and dishonoring to God; after insisting through
five hundred pages that Christ's death was a simple
martyrdom, and its sole effect a moral one on the hearts
of men, concludes by acknowledging that the Moral
Influence Theory is unable of itself to produce a moral
influence result, and hence the Church doctrine must in
idea be substituted in its place. That is, he confesses
that his doctrine, on its own ground of subjective moral
influence, is not only no more effective than the repu
diated doctrine of Christ's Church, nor merely that it is
less effective, but that it is in fact, when brought to the
test, absolutely impotent, and must be practically sup
planted by the other. "In the facts, outwardly re
garded, there is no sacrifice, or oblation, or atonement,
or propitiation, but simply a living and dying thus and
thus. The facts are impressive ; the person is clad in a
wonderful dignity and beauty; the agony is eloquent of
love, and the cross is a very shocking murder trium
phantly met; and if then the question rises how we are
to use such a history so as to be reconciled by it, we
hardly know in what way to begin. How shall we
come unto God by help of this martyrdom? How shall
we turn it or turn ourselves under it so as to be justified
and set at peace with God? Plainly, there is a want
here, and this want is met by giving a thought-form to
the facts which are not in the facts themselves. They
are put directly into the moulds of the altar, and we are

322 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
called to accept the crucified God-man as our Sacrifice,
an offering or oblation for us, our Propitiation ; so to be
sprinkled from our evil conscience, washed, purged,
purified, cleansed from sin. Instead of leaving the
matter of the facts just as they occurred, &c. . . . And
so much is there in this that, without these forms of the
altar, we should be utterly at a loss in making any use of
the Christian facts that would set us in a condition of
practical reconciliation with God. . . . We want, in
short, to use these altar-terms just as freely as they are
used by those who accept the formula of expiation or
judicial satisfaction for sin; in just their manner, too,
when they are using them most practically. We cannot
afford to lose these sacred forms of the altar."*
Our first argument, then, is that according to the con
fession of its ablest expounders, that moral effect which
the theory in question maintains is the sole aim of the
redemptive work of Christ is at least as well produced
by our view of the work of Christ as by theirs.
2. We go further in our second argument, and affirm
that upon their conception of its nature the work of
Christ is in no sense adapted to accomplish even that
effect which they represent to be its sole design. Upon
their theory there is utter incongruity between the
attempt to produce such effects by such means and the
ordinary and unchangeable principles of human nature.
This can be shown to be true both with respect to the
work itself objectively considered and with respect to the
process whereby the mind of the individual sinner must
appropriate that work in the aspect presented, for the
sake of the moral impression it was designed to effect.
* Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 533, 535.

MORAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 323
(1.) With respect to the nature of the work itself, it
is unquestionably a law of human nature that while
tragic suffering voluntarily incurred in fidelity to high
principle and out of unquenchable love for us, in order
to remove obstacles to our well-being exterior to our
selves, has more power over the depths of the heart than
any other conceivable thing; on the other hand, such
suffering, intentionally gotten iip with the design of pro
ducing a. pathetic effect upon us, not as a necessary inci
dent to a work for us, but as a calculated part of a work
upon us, necessarily defeats itself and excites disgust. If
Christ had come, as Socinus was wise enough to insist he
did, solely in the character of a prophet to reveal the
will of God to man, and to afford an example of eminent
virtue, and if his painful martyrdom was an undesigned
end incidental solely to his persistence in his labour of
love, in spite of the fierce opposition of his enemies,
then indeed that heroic exhibition of truth and love
would have been effective in making a deep moral im
pression on every susceptible heart. But the Scriptures
explicitly assert that Christ came into the world for the
purpose of suffering and dying. The fact, the time,
many of the detailed circumstances and horrors of his
death, were not only foreseen, but were foreordained.
Matt. xxvi. 24, 54, 56, and xxvii. 9, 10, 35. The death
of Christ was God's act: "Him, being delivered up by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have
taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."
Acts ii. 23. "But those things, which God before had
showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ
should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." Acts iii. 18. "For
of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast

324 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gen
tiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined
before (npocuptae) to be done." Act iv. 27 and 28. If
the sole design of the redemptive work of Christ is
to produce a moral effect upon the sinner, as these men
insist, the glorious transactions of Gethsemane and Cal
vary, which the Church has always regarded as infinitely
real, intense with divine attributes in action, are reduced
to the poor level of scenes deliberately contrived for effect,
finding their sole end in their effect as scenes. If the
Moral view of the Atonement should prove true, our
astonishment and indignation in view of the stolid in
difference of men to the moral power of the cross would
need to be materially abated.
(2.) The utter inappropriateness of the work of Christ
upon hypothesis of the truth of the Moral Theory to
effect the end for which it was designed is made more
clear when we come to consider the process by which,
upon that view of the case, the sinner must proceed to
appropriate that work for his own benefit. This diffi
culty is very effectively exhibited by Bushnell, to whom
the Church is thus indebted for the most conclusive
refutation of his own theory which this age has pro
duced. "The principal reason for setting forth the
matter of Christ's life and death as an oblation (piacular
sacrifice) remains to be stated, viz., the necessity of
somehow preventing an over-conscious state in the re
ceiver. It was going to be a great fault in the use, that
the disciple, looking for a power on his character, would
keep himself too entirely in this attitude of conscious
ness or voluntary self-application. He would be hang-

MORAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 325
ing around each fact and scene to get some eloquent
moving effect from it. And he would not only study
how to get impressions, but, almost before he was aware
of it, to make them. Just here accordingly it was that
the Scripture symbols, and especially those of the altar-
service, were to come to our aid, putting us into a use
of the gospel so entirely objective as to scarcely suffer a
recoil on our consciousness at all  Doubtless there
will be a power in it — all the greater power that I am
not looking after power, and that nothing puts me
thinking of effects upon myself. . . . Our subjective
applications of Christ get confused and grow ineffica
cious."* Thus we see that it is confessedly the Moral
Influence Theory of the death of Christ which fails
utterly to produce a moral impression, and that it must
be disguised under the ideal forms of the opposite and
inconsistent theory of sin-expiating, God-propitiating
sacrifice before any corresponding effect can be attained.
It is a singular case, indeed, if a false view of the
Atonement can produce a better moral effect than a
true view, and if a divine provision for the salvation
of men can attain the end God designed it to effect only
by means of a practical and voluntary misconception as
to its nature.
3. Our third argument is that this view of the nature
of Christ's work necessarily proceeds upon the denial
of those great fundamental principles as to law and jus
tice, as to the nature and effect of the Jewish sacrifices,
as to the nature of justification, &c, which we have so
fully established from Scripture in the preceding chap
ters of this volume. The establishment of the doctrine
w Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 535, 536.

326' THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT.
of the Christian Church is, of course, the virtual refuta
tion of all inconsistent theories.
4. The Scriptures explicitly declare that Christ was
the Saviour of those who died before his advent in the
flesh as well as those who came afterward. If Christ
did suffer the penalty due to his people, and so expiate
their sins, it is clear what is meant when he is called
"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,"
Rev. xiii. 8, and when he is declared to be set forth by
God to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to
declare his (God's) righteousness in respect to the pass
ing over the sins that were past (previous to his advent)
through the forbearance of God. Rom. iii. 25. The
eternal God assuredly may as well act upon a future as
upon a present or a past expiation. But upon the
hypothesis that the sufferings of Christ were designed
simply for a moral effect upon men, it is self-evident
that he could be a Saviour only after his advent and the
fulfilment of his tragedy to those who witnessed it, or
at best to those to whom an adequately graphic account
of it had been reported. It will not be pretended that
a man can be saved by a moral influence before it is ex
erted, nor that the influence can be exerted before that
exists which is to exert it. Hence it follows, if the
Moral Hypothesis be true, that all who died before the
passion of Christ perished, or were saved in some other
way. 5. This theory of Young and Bushnell is no novelty—
in no sense, even if true, "an improvement in theology."
It has appeared again and again. It has been rejected
uniformly in every age by the immense majority of
nominal Christians. It has always been associated with

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 327
Pelagian and Socinian heresies and incipient infidelity.
It has never been associated among a single body of
men for a measurable period of time with a respectable
degree of spiritual life and fruitfulness. The principles
which it denies have, on the contrary, been in vital con
nection with the entire current of spiritual life issuing
from the person of Christ along its entire course. Its
history condemns it, and ought to put its abettors to
shame. II. The Governmental Theory "places the necessity
of the Atonement of Christ in the exigencies of God's
moral government; not in the demands of an involun
tary organic emotion of retributive justice, common to
God and man. The Atonement was necessary for the
same reason, precisely, that the penalty annexed to the
divine law was necessary; it takes the place of that
penalty, in respect to those who repent and are forgiven ;
answers the same end as would have been answered by
the infliction of the penalty ; viz., it maintains the law
and authority of God, and by maintaining that law and
authority promotes those great interests for which moral
government exists. Hugo Grotius was, probably, the
first man who distinctly stated and defended the funda
mental principle of this theory. His design was to
defend the Satisfaction Theory against the Socinians, his
work being entitled ' Defensio fidei Catholicas de Satisfac
tions Christi.' The result, however, was that he actu
ally rejected the foundation principle of that theory, and
argued that the satisfaction of Christ was rendered, not
to the distributive but to the governmental justice of
God. ... He did not develop a complete and consist
ent Governmental Theory of the Atonement; nor, after

328 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
him, does there appear to have been any material pro
gress made towards the full development of such a
theory for more than a century and a half. The Ca
tholic view upon the one hand, and the Socinian view
on the other, generally prevailed. It was reserved for
certain New England divines of the last century, first
clearly to state and defend as a whole what has been
variously called the New School Theory, the Edwardean,
the Hopkinsian Theory, the Consistent Theory, or more
commonly and appropriately the Governmental Theory.
To Jonathan Edwards, Jr., more than to any other man,
belongs the honour of giving to the world this new
theory of the Atonement. His three celebrated sermons
on the subject, published in 1785, which marked an era
in the history of this doctrine, contain, perhaps, the most
thorough exposition and defence of this doctrine which
has yet been made. The elder Edwards, and his inti
mate friends Bellamy and Hopkins, by their suggestive
discussions of the subject, while retaining the general
features of the old view, yet contributed not a little to
the development of the new view. Among those emi
nent divines who early accepted the Governmental
Theory, and helped give it currency, were Smalley,
Maxey, Burge, Dwight, Emmons and Spring, who,
while differing on minor points, were yet agreed in
holding and advocating the essential principles on which
the theory rests. It now holds a recognized place in
that doctrinal system which is distinctively called the
'New England Theology.'"*
The main points of this theory are, 1. All moral ex
cellence is ultimately reducible to benevolence. "'The
* Eev. Daniel T. Fiske, D.D. Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1861.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 329
attributes of God are not so many distinct qualities, but
one perfection of excellence, diversified in our concep
tions by the diversity of the objects towards which it is
manifested.' This is a felicitous statement of the truth,
provided that love or benevolence be that ' one per
fection of excellence.' "* " All the moral perfections
of the Deity are comprised in the pure love of benevo
lence."! 2. God is a wise and benevolent ruler.
The origin and end of the moral law lie in the divine
purpose to promote by means of it the good of the
universe. The ultimate ground of the divine govern
ment as a whole, and of both the precept and the
penalty of the law therefore, is to be found in the bene
volence of God. The law is a product of pure bene
volence, designed to effect the highest good of all its
subjects regarded as a whole. The annexed penalty is
for the purpose of vindicating and maintaining the law.
Hence it follows (a) That the motive and end of the law
is also the motive and end of the penalty; that is, the
penalty also is a product of benevolence, designed to
effect the highest good of the subjects of moral law as a
whole; and (b) that "the sole function of penalty is
that of a legal sanction;" that is, a violent motive
addressed to the intelligent self-love of all the subjects
of the law, inducing them to observe it for the general
good. 3. " That the sufferings of Christ (the atonement)
were not, literally and strictly, the penalty of the law,
but a substitute for it, and an equivalent; that is, had the
* Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xviii., p. 314.
t Dr. Emmons in Dr. Edwards A. Park's volume of Discourses and
Treatises on the Atonement, by Edwards, Smalley, Maxey, Emmons,
Griffin, Burge, and Weeks, with an introductory Essay by the
Editor, p. 116.
28 *

330 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
same efficacy in respect to the divine law and government
that the penalty was designed to have, and would have
if inflicted in cases where it is remitted." 4. The
atonement renders the salvation of all men possible,
and it bears, from its very nature, precisely the same re
lation to the non-elect that it does to the elect. Its sole
design and effect is to remove legal obstacles out of the
way of the salvation of all men indifferently. It
secures nothing more than this for any man. The prin
ciples which secure its actual application to individual
men, whether these lie ultimately in the free-will of men
or in the sovereign election of God, in either case have
no place in the atonement itself. Emmons* strives to
prove that the only thing Christ purchases for man
kind is pardon on condition of faith, and that after we
believe we are rewarded for our own goodness, on the
same principle that Adam would have been if he had
continued obedient.
This theory has, upon the whole, many practical ad
vantages over the Socinian view, (a.) Because it in
cludes and exhibits with far more practical effect all the
elements of truth which the Socinian view embraces.
(b.) Because in addition to those elements, the positive
principles signalized in the Governmental Theory with
respect to the bearing of the atonement upon the admin
istrative righteousness of God and the general interests
of his moral government are unquestionably truths of
the very highest importance, (c.) Because this theory,
although when viewed in reference to a better standard,
it is itself deplorably defective in these respects, yet
* Second Sermon on the Atonement, in the volume of Discourses
and Treatises on the Atonement, edited by Dr. Park, pp. 127-136.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 331
much excels the Moral view in taking high ground with
regard to the ill-desert of sin, the punitive justice of
God, and of the necessity of the atonement a parte Dei
in order to the remission of sin. (d.) Because it yields a
far more natural interpretation of Scripture upon this
subject, recognizing the objective bearing of the atone
ment as the one to which its subjective bearing is neces
sarily subordinate and incidental.
On the other hand, the objections to this theory are
very many and very conclusive.
1. All the positive truth which this theory signalizes
is far more profoundly taught and effectively presented
in the general doctrine of the Church. According to the
Governmental Theory, penalty is merely a sanction of
the law, designed to act as a violent motive upon the
minds of the subjects of the divine government, inclining
them to obey the law. According to this theory, the
Atonement is a substitute for the penalty, designed to
take the place of the penalty, and to produce the very
same effect as the penalty would do if executed in the
case of those whose sins are forgiven, and whose punish
ment is remitted. Now, it is self-evident that nothing
can possibly so exactly take the place of the penalty and
effect the precise end for which the penalty was designed
as the penalty itself. Nothing in the universe can so
¦express God's hatred of sin as the veritable visible
exercise of his just wrath upon the sinner's Substitute.
Nothing else possible can so effectively demonstrate the
inflexibility of the law as its literal fulfilment in precept
and penalty. Nothing can so act as a sin-deterring mo
tive as the demonstration that sin shall be punished in
every case without exception ; and nothing can so tho>-

332 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
roughly demonstrate that sin shall be punished without
exception as its actual and vicarious punishment in the
person of the eternal Son. As we showed that the
orthodox doctrine far excelled the Moral Influence view
in producing the very moral influence sought, so now
we show that the orthodox doctrine just as far surpasses
the Governmental Atonement view in effecting, as a
governmental expedient, the law-vindicating and sin-
deterring impression sought to be effected.
2. It is utterly impossible for the advocates of this
theory to show the connection between the sufferings of
Christ and the effects which, they say, flow from it.
They insist that it is of the essence of penalty that it be
inflicted upon the sinner in person. Fiske insists that
God's justice can no more be satisfied by the vicarious
suffering of another than the sinful agent, than a man's
thirst can be slaked by another man's vicariously drink
ing water for him. We have admitted that this is the
precise point in which the scriptural doctrine of the
Atonement transcends human reason. But the whole
difficulty lies in our inability to discern fully the grounds
upon which the legal oneness of Christ and his people
depend. But the advocates of the Governmental Theory
deny that the sacrifice of Christ is a poena vicaria.
They say it is a substitute for a penalty — something in
the place of the penalty to effect the same purpose. But
(a) how can anything that is not of the nature of penalty
effect the same purpose as penalty? And (b) how can
sufferings of one person sustain any relation to the sins
of another person if the legal relations and responsi
bilities of the two persons are not identical? Suffering
has relation to sin or it has not. If it has relation to

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 333
sin, it must either be designed as chastisement or as
penalty. The sufferings of Christ had relation to sin,
and they were not personal chastisement; they must,
therefore, have been penalty; of the genus penalty and
of the species vicarious penalty. If this be denied, let
some one state definitely what they were, and let it be
shown precisely how his suffering, which by hypothesis
is not penalty, takes the place and secures the end of
the literal punishment of persons whose identical legal
obligations do not rest upon the person suffering. How
in the name of reason is it possible that the undeserved
sufferings of Christ, which were not the penalty which
the law demanded, should make it consistent with God's
rectoral justice to relax the law, and omit the penalty
altogether in the case of repentant sinners? If God's
abhorrence of sin is really and adequately expressed in
the sufferings of Christ, how is it that his distributive
justice is not strictly satisfied therein ? and how could
he truly and really express his abhorrence of our sins
by means of the sufferings of Christ, unless the real
legal responsibility for our sins were first laid upon
Christ, and they were then strictly punished in him?
The truth is, that this Governmental Theory is an
invention designed to escape the pressure of Socinian
objections levelled against the true doctrine of the
Atonement. The point at which rational objections to
the true doctrine of the Atonement are most efficient is
that which concerns the satisfaction of strict justice in
the person substituted in the place of the actual crimi
nal. In order to avoid this objection, the advocates of
the Governmental Hypothesis admit its force, deny that
Christ was punished in the place of sinners, or that he

334 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
satisfies the demands of distributive justice at all, and
claim that the death of Christ was a contrivance to take
the place of the penalty of the law, and to make it con
sistent with God's rectoral righteousness to omit the
penalty in the case of believers altogether. But Jowett
says truly: "This second theory has no advantage over
the preceding (orthodox), except that which the more
shadowy statement must ever have in rendering difficulties
themselves more shadowy."* Whenever they attempt a
precise statement, in opposition to the Socinians, of their
positive belief as to the manner in which the sufferings
of Christ are related to the sins of his people, and of
the manner in which his sufferings, which are no penalty,
avail to express God's abhorrence of sin, or to make it
consistent with his rectoral justice to omit the penalty
altogether, they always necessarily fall back upon the
fundamental principles of the Satisfaction Doctrine.
And again, the very moment they turn to distinguish
their position from that Church doctrine which includes
their special theory as one of its provinces, they always
necessarily fall back in their negations upon Socinian
ground. They thus ceaselessly oscillate between the
two — orthodox in all they affirm, and Socinian in all they
deny. Their champions put one in mind of a landless
laird straddling the line-fence between two farms. He
is always found standing upon that leg which is the
other side of the fence.
3. The fundamental principle which distinguishes this
theory, namely, that in its last analysis, all virtue may
be resolved into benevolence, is both false and pernicious.
To resolve all colour into sound would be theoretically
* St. Paul's Epistles, vol. ii., p. 473.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 335
to annihilate colour, and so to resolve all virtue into
benevolence is theoretically to annihilate virtue. The
idea of moral obligation is simple, unresolvable, ulti
mate, because it is utterly impossible analytically to
resolve it into any elements more simple, or synthetically
to compose it out of such elements. It is plain that
neither a desire for our own well-being springing out of
self-love, nor a disinterested desire for the well-being of
others by itself, yields the idea of moral obligation. It
is true that these states of mind are obligatory, but the
moral obligation which attaches to them is something
which is independent of the self-love or the benevolence.
If the question be asked why we ought to do right, no
other answer can be given than that moral obligation is
an ultimate fact of consciousness, having its own reason
in itself, and from its very nature necessarily supreme.
Taylor, Fiske, and the advocates of their theory
generally, maintain: (1.) That the orthodox view repre
sents the justice of God as pursuing its gratification
blindly like a physical appetite. Their doctrine is that
divine justice demands the punishment of the sinner
only as a means to an end ; that is, in order to maintain
divine government, the sole end and purpose of which is
the attainment of the best interests of the subjects of
that government. But it is very plain that their view
only removes the ultimate end in which justice "blindly"
terminates one step further. We say that God punishes
sin, because it is an ultimate fact that moral excellence
demands that sin must be punished; because it is an
ultimate fact that sin is intrinsically in obligation to
punishment. They say that sin must be punished in
prder to maintain moral government, and moral govern-

336 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
ment is necessary in order to the best interests of the
moral universe ; and it is an ultimate fact that the best
interests of the moral universe ought to be sought as a
paramount end. The fact is, that intelligence, moral
and personal agency are inconceivable without ultimate,
unresolvable principles of action and of thought for
which no reason can be given. It is just as certain and
as intelligent and self-luminous a proposition that right
is intrinsically binding, and that sin. must be punished
because of its intrinsic ill-desert, as that the best interests
of the universe ought to be secured at any cost. If be
nevolence is the sum of all virtue, this benevolence must
regard either the happiness or the excellence of its objects
as its ultimate end. Hence it follows necessarily that
either happiness or moral excellence must be the ultimate
end, and hence the ultimate motive, of moral action.
If the last is true, it must be because virtue is for its
own sake intrinsically the highest good and vice intrin
sically evil. Virtue must have, therefore, the ultimate
reason of its attracting divine approbation, and vice
the ultimate reason of its attracting divine displeasure
in itself. In that case the orthodox theory of the
Atonement follows. But if the first is true, and ulti
mately there is "nothing good," as Taylor says, "but
happiness and the means of happiness, and nothing evil
but misery and the means of misery,"* then the distinc
tion between men and swine is only one of degree.
(2.) Feeling the force of this infallible result of their
system, these gentlemen are very fond of covering its
nakedness with the comely terms proper to the funda-
* Lectures on the Moral Government of God, by Nathaniel W.
Taylor, D.D., vol. i., pp. 31-35.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 337
mental principles of the Church doctrine, and of insist
ing that they also maintain that virtue is intrinsically a
good for its own sake, and that sin deserves punishment
as an ultimate fact. Fiske says: "Sin is intrinsically
hateful and ill-deserving; it is an evil per se, and not
merely on account of its tendencies and consequences.
This we hold to be a fundamental point in all our ethi
cal and theological inquiries." "The preceptive part
of the law must require of all creatures perfect holiness,
forbidding all sin ; because perfect holiness is inherently
right and excellent; and being inherently right and ex
cellent is indispensable to the highest good ; and because
sin is inherently wrong and evil, and being inherently
wrong and evil, tends to interfere with the highest good
of the universe." " The sole function of penalty is that
of a legal sanction. Its sole value is its efficacy to
enforce the law and maintain its authority, and so ulti
mately help promote the great benevolent ends of moral
government." This theory "harmonizes with a just
conception of the origin and end of law (including pre
cept and penalty), as emanating from a divine purpose to
promote, by means of it, the highest good of the uni
verse."* This is very astonishing. It seems that the
ultimate, that is, real end of commanding at all is certain
consequences to be secured by the commands, and yet
that virtue is commanded because it is intrinsically good,
and it is intrinsically good because certain of its conse
quences are good. The real end of forbidding is to
attain certain consequences, and yet vice is forbidden
because it is intrinsically wrong, and it is intrinsically
wrong because some of its consequences are injurious.
'¦' Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xviii., pp. 295-318.
29

338 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Vice is punished because it is intrinsically ill-deserv
ing, and yet the ultimate end of all punishment is
to be found in certain consequences it is designed to
effect. The ultimate end of law, precept and penalty is the
good of the moral universe. The sole function of
punishment is, as a sanction to law, to promote the
benevolent ends of moral government. All virtue is
benevolence; that is, a desire that all others shall be
happy and virtuous — that is, be happy and wish all
others happy. Punishment, therefore, is a violent mo
tive addressed to the self-love of the subjects of law to
induce them to wish all others to be happy. Atonement
is a substitute for the penalty, to take its place and to
produce precisely the same effect. Therefore it follows,
according to this boasted Governmental Theory, the
highest lesson of the crucifixion of the eternal Son of
God is that " honesty is the best policy ! ! !"
4. This theory is utterly intolerable, because it repre
sents the sacred tragedy of Gethsemane and Calvary as
an illusive example of punishment where there was no
real punishment — an "expression" of divine attributes
which were not really exercised in the case. The ortho
dox doctrine is that Christ really satisfied the justice of
God by really suffering the penalty of sin in our stead.
The Governmental Theory is that the sufferings of
Christ were not the punishment of sin, not the exercise
of divine justice upon Christ, but an example of punish
ment and an expression of God's just wrath. "Grotius,
as well as Socinus, attached principal importance to the
moral impression which the death of Christ is calculated
to produce, with this difference only, that Grotius takes

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 339
this principle negatively, Socinus positively ; for in the
opinion of Grotius, the moral effect of Christ's death
consists in the exhibition of the punishment due to sin;
according to Socinus, in the moral courage which Christ
manifested in his death." It is very grievous that the
sacred death of our Lord should be thus characterized
as an attempt upon God's part, unveiled and rendered for
ever impossible by these very theorists, to impose upon
the moral universe an "expression" of attributes not
actually in exercise, an "exhibition of punishment"
where there is no punishment, and to make an example in
which sin is dealt with without punishment an emphatic
demonstration of his purpose always to punish it.
Jowett says truly : " This doctrine (Governmental) is the
surface or shadow of the preceding, with the substance
or foundation cut away." " If this scheme avoids the
difficulty of offering an unworthy satisfaction to God,
and so doing violence to his attributes, we can scarcely
free it from the equal difficulty of interposing a painful
fiction between God and man. Was the spectacle real
which was presented before God and the angels on
Mount Calvary? This theory avoids the physical illu
sion of the old heretics, and introduces a moral illusion
of a worse kind."*
" There is certainly no manifestation of the excellence
and perfection of the divine law, or of the necessity of
maintaining and honouring it, if, in the provision made
for pardoning sinners, it was relaxed and set aside — if
its penalty was not inflicted, if there was no fulfilment
of its exactions, no compliance with its demands."! The
* St. Paul's Epistles, vol. ii., pp. 272-275.
t Cunningham's History of Theology, vol. ii., pp. 355, 356.

340 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
law was either literally fulfilled or relaxed. Sin was
either really punished or the punishment was remitted.
God either poured out his wrath really and truly upon
Christ as a vicarious victim, or he did not. And we
may be most sure that if there was no exercise of justice,
there was no expression of it; if there was no punish
ment, there was no example of it; if there was no wrath
felt, there was no manifestation of it. Whatever it may
not have been, we know that it was the most intensely
real transaction this earth has ever witnessed.
5. This doctrine is false, because it involves the denial
of those scriptural principles as to the nature of divine
justice, as to the immutability of the law and the abso
lute necessity of the Atonement, as to the nature and
design of the typical sacrifices and priesthood, as to the
full force of the language which teaches that Christ
came in our stead, as our Ransom, and that he bore our
sins, &c, which have been so fully proved in the previous
chapters of this volume.
6. This theory is untrue, because it teaches necessarily
that Christ died indifferently for all men, and that the
only effect of his death was to remove legal obstacles out
of the way of the gratuitous forgiveness of all men on
condition of repentance. It necessarily teaches that all
which Christ purchased for any was that pardon which
he purchased conditionally for all, while the application
of the benefits of his work to the individual is left un
determined by the Atonement itself. This is, of course,
disproved by all those scriptural arguments by which
we have proved that Christ purchased for those for
whom he died faith and repentance, the adoption of
sons, and an eternal inheritance.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 341
7, It is false, because it is essential to it that justifica
tion should be mere pardon, and that faith should be the
divinely-accepted condition upon which the pardon pro
ceeds for Christ's sake, while all other spiritual gifts are
given us as the gracious rewards of our own holy obe
dience. This leads to that theory of co-operative justi
fication which is the fundamental vice of the Romish
system, and it is disproved very plainly by all that we
have proved from Scripture as to the nature of justifica
tion, of faith and of union with Christ.
8. If not disproved it is greatly discredited by the
fact, not only confessed but paraded, that it is the "New
Theory" of the Atonement. We have proved suffi
ciently (a) that the doctrine which maintains that the
sufferings of Christ were a true poena vicaria has been
at the heart of the faith of the Church from the be
ginning; and (6) that this Governmental Theory is in
no intelligible sense a development or improvement of
the other. It is a different faith. If then it is "new"
in this day, it must withstand the tremendous weight of
the presumption that all God's dear children could not
have continued under a delusion with regard to the
meaning of Christ's death and the nature of the gospel,
which they believed and preached for seventeen hundred
years. 9. This theoiy is discredited by the fact that it is not
developed in the first instance by a careful exposition of
and strict induction from Scripture. Its advocates do
not pretend that they generate it out of Scripture ; the
most they claim is, that having developed it as a product
of speculation, they are able, to show that it harmonizes
with all the facts of Scripture. Barnes occupies three
29*

542 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
hundred and sixteen pages with his discussion as to, the
nature of the Atonement. Of these, two hundred and
sixty-eight are occupied with rational speculation and
analogical reasoning as to what an Atonement need to
be, can be, ought to be and must be. The foundation
of this is (1) d priori ideas as to what God must be, or
at least ought to be. "Apart from any revelation, and
back of any revelation, we form our conceptions of God ;
and we cannot think otherwise of him than we do."*
A position which makes a revelation ridiculously super
fluous. (2.) This argument rests upon analogies drawn
from observations of human governments and divine
providence. And then thirty-nine pages are devoted to
the confirmation of these views, thus brought in by rea
son, with the concurrent testimony of Scripture. The
same trait is just as strikingly characteristic also of Be-
man, Jenkyn and Taylor, and generally of all writers of
this class. On the other hand, I have aimed to show
what the Church has always believed, that the true
theory of the Atonement is inseparable from the facts
of Scripture, and therefore just as much in Scripture as
the facts themselves — just as much as the Copernican
system has always been with the stars in the sky. In
telligent observation and accurate interpretation is the
limit of legitimate human agency in both cases. The
Atonement can be known by us only as it is revealed.
The humble, patient induction of the law from all the
data given in Scripture is the only method which in
such investigations can for one moment be allowed.
And the pursuit of such a method certainly never issued
in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement.
* Atonement, p. 321.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 343
10. There is no doubt whatever that in the great
majority of instances the real predisposing cause, giving
force and currency to this view of the Atonement, is a
prejudice, not unnatural, but certainly not enlightened,
against what is often though erroneously called a limited
Atonement. "The last objection we will here urge
against this theory (Satisfaction) is, that it leads, by a
logical necessity, either to the doctrine of a limited
Atonement, on the one hand, or to the doctrine of uni
versal salvation, on the other."*
Now, as will be seen in the following chapters, I show
that, when thoroughly analyzed and accurately defined,
the true doctrine, that Christ satisfied the retributive
justice of God by bearing the very penalty of the law,
does not logically lead to any consequences which can
be accurately expressed by the phrase limited Atonement.
The expiatory work of Christ is (a) exactly adapted in
differently to each and every man; (6) is sufficient for
all; (c) is offered in good faith to each man to whom the
gospel comes; (d) it removes all legal obstacles out of
God's way to the salvation of any one indifferently whom
he pleases; (e) it makes salvation in an objective sense
possible to every one to whom it is offered, if he has, or
as soon as he obtains, the necessary subjective condition,
faith. But" God's pleasure is eternal; therefore he
pleases to save now precisely those whom he pleased to
save when he gave Christ; therefore he gave Christ
with the design of saving those whom he does save, in
other words, the elect; and therefore the expiatory work
of Christ was, not in respect to the sufferings in them-
* Fiske, Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xviii., p. 305.

344 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
selves considered, but in respect to Christ's intention in
suffering, definite and not indefinite in its relation to
persons. The question concerning the personal bearing
of the Atonement, when analyzed, yields but five ele
ments: (a.) Its adaptibility — which is unlimited; (6) its
sufficiency — which is unlimited; (c) its offer — which is
unlimited; (d) its intended application — which every Cal-
vinist must admit is peculiar to the elect; (e) its actual
application — which is peculiar to those who are not lost.
If any Calvinist disagrees with the above statement,
let him either state wherein it fails to exhaust the
whole case, or let him show how the denial that the
" intended application " of the Atonement relates only to
the elect is consistent with the doctrine of unconditional
election. It is very plain, therefore, (1) that the doctrine of the
definite design of the Atonement is not so revolting as
its opponents imagine. I have shown that the doctrine
presented in the little "work entitled "Gethsemane"*
never was the accepted doctrine of the Reformed
Churches. And it is precisely against this perversion
or caricature of the old Calvinism that the objections
in question are directed. (2.) That the doctrine of the
definite design of the Atonement is far more inseparably
inlocked with the fundamental doctrine of Calvinism,
viz., the unconditional eternal election of individuals to
eternal life, founded upon the sovereign good pleasure
of God, than it is with any peculiar views as to the
strict vicarious and penal character of Christ's sufferings.
(3.) That it is not necessary for men to adopt false views
* Part ii., chapter iii.

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF ATONEMENT. 345
as to the nature of the Atonement in order to support
them in their prejudiced preference for confused views
as its extent. Let them prefer to occupy the ground of
the Lutherans — an honourable company of scholars and
saints, who hold at once the strictest views as to the sin-
expiating, justice-satisfying nature of the Atonement,
and the broadest views as to its indefinite and universal
design. 11. The origin, history and logical development of
this doctrine demonstrate that it is radically and neces
sarily inconsistent with the system of Calvinism. The
idea of an integral element of Calvinism being generated
out of the speculative development of Arminianism is
as absurd as that of looking for figs from thistles, or, if
you please, for thistles from figs. The germ of the
Governmental Theory was furnished by Hugo Grotius.
Coleridge says of what is called Arminianism that,
"taken as a complete and explicit scheme of belief, it
would be both historically and theologically more accu
rate to call it Grotianism, or Christianity according to
Grotius."* We have shown that this theory leads to essentially
Arminian views; (1) as to the nature of justification in
chapters xiv. and xviii.; and (2) as to an indefinite and
general Atonement in Part II., chapter iii. It is suffi
ciently plain that the adoption of Arminianism on these
points involves logically the definite adoption of Armin
ianism as a whole, as the immediate tendency and
ultimate result. We are glad to believe that the con
viction is becoming very general among those who have
been foremost in testing the "improvements" that the
* Coleridge's Works, Shedd's Edition, vol. i., p. 208.

346 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Calvinism of the Reformed Churches is a self-contained
system which must be either received or rejected as a
whole. The doctrines of Satisfaction, Imputation, &c.,
are found not to be excrescences, but in such a sense
integral and inseparable that the system becomes untena
ble to those who will not admit them.

PAET II.
THE DESIGN OR INTENDED APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE Design or Intended Application of the Atonement*
Did Christ die with the design of making satisfac
tion to divine justice in behalf of all men, indiscrimi
nately, or in behalf of his elect seed personally and
definitely ?
We consider this a question whose interest is less
essential and intrinsic than derived from its relation to
principles which are intrinsically important, and funda
mental to the system of faith known as evangelical. I
claim to have established, on its own independent evi
dence, the great question concerning the Nature of the
Atonement, which is the real interest for the sake of
which this book is written. There, and not under the
present head, lie the principles which are the true cause
of debate between us and our present opponents. I take
up this question as to the design and personal reference
of the atoning work of Christ only as it is subsidiary to
the former, and for the purpose chiefly of analyzing the
question and defining its real elements, and of showing
347

348 DESIGN OF THE ATONENENT.
the necessary relations which they sustain to the other
elements of the system of faith ; as, for instance, to the
nature of the Atonement, and to the sovereignty of the
divine decrees.
It is evident that the opinion that the Atonement is
general and indefinite must be held and defended by the
Calvinistic Universalist under conditions very different
from those under which it is comprehended and vindicated
by the far more consistent Arminians. I propose, there
fore, in order to clear the way for the accurate under
standing of the elements involved in this question in all
their bearings, to consider for a moment the design of the
Atonement; (a) as it is involved in our controversy with
the Arminians; and (b) as it is involved in our contro
versies with the abettons of the various modifications of
Calvinism. 1. As far, then, as this question is involved in the
Arminian controversy, we are ready to admit the reality
of the great importance which they attribute to it. If
they could prove that the love which prompted God to
give his Son to die, as a sin-offering, on the cross, had
for its objects all men indiscriminately, and that Christ
actually sacrificed, his life with the purpose of saving all
indifferently on the condition of faith, then it appears
that their inference is irresistible that the central princi
ple of Arminianism is true ; that is, the principle which
makes the destiny of the individual to depend upon his
own use of divine grace, and not upon the sovereign
good pleasure of God. It is at this point, very wisely
as we think, the Arminian erects his main citadel. We
freely admit that just here the advocates of that system
are able to present a greater number and variety of texts

INTRODUCTORY. 349
which appear to favour the distinguishing principles of
their system than they are able to gather in vindication
of any other of their main positions. On the topics of
divine decrees, of unconditional election of certain per
sons to faith, and through faith to eternal salvation, and
of efficacious as distinguished from common grace, the
Scriptures are so obviously as well as overwhelmingly
Calvinistic, that our opponents are reduced to the defen
sive, and are able to do little else than appeal to reason
and human conceptions of justice, and attempt in detail
to show that the passages of Scripture to which we ap
peal may possibly mean something less than they appear
to say. Thus along a greater portion of his line of
defences the necessary tactics of the Arminian are as
negative, as purely defensive, and as much confined to a
skirmish in detail, as is the enforced policy of the So
cinian along his line when the Scriptures are appealed to
as the medium of proof; while the Calvinist carries on
an aggressive war upon both. At this point, however,
supposing this to be the weakest point of the Calvinistic
defences, with their unwonted accession of scriptural
texts, they turn the tables upon us, and force us to the
defence of showing, in our turn, why the phrases "all" or
" world " in their several proof-texts may not or cannot
be intended by the Holy Spirit to include all and every
man indiscriminately. Then gathering together their
scriptural evidence for the general and indefinite design
of the Atonement, they proceed with great appearance
of force to argue inferentially against the out-flanked
Calvinistic positions of unconditional election and effi
cacious grace. In this manner Richard Watson in effect
puts the strain of his entire argument upon this one
30

350 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
position. He starts from the demonstration of the in
definite universality of the Atonement, and builds up
subsequently from that foundation ; thus practically rest
ing the weight of his whole system upon it. We, on
the other hand, claim that it is one evidence of the
superior biblical character of our system that we are
able to bring positive and direct proof in evidence of
every doctrine separately, without resting the weight of
one upon its logical bearings on others. The true doc
trine as to the design of Christ in dying is perfectly
consistent with the true doctrines as to election and
grace, and every other theory as to the former will be
found to be logically inconsistent with the true doctrine
as to the latter ; and these consistent doctrines must, in
virtue of that very consistency, yield mutual support to
one another. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Satisfac
tion of Christ, both as to its nature and design, is a per
fect whole in itself, and is abundantly established by
direct scriptural evidence, independent of any relation it
may sustain to any other doctrine. At present, how
ever, it is no part of the task I have assumed to show
the truth of the Calvinistic or the falsity of the Armin
ian systems, except in so far as the fate of these systems
may be involved in the establishment of the true doc
trine as to the nature and design of the Atonement. I
have the unquestionable right, as far as the present dis
cussion is concerned, to assume the truth of those great
scriptural principles which are characteristic of the Cal
vinistic system as a whole.
2. This will necessarily confine tlie discussion to that
form which the question assumes when brought in debate
between those who hold that Christ died to secure the

INTRODUCTORY. 351
salvation of the elect personally, and those who, while
maintaining that the design of his death was general and
impersonal, nevertheless more or less fully adhere to the
other characteristic positions of Calvinism. These last
again fall into two classes, whose distinguishing charac
teristics materially modify their relations to us in the
matter at present in hand, (a.) Those, who like Amy-
raldus of Saumur, in the sixteenth century, and Ward-
law,* Balmer, and John Brown, James Richardsf of
Auburn Theological Seminary, of the age just past, hold
the true doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement with
great accuracy, and whose divergence from the theology
of the Reformed Churches is confined to the single
point of the pretended general reference of the Atone
ment, (b.) Those, who like Jenkyn, Beman, Barnes,
and others, in various degrees, yet materially, depart
from the true faith as to the nature of the Atonement,
and whose views as to its indefinite universality is a
necessary corollary of their views as to its nature.
As far as the former of these parties is concerned, I
think that their exceptional position as to the design or
intended application of the Atonement is to be referred
to a hardly conscious dissatisfaction with the peculiarities
of Calvinism, giving rise to these first movements of an
undeveloped and hence unconscious Arminianism ; or, as
I hope is true in a majority of cases, and as can be shown
to be certainly true in some of them, their divergence on
this point is to be referred solely to an absence of clear-
* " Systematic Theology," by Ealph Wardlaw, D.D., vol. ii., chap
ters xxiii.-xxvi.
t "Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology," by James
Richards, D.D., Lecture xiii.

352 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
ness of thought, and consequent inaccuracy in the use of
terms. I believe it ought to be a recognized principle
that when it is certain that men intelligently and
honestly agree in maintaining all other peculiarities of
Calvinism, and especially accurate views as to the nature
of the Atonement, any question as to its design which can
possibly arise among such men must be regarded and
should be treated as a mere dispute of words. The use
of illegitimate language here may mark a tendency, but
it cannot, under the conditions I suppose, mark an here
tical opinion, for at this point and under such conditions
there is no room for a possible thinkable peculiarity to
come in. This, however, does not justify carelessness in
denning either in thought or words our own position nor
indifference to the confusion of others. This considera
tion should all the more enforce upon us the necessity of
clear views, of exact use of language and of technical
definitions upon a central point from which so many
roads diverge, which, springing up in apparently unes
sential discriminations, instantly lead to irreconcilable
conclusions. As to the latter of the two species of Calvinistic Uni-
versalists, with whom our argument in the preceding
part of this volume has been chiefly concerned, we
charge that their position as to the design of Christ in
dying is only a necessary corollary, dependent upon and
subordinate to their doctrine as to the nature of his work.
The doctrine as to the design of the Atonement is as neces
sarily and as essentially subordinate to the doctrine as to
its nature, with them as it is with us. The attempt
which is often made to exalt the question as to its design
into a distinct and independent head of doctrine, the

INTRODUCTORY. 353
various solutions of which distinguish one school of
Calvinistic theologians from another, indubitably proves
the want either of candour or of competent knowlege as
to the true state of the controversy. We without doubt
intend to hold all those who in any way pervert or
obscure the true doctrine as to the nature of Christ's
redeeming work to the real point at issue. This
involves the very essence of salvation by Christ. All
men can see that the differences which divide us here
are of a vital interest. We insist, moreover, that honour
requires that each champion shall define the cause in
which he appears both exactly and openly. None can
be allowed to bring in surreptitiously a defective view as
to the nature of the Atonement, under pretence that he is
bringing in only an unimportant distinction as to its
general reference. At present we have nothing to do
with the evidence establishing the true doctrine as to its
nature. We assume that the strict theory of Satisfaction,
as taught in the symbols of the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches, has been proved in the preceding portion of
this volume to be the doctrine taught in Scripture.
What I have to say on the present subject of the
design of the Atonement will be grouped under the fol
lowing heads: (1.) The exact statement of the real
question in debate, excluding all irrelevant issues, and
sharply defining the only point about which men can
differ on this subject. (2.) A discussion of the true rela
tion which the question as to the design of the Atone
ment necessarily sustains to the previous and more
important question as to its nature. (3.) A brief sketch
in outline of the history of opinion on this subject, espe
cially the different forms the controversy has assumed
30 *

354 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
among Calvinists. (4.) An answer to the questions,
What were the personal views of Calvin? What is Cal
vinism? What is the standard of that system of faith
held by common consent by the Reformed Churches?
and especially, What doctrine is solemnly professed by
all those who adopt the Westminster Confession, exanimo,
as the confession of their faith? (5.) An exhibition of
the scriptural evidence relied upon to establish the doc
trine of the Reformed Churches as to the personal and
definite design of the Atonement. (6.) An examination
and solution of the several arguments presented by the
advocates of general and indefinite redemption as refu
tations of our doctrine and as evidences establishing the
truth of theirs.

CHAPTER II.
THE TRUE DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OP THE ATONE
MENT ACCURATELY STATED.
I PROPOSE, then, to give an exact statement of the
true question at issue between those who maintain the
definite and personal and those who maintain the gene
ral and indefinite design of the vicarious work of Christ.
Whatever may be the subject in debate, it is evident that
the exact discrimination of the point in question is the
first thing to be done, the well-doing of which is of
the very highest importance. But this is far more
than ordinarily true in the present instance, because it
so happens that among those who agree as to the nature
of the Atonement and as to the sovereignty of the divine
decrees there is no thinkable difference here possible.
The bare statement of the question will, itself, therefore,
dissipate as irrelevant the vast mass of objections made
to the orthodox doctrine by its adversaries, and mani
festly reduces to a mere contest of words the only issue
which can possibly be debated by intelligent and honest
Calvinists. The question,' then, (1) does not relate to the SUF
FICIENCY of the satisfaction rendered by Christ to
secure the salvation of all men. The Reformed
Churches have uniformly taught that no man has ever
yet perished, or ever will perish, for want of an atone-
355

356 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
ment. All Calvinists agree in maintaining earnestly
that Christ's obedience and sufferings were of infinite
intrinsic value in the eye of law, and that there was no
need for him to obey or to suffer an iota more nor a
moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, the
salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever
lived. No man can have a moment's doubt upon the
subject who acknowledges the supreme divinity of the
glorious Victim. It is insisted upon by Turretin, Wit-
sius, and by John Owen,* as earnestly as it is by Jenkyn
or Barnes. It is consequently utterly irrelevant to the
question in hand, when Barnes closes his argument
to prove that Christ died in order to make the salvation
of all men indiscriminately possible, with the plea that
after eighteen hundred years the stream of Atonement
is found unexhausted alike in its volume and its vir
tues. Surely, this is even less than the glorious truth.
It will be none the less true after eighteen millions of
years. But this question has never been debated by the
Reformed Churches. We unite with all other Christians
in glorying in the infinite sufficiency of the satisfaction
of Christ to reach and to save all men who have been
or who will be created or creatable.
2. The question does not relate to the applicability
of the satisfaction rendered by Christ to the exact legal
relations and to the necessities in order to the salvation
of every lost sinner in the world. Christ did and suf
fered precisely what the law demanded of each man per
sonally and of every man indiscriminately, and it may
* Turretin, L. xiv., Q. xiv., § 9. Owen's Death of Death, in Death
of Christ, B. iv., ch. i., \ 1. Witsius's Economy of the Covenants,
E. ii., ch. ix., \ 2.

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 357
be at any time applied to the redemption of one man as
well as to another, as far as the satisfaction itself is con
cerned. Putting these two things together, therefore, the
sufficiency for all and the exact adaptation to each, it is
plain as the sun in the heavens that the death of Christ
did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God's
saving any man he pleases. In this sense, if you please,
Christ did make the salvation of all men indifferently
possible, a parte Dei. He can apply it to any whomso
ever he will ; but since his will never changes, there can
be no distinction between his present will and his eternal
design. 3. The question does not relate to the actual appli
cation of the saving benefits of Christ's work to each
and every man. All who stop short of maintaining
universal salvation agree with us that all those who do
not cordially accept and appropriate the salvation freely
offered to them in the gospel must be lost. The doc
trine of universal redemption cannot be shown, after all
their parade of its superior liberality, to extend the real
benefits of redemption to one single soul beyond those
embraced by a definite Atonement. We believe that
Christ died with the intention of saving all those whom
he actually does save. They hold that the large majority
of those whose salvation Christ designed to effect by his
death finally perish. This certainly fails to convey any
advantage to those that perish, while it materially
detracts from the value of Christ's death and from the
efficacy of his purpose to save.
4. The question does not relate to the universal
offer in perfect good faith of a saving interest in
Christ's work on the condition of faith. This is ad-

358 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
mitted by all. Since, then, the work of Christ is exactly
adapted to the legal relations and need of each, and
since it is abundantly sufficient for all, and since, in
perfect good faith, it is offered to all men indiscrimi
nately, it necessarily follows that whosoever believes on
him, non-elect (if that were subjectively possible) just as
truly as the elect, would find a perfect atonement and
cordial welcome ready for him when he comes. In this
sense we joyfully acknowledge that not only is the sal
vation of each and every sinner rendered legally and
morally possible to God, if he wills, but the Atonement
of Christ is itself objectively most certainly and freely
available to each and every sinner to whom it is offered,
upon condition thai he believes.
5. Nor does the question relate to the design of Christ
in dying as it stands related to all the benefits secured to
mankind by his death. It is very plain that any plan
designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a
race propagated by generation, and living in association,
as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end with
out greatly affecting, for better or worse, the character
and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected. In
deed it is impossible for us to know what would have
happened to Adam and Eve if that gracious system, the
meritorious ground of which is the Atonement of Christ,
had not been introduced. The instant damnation of the
heads of the race, or the introduction of a scheme of
redemption, appear to be the only possible alternatives.
But the scheme of redemption is conditioned exclusively
upon the expiatory work of Christ. Hence all that
happens to the human race other than that which is in
cidental to the instant damnation of Adam and Eve is

STATEMENT OP DOCTRINE. 359
part of the consequences of Christ's satisfaction as the
second Adam. For aught we know the propagation of
the race in all of its successive generations may be in
consequence of that work. The entire history of the
human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is,
as Candlish says, "a dispensation of forbearance" in re
spect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical
and moral, affecting their characters and destinies for
ever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the
educated and refined citizens of Christian communities.
These come to them through the mediation of Christ,
and coming to them now, they must have been designed
for them from the beginning.* We maintain the sim
ple and apparently self-evident proposition that Christ,
in dying, designed to effect by his death all in every
particular which he has actually accomplished. If he
be God, there can be no discrepancy between his de
sign and his accomplishment. He must accomplish
precisely that which he designed, and he must have
designed to effect precisely that which in fact he does
effect. 6. But the question does truly and only relate to the
design of the Father and of the Son in respect to the
persons for whose benefit the Atonement was made ; that
is, to whom in the making of it they intended it should
be applied. We contend that the following heads abso
lutely exhaust every possible question as to what is
called the extent of the Atonement: (a.) Its essential
nature, involving its exact adaption to the legal relations
and necessities of each and every man indifferently; (b)
* Cunningham's History of Theology, vol. ii., p. 332 ; Witsius'
Econ. of the Covenants, B. II., chap, ix., <S 4 ; Turretin, L. 14, Q. 14, \ 11.

360 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
its intrinsic sufficiency for all; (c) its honest and au
thoritative offer to all ; (d) its actual application ; (e) its
intended application. We defy our opponents to show
that this statement does not exhaust the case. The first
three, all agree, are without any limit, thank God; the
fourth, all agree, is limited to believers; the fifth all
Calvinists must believe to be limited to the elect. Now
the advocates of universal and indefinite redemption
hold that Christ died with the design and effect of mak
ing the salvation of all men possible, and nothing more.
The Reformed Churches hold that he died with the
design of actually and certainly saving his elect people;
that is, for the purpose of actually saving those whom
he does actually save.
Amyraldus make a distinction between objective and
subjective grace. The former, rendering salvation objec
tively available to all men, he held was universal. The
latter, which gives the gracious ability to accept the
gospel, he admitted was designed for the elect alone.
We believe that as far as the heathen are concerned, to
whom Christ is never offered, salvation is no more objec
tively available than subjectively possible. It is true
that Christ did make salvation, as an objective fact,
possible to all men to whom it is offered, if they will
believe. But the Reformed Churches maintain that a
purpose to make salvation objectively available to those
who were never intended to enjoy it must, in the very
nature of things, not be an independent purpose in itself,
but one purely subsidiary to the main design of actually
and entirely effecting the salvation of all whose salvation
was intended to be in fact realized.
The Schoolmen were accustomed to affirm that Christ

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 361
died suffudenter pro omnibus, efficienter pro electis, and this
form of expression was adopted by Calvin* and by the
early Reformed theologians previous to the thorough
sifting of this subject occasioned by the speculations of
the French theologians Cameron, Amyraldus, Testardus,
&c. This Scholastic expression is inaccurate and inade
quate rather than false. Christ did die sufficienter pro
omnibus, but as an element of his design this otherwise
inoperative and futile purpose must have been in thought,
precisely as it is in execution, altogether subsidiary as a
means to an end to his real — because actually accom
plished — purpose of effecting the salvation of his elect.
In other words, the actual ends effected are the exact
measure of the real ends designed.
This question is capable of being stated in several
different forms, while the identity of the essential prin
ciple involved is preserved and placed more distinctly in
view. Thus, (1) was it the design of the redemptive work
of Christ that it carry into effect the purpose of election,
or was it the design of God's sovereign election that it
should carry into effect, in part, the general purpose of
redemption? The theology of the Reformed Churches
was broadly characterized by its subordination of re
demption to election. Their habitual mode of represen
tation is that God, having of his mere good pleasure
elected some men to everlasting life and to all the means
thereof, sent his Son to effect that purpose by his obe
dience unto death. All the advocates of indefinite re
demption, on the other hand, must agree in maintaining
that God provided the Atonement for the good of all
* Commentaries 1 John ii. 2.
31

362 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
men indiscriminately, and that election comes in sub-
ordinately to redemption, either conditioned on foreseen
faith (so the Arminians), or as a sovereign purpose, upon
the part of God, to make certain the success of the
general purpose of redemption at least in the case of the
persons elected (so the Calvinistic Universalists).
Jenkyn* represents the dispensation of sovereign
electing grace as supervening to prevent the failure of
redemption, so far at least as the elect are concerned.
"The entire failure of the Eden dispensation would have
clouded the divine character if it had not been rescued
by the introduction of a compensative Atonement; . . .
the entire failure of the Sinai experiment would have
reflected dishonour upon the divine glory, but it was
redeemed by the establishment of a better hope 
The whole mediatorial work of Jesus Christ is so worthy
and so meritorious that it deserves that measures should
be taken to ensure it from entire failure." The italics
are his. On this theory, since so many of God's "ex
periments" "entirely fail," and since even the awful
sacrifice of his own Son is barely prevented from entire
failure by special intervention, and after all is an utter
failure as to the larger part of all it was set to do, who
shall ensure us that heaven shall not 'fail, or that the sal
vation of the saints may not be at last confounded? Be
hold also what this redemption, which these men so glory
in, is worth. It saves no single soul. It is prevented
from being an absolute failure by a divine intervention.
This view gives all the glory of salvation to election.
The measure of the virtue of redemption may be seen
in the fate of the non-elect.
* Jenkyn on the Extent of the Atonement, pp. 324, 325.

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 363
(2.) Was the motive which prompted God to give his
Son to die for men, and which prompted Christ to die,
the highest conceivable love which God can have for a
creature, making it .certain that he will also with him
freely give the objects of that love all things, and was it
a personal love of certain definite individuals foreknown
from eternity, or, on the other hand, was it a general
and impersonal philanthropy, or love of mankind in
general, coexisting with a good pleasure to allow the
majority of those so loved to perish, some without even
the knowledge of the redemption provided at such cost,
and others without any saving interest in it? All the
Reformed Churches believe that the former of these
alternatives is the true statement of the motive prompt
ing the Father and the Son in the work of redemption ;
while all the advocates of a general and indefinite
Atonement necessarily maintain that the latter is the
true statement.
(3.) Did Christ die with the design and effect of mak
ing the salvation of all men indifferently possible, and
the salvation of none certain, or did he die in pursuance
of an eternal covenant between the Father and himself
for the purpose as well as with the result of effecting the
salvation of his own people?
(4.) Is the impetration (sacrificial purchase — merito
rious procurement) of salvation so connected in the plan
of salvation with its gracious application that they re
spect specifically the same persons, and the latter follows
certainly upon the first, or is the impetration general
and indefinite, while the application is personal and
limited? This is the precise form in which the question
was debated by Testardus, Amyraldus, Daille-, Spanheim,

364 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
Rivetus, De Moulin, Richard Baxter and John Owen.
Hence this is the precise issue met by the deliverance of
the Westminster Assembly in the very midst of these
controversies: "To all those for whom Christ hath
purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually
apply and communicate the same, &c."*
(5.) And finally, did the Lord Jesus Christ impetrate
or purchase the gracious influences of the Holy Ghost
and all the fruits of the Spirit for those for whom he
died? Or did he effect, by his sacrifice, nothing more
than the removal of legal impediments out of the way
of their salvation, either leaving them to provide their
own faith and repentance, or sovereignly providing for
an exceptional few, selected out of the mass of those for
whom he died, out of a benevolent principle altogether
different from that exercised in the gift of redemption?
The Reformed Churches uniformly hold the former,
while the advocates of universal redemption necessarily
hold the latter of these alternatives.
* Westminster Confession, chapter viii., \ 8.

CHAPTER III.
THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE TRUE RELATION WHICH THE
PROBLEM AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT SUS
TAINS TO THAT AS TO ITS DESIGN, EXAMINED.
HAVING thus presented an accurate and, as I hope,
clear statement of the real question in debate, be
tween the representatives of different schools of theology,
upon the topic in hand, I now proceed to discuss briefly
the true relation which this question as to the design of
the Atonement necessarily sustains to the previous and
more important question as to its nature. It is supposed
by many that there is necessarily such a connection be
tween the two that the views entertained as to the one
must, in every case, determine those entertained as to the
other. There is indeed a good deal of ground for this
opinion, yet, in order that we may know exactly how
the matter stands, we must examine in detail the bearing
which each separate doctrine as to the nature of the
Atonement has upon the question as to its design.
1. It is very obvious that upon the hypothesis that
Christ's work was designed to effect its end simply
by exerting a moral influence upon men, it must have
been designed for all men indiscriminately, at least for
all indifferently, to whom it is presented. The whole
effect of the Atonement, according to this view, is moral
and subjective. And the question of its success, in every
31 * 365

366 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
given case, is determined by the spontaneous acquies
cence, or the reverse, of the sinner himself.
2. Again, the matter is no less plain from the point
of view entertained by the advocates of the Govern
mental Theory as to the nature of Christ's work. If
Christ died only as an example of punishment, if his
sufferings were made a governmental expedient by
means of which it is rendered consistent with the gene
ral interests of the divine government for God to remit
the punishment of all those who either elect to believe
or are by him sovereignly elected to believe, then it
necessarily follows that this work can have no special
reference to one man more than another. All that it
can do for any it has done for all. It has removed legal
obstacles out of the way of all, and hence has indiffer
ently rendered possible the salvation of each.
3. If the view presented in a little work entitled
" Gethsemane," published in England, and republished
in Philadelphia early in this century, is accepted as true
— that is, if the vicarious work of Christ is conceived of
strictly as a commercial transaction — then, of course, the
doctrine that the Atonement is limited in the proper
sense of that word necessarily follows. If the sufferings
of Christ were in exact proportion to the number of his
elect and to the amount of heinousness of their sins; if
Christ would have suffered less had he expiated the sins
of a smaller number, and if he would have needed to
suffer more in order to atone for more,* then it is plain
enough that the Atonement is limited as to its very
essence, just as in a commercial contract between men the
purchasing power of a hundred dollars is limited to one
* Gethsemane, pp. 28, 29.

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 367
hundred dollars' worth. It has been very convenient to
our opponents to charge this view upon the Reformed
Churches. That this is altogether a false representation
I have shown above by reference to chapter and section
of the testimony of such representatives of Calvinism as
Turretin, Witsius, John Owen and William Cunning
ham. 4. The entire Lutheran Church agrees with the Re
formed as to the nature of the Atonement. They hold
that Christ by his active and passive obedience fully
satisfied all the demands of law upon those in whose
place he acted, and that he purchased for them the ope
rations of the Holy Spirit, and all the fruits thereof;*
and yet they hold that Christ died in this sense indis
criminately in behalf of all men. There is no doubt
that the great mass of learned and able Lutheran theo
logians have explicitly held both of these views. This
is certainly a practical proof that both sides of their
doctrine may be intelligently held as true in the same
mind at the same time. And yet it is no less plain that
the several positions they adopt as to sin, human ability,
divine grace, foreknowledge, predestination, redemption,
&e., are obviously incapable of being reduced even to
the appearance of logical consistency. They teach that
Christ purchased faith and repentance for all for whom
he died. If any man repents and believes, they deny
his co-operation with grace previous or in order to his
regeneration, and they attribute the result solely to the
grace of God given for Christ's sake. If any man does
not repent and believe, they deny that Christ has done
any less for him, and attribute the result solely to his
* Formula Concordiae, Part I., chap, ii., and Part II., chap. ii.

368 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
own sin. But the question must be answered, Who
makes the difference? If both have from Adam the same
absolute inability, and if both have as the purchase of
Christ the same grace, what is the differentiating factor
in the case? What determines the infidelity of the one
and the faith of the other? The Arminian grants to all
men sufficient ability to co-operate with grace, and hence
consistently makes the free self-determination of the
sinner's own will the seat of difference between the
believer and non-believer. The Calvinist, denying the
ability to co-operate with grace alike to all men, con
sistently makes a sovereign discriminating grace the seat
of the difference between them. The Lutheran holds
that all men are alike impotent; that all men have alike
the same grace; that the cause of faith, wherever it ex
ists, is wholly to be attributed to grace, and the cause of
unbelief to sin; yet, while there is such difference be
tween faith and unbelief, there is no difference among
men either as to sin or grace. But we answer, If it be
grace alone that makes one believe, then the other has
not the same grace or he also would believe. And if
Christ purchased spiritual graces for all those for whom
he died, he could not have died for those who fail to
receive the grace.
5. The doctrine of the Reformed Church is that there
is no limit whatsoever in the Redemption of the Lord
Jesus except that which resides in the eternal purpose
of God to save thereby the elect and none others. A
divine person suffered the penalty due to human sin,
and obeyed that law obedience to which was made the
condition of man's well-being. He did this because of
his divinity exhaustively and without limit as to in-

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 369
trinsic sin-expiating and justice-satisfying sufficiency.
If the work itself, therefore, be viewed separately
from the intention with which it was undertaken, it
plainly stands indifferently related to the case of each
and every man that ever lived and sinned. It is not a
pecuniary solution of debt, which, ipso facto, liberates
upon the mere payment of the money. It is a vicarious
penal satisfaction, which can be admitted in any case
only at the arbitrary discretion of the sovereign; and
which may have a redemptive bearing upon the case of
none, of few, of many, or of all ; and upon the case of
one and not of another, and upon that elect case at
whatsoever time and upon whatsoever conditions are pre
determined by the mutual understanding of the Sove
reign and of the voluntary substitute. The relations of
the Atonement as impersonal and general or as personal
and definite do not spring from considerations of the
degree, duration or kind of suffering or acts of vicarious
obedience which Christ rendered, but solely from the
purpose he had in rendering them.
The Arminian holds consistently that the purpose of
Christ was to satisfy divine justice in behalf of all men
for the violation of the rule of righteousness embodied
in the old Covenant of Works, and so enable God to
introduce a new covenant, offering salvation upon the
lowered terms of faith and evangelical obedience — con
ditions to be provided by men themselves with the assist
ance of that common grace furnished indifferently unto
all. This is a perfectly self-consistent scheme. Christ
designed to secure the salvation of all men indifferently.
It is the free will of each man alone that makes the
difference.

370 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that an absolute
Sovereign, in that eternity which is without beginning,
end or succession, foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.
They acknowledge that if the decrees of God are eternal,
they must be one, single, changeless, all-comprehending
intention. They profess to believe that as of his mere
good pleasure God has chosen out of the great mass of
men, equally guilty, some men to eternal salvation, "so
hath he foreordained all the means thereunto. Where
fore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are
redeemed in Christ, &c."* Redemption must be in
order to accomplish the purpose of predestination, be
cause, as a matter of fact, it does precisely accomplish
that purpose. On the contrary, a sovereign election of
some cannot be in order to accomplish the purpose of the
general redemption of all, because, as a matter of fact,
it does not at all accomplish it. If, then, redemption be
in order to accomplish the purpose of the sovereign elec
tion of some, then it is certain that Christ died in order
to secure the salvation of the elect, and not in order to
make the salvation of all men possible. St. Augustine
and all consistent Augustinians, Calvin and all the Re
formed Churches, held that redemption is in order
TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OP ELECTION.
* Westminster Confession, chap, iii., ? 6.

CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OP OPINION AMONG CALVINISTS UPON THE QUES
TION AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
I PROPOSE now to give a very brief and general
sketch of the history of opinion upon this subject,
preparatory to a more particular inquiry as to the
opinions of Calvin, and the general consensus and au
thoritative standard of doctrine among the Reformed
Churches. Let the fact, already carefully noticed, be remembered
that all parties agree — (1.) That the Scriptures use gene
ral and indefinite terms when speaking of the design of
Christ's death, as well as personal and definite ones.
John said "that the Father sent the Son to be the
Saviour of the world," 1 John iv. 14; and Christ said,
"I lay down my life for the sheep." John x. 15. (2.)
That Christ died with the design as well as effect of
securing many benefits, short of salvation, for the non-
elect as well as for the elect. (3.) That since his work
is sufficient for all, exactly adapted to the needs of each;
and offered indiscriminately to all, it follows — (a.) That
all the legal obstacles in God's way of saving any are
removed, and hence the salvation of all is now legally
possible, a parte Dei. (b.) That in a strictly objective
sense the Atonement is as freely available, on the condi
tion of faith, to the gospel-hearing non-elect as it is to
371

372 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
the elect. (4.) Hence it follows that if we look down
the line of purpose and causation from God toward man
kind, it is plain that Christ could have had no other pur
pose in dying than to save those whom he actually does
save. But if we look upwards from the position of the
sinner, to whom the universal offer of a personal interest
in the Atonement of Christ is brought, it is evident that
Christ did so die for the sins of the whole world that if
any man hears the offer and is willing to accept it, a free
and perfect Atonement is his for the taking. Hence it
follows, that in all ages many of the most rigid predes-
tinarians have said, in the words of Calvin himself,
"Passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi," while it
has been only very superficial critics who have inferred
therefrom that these men intended to decide against the
doctrine of the Reformed Churches, which is that Christ
designed in his death to secure the salvation of his elect, and
of none others. The phrase that Christ died for the whole
world may be taken in three senses : (a.) That he died
for Jews as well as Gentiles, for a people elect out of all
nations and generations, (b.) That he died to secure
many advantages for all men from Adam to the last
generation, especially for all citizens in Christian lands.
(c.) That he died to secure the salvation of each and
every man that ever lived ; that is, that he died in the
same sense for the non-elect as for the elect. The first
two we affirm; the latter we deny. And we maintain
that the meaning intended by men in the use of general
expressions, like that above quoted from Calvin, can be
determined only by means of a comparison of all their
expressed opinions on the subject.
All Arians, Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Socinians and

OPINION OP CALVINISTS. 373
Arminians, have in perfect consistency with their seve
ral systems, maintained the general and indefinite refer
ence of the Atonement, while, on the other hand, as was
to be expected, all true Augustinians and Calvinists
have necessarily held that Christ died definitely and
personally for the elect. Jenkyn claims that Bishop
Davenant has triumphantly proved that the great Au
gustine himself, "the masterly champion of predestina
tion against Pelagius," was an advocate of an indefinite
Atonement. But Wiggers, one of the most capable and
impartial witnesses that even Germany has produced in
this century, in his " Historical Presentation of Augus-
tinianism and Pelagianism,"* says: "As by the predes
tination theory, only a definite number of elect would
obtain salvation, Christ's redemption could extend only
to those whom God had destined to salvation 
According to Augustine, therefore, redemption was not
universal. God sent his Son into the world, not to re
deem the whole sinful race of men, but only the elect.
Augustine says : " By this Mediator God showed that those
whom he redeemed by his blood he makes from being
evil to be eternally good."f " Every one that has been
redeemed by the blood of Christ is a man, though not
every one that is a man has been redeemed by the blood
of Christ."^ "No one perishes of those for whom
Christ died."§ Sometimes Augustine uses indefinite
language after the familiar example of Scripture, but no
inference, drawn from that fact, can for one moment
withstand the force of such clear and precise statements
of his opinion as those given above by Wiggers.
* Pages 254 and 255. X Book on Adulterous Marriages, c. 15.
t De Cor. et Gr. 11 . ? Ibid., 169, u. 1.
32

374 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
Those of the Schoolmen who followed Augustine were
in the habit of saying that Christ died for all men, but
in a sense very different from that in which he died for
his elect. Their formula was " Christus passus est suff-
cienter pro omnibus, efficienter pro electis." This we
regard as a statement inaccurate in terms, and more
likely to confuse than to clear the question, yet as very
near the truth, and very different from the positively
false position of those who hold that Christ died indiffer
ently for each and every man.
At the time of the Reformation the attention of the
great Reformers was absorbed by questions fundamental
to the very life of the Church, and they were thence
precluded from the deliberate consideration of secondary
matters involved rather in the symmetry and perfection
than in the integrity of the evangelical system. Zwin
gle and Calvin, the founders of the Reformed Churches,
while they never made the question as to the design of
the Atonement a subject of special study, nevertheless
habitually taught, through the spirit and form of their
entire system, that redemption was subordinate as a
means to an end to the eternal decree of election, and
therefore, of course, had the same objects and the same
end. The same characteristics mark also the earlier
Reformed Confessions— redemption is habitually subor
dinated to election ; but no explicit deliverance is given
as to the design of the Atonement. In all the later
Reformed Confessions, however — viz., in the Gallic
(A. D. 1576) and Belgic (A. D. 1571) Confessions, the
Canons of the Synod of Dort (A. D. 1618, 1619), the
Canons of the French Synods of Alez (A. D. 1620) and
of Charenton (A. D. 1623), the Westminster Confession

OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 375
(A. D. 1648), the Formula Consensus Helvetica (A. D.
1675), the Savoy Confession (A. D. 1658), and the Bos
ton Confession (A. D. 1680) — all explicitly taught the
definite and personal design of the vicarious work of
Christ. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there
appeared two prominent attempts to engraft the notion
of a general redemption upon the Calvinistic system by
those who retained nevertheless orthodox views as to the
nature of the Atonement.
1. The first of these was the product of the specula
tions of Cameron and of his pupils Amyraldus and
Testardus, in connection with the theological school of
Saumur, France, during the first half of the seventeenth
century. The two latter, in whose writings this pecu
liarity was specially developed and made public, over and
over again professed their cordial acquiescence with the
rigidly Calvinistic deliverances of the Synod of Dort,
and their irreconcilable opposition to Arminianism.
Their own system was generally styled Universalismus
Hypotlieticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism.
They taught that there were two wills or purposes in
God in respect to man's salvation. The one will is a
purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his
own Son, salvation for each and every human being with
out exception if they believe — a condition foreknowed to
be universally and certainly impossible. The other will
is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own
sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation
of a definite number, and to grant them all the gifts and
graces necessary to that end. "This synthesis of a real
particularism with a merely ideal universalism (not really

3?6 DESIGN OP THE ATONEMENT.
saving a single individual), that is, the addition of a
merely ideal universalism to the orthodox acknowledged
Calvinistic Dordrecht system of doctrine, is the pecu
liarity of Amyraldism."*
In the controversies consequent upon the appearance
of these views it was customary to contrast the different
conceptions entertained by the two parties as to the
divine purpose in the following manner: The great
body of the Reformed theologians conceived that the
eternal purpose of God as to man's salvation might be
represented thus : He purposed to create man ; then to
permit him to fall ; then out of the great mass of fallen
and equally guilty and helpless men, he, moved by an
unparalleled personal love, out of the mere good pleasure
of his will, elected some to eternal life and to all the
means thereof; and then, in order to accomplish this
purpose of electing love, he gave his Son to redeem his
people by his death.f Here all is consistent. There
are no two inconsistent purposes ; no inefficacious will ;
no love making infinite sacrifices for its objects, yet sus
pending their participation in the benefits thereof upon
conditions known to be impossible; and no conditional
decrees in the infinite God; but one single, consistent
sovereign purpose logically pursued from beginning to
end. Amyraldus, on the other hand, unfolded his concep
tion of the divine purposes in this maimer: God pur
posed to create man, then to permit him to fall, then out
of a general love for all men he gave his Son to die for
all, and to secure their salvation on the condition of
* Schweizer in Herzog's Encyclopaedia.
t Turretin, L. iv., Q. 18, \

OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 377
their believing on him; but foreseeing that, if left to
themselves, not one of the whole race would believe,
and thus the redemption of Christ utterly fail of its end,
and moved by a special personal love for the elect,
sovereignly determined to give them special grace to
lead them to faith, and hence certainly to secure their
salvation.* According to this view, there are two dis
tinct purposes respecting salvation in the divine mind
from eternity — the general purpose, which concerns the
human race as a whole without making any discrimina
tion of persons; the special purpose, selecting out of
the mass certain persons and appointing them to salva
tion. The general purpose has respect to objective grace,
which it gives to all alike. The special purpose has
respect to subjective, grace, which it gives alone to the
elect. The general purpose respects the removing that
external impediment to salvation out of the way of all
which results from their inability to satisfy divine jus
tice. The special purpose respects the removing out of
the way of the elect that internal impediment which
results from their inability to believe.f
This view represents God as loving the non-elect
sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not
loving them enough to give them faith and repentance.
It represents him as purposing that all men should be
saved on condition of faith — a condition known to be
impossible ; and at the same time purposing that a large
proportion of the race redeemed at such cost should
remain in ignorance of the gospel, and of the conditions
* Dissert. Theol. Quatuor, Salm, 1645. Exercitatio de Gratia
TJniversali. Salm, 1646.
t Turretin, L. iv., Q. 18, I 13.
32*

378 DESIGN OP THE ATONEMENT.
upon which participation in its benefits are suspended.
It represents the all-perfect sacrifice as saving no one,
and as depending upon a subsequent decree of election
for its very partial success. It represents God as will
ing at the same time that all men be saved and that
only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the
Arminian, that any of God's decrees are conditioned
upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet
puts into the mouths of professed Calvinists the very
catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal
grace, the conditional will of God, universal redemption,
&c, &c. Although this scheme has been held by some
men of talent, who have been at the same time honest
professors of the Calvinistic system and of the true
doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement in particular
— as, for instance, Amyraldus, Bishop Davenant and
Richard Baxter, &c. — yet the judgment of the Methodist
theologian, Richard Watson, is unquestionably true,
that " it is the most inconsistent theory to which the at
tempts to modify Calvinism have given rise."* In the
case of men otherwise candid and intelligent professors
of orthodoxy, these distinctions amount to nothing but
words ; and therefore do not indicate a state of faith to
which the predicate heretical properly applies. When
Amyraldus and Testardus were brought before the
Synod of Alenc,on (A. D. 1637) to answer for the
"Novelties" wherewith they had greatly disturbed the
peace of the Reformed Churches, they explained away
their distinctions in terms which satisfied the most
orthodox. "They declared that Jesus Christ died for
all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually;
* Institutes, vol. ii., p. 411.

OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 379
tod that consequently his intention was to die for all
men in respect to the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but
for the elect only with respect to its quickening and
saving virtue and efficacy  And as for the condi
tional decree, they declared that they never did under
stand anything than God's will revealed in his word to
give grace and life unto believers."* This declaration
reduces the whole matter to the old Calvinistic common
place that the work of Christ is sufficient for all, adapted
to all, and honestly offered to all, but not intended for
all, nor provided for the sake of all. When used by
men otherwise orthodox this "Novelty" is> therefore,
hot heresy, but an evidence of absurdly confused thought
and disordered language upon the subject. The serious
objection to it is that it necessarily involves the use of
language which properly and by common usage is signifi-
'cant of Arminian error. Its use generally marks a state
of transition from comparative orthodoxy to more serious
error. It often covers a secret sympathy with heresies
not distinctly avowed. In latter years it has been gene
rally associated with radically defective views as to the
nature of the Atonement. It is of no use, for if it
means no heresy, it relieves the hardness of no truth.
Every competent thinker knows that the whole difficulty
as well as strength of Calvinism lies in the conception
of an eternal, all-comprehensive, absolute purpose, de
termining all things, alike physical and moral. The
gloss we are considering fails to conciliate Socinians or
Arminians, while it alienates true Calvinists. The ex
perienced shun it, because they know how often it con
ceals serious error. In France the national development
* Quick's Synodicon, vol. ii., p. 354.

380 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
of this error was cut short by the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes (A. D. 1685), while in England, Scot
land and America, the same language and the same
arguments are used to mark the boundary-lines of a
system of error which explorers have discovered to
transect all the zones of modified Calvinism, Arminian
ism and radical Pelagianism.
2. The famous work entitled "Marrow of Modern
Divinity" was published in England in 1646. In 1718
it was republished in Scotland with a recommendatory
preface by the Rev. James Hogg, of Carnock, and again in
1726 with copious explanatory notes by the Rev. Thomas
Boston, of Ettrick ; which last edition was reproduced a
few years ago by our Board of Publication. This
excellent and orthodox book became the occasion of a
protracted controversy, styled the "Marrow Contro
versy," which conspired with other and deeper causes to
effect that alienation which issued in the formation of
the Secession Church. There were good and sound men
on both sides, but the most eminent Christians and theo
logians of that age were ranked among the "Marrow
men," such as the Rev. James Hogg, Thomas Boston,
Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, &c. We have at present
nothing to do with the general course or merits of this
controversy. I refer to it only for the purpose of noti
cing the peculiar language which these men used with
respect to what they called the "double reference" of
the Atonement — a peculiarity which consequently for a
long time unhappily distinguished the theology of the
Secession Churches from that of the great current of the
Reformed Churches. The language of the "Marrow
men " was far less philosophical and profound than that

OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 38 1
used fbr very much the same purpose by Amyraldus
and Baxter in the preceding century, while, perhaps, for
the same cause their speculations were far more innocent.
The characteristic interest of the professors of Saumur
was speculative, while that of the "Marrow men" was
practical and moral. The one party was composed of
professors of theology, the other of preachers of the
gospel. The one sought to define the order of the
Divine Decrees, the other sought to establish firmly the
Warrant of Faith.
The statement in the Marrow from which they took
their departure is as follows : " I beseech you to consider
that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christy
moved by nothing but his free love to mankind lost,
hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men, that
whosoever shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but
have eternal life."* The " Marrow men" were all sound
as to the nature of the Atonement, and as to the great
Calvinistic principle that Christ died in pursuance of an
eternal covenant with the Father in order to secure the
salvation of his elect. As far as the bearing of the
Atonement upon the elect was concerned, their writings
were marked by no peculiarity. Their distinction was
that they insisted that the Atonement had also a de
signed general reference to all sinners of mankind as
such. The early "Marrow men" were accustomed to
say that although Christ did not die for all — that is, to
save all — yet that he is dead for all, that is, available
for all if they will receive him. That God, out of his
general philanthropy, or love for human sinners as such,
* Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. 126.

382 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
has made a Deed of Gift of Christ and of the benefits
of his redemption to all indifferently, to be claimed upon
the condition of faith. This general love of God is
styled his "giving love," and is distinguished from his
"electing love," of which only the elect, and his
"complacent love," of which only the sanctified are
the objects. This Deed of Gift or Grant of Christ to
all sinners as such, they held, is not to be merely re
solved into the general offer of the gospel, but is to be
regarded as the foundation upon which that general offer
rests. It is a real grant ; universal ; an expression of
love; conditioned on faith; the foundation upon which
the ministerial offer of salvation rests; and it is the
"warrant" upon which the faith of every believer rests,
and by which that faith is justified.
As late as 1843, Dr. Balmer and the late learned and
excellent Dr. John Brown, professors in the United Se
cession Church, were examined as to their doctrinal
views under suspicion of heresy. After Balmer's death
Brown was libelled for heresy before the Synod in 1845.
The statement then made by Brown of his views as to
the extent of the Atonement was in substance as follows:
"The proposition 'that Christ died for men,' had been
held in three senses. In the sense of the Universalist,
that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he
died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian,
that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salva
tion and common grace to enable men to comply with
those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the
sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died
to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation,

OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 383
by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he
died for all men."*
Now, doubtless, as held by these men, all this was con
sistent with strict orthodoxy. They meant no more than
that incidentally to his great design of saving the elect,
and in order to that end, God had made certain pro
visions which were sufficient for all, adapted to each,
and freely offered them to all. But all their forms of
expression were confused and their laborious distinctions
utterly profitless. What is the significancy of making
a special head of that "giving love" which makes an
actual grant of salvation upon conditions known to
be absolutely impossible, and which makes no provision
for its application, and which never intended the salva
tion of its objects? What real idea is signalized by the
verbal distinction between the bona fide offer of the gos
pel to all, and the "Deed of Gift" of Christ upon which
it is said to rest? What is the virtue of a "Deed of
Gift or Grant" which actually conveys nothing, and
which was eternally intended to convey nothing? Be
sides this, this language is injurious, because it leads to
the perversion of scriptural language upon this subject,
and to the great emptying of its proper force. We have
proved that the Scriptures teach that the designed effect
of Christ's death was to "save his people from their
sins," and not simply, as Brown intimates, to remove
legal obstacles out of the way of all sinners indifferently.
In Scripture language the purpose of Christ in his death
cannot fail. According to the implications of Brown's
language, that designed effect is left, as respects the vast
* History of Atonement Controversy in the Secession Church, by
the Bev. Andrew Kobertson.

384 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
majority of its objects, suspended upon the contingency
of second causes. In Scripture language God's "giving
love" is that highest and most wonderful form of love
which "spared not his own Son," and therefore, d
fortiori, will infallibly secure with him the gift of "all
things" necessary for salvation. John iii. 16; Gal. ii.
20; Eph. ii. 4; v. 25; Rom. viii. 32; 1 John iii. 16;
iv. 9. In the language of the "Marrow men" God's
"giving love" signifies a general benevolence towards
all human sinners as such, consistent with his purpose
that a large portion of them shall be left to the inevita
ble consequences of their own sin.
In this century a few, like Wardlaw and James
Richards, have held the doctrine of the general reference
of the Atonement in connection with strict orthodoxy as
to other points. The great majority, however, of the
Calvinistic advocates of a general redemption have been
the professors of the New England or Edwardean
Theology generally, such as Emmons, Taylor, Park,
Beman and Barnes. The language of Amyraldus, the
" Marrow men," Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, Brown and
others is now used to cover much more serious departures
from the truth. All really consistent Calvinists ought
to have learned by this time that the original positions
of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed
Churches have only been confused, and neither improved,
strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which
the Church has, in the mean time, been distracted as to
the "double will" of God, or the "double reference"
of the Atonement. If men will be consistent in their
adherence to these "Novelties," they must become Ar
minians. If they would hold consistently to the essen-

OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 385
tial priociples of Calvinism, they must discard the
"Novelties." It has always been a marked characteristic of the
Arminians, in their controversies with Calvinists, that
they insist upon the importance of the distinction be
tween the Impetration and the Application of Redemp
tion. The former, they insist, is general; the latter,
they admit to be limited to believers. Professed
Calvinists of a certain school insist upon the same dis
tinction. The Atonement, they maintain, is general,
while they admit that Redemption, including the actual
application of grace, is confined to the elect. They
urge us to consider "the Atonement in itself," apart
from all thought of its application. But if you separate
all thought of purpose and design from the sufferings
of Christ, you would have of course nothing more than
calamities devoid of all moral significance. He died
for a purpose. The question is, What did he aim to
accomplish in his death? I challenge any one to show
(1) how the intended application of the Atonement
could have been any more general than its actual appli
cation? And (2) if the intended application is admitted
to have been limited to the elect, what remains to the
general reference of the Atonement except (a) the in
trinsic sufficiency ; (b) the exact adaptation ; and (c) the
bona fide offer — all which, it is agreed on all hands, is
without any limit at all ?
The question we debate, and which the Reformed
Church has decided, is as to the intended application of
the Atonement. If any man insists upon our abstract
ing that intended application, and considering apart
from it the sufferings of Christ by themselves, we have
33

386 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
no objection to acknowledge that when considered apart
from all design or intention whatsoever, the mere literal
suffering which remains is indifferently as well adapted
to the case of one man as to that of another.

CHAPTER V.
THE QUESTIONS, WHAT WAS THE OPINION OF CALVIN AS TO
THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT? — WHAT IS THE STAN
DARD OF CALVINISM? — AND WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE ON
THIS SUBJECT OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND
CATECHISM? CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.
WE come now to consider the questions, What was
the opinion of Calvin as to the design of Christ
in dying ? — What is the standard of that system of faith
held, by common consent, by the Reformed Churches?
— and especially, What doctrine on this subject is
solemnly professed by all those who adopt the West
minster Confession as the confession of their faith?
Many, in our day, who hold very imperfect views as
to the nature of the Atonement, and as to the design of
God in it, fall back upon some of the vague statements
as to the latter point which they are able to glean out
of Calvin's voluminous works, and under cover of his
great name claim that their various specialties come
legitimately under the category of genuine Calvinism.
Jenkyn, in words borrowed from Bishop Horsley, chal
lenges the advocates of definite and personal redemption
to remember that "those who boast in the name of
Calvin should know what Calvinism is." What I
have to say as to Calvin and the standard of Calvinism
will be presented under the following heads. 387

388 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
1. It has been a very old, and is still a very common
trick of errorists to seek to cover themselves with the
authority of the general and unscientific statements of
eminent theologians, written before any particular doc
trine in question has been consciously considered and
clearly discriminated and defined by the responsible
representatives and organs of the Church. Thus Arians,
Socinians and Pelagians have of old, for their own justi
fication, paraded fragments torn out of the unsystematic
writings of the Fathers, who wrote before the times of
the Council of Nice or of the controversies of Augustine
with Pelagius. Papists find a large measure of material
apparently justifying their distinguishing positions in
the writings of the best theologians preceding the era
of the Reformation, even in the writings of Augustine
himself. Arminians quote much that they find to their
mind in the books of all the Fathers, especially those of
the early Church. In like manner the advocates of
self-styled " improvements in theology," on occasion)
find it to their interest to. quote the general and indefinite
language of Reformers, who wrote without ever con
sciously entertaining the precise points in question, such
as those developed by means of the "Novelties" sub
sequently introduced by the school of Saumur — special
questions, for instance, involved in the nature of justifi
cation, the method and grounds of imputation, and the
design of the Atonement. Let the fact be well noted,
therefore, that Calvin does not appear to have given the
question we are at present discussing a deliberate con
sideration, and has certainly not left behind him a clear
and consistent statement of his views.

OPINION OF CALVIN. 389
2. I have already sufficiently proved that Calvin held
the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement in its strictest
sense, and all the world knows that as a predestinarian
he went to the length of Supralapsarianism, from which
such theologians as Turretin, Witsius and Owen, and
the Synod of Dort, and the Assembly of Westminster,
recoiled. When the advocates of a general atonement
claim to stand by Calvin, they ought to be well prepared
for the arduous undertaking. The entire analogy and
spirit of Calvin's system was as a whole broadly charac
terized by the subjection of Redemption to Election as a
means to an end. The able, learned and impartial F.
Christian Baur, in his History of the Atonement (A. D.
1838), says: "Zwingle and Calvin did indeed adhere to
the dogma of Satisfaction in its traditional form; but
from their point of view the Satisfaction itself was sub
sumed under the idea of the absolute decree, in relation
to which the satisfaction of Christ was -not the causa
meritoria of salvation, but only the causa instrumental
carrying out the purpose of redemption." That this is
true, so far as it represents Calvin subordinating the
purpose of redemption to the purpose of election, every
student of his Institutes and of his Consensus Genevensis
knows, and that this conclusively settles the present
debate every competent theologian will confess. He
declares the gift of Christ is the result of his infinite
love to the persons for whom he is given;* that Christ
really merits eternal life and all spiritual graces for those
for whom he died ;f that Christ is to us both the clear
mirror and the pledge and security of the eternal and
* Institutes, book ii., chap. xvi.
f Ibid., book ii., chap. xvii.
33 *

390 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
•'Secret election of God ;* that God, eternally anterior to
their Creation and irrespective of their character) loved
the elect, and hated the non-elect, predestinating the first
to holiness and happiness, and the other to sin and
misery for ever.f It is true that at times Calvin uses
general terms with respect to the design of Christ's
death in a more unguarded manner than would now be
done by one of his consistent disciples. See Rom. v. 18.
But at other times he explicitly denies that he believes
in an indiscriminate Atonement in the sense of Barnes
and the great majority of the modern advocates of Gene
ral Redemption. And let it be remembered that one
deliberate statement limiting the design of Christ's death
is sufficient to define the sense of any finite number of
vague and indefinite expressions, such as that referred to
above in his comment on Rom. v. 18. Thus in his
comment on 1 John ii. 2, he declared his adhesion to the
Scholastic formula that " Christ died sufficiently for all,
but efficiently only for the elect," which is very different
from the opinion of those who hold that Christ died fbr
the purpose of removing legal obstacles out of the way
of all nleil indifferently. And at the same time he
denies utterly that the apostle, in saying that Christ is
the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" (totius
mundi) could have meant to include the reprobate.
"Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. The
design of John was no other than to make this benefit
common to the whole Church. Then under the Word
all or toliole, he does not include the reprobate, but
designates those who should believe, as well as those
* Consensus Genevensis, Niemeyer, p. 270.
f Institutes, book iii., chap, xxiii.

STANDARD OF CALVINISM. 391
who Were then scattered through various parts of the
world." Commentaries 1 John ii. 2.*
3. But whatever the personal opinions of Calvin may
have been, the second question as to what is Calvinism?
is entirely independent of them. ' The title Calvinism has
— whether with propriety or not, nevertheless as a fixed
facte—been given to a definite system, which possesses an
identity of charaoter and of history independent of any
single man that ever lived. It is doubtless convenient)
but it is eminently unscholarly, to attempt to settle the
theology of the Reformed Churches by reference to the
writings of a single man. There are two ways of de
termining what several elements legitimately belong to
this system: (1.) By an analysis and comparison of all
the elements of the system, trying each proposed element
by the fundamental principles, the general spirit, logical
relations and analogy of the whole. This has been, I
suppose, sufficiently done in the preceding analysis and
statement of the question. (2.) The second method is
an historical appeal, to the common consent of that great
family of Churches who agree in professing the funda
mental principles of that system, as this consent is ex
pressed by their great representative Confessions and
classical theological writings, prepared after the topics
in question have been consciously and specifically dis
cussed and defined.
*In his treatise, De Vera Participatione Christi in Coena, in reply
to Heshusius, a violent Lutheran defender of the corporeal presence
of Christ in the Eucharist, this passage occurs : " I would desire to
know how the impious, for whom he was not crucified, could eat the
flesh of Christ, and how they can drink his blood for the expiation
of whose sins it was not shed." Cunningham's Theology of the
Keformation, p. 396.

392 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
All the world knows that the seventeenth century,
including the latter part of the sixteenth, was the era
when all the elements of all the great systems of theo
logy were subjected, by means of controversies, to a
thorough analysis and adjustment, when each system
was elaborated with a distinctness, and defined with an
accuracy, and discussed with a power, and received each
by its entire circles of adherents with a unanimity which
surpasses all the subsequent as much as all the precedent
achievements of the Church. This was the age which,
taken in its wide limits, produced the Roman Catholic,
Robert Bellarmine ; the Unitarian, Crellius, and the
other authors of the Bibliotheca. Fratrum Polonorum ;
the Lutheran, Gerhard Calovius, Quenstedt; the Ar
minian, Arminius, Episcopius Limborch and Grotius ;
the Calvinistic Universalists, Cameron, Placaeus, Amyr
aldus, Daille" ; the Reformed Synods of Dort, Alez and
Charenton, the Westminster Assembly, the Formula
Consensus Helvetica, the Savoy Confession, &c, &c,
&c. We lay it down, therefore, as a canon, which no
student of historical theology will care to deny, that the
common consent of the reformed churches,
during the seventeenth century, as witnessed
in their creeds and in the writings of their
representative theologians, is the standard of
Calvinism.
The only other point which our argument requires
us to establish is that the decisions of the Reformed
Churches, during the seventeenth century, were univer
sally and explicitly in confirmation of our view of the
Atonement as definite and personal. Both of the learned
and impartial critics, Wener and Hagenbach, agree that

STANDARD OF CALVINISM. 393
the deliverances of the Belgic* and Gallicf Confessions
(A. D. 1571), and of the Synod of Dort (A. D. 1619),
expressly teach a different Atonement. " For this M'as
the most free council, and. gracious will and intention
of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving effi
cacy of the most precious death of his own Son, should
exert itself in all the elect, in order to give them alone
justifying faith, and thereby to lead them to eternal
life; that is, that God willed that Christ, through the
blood of the cross (by which he confirmeth the new
covenant), should out of every people, tribe, nation and
language, efficaciously redeem all those, and those only,
who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given
to him by the Father.J" Under the head of the rejec-
* Conf. Belg., Art. 16. — Credimus, Deum, posteaquam tota Adami
progenies sic in perditionem et exitium primi hominis culpa prse-
cipitata fuit, Deum se talem demonstrasse, qnalis est, nimirum mise-
ricordem et justum, misericordem quidem, eos ab hsec perditione
liberando et servando, quos seterno et immutabili suo consilio pro
gratuita sua bonitate in Jesu Christo elegit et selegit, absque ullo
operum ipsorum respectu ; jnstum vero, reliquos in lapsu et perdi
tione, in quam sese ipsi prsecipitaverant, relinquendo.
f Conf. Gall., Art. 12. — Credimus ex corruptione et damnatione
nniversali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios
quidem eripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio,
sola sua bonitate et miseracordia nulloque operum ipsorum respectu
in Jesu Christo elegit; alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione
relinquere, in quibus nimirum juste suo tempore damnandis justitiam
suam demonstret, sicut in aliis divitias misericordise suse declarat.
Nee enim alii aliis sunt meliores, donee illos Deus discernat ex im
mutabili illo consilio, quod ante seculorum creationem in Jesu
Christi determinavit : neque posset quisquam sua vi sibi ad bonum
illud aditum patefacere, quum ex natura nostra ne unum quidem
rectum motum vel affectum seu cogitationem habere possimus, donee
nos Deus gratis prseveniat et ad reetitudinem format.
X Articles of the Synod of Dort, chapter ii., \ 8.

394 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
tion of errors concerning redemption, "The Synod
rejects the errors of those who teach 'that God the
Father destined his own Son unto the death of the cross,
without a certain and definite counsel of saving any one
by name.'  For this assertion is contumelious to
the wisdom of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, and
is contrary to Scripture, as the Saviour says, ' I lay down
my life for the sheep, and I know them.' John x. 15,
27."* "Who teach that 'Christ, by his satisfaction,
did not with certainty merit that very salvation and
faith by which this satisfaction of Christ may be effec
tually applied unto salvation.'"f Here the doctrine of
definite Atonement is taught with singular fulness and
variety of statement. Thus (a) it is stated that Christ
died to secure the salvation of the elect, and the elect
only. (6.) That Christ died in pursuance of a definite
covenant arrangement between the Father and the Son.
(c.) That Christ, by his death, actually merited and
secured faith and spiritual grace for those for whom he
died. Hence, those who never received the gift of faith
are proved not to be those for whom he died.
The Westminster Confession was prepared in 1648.
There has been in this generation a very uncandid
attempt made by some who profess to receive this Con
fession, ex animo, as the fit expression of their faith, to
show that it does not explicitly affirm a specific and per
sonal redemption of the elect to the exclusion of a gene
ral redemption of all. These parties admit that the
Confession may be chargeable with the sin of omission
in respect to the failure to affirm that redemption is
general and indefinite. But they deny that it affirms
* Articles of the Synod of Dort, J 1. -f Ibid., jj 3.

STANDARD OF CALVINISM. 395
the contrary. It is said that the Confession is very
careful to trace out the relation of Christ's work to the
elect, while it leaves the way open to all to indulge Avhat
opinions they please as to its relations to the non-elect.
This is obviously a mistake. Our Confession explicitly —
and precisely in those forms of statement most signifi
cant and emphatic, when viewed in connection with the
state of the controversy on this question at that time —
affirms, that the redemptive work of Christ was personal
and definite, and therefore not impersonal and indefinite.
"They who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are re
deemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in'
Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified,
adopted, sanctified and kept by his power through faith
unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by
Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified
and saved, but the elect only."* Here it is explicitly
declared that the elect are redeemed, and that only the
elect are redeemed by Christ. "The Lord Jesus, by
his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he,
through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God,
hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father; and pur
chased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting in
heritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom
the Father hath given him."f Here it is explicitly
said that the atoning work of Christ secures for those in
whose behalf it was offered reconciliation — not reconcilia-
hility — and that it purchases for them an everlasting
inheritance in heaven. They, therefore, who never re
ceive the reconciliation nor the inheritance cannot be
* Westminster Confession, chapter iii., § 6.
¦j- Ibid., chapter viii., \ 5.

396 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
those for whom they were purchased. "To all for
whom Christ hath purchased redemption he doth cer
tainly and effectually apply and communicate the same,
making intercession for them, and revealing unto them,
in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation, effec
tually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and
obey."* Here it is expressly said that Christ actually
saves all those for whom he died, and it follows, of
course, that he shed his blood for none whom he does
not actually save. "This statement contains, and was in
tended to contain, the true status quozstionis in the contro
versy about the extent of the Atonement. It is to be explained
by a reference to the mode of conducting this controversy,
between the Calvinists and the Arminians about the
time of the Synod of Dort, and also to the mode of con
ducting the controversy excited in France by Cameron,
and afterwards carried on by Amyraldus in France and
Holland, and by Baxter in England."f
The Formula Consensus Helvetica was prepared in
1675 by Heidegger and Turretin for the express purpose
of opposing the "Novelties" of the school of Saumur,
and it received the suffrages of all the Swiss Churches
of that age. "Accordingly in the death of Christ, only
the elect, who in time are made new creatures (2 Cor. v.
17), and for whom Christ in his death was substituted
as an expiatory sacrifice, are regarded as having died
with him and as being justified from sin; and thus, with
the counsel of the Father, who gave to Christ none but
the elect to be redeemed, and also with the working of
the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and seals unto a living
* Westminster Confession, chapter viii., # 8.
f Cunningham's History of Theology, vol. ii., p. 328.

STANDARD OF CALVINISM. 397
hope of eternal life none but the elect, the will of Christ
who died so agrees and amicably conspires in perfect
harmony, that the sphere of the Father's election, the
Son's redemption, and the Spirit's sanctification is one
and the same."*
The decrees of the Synod of Dort were accepted with
unparalelled unanimity by all the Reformed Churches.
They were adopted again and again by the National
Synod of the Reformed Church of France, at Alez, in
1620; at Charenton, in 1623; and at every subsequent
session until they ceased to meet. Again and again the
French Synod examined this very question, and decided,
as I showed above from the minutes of the Synod of
Alengon (A. D. 1637), that Christ died with the inten
tion of saving only the elect, while his work is freely
offered to all. The theological faculty of Geneva, the
successors of Calvin, only eighty years after his death,
unite with the theological faculties of Leyden, Sedan,
Franeker and Gronegen, in writing earnestly to the
Synod, protesting against the doctrines of Amyraldus,
calling them "novelties," "upstarted opinions," "new
doctrines," &c, and recommending the work written to
refute them by that "famous divine Andrew Rivet,"
pastor and professor at Leyden.
The Savoy Confession (A. D. 1658) adopted by the
English Independents agrees with the Westminster as to
the design of redemption. The Boston Confession (A. D.
1680) explicitly teaches the same doctrine. The Cam
bridge Synod (A. D. 1648), when they formed the Cam
bridge Platform, solemnly adopted the Westminster
Confession as their doctrinal symbol. The Synod of the
* Formula Consensus Helvetica, canon 13.
34

398 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
Connecticut Churches, which formed the Saybrook Plat
form in 1703, adopted the Boston Confession of 1680
for their doctrinal symbol. The Westminster Confession
has been subsequently adopted as the doctrinal Confes
sion of all the Presbyterians and Independents of British
descent in the world. This much, at least in common
honesty, ought to be held as settled, that whatever may
be the case as to the teachings of Scripture, it is not an
open question what is the doctrine of the Reformed Churches
as to tlie design of the Atonement. There is no question
whether the International Synod of Dort; the National
Synods of France and Westminster; the Formula Con
sensus Helvetica; the theological schools of Geneva,
Sedan, Leyden, Franeker and Gronegen ; the theologians
Beza, Voetius, Diodati, Gomarus, Rivet, Du Moulin,
Spanheim, Heidegger, Turretin, Cocceius, Witsius, Vit-
ringa, Van Mastricht, Marckius, De Moor, Pictet and
Owen, — there is no question whether these represent truly
and fully the theology of the Reformed Churches. Tlie
consensus of these is the standard of Calvinism.

CHAPTER VI.
THE ARGUMENTS STATED UPON WHICH THE REFORMED
DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT RESTS.
WE are, under this fifth head, to consider the evidence
relied upon by Calvinists as establishing the truth
of their view of the Atonement as personal and definite.
I believe that the general principles of Calvinism, and
the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement in particu
lar, being assumed as true, the only question as to the
design of Christ's work that remains possible is fully
disposed of by a discriminating and exhaustive state
ment of the points at issue. Having spent so much
time in rendering such a statement, I propose now to
present the positive arguments establishing our view of
the question in a very cursory manner.
1. That the design of the Atonement was the salva
tion of the elect personally and definitely, we think,
certainly follows from the very nature of the Atonement
itself, which has been fully demonstrated in the former
part of this volume. -
(1.) We then proved that Christ wrought our salva
tion as our Substitute in the strict sense of that term,
and that his suffering and obedience was strictly vica
rious. He occupied our law -place, and the sentence d tie
to the principals was executed on him. Now this fact,
we do not believe, involves any calculation as to the
399

400 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
kind or amount of suffering. Whether a Substitute for
few or for many, a divine Person might surely, by the
same actions and in the same time, discharge all the
obligations of all indifferently. But a strict substitution
of person for persons, and the infliction on the one part,
and the voluntary suffering on the other, of vicarious
punishment surely implies a definite recognition, on the
part of the Sovereign, and of the Substitute of the per
sons for whom the Substitute acts, whose sins he bears
and whose penal obligation he discharges. The very
conception of substitution necessarily involves definite,
personal relations.
(2.) We have also clearly proved that the work of
Christ as our Substitute was a complete Satisfaction,
fully discharging all the demands of the law as a broken
covenant of works. The demands of the law terminate
upon persons. Its demands can be satisfied only with
respect to certain definite persons, and not with respect
to a mass indefinitely. The law, moreover, has no
further demands upon those persons with respect to
whom all its conditions have been once fully satisfied.
It hence follows, that all of those for whom Christ has
in this sense made a perfect satisfaction must be saved.
This does not imply at all that the sinner himself has
any claim upon the grace whereby he is saved, nor that
God is any the less an absolute Sovereign in giving it
to, and in withholding it from, whomsoever he will.
The whole matter lies in the intention of the Father in
giving the Son, and the intention of the Son in dying.
The demands of the government with relation to an
individual are satisfied when the services of another as
his substitute are credited to his account. It depends

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 401
simply upon the will of the substitute and upon the
pleasure of the government whether these services shall
be credited to one or to another. For whomsoever they
are designed, they avail to cancel their obligations. If
God's will in the matter should change, the persons to
whom the law-satisfying righteousness would be credited
would change also. Yet, even in that case, the changed
destination would make no difference as to the personal
and definite reference of the satisfaction. But since God
cannot change, the same persons whom God in the be
ginning chose to eternal life are the persons for whom
Christ made satisfaction, and the persons for whom he
made satisfaction are the persons whom he now justifies,
and will hereafter glorify.
(3.) Every form which it is possible for the General
Atonement Theory to assume necessarily involves the
hypothesis that in its essential nature the Atonement
effects only the removal of legal obstacles out of the
way of the salvation of men, making God reconcilable,
not actually reconciling him ; making the salvation of
all men possible, not actually saving any. But the
Scriptures teach that Christ actually came to save those
for whom he died — " The Son of God came to save that
which was lost." Matt, xviii. 11 ; Luke xix. 10. 2 Cor.
v. 21 : "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him." Gal. i. 4 : " He gave himself for our sins,
that he might deliver us from this present evil world,
according to the will of God." Gal. iv. 5 : "He was
made under the law, that he might (ha) redeem them that
are under the law, that we might (ha) receive the adop
tion of sons. 1 Tim. i. 15 : "This is a faithful saying,
34*

402 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
.... that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners." Again the Scriptures declare that the effect
of Christ's death is reconciliation and justification.
Rom. v. 10: "For if when we were enemies we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Eph.
ii. 16: "Christ died that he might reconcile both unto
God in one body by the cross." The design of Christ,
moreover, was to secure for those for whom he died the
direct effect of remission of sins, peace with God, and
deliverance from the curse of the law, from wrath, from
death, from sin, &c. In whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. Eph. ii. 14:
"For he is our peace who hath made both one." 1
Thess. i. 10: "Even Jesus, which delivered us from the
wrath to come." Heb. ii. 14: "That through death he
might destroy him that had the power of death, and
deliver them, who through fear of death," &c. Gal. iii.
13 : " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us." 1 Pet. i. 18: "Forasmuch
as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things,  but with the precious blood of Christ."
But to make salvation possible, to make possible purifi
cation, deliverance, reconciliation, is something very
different indeed from actually saving, purifying, deli \er-
ing or reconciling. No man has a right to empty tlie
glorious terms in which the gospel is revealed of all
their saving power. It is not we who teach a limited
atonement, but our opponents. That must be a limited
redemption indeed which leaves the majority of those
for whom it was designed in hell for ever; -which only
makes salvation possible to all men in such a sense that

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 403
it continues absolutely impossible to all until, by a
sovereign grace which is antecedent to and independent
of all redemption, it is made subjectively possible to a
few. 2. None of the advocates of a general and indefinite
Atonement can believe that Christ purchased redemp
tion, faith or obedience for those for whom he died, for
in that case all for whom he died must repent, believe
and obey. But the Scriptures teach that Christ did
purchase those blessings for those for whom he died.
This is plain (1) because men have no natural power to
furnish those conditions themselves. The Scriptures
everywhere ascribe the whole ground and cause of our
salvation to Christ. But if the differentiating grace
which distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is
to be attributed to any cause exterior to Christ's redemp
tion, then that cause, and not his redemption, is the
cause of salvation. (2.) Faith and redemption are ex
pressly said to be gifts of God. Eph. ii. 8: "For by
grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of your
selves ; it is the gift of God." Acts v. 31 : "Him hath
God exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, to give re
pentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (3.) They
are given to us for Christ's sake as the purchase of his
blood. In Phil. i. 29 it is said to be given us in behalf
of Christ to believe on him. Eph. i. 3, 4: "Blessed be
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly things
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." Titus iii. 5, 6 :
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done,

404 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which
he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour." Gal. iii. 13, 14: "Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law . . . that we might receive the pro
mise of the Spirit through faith." Acts ii. 33 : " There
fore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,
he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear."
Emmons, the logical advocate of a general Atonement,
asserts that the only benefit we receive from Christ is
forgiveness of sins on condition of faith.* But the
Scriptures over and over again declare that Christ died
with the design and effect of procuring for those for
whom he died the subjective grace of sanctification, in
cluding faith, as well as the objective grace of forgiveness
conditioned on faith. "Who gave himself for us that
he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to him
self a peculiar people zealous of good works." Titus
ii. 14. "Christ also loved the Church and gave him
self for it : that he might sanctify and cleanse it with
the washing of water by the word, that he might pre
sent it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or
wrinkle or any such thing: but that it should be holy
and without blemish." Eph. v. 26, 27. "Who of God
is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctifi
cation, and redemption." (4.) All whom the Father
gave to the Son believe, and none others. "All that
the Father giveth to me shall come to me,  and
this is the Father's will, that of all which he hath given
me I should lose nothing." John vi. 37, 39. "My
* Emmons' Works, vol. iii., p. 18.

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 405
sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow
me, and I give to them eternal life  My Father
which gave them me is greater than all." John x. 27, 28.
Christ said, in the tenth chapter of John, " I lay down
my lite for the sheep," and then said to the Jews, " Ye
believe not because ye are not my sheep." John x. 26.
"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
Acts xiii. 48. Christ said to his disciples, " To you it is
given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,
but to them it is not given." Matt. xiii. 12.
If, then, as the Scriptures teach, Christ purchased all
spiritual graces for those for whom he died, all those for
whom he died must believe. If the object for which he
died was to sanctify and cleanse those for whom he died,
then that great mass of men who live and die, eaten to
the core with every form of corruption, cannot be those
for whom Christ died.
3. All the advocates of general redemption believe
that Christ, moved by an impersonal and indiscriminate
philanthropy or love of men as such, died in order to
make the salvation of all men possible to them on the
condition of faith. But the facts of the case are — (a) that
Christ died after generations of men had been going to
perdition during four thousand years. With regard to
that half of the race who perished before his advent it
is hard to see the bearings of a general redemption.
And if it had no bearing upon their case, it is hard to
see in what sense the redemption is general. (6.) That
the condition upon which it is said Christ died to save
them he has, for two thousand years since his work of
atonement was finished, withheld from the knowledge
of three-fourths of the race. It is hard to see in what

406 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
sense the death of Christ made the salvation of the
heathen possible, or how he died on purpose to save
them on the condition of faith, when he has never
revealed to them his purpose of salvation, nor the con
ditions upon which it is suspended. And if the Atone
ment has no reference to the salvation of the untaught
heathen, it is very hard indeed to see in what sense it is
general. 4. Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal
Covenant of Redemption formed between the Father
and the Son. The conditions assumed by Christ on his
part were that he should, in living and dying, by action
and suffering, fulfil all the legal obligations of his peo
ple. The conditions promised by the Father were that
Christ should "see of the travail of his soul and be
satisfied." That there was such a covenant formed in eternity is
plain. (1.) God always acts on a plan, and there must
therefore have been a mutual counsel and design on the
part of the several persons of the Godhead distributing
their several functions in the economy of redemption.
(2.) The Scriptures explicitly state all the elements of a
true covenant in this relation, giving the mutual pro
mises and conditions of the two parties. "I the Lord
have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy
hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant
of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the
blind eyes," &c. Isa. xiii. 6, 7. " I have made a cove
nant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant
. . . thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy
throne to all generations." Ps. Ixxxix. 3, 4. "When
his soul shall make an offering for sin, he shall see his

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 407
seed, . . . and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in
his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul and
be satisfied : by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many ; for he shall bear their iniquities. There
fore will I divide him a portion with the great," &c.
Isa. liii. 10, 11. (3.) Christ, while accomplishing his
work on earth, makes constant reference to a previous
commission he had received of the Father whose will he
has come to execute. "I came to do the will of him
that sent me." " This commandment I have received
of my Father." "As my Father hath appointed unto
me." (4.) Christ claims the reward which had been
conditioned upon the fulfilment of that commission. "I
have glorified thee on the earth ; I have finished the
woi;k that thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory
which I had with thee before the world was. I have
manifested thy name to those whom thou hast given me
out of the world. I pray for them: I pray not for the
world, but for them that thou hast given me." John
xvii. 4-9. (5.) Christ constantly speaks of those that
believe as having been previously given him by the
Father. His Father had given them — "He laid down
his life for the sheep." John x. 15. They were given
him by the Father. He knows them. They hear his
voice. They shall never perish. The reason that the
reprobate do not believe is , because they are not his
sheep. John x. 26. He prays not for the world ; he
prays only for those the Father had given him out of
the world.
If he died in pursuance of a mutual understanding
between himself and the Father, if he shall see of the

408 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
travail of his soul and be satisfied, and if every one
that the Father gave him in that covenant shall be
saved, then surely those who are not saved are not
those for whom he died.
5. The Scriptures habitually affirm that the motive
which led the Father to give his Son, and the Son
to die, was not a mere general philanthropy, but the
highest, most peculiar and personal love. Christ's true
purpose in dying can certainly have no more exact and
complete expression than his outpourings of soul in the
ear of his Father on the terrible night preceding his
sacrifice, recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John.
If ever the real design of his death was uppermost in his
heart and speech, it must have been then. If ever the
motives which led to his dying were in strong action, it
must have been then. But all that he says of the world
is that he does not pray for it. All the unutterable
treasures of his love are poured forth upon those whom
the Father gave him out of the world. "For their
sakes," he said, "I sanctify myself" — that is, devote
myself to this awful service. John xvii. 13: "That
they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves." "Greater
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his
life for his friends." John xv. 13. " God commendeth his
love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us." Rom. v. 8. "That ye may be able to
comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth and
length, and depth and height, and to know the love of
Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled
with all the fulness of God." Eph. iii. 18, 19. "Hereby
perceive we the love of God." " In this was manifested
the love of God, because he sent his only-begotten Son

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 409
into the world," &c. 1 John iii. 16; iv. 9, 10. This
love of Christ for his Church has for its type the per
sonal and exclusive love of the husband for the wife.
Eph. v. 25-27.
It is inconceivable that this highest and most peculiar
love, which moved God to give his only-begotten and
well-beloved Son to undergo a painful and shameful
death, could have had for its objects the myriads from
whom, both before and after Christ, he had withheld all
knowledge of the gospel ; or those to whom, while he
gives them the outward call of the word, he refuses to
give the inward call of his Spirit. Can such love as the
death of Christ expresses, welling up and pouring forth
from the heart of the omnipotent God, fail to secure the
certain blessedness of its objects? Paul expresses his
opinion upon this precise point: "He that spared not
his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall
he not with him also freely give us all things?" Rom. viii.
32. Surely it is a profane defamation of this love to
say that its effects may be measured in God's providing
a salvation for all men to accrue to them upon conditions
known and intended in the case of most to be impossi
ble. It is surely an abuse of Scripture to say that the
elect and the reprobate, "those appointed to honour"
and "those appointed to dishonour," those who "be
fore were of old ordained to this condemnation" and
those who were " ordained unto eternal life," those whom
God "hardeneth" and those upon whom he "hath
mercy," the "world" and those "chosen out of the
world," are all indiscriminately the objects of this amaz
ing, this heaven-moving, this soul-redeeming love.
6. The Scriptures habitually represent the definite
35

410 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
design of the death of Christ to be the saving of " many,"
the redemption of "his sheep," "his Church," "his peo
ple," "his children," the "elect." "And thou shalt call
his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their
sins." Matt. i. 21. "The good shepherd giveth his life
for the sheep." "I lay down my life for the sheep."
John x. 11, 15. "The Church of God which he hath
purchased with his own blood." Acts xx. 28. "Hus
bands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church
and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and
cleanse it ; . . . . that he might present it to himself a
glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any
such thing, but that it should be holy and without
blemish." Eph. v. 25. 26, 27. Christ is said (John xi.
51, 52) to have died to gather together in one the chil
dren of God who are scattered abroad. "He that spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how
shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay anything 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 inter
cession for us. Who shall separate us from the love
of Christ?" Rom. viii. 32-35.
Now, many plausible reasons may be assigned why, on
the supposition of a personal and definite Atonement,
general terms should be used on some occasions to illus
trate the fact that the redemption is suited for all, suffi
cient for all, offered to all ; that the elect are chosen out
of every family, tribe and nation under heaven, and
from every successive generation ; and that finally the
whole earth shall be redeemed from the curse, the gos-

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 411
pel triumph among all nations, and the saints inherit
the regenerated world. But we affirm that, on the con
trary hypothesis of a general and indefinite Atonement,
no plausible pretext can be given for the use of the
definite language above quoted. If Christ loved the
whole world so as to die for it, why say that the motive
for his dying was that his sheep should be saved?
7. Christ's work as High Priest is one work, accom
plished in all its parts with one design and with one
effect, and having respect to the same persons. The
work of the high priest, as I showed in Chapter ix., Part
I., included sacrifice or oblation and intercession. I
proved also (a) that the work of the ancient priest
secured the actual and certain remission of the sins of
all for whom he acted, and that it bore a definite refer
ence to the persons of all those whom he represented,
and to none others. (6.) That the ancient priest offered
intercession for precisely the same persons — for all of
them, and for none others — for whom he had pre
viously made expiation. This argument I will not here
repeat. It will answer our purpose to notice —
(1.) That the Scriptures declare that the ancient priest
was in all these respects a type of Christ. Our Lord,
having made expiation in the outer court, went within
the veil to make intercession. "Neither by the blood
of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in
6nce into the holy place, having obtained eternal re
demption for us. For Christ is not entered into the
holy places made with hands, which are the figures of
the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us. Where he ever liveth to make
intercession for us." Heb. vii. 25; ix. 12, 24.

412 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
(2.) But Christ interceded only for his "sheep." This
is certain, (a) because it is always effectual. He inter
cedes as "a priest upon his throne." He says his "Fa
ther heareth him always." His form of intercession is,
" Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me,"
&c. John xvii. 24. (b.) He expressly declares the fact
that he intercedes only for the elect — "I pray for them;
I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast
given me." John xvii. 9. "Neither pray I for these
alone; but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word." John xvii. 20. "Other sheep I
have which are not of this fold ; them also I must bring,
and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold
and one shepherd." John x. 16.
(3.) But if Christ makes intercession for the elect
only, he can of course have died for them alone. As
proved before, the ancient priest made intercession for
all for whom he made expiation. The priestly work
was one in design and effect in all its parts. It is simply
absurd to suppose that the priest acted as a mediator for
one party when he made the oblation, and for another
when he made the intercession. This is the view cer
tainly that Paul took of the matter — "Who shall lay
anything to the charge of God's elect? Who is he that
condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is
risen again, who is also at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ?" &c. Here it is plain that the
argument establishes the security of the "elect." The
ground upon which that security rests is, that Christ died
for them and intercedes for them. Plainly the dying and
the intercession have one and the same personal object.

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 413
(4.) This is rendered more certain by the very nature
of that perpetual intercession which Christ offers in
behalf of his elect. "For us it is now perfected in
heaven ; it is not an humble dejection of himself, with
cries, tears and supplications; nay it cannot be con
sidered as vocal by the way of entreaty, but merely real,
by the presentation of himself, sprinkled with the blood
of the covenant, before the throne of grace in our behalf.
With his own blood — to appear in the presence of God
for us. Heb. ix. 12, 24. So presenting himself that
his former oblation might have its perpetual efficacy,
until the many sons given him are brought to glory.
And herein his intercession consisteth, being nothing as
it were but his oblation continued. He was the ' Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world.' Rev. xiii. 8.
Now his intercession before his actual oblation in the
fulness of time being nothing but a presenting of the
engagement that was upon him for the work in due time
to be accomplished, certainly that which follows it is
nothing but a presenting of what, according to that
engagement, is fulfilled; so that it is nothing but a con
tinuation of his oblation in postulating, by remembrance
and declaration of it, those things which by it were pro
cured. How, then, is it possible that the one of these
should be of larger compass and extent than the other?
Can he be said to offer for them for whom he doth not
intercede, when his intercession is nothing but a present
ing of his oblation in the behalf of them for whom he
suffered, and for the bestowing of those good things
which by that were purchased."*
8. The relation which this question sustains to the
* Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ, B. I., chap. vii.
35*

414 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
doctrine of Election is self-evident. The Calvinistic
doctrine that God of his mere good pleasure has from
eternity infallibly predestinated eertain persons out of
the mass of fallen humanity to salvation and to all the
means thereof, and that in so doing he has sovereignly
passed over the rest of mankind and left them to the
natural consequences of their sin, necessarily settles the
question as to the design of God in giving his Son to
die. It is purely unthinkable that the same mind that
sovereignly predestinated the elect to salvation, and the
rest of mankind to the punishment of their sins, should,
at the same time, make a great sacrifice for the sake
of removing legal obstacles out of the way of those
from whose path it is decreed other obstacles shall not
be removed. Schweitzer, in his article in Herzog's En
cyclopaedia, says that Amyraldus, towards the close of
his life, came to see that there was nothing real in all
the new distinctions with which he had been attempting
to smooth the harshness of Calvinism, and to obviate
some of the more specious objections to it. Unquestion
ably there is no compromise between Arminianism and
Calvinism. Those who attempt to stand between must
content themselves with treading the air while they.
receive the fire of both sides. We do not object to Cal
vinistic Universalism (that is, universal particularism,
or particular universalism) because of any danger with
which — when considered as a final position — it threatens
orthodoxy. We distrust it rather because it is not a
final position, but is the first step in the easy descent of
error. 9. Our view has the capital advantage of agreeing
with and harmonizing all the facts of the case, and of

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 415
representing Christ as having designed to accomplish
by his death precisely what in the event is accomplished,
and nothing else. We believe that he designed to ac
complish by his death the following ends : (1.) Evidently
as the end to which all other ends stand related as
means, the only end which affords any adequate reason
for what he did, he purposed to secure certainly the sal
vation of his own people, those whom the Father had
given unto him. (2.) To secure that end he designed
to purchase for them, and then efficaciously to commu
nicate to them, faith and repentance and all the fruits
of the Spirit. (3.) In order to the great end above
stated he purposed to purchase many temporal and other
blessings short of salvation for all mankind, and in
various degrees for individual men, just as they are
actually experienced under the dispensations of Provi
dence. (4.) In order also, as a further means to the
same end, to lay, in the perfect sufficiency of the Atone
ment for all and its exact adaptation to each, a real
foundation for the bona fide offer of salvation to all men
indiscriminately on the condition of faith. The design
has the elect for its sole, ultimate end, and it in any way
respects the non-elect only as the method which God has
chosen for the application of redemption to the elect neces
sarily involves the bringing to bear upon the non-elect,
among whom they live, influences, moral and otherwise,
which in various degrees involves their characters and
destinies. The hypothesis of a general and indefinite Atonement
admits but of two distinct positions, that of the Ar
minian and that of the Calvinistic Universalist. Accord
ing to the Arminian view,. the Father and the Son did

416 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
all that properly belonged to either of them to do to
secure the salvation of all men. The Holy Spirit also
impartially gives common grace to all men. Each of
the divine Persons, therefore, is baffled in the mutual
design as far as the multitude of the lost is concerned.
As far as the intrinsic efficacy of the Atonement is con
cerned, it might have failed in every case, as it has failed
in a majority of the cases for which it was designed.
Indeed, the Atonement has, properly speaking, secured
the salvation of no one — has been, on the contrary, de
pendent in every case upon the self-determined choice
of sinful men for whatever measure of success it has
attained. There is, moreover, upon this view, a myste
rious want of conformity between God's dispensation
of redemption and his dispensation of providence. In
his dispensation of redemption and grace he has done
all he could to accomplish his design of saving all men
indifferently; while in his dispensation of providence
he has withheld those essential conditions of knowledge,
without which salvation is simply impossible, from
three-fourths of the people living on the face of the
earth. According to the view of the Calvinistic Universalist,
God loved all enough to give his Son to die for them,
and yet loved only the elect enough to give them his
Spirit. He designed in the sacrifice of his Son to make
the salvation of all men possible, while at the same time
he sovereignly intended that only the elect should be
saved. His decree of redemption is conditional, but
the conditions were intended to be impossible. His
decree of election is unconditional. God went to work
at great cost to make the salvation of all men objectively

TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE. 417
possible, while he at the very same time intended that
the salvation of the majority should continue subjectively
impossible. God the Redeemer died that all men might
be saved if they would believe after half of them were
already in perdition, while God the providential Ruler
left two-thirds of the other half permanently ignorant
of the fact that any salvation was provided, or of the
terms upon which it might be secured. At present this
is the view of "advanced thinkers."

CHAPTER VII.
THE OBJECTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE REFORMED VIEW
OF THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT STATED, AND THE
ANSWER TO THEM INDICATED.
"E have now come in conclusion to consider the
principal arguments which the advocates of a
general and indefinite Atonement rely upon as refuting
our doctrine and as establishing their own. By far the
most considerable of these arguments are those founded
(1) on the admitted fact of the indiscriminate offer of the
gospel to all men. (2.) On those passages of Scripture
which say in general terms that Christ " bore the sins
of the world," and "suffered for all." (3.) And on
those passages which speak of the possibility of those
dying for whom Christ died.
1. It is claimed that if Christ did not die for the
purpose of providing salvation fbr all men indifferently,
then the indiscriminate offer of salvation made in the
gospel to all men is an empty form, offering the non-
elect an atonement, when, as far as he is concerned, no
atonement has been made. There is unquestionably a
difficulty in this neighborhood, but it will require some
discrimination to determine exactly the point upon which
the difficulty presses. There are three distinct respects
in which a personal and definite Atonement appears to
be inconsistent with the indiscriminate offer of salvation,
418

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 419
which are sometimes distinctly stated, but are generally
jumbled together in a confused charge of inconsistency.
These are, (a) that if the Atonement was designed only
for the elect, it is not consistent with truth that God
should offer salvation to all men. (6.) That in such a
case there is no solid warrant for the ministerial offer
of salvation to all men. (c.) That in such a case there
is no solid warrant for any man, who is not privately
and infallibly assured of his own election, to rest his
trust upon that Atonement, which, although offered to
all, was intended only for the benefit of the elect.
As to the warrant for the ministerial offer of salvation
to all, it must be found alone in the great commission
with which every minister is sent out by the authority
of the Master himself. No matter what may be the
nature or the design of the Atonement, no servant has
any right to go back of his commission, and insist upon
understanding his Master's secret purposes or aims. No
matter what else is true or not true, -the command to
"go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature" is the entire and all-sufficient warrant for the
ministerial offer. Even if the Atonement can be de
monstrated to be universal, our right to offer it to all
men cannot rest upon that demonstration, but, as said
before, upon the plain terms of that commission which
we already have.
As to the warrant of personal faith upon the part of
men who can know nothing as to their election, the case
is precisely similar. The warrant rests sufficiently and
exclusively in the indiscriminate invitations, commands
and promises of the gospel. If we were all assured of
the absolute universality of redemption, or if we could

420 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
read plainly every name recorded in the Lamb's book of
life, the case would be no plainer and no more certain
than it now is. The absolutely righteous, the infinitely
wise and powerful God solemnly declares that "whosoever
will may take of the water of life freely," and that
"whosoever comes he will in no wise cast out." Any
other warrant than this is inconsistent with the nature
of faith. To demand any other warrant is sheer ration
alism and rebellion.
With respect to the warrant for God's acting as he
does in the case, we might surely content ourselves with
referring to the infinite perfections and absolute sove
reignty of God upon the one hand, and to the entire
ignorance of man upon the other. But in order that we
may locate the difficulty, which every one vaguely feels,
at the precise point to which it. belongs, observe that the
definite and personal design of the Atonement, and the
unconditional and personal election of some men to
eternal life, are identically one and the same in their
bearing upon the indiscriminate offers of the gospel.
Viewing the matter from the Arminian stand-point, we
challenge our opponents to show why the sovereign
election of some men, and the sovereign leaving of others
to the natural consequences of their own sins, are any
more inconsistent with the good faith of God in the in
discriminate offers of salvation to all than is that divine
infallible foreknowledge which the Arminians admit.
If God certainly foreknows that to the vast mass of
those to whom the offer of salvation is brought it will
be only a savour of death unto death, awfully aggravat
ing their doom, how is it consistent with his supposed
desire and labour to save all men alike that he should

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 421
thus knowingly aggravate the condemnation of the
majority of those he professes to desire to save.
Besides this, the declaration of purpose which God
makes in the universal offers of the gospel is all literally
true, election or no election. It is even man's duty and
interest to repent and believe whether he will or not.
It is God's purpose to receive and save all that believe
on his Son, elect or not. It is every word true. Neither
does the salvation of the elect make the case of the non-
elect any worse. Nor is the indiscriminate offer of
salvation to all, including the non-elect, a wanton or
improper mockery of their case, because (a) the offer is
real and sincere; (6) the only reason they do not benefit
by it is their own wilful rejection of it; (c) it is, there
fore, an admirable test of their character, displaying the
inveteracy of their sin, and justifying the righteous judg
ments of God (Ps. Ii. 4; John iii. 19); (d) it is an
essential and admirably efficient part of God's plan to
gather his elect into the fold.
Viewing the matter from the stand-point of the Cal
vinistic Universalists, we challenge our opponents to show
us wherein there is any more inconsistency with the good
faith of the indiscriminate offer of an interest in the
redemption of Christ upon our view that it was designed
only for the elect, than there is upon their view that
God foreknew and intended that the conditions upon
which it is offered to all men should be impossible. Re
member that the question between them and us respects
the single point as to the design of the Atonement. We
believe as fully as they do (a) that the Atonement is
sufficient for all, (6) exactly adapted to each; and hence,
(e) that all legal obstacles are removed out of the way
36

422 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
of God's saving whomsoever he pleases; and (d) that it
is sincerely offered to all to whom the gospel is preached ;
and hence, (e) in a purely objective sense, salvation is
available to all if they believe. What, then, is the objec
tion if God, having prepared a feast for his friends,
should — there being enough and to spare — if it pleased
him, invite his foes to come, whether they will or not.
God can save whomsoever he pleases now; but since his
mind changes not, he pleases to save now precisely those
whom he designed to save when he sacrificed his Son.
An indiscriminate offer of an interest in the Atone
ment has been made for two thousand years since Christ
died. But remember that the same indiscriminate offer
was made for four thousand years before he died. The
offer then was that if men would believe upon a Christ
to be sacrificed hereafter they should be saved. Now, is
it sense or nonsense to believe that at the end of those
four thousand years Christ died for the purpose of sav
ing those who had already rejected him, and who had
consequently gone to their own place ? Would it not
have met the precise case of all who lived on earth be
fore his advent if he had promised them that at the end
of time he would die to save all those who had pre
viously believed ? Would there have been any propriety
in his promising to die also for those who had previously
rejected his kind offers and been lost? As far as the
design of the Atonement, the purpose to be attained
by his death, is concerned, what conceivable difference
does it make whether the sacrifice of Christ be offered at
the beginning, the middle or the end of human history?
If he had died at the end, he certainly could not die for
those who had previously rejected his offers and perished

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 423
therefor. And since he did die in the middle, why may
not the gospel be offered on the same terms to all men,
as well after as before his death? The only difficulty
lies in the fact that finite creatures are utterly unable
to comprehend the sovereign will and the unchangeable
all-knowledge of God, which absolutely shuts out all
contingency in relation to the hopes, the fears, the
doubts, the responsibilities, the struggles of human .be
ings. Events are contingent in themselves. But there
is no contingency in relation to the divine purpose. One
event is conditioned upon another, but there are no con
ditions in the divine decree. God's purpose, his design
of redemption, like every other divine purpose, is time
less. What has been and what will be, who have
believed and who will believe, are all the same to him.
To him the believers and the elect are identical. His
design in the Atonement may with absolute indifference
be stated either as a design to save the elect, or as a
design to save all who had believed or who would
believe on his Son.*
2. It is claimed that that large class of Scripture
passages in which in general terms it is said that Christ
"suffered for all," and gave his life for the "world," ex
pressly teach that the design of the Atonement was
general and impersonal. These passages are such as the
following: "For there is one God and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave
himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1
Tim. ii. 5, 6. "And if any man sin, we have an Advo
cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and
* See " Hypothesis of a Postponed Atonement," in Candlish on
Atonement, Part II., chapters viii. and ix.

424 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John ii. 1, 2.
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life." John iii. 16. "For this is
good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth.". 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4. "That he
might taste death for every man." It is confessed on
all sides that these phrases "all" and "world" do not
of themselves necessarily settle the question. When it
is said that "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus
that all the world should be taxed " (Luke ii. 1), no man
understands that the term "all the world" is to be taken
absolutely. It is evident that the only way in which
this controversy can be settled is to take up the phrases
severally in which these general terms are used, and
subject them, in connection with their context, to a
thorough critical examination, in order to determine the
intent of the inspired writer in each passage taken as a
whole; then to do the same thing with each of those
passages in which it is asserted, as shown above, that
Christ died for the elect; and then, by an impartial com
parison of the two classes of passages thus examined, to
determine which class is to be taken absolutely, and
which is to yield to the other. For a work of this kind
I have neither the space nor the taste, nor is it proper,
since — as Prof. Moses Stuart says in a passage to be
quoted below — such is the state of the question as to the
usage of the words "all" and "world" in such passages
that it cannot be decided by ahy appeal to grammar or
lexicons, and belongs rather to the field of the theologian

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 425
than of the commentator. Believing that I have settled
the question on the former ground, in the discussion just
closed above, I will now content myself with referring
the reader to the triumphant proof afforded by Cand
lish in the third chapter of the first part of his admira
ble work on the Atonement, that these passages, when
rightly interpreted, do not in the least contradict our
doctrine of a definite Atonement, and with making the
following remarks.
(1.) I would recall a remark made above, that every
man familiar with the usage common to all human
languages with respect to general terms, will acknow
ledge that particular and definite expressions must limit
the interpretation of the general ones, rather than the
reverse. It is plainly far easier to assign plausible rea
sons why, if Christ died particularly for his elect, they
being as yet scattered among all nations and generations,
and undistinguishable by us from the mass of fallen
humanity to whom the gospel is indiscriminately offered,
he should be said in certain connections to have died for
the world or for all, than it can be to assign any plausi
ble reason why, if he died to make the salvation of all
possible, be should nevertheless be said in any connec
tion to have died for the purpose of certainly saving his
elect. (2.) Moses Stuart — who, as a theologian, believed in a
general and indefinite Atonement — was too well informed
as an exegete, and too candid as a man, to build his
faith on the class of scriptural passages to which I am
referring. In his comments on Heb. ii. 9, he says:
"lTnep navzbz means, all men without distinction, that is,
both Jew and Gentile. The same view is often given
36*

426 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
of the death of Christ. See John iii. 14-17; iv. 42;
xii. 32; 1 John ii. 2; iv. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4; Titus ii.
11; 2 Pet. iii. 7. Compare Rom. iii. 29, 30; x. 11-13.
In all these and the like cases the words all and all men
evidently mean Jew and Gentile. They are opposed to
the Jewish idea that the Messiah was connected appro
priately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the
blessings of the kingdom were appropriately, if not ex
clusively, theirs. The sacred writers mean to declare
by such expressions that Christ died really and truly as
well and as much for the Gentiles as for the Jews ; that
there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges
of any one who may belong to his kingdom; and that
all men without exception have equal and free access to
it. - But the considerate interpreter, who understands
the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, in
expressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of
every individual of the human race. Nor do they, when
strictly scanned by the usus loquendi of the New Testa
ment, decide directly against the views of those who
advocate what is called a particular redemption. The
question in all these phrases evidently respects the offer
of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through a
Redeemer; not the actual application of promises; the
fulfilment is connected only with repentance and faith.
But whether such an offer can be made with sincerity to
those who are reprobates (and whom the Saviour knows
are and will be such), consistently with the grounds
which the advocates for particular redemption maintain,
is a question for the theologian rather than the commen
tator to discuss."
(3.) Their own canon of interpretation goes too far

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 427
for evangelical Arminians and Calvinistic advocates of a
general Atonement. It is certain that the principle of
interpretation which make the Scriptures teach universal
atonement infallibly brings out in company with it abso
lutely universal salvation. "For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. xv. 22 ;
Col. i. 20; 2 Cor. v. 14; John xii. 32; Eph. i. 10;
Rom. v. 18, &c. The Arminians say all believers. But
the instant they do so they abandon their high ground
that the language of Scripture in such cases is to be
taken absolutely and literally.
(4.) Remember what we have over and over again
affirmed, (a) Christ did literally and absolutely die for
all men, in the sense of securing for all a lengthened
respite and many temporal benefits, moral as well as
physical; (b) his Atonement was sufficient for all; (c)
exactly adapted to the needs of each ; (d) it is offered in
discriminately to all ; hence, as far as God's preceptive
will is concerned, the Atonement is universal. It is to
be preached to all, and to be accepted by all. It is for
all as far as determining the duty of all and laying
obligations upon all. And practically it makes salvation
objectively available to all upon the condition of faith.
God's decretive will or design in making the Atonement
is a very different matter.
3. It is claimed by our opponents that those passages
which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom
Christ died are inconsistent with our doctrine that the
design of his death was to secure the salvation of his elect.
The passages in question are such as — " There shall be
false teachers among you, who shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them."

428 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
2 Pet. ii. 1. "But if thy brother be grieved with thy
meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not
him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." Rom. xiv.
15. "And through thy knowledge shall the weak
brother perish, for whom Christ died?" 1 Cor. viii. 11.
These passages are just like those constant warnings
which are addressed in Scripture to the elect, which are
designed as means to carry out and secure that perse
verance in grace which is the end of election, and there
fore are in no sense inconsistent with its certainty. "If
those passages are consistent with the certainty of the
salvation of all the elect, then this passage is consistent
with the certainty of the salvation of those for whom
Christ specifically died. It was absolutely certain that
no one of Paul's companions in shipwreck was, on that
occasion, to lose his life, because the salvation of the
whole company had been predicted and promised ; and
yet the apostle said that if the sailors were allowed to
take away their boats, those left on board could not be
saved. This appeal secured the accomplishment of the
promise. So God's telling the elect that if they aposta
tize they shall perish prevents their apostasy. And in
like manner the Bible teaching that those for whom
Christ died shall perish if they violate their conscience
prevents their transgressing or brings them to repentance.
God's purposes embrace the means as well as the end.
If the means fail, the end will fail. He secures the end
by securing the means. It is just as certain that those
for whom Christ died shall be saved as that the elect
shall be saved. Yet in both cases the event is spoken
of as conditional. There is not only a possibility, but
an absolute certainty, that they will perish if they fall

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 429
away. But this is precisely what God has promised to
prevent."* Falling away (a) is the natural tendency of
the human heart, and (b) the natural result of those sins
from which the Scriptures warn us. God has left his
blood-bought elect for the present mixed indistinguish-
ably to human eye with the mass of humanity. To all men
the presumption is that Christ died for himself and for
each other man until final reprobation proves the reverse.
Therefore we are all under obligation to carry ourselves,
and to regard and treat all other men as those for whom
Christ died until the contrary is proved. And God pre
vents the natural tendency of his elect to apostatize, in
part at least, by means of the passages in question, warn
ing them truly of the natural and certain effect of sin.
Children ought to know that God's sovereign and eter
nal decrees carry the means as well as the end. If the
non-elect believes, he will be none the less saved because
of his non-election. If the elect do not believe and
persevere to the end, he will none the more be saved
because of his election.
* Hodge's Commentary, 1 Cor. viii. 11.

INDEX.

Abelard, 269, 285.
Acceptation, doctrine of, 241.
Active and Passive Obedience. See Obedience.
Adam, Federal Headship of, 78-121 ; Realistio Theory of our union with,
99-107 ; President Edwards' theory of our relation to, 103, 109 ; Re
formed Doctrine of our relation to, stated, 112-114.
Augustine, 102, 272, 281, 373.
Amyraldus, 351, 360, 363, 375, 376, 378, 384.
Andrea, 293.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, 273-277.
Anselm, 268, 273, 284, 285, 317.
Application of Redemption as distinguished from its Impetration, 40-43.
Aquinas, Thomas, 43, 235, 244, 253, 268, 285.
Arians, 269, 372.
Arminians, 373.
Athanasius, 268, 271, 272, 279.
Atonement, statement of the dootrine, 25-31 ; Points involved in the doc
trine of, severally stated, 44-47 ; God's motive in, 29, 409-411; The
nature of, 29; The effect of, 30, 179-197; Meaning and Usage of the
term denned, 33 ; Usage of the term as distinguished from the term
Redemption, 41-43 ; A very definite doctrine of, accurately taught in
Soripture, 194-196 ; In what sense neoessary, 234, 235 ; The necessity
of, proved, 234-239 ; The nature of, proved from the fact of its abso
lute necessity, 236 ; The perfection of, 240-247 ; Secures its own appli
cation in every case, 246, 247 ; 401-405.
 The Orthodox Dootrine of, does not involve the imputation of vin-
dictiveness to God, 302-306 ; Does not exoludo grace, 306, 307 ; Com
prehends the whole truth taught by the other theories, and provides
for the production of a moral effect far better than the " Moral Theory,"
431

432 INDEX.
319-325 ; And it provides for the production of a governmental effect
far better than the " Governmental Theory," 331-332.
Atonement, the Governmental Theory of, 28, 64, 150, 151, 193, 210, 245, 269,
298, 299, 303 ; Doctrine stated, 328, 329 ; History of, 327, 328 ; Theory
discussed, 325-346 ; Advantages of, 330 ; Objections to, stated,
331-346 ; Rests on a false theory of virtue, 334—338 ; represents
the sacrifice of Christ as a moral illusion, 338, 339 ; Disproved
by its history, 341 ; Developed not from Scripture, but from reason,
341, 342 ; necessarily connected with u. false view as to Justifica
tion, 341 ; And with a false view as to the Design of the Atonement,
340, 343, 344, 366; It is as an historical fact Arminian, and not Cal
vinistic, in its origin, 345, 346.
 Hopkinsian or New England Theory, 328.
¦  • "Moral Influence, Theory of," 28, 150, 193, 209, 210, 212, 231, 240,
266-268, 297, 303 ; The Theory discussed and refuted, 315-337 ; As
stated by Socinus, 316; As stated by Bushnell, 317; As stated by
Young, 318 ; Tails to account rationally for the production of the
moral effect intended, 319-325 ; Fails to provide for the salvation of
those who died before Christ, 326; It is condemned by its history, 326,
327.
 Socinian Theory of, 316.
 The Design of. See Design of the Atonement.

Bahr, 127, 128.
Baird, Dr. S. J., 99.
Balmer, 351, 380.
Barnes, 55, 63, 165-169, 351, 356, 384.
Baur, F. Christian, 389.
Baxter, Richard, 364, 378, 384.
Beecher, Dr. Edward, 95, 97, 165, 168.
Beman, 351, 384.
Bernard, 268, 272, 285.
Beza, 121, 398
Bonaventura, 268, 285.
Boston, Thomas, 380.
Brown, Dr. John, 351, 380, 381, 384.
Burge, 328.
Bushnell, D. D., Horaoe, 123, 125, 129, 161, 162, 177, 178, 303, 316, 317, 321.
Butler, Bishop, 126.
Calvin, 268, 271, 273, 288, 289, 291, 374, 387 ; His dootrine as to the De
sign of the Atonement, 387-391.

INDEX. 433
Calvinism, What is its standard ? 391, 392, 398.
Calvinistio Universalists, their position shown to be illogical, 416.
Calamities, how distinguished from Chastisements, 37.
Cameron, 375.
Candlish, 423.
Catechismus Romanus, 289.
Charenton, the Synod of, 90.
Christ the Substitute of his people, 76, 77, 163, 164; Our sins were laid
upon him, 169-178 ; He is the Surety, Head and Advocate of his peo
ple, 206, 207; He secures for his people more than pardon, 223; His
righteousness includes active as well as passive obedience, 24S-264 ;
His work as High Priest was one work, he intercedes for all those and
only for those for whom he died, 411-413 ; The obedience of. See
Obedience.
Churches, the Greek, the Roman, the Lutheran, the Reformed, 269, 273,
289.
Chrysostom, 280.
Claude, Bishop of Turin, 268, 272, 283.
Clement Romanus, 276.
Coleridge, S. T., 345.
Confessions of the Greek Church, 289; The Second Helvetic Church, 292;
Gallic Church, 292, 374, 393 ; Belgic Church, 293, 374, 393 ; Westmin
ister Church, 104, 294, 364, 374; Canons of the Synod of Dort, 374,
394; French Synod of Alez and Charenton, 374; Formula Consensus
Helvetica, 103, 104, 295, 375, 396, 398 ; The Consensus Genevensis,
389, 390.
Council of Trent, Decrees and Canons of, 289.
Covenant of grace between the Father and the Son in eternity, 406-408.
Cranmer, 288.
Creationism, 103, 115, 116.
Cunningham, D. D., William, 339, 359, 367, 391, 396.
Curcelteus, 242.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 280.
DaillS, 375.
Davenant, Bishop, 373, 378.
Definition of technical terms in their established sense, 32-43.
De Moor, 498.
Design or Intended Application of the Atonement, 347-429 ; As involved
in the Arminian controversy, 348-350; As involved in the controversy
with Calvinistic Universalists, 350-354; The Orthodox Doctrine of,
stated, 355-364, 384; The question shown not to relate to the suffi-
37

434 INDEX.
ciency of the Atonement, 356 ; nor to its universal applicability, 356 ;
nor to its universal offer, 357, 358 ; The question, How the problem as
to the Design of the Atonement is related to the problem as to its
Nature, discussed, 365-370, 399-403; Doctrine of, as held by the
Reformed Churches, 368; And as held by the Arminians, 369; His
tory of the doctrine of, among Calvinists, 371-386; Augustine's
opinion of, 373 ; View of, held by the French Professors at Saumur,
375-380; View of, taught by the "Marrow-men," 380-384; View
of, entertained by Calvin, 387-391 ; The doctrine of, common to
all the Reformed Churches, stated and historically established, 392-
398; Doctrine of, explicitly taught by the Westminster Confession
demonstrated, 394—396 ; The Orthodox doctrine of, proved to be true,
399^17; Objections to the Orthodox doctrine of, considered, 418-429.
Diognetus, Epistle to, 277.
Disinterested benevolence not the whole of virtue, 54, 55, 338.
Divine Law absolutely immutable, 58-67 ; Its precepts intrinsically good,
59, 60 ; Penalty an essential part of, 62 ; Penalty literally and strictly
suffered by Christ, 65, 66 ; As a whole fulfilled by Christ, 66.
Doctrinal definitions necessary, 18-22.
Dorner, 274.
Du Moulin, 364.
Dwight, President, 88, 328.
Edwards, Sr., President, 108, 109, 295.
Edwards, Jr., Dr., 88, 328.
Election, the Calvinistic dootrine of, settles the question as to the Extent
of the Atonement, 414.
Emerson, 87.
Emmons, 88, 328, 384; Dootrine of Justification of, 257.
Error always partial truth, 17.
Erskine, Ebenezer, 380.
Erskine, Ralph, 380.
Eusebius of Cassarea, 274, 279.
Expiation, term defined, 39.
Faber, G. S., 274.
Faith the instrumental cause, not the ground of justification, 226, 227, 232 ;
" In" or " on" Christ the single condition of salvation, 229 ; includes
trust, 228, 229 ; Effects of, 230 ; Soriptural dootrine of, shown not to be
consistent with the Moral Theory of the Atonement, 231 ; Nor with
the Governmental view, 232.
Federal Relation to tho law, 72-77 ; Headship of Adam, 78-121.

INDEX. 435
Fiske, D. D., Daniel, T., 60, 63, 335, 343.
Formula Concordia?, 293 ; Consensus Helvetica, 103, 104, 295, 375, 396, 398.
General reference of the Atonement as held by the " Marrow-men," 380-
384.
" Gethsemane," 366.
God, his ultimate motives to action always self-derived, 48 ; Holiness an
essential attribute of his nature as well as of his will, 50 ; His hatred
of sin proved, 51 ; The different reasons assigned why he punishes sin
discussed, 53; Propitiation of, 180-184; Immutability not inconsistent
with the doctrine of Propitiation, 187.
Gomarus, 398.
Grace intrinsically optional, 57.
Gregory the Great, 281.
Grotius, Hugo, 241, 300, 327, 338, 339, 343 ; His idea of law, 58.
Guilt, technical meaning of term defined, 40.
Hegel, 87.
HeideggeT, 396.
Heidelberg Catechism, 291.
History of the doctrine of the Christian Church from the second to the
eighteenth century, 265-300; of the Atonement controversy in the
Secession Church, by Rev. Andrew Robertson, 383.
Hogg, James, 380.
Hopkins, Samuel, 88.
Impetration, term defined, 40 ; Of redemption, how distinguished from ap
plication of the same, 40, 384 ; Of righteousness necessarily secures its
application, 246, 363, 364, 401-405.
Impreventability of sin, the theory of, 85, 86.
Imputation of Adam's sin, 89, 112 ; Immediate and antecedent, not medi
ate and consequent, 89-92 ; New England theory of, 88-94 ; Reformed
doctrine of, stated, 112-114; Of our sin to Christ, 174, 175 ; Of Christ's
righteousness to us, 226 ; Orthodox doctrine of, does not involve the
absurd figment of the transfer of moral character, 312.
Incense offering, the symbolical design of, 154.
Innate corruption and guilt, 79-81.
Irena^us, 279.
Jenkyn on the Atonement, 351, 356, 362, 373.
John of Damascus, 282.
Jowett, 125, 126-128, 129, 316, 339.
Justice not optional with God, 57; Essential attribute of the divine nature,
304-306.

436 INDEX.
Justification essentially forensic, 212-217 ; the doctrine of the great prin
ciple of the Reformation, 217, 218; Not equivalent to Sanctification,
217; view of, held by the advocates of the Governmental Theory,
219-221, 257; That it is not mere pardon, proved, 221-224; Founded
on the righteousness of Christ, imputed, 224-227 ; It is by means of,
but not founded upon, faith, 227 ; Calvinistic view of, proved, 258,
259 ; Arminian view of, 256.
Justin Martyr, 277.
Knox, John, 288.
Law. See Divine Law. Ceremonial and Moral, see distinction between,
61 ; The Natural, Federal and Penal relations of, distinguished, 72-77,
251 ; Can be satisfied only with a perfect righteousness, 225 ; Not re
laxed by the introduction of the scheme of redemption, 241-243;
Christ owes no personal obedience to, 313.
Limborch, 300.
Litton on the nature of -a type, and the distinction between a type and a
symbol, 143.
Lollards, 320.
Luther, 268, 273, 288, 290; Misrepresentations of his doctrine of Justifica
tion, exposed, 175.
Lutherans, 320 ; Doctrines of, as to human inability, as to divine grace,
and as to the indefinite design of the Atonement, shown to be mutually
inconsistent, 367, 368.
Manich.eism, 84, 85.
Marckius, 398.
Marrow of Modern Divinity, 380.
Maurice, Rev. Frederick, 123, 125, 128, 316, 317.
Maxey, 328.
Mediatorial office of Christ, nature of, defined by his oharacter as High
Priest, 163, 164.
Meritum, meaning of term defined, 43.
Methodists, 320.
Miller, Hugh, 120.
Moravians, 320.
Motive of God in giving his Son to die, 29, 409-411.
Miiller, Julius, 95, 97.
Neander, 274.
Necessity of the Atonement founded on the essential attributes of the
divine nature, 236-239 ; And proves the Orthodox dootrine as to its
nature to be true, 234-239.

INDEX. 437
Kevin, D. D., John W., 94.
New England Theology, 88-94, 384.
" New Englander," 54.
Nicene Fathers, 277-282.
Nicolas of Methone, 273, 284, 285.
Obedience, active and passive, 43 ; Active and passive, how distinguished,
248, 264; Active, inseparable from passive, 249, 250; Active and pas
sive, do not constitute two distinct satisfactions to the law, but one
perfect satisfaction, 263 ; Perfect, demanded by the law, 225 ; Both
active and passive, rendered by Christ in behalf of his people, 248-
264; Christ did not owe any for himself, 262, 313.
Objections to the Orthodox doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement
stated and answered, 301-314; To the Moral Theory of the Atone
ment exposed, 319-327; Also those to the Governmental Theory
stated, 327-346 ; To the Orthodox doctrine of the design of the Atone
ment considered, 418-429.
Objective and subjective grace, distinction proposed by Amyraldus, 360,
377.
Offer of the gospel to all men indiscriminately, what is involved in it, 418-
423.
Olevianus, 291.
Order of the divine decrees, 376-380.
Origen, 95, 278.
Outram, 274.
Owen, John, 356, 364, 367, 389, 413.
Park, Prof., 384.
Parker, Theodore, 87.
Pelagius, 373.
Pelagians, 372.
Penal satisfaction of Christ a full equivalent for the penal obligation of
his people, 243.
Penalty defined, and difference between calamities, chastisements and penal
evils pointed out, 37-39 ; The vain imagination of " a substitute for
a penalty," 64 ; An essential part of law, 62 ; Was literally suffered by
Christ, 65, 66.
Perfection' of the Atonement, 240, 247.
Piscator, 263.
Placseus, Joshua, 89, 90, 109.
Poena vioaria, what, 40.
Polycarp, 276.
Pre-existence, theory of, 95-97.
37*

438 INDEX.
Priests, the effect of the work of, terminated on God, 151-154; And
directly effected remission of sin, 155 ; And had definite respect to
certain persons, 155, 166.
Priesthood, essential nature of, proved, 151-155 ; Two-fold function of,
154; Of Christ, real and not metaphorical, 156-159 ; Inferences as to
the nature of the Atonement drawn from that fact, 159, 160.
Priestly, Dr., 303.
Probation, a period of instable moral equilibrium, 73, 74.
Propitiation, term defined, 39; Of God, 181-184;
Puritans, 320.
Quick's Synodicon, 379.
Ransom, 191.
Rationalists, 372.
Realistic theory of our union with Adam, 99-107; Proved not to be the
doctrine of the Reformed Churches, 101-104.
Rent us, or guilt, definition of term, 40.
Reconciliation of God to man, 179-184.
Redemption, biblical usage of the phrase, 190, 193 ; Not to be taken in a
commercial sense, 191, 192; How related to Atonement, 195-197; Sub
ordinate and in order to the decree of election, 361, 362, 370, 375-380,
389-392.
Remonstrants, 269.
Richards, D. D., James, 351, 384.
Righteousness of Christ proved to be the ground of justification, 224-227 ;
Of Christ includes his active as well as his passive obedience, 248-264 ;
of the law, what, 261, 262.
Rivet, 364, 398.
Sacrifice of Christ proved to have been of the same nature as those ap
pointed by the Mosaic ritual, 144-147 ; And declared to produce the
same effect, 147.
Sacrifices, their divine origin, 122-124 ; The ancient were expiatory, 125 ;
Their universality expressing the universal sentiment of mankind,
126 ; The Mosaic were piacular, 127-143 ; And were typical of Christ,
143-148, 159; Different kinds of bleeding, 130, 131; The occasions of
sin and trespass, 132 ; Qualifications prescribed for, 133 ; Significant
designations of, 133 ; Ritual of, 133-137 ; The promised effeot of, 137-
140 ; Imposition of hands and confession of sins, 134r-136 ; Testi
mony of the prophets and apostles and anoient Jews and Christians
to the piacular character of, 140-143.
Satisfactio, term defined, 43 ; As distinguished from Meritum, 253 ;

INDEX. 439
Satisfaction of Christ, the effect not the cause of the love of God, 188 ;
Orthodox doctrine of, does not involve tritheistic views of God, 188-
190 ; Of Christ includes his active as well as passive obedience, 248-
264 ; Definition and usage of, 34 ; Secures faith, sanctification and eter
nal life for all for whom he died, 401-405 ; Penal and pecuniary, the
distinction defined, 34-37; Of Christ always secures the designed
effect, 39, 246-248.
Saumur, 270.
Schaff, 274.
Schoolmen, 284, 360, 361, 374.
Schweizer, 376, 414.
Scotus, Duns, 241, 285.
Scotus Erigena, 269, 285.
Semi-Pelagians, 372.
Shedd, D. D., W. G. T., 99, 100, 274.
Sin intrinsically involves ill-desert, 52-54 ; And demands punishment for.
its own sake, 55 ; Why God punishes it, different reasons disoussed,
53 ; Remission of, in order to sanctification, 70 ; Original, involves
both innate corruption and guilt, 79-81 ; Different theories as to the
source of, stated and classified and discussed, 83-121 ; Its pretended
impreventability, 85, 86 ; Pantheistic theory of, 87 ; Different senses in
which the word is used, 170 ; The imputation of, 17-0-174 ; The bear
ing of the scriptural usage of the term considered, 176, 177 ; The ex
piation of, 184, 190.
Smalley, 328.
Sooinus, 285, 306, 310, 316, 317, 338, 339.
Socinians, 372.
Souls, different theories as to the origin of, discussed, 114-116.
Spanheim, 363.
Spring, 328.
Stapfer, 109.
Stuart, Moses, 425, 426.
St. Victor, Hugo, 268, 285.
Substitute, defined by Barnes, 165, 169.
Substitution, definition of, 39.
Sufferings of Christ, though finite and temporary, a full equivalent for the
penalty of the law, and why, 310.
Surety, usage of the term, 207.
Symington, 249.
Synod W France, National, 374, 378, 379.
Taylor, John, 88.
Taylor, D.D., N. W., 54, 304, 335, 384.

440 INDEX.
Testardus, 363, 375, 378.
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, 293.
"To bear sin," scriptural usage of the phrase, 176, 177.
Traducianism, 103, 115, 116.
Turretin, Francis, 72, 102, 103, 356, 367, 376, 389, 396.
Twisse, Dr., 53, 235.
Type, what, and how distinguished from symbol, 143.
Union, different kinds of, 20; Of Christ with his people, 197-211; Nature
of, 207, 208.
Unitarians, 321.
Universal offer of the gospel not inconsistent with the definite design of
the Atonement, 358, 418-423.
Universalismus Hypotheticus, doctrine of, 375.
Ursinus, 116, 291.
Vallenses, 268, 272, 283, 320.
Vicarious, meaning of term defined, 39 ; Bushnell's definition of, 161, 162 ;
Used in the strictest sense when applied to the work of Christ, 165-
168; Vicarious penal sufferings not unjust, 198-201.
Virtue, the true theory of, defined, 54-55.
Wardlaw, 351, 384.
Warrant of Faith, what, 381, 382, 419, 420; Of the ministerial offer of
salvation to all men, what, 419.
Watson, Richard, 253, 263, 378.
Wesley, John, 253.
Wessel, John, 268, 272, 287.
Westminster Confession, 104, 294, 364, 374, 395, 396; The doctrine of, as
to the design of the Atonement, stated and proved, 394-396.
Wycliffe, 268, 272, 286.
Wiggers, 373.
Witsius, 356, 367, 389, 398.
Works, all kinds of, excluded as a ground of justification, 325.
Young, L. L. D., John, 54, 67, 125-129, 186, 188, 218, 219, 271, 273, 274,
275, 298, 303, 316, 317, 318, 326.
Zwingle, 268, 273, 274, 288, 289.

THE END.

7534