, 1879-02-16

Tie more conspicuous OF Iucm are as IolloHs.
l. Just to Satan.
9, Just to mau-that is, that he should not be
forced away from sin, but drawn and made
true penitcnt.
). Just to the law, which had condemned
man.
i. just to Gods veracity, which had fore
S. Just to Gods honor, which had been de-
splscd.
&. just to holiness, intrinsiraily considered,
which, being wounded, needs reparatioh.
Z. Just to the universe, which might be in
jurcd by the forgiveness of sins unatoncd.
8. just to infinite love, which must go all
1cne tlls.to redeem the sinner.
Thus it seems that the s'plain words"
which get their meaning from philosophy, from
thropy, from barbarisu1, from civilization; III
other words, from the prevailing ami strictly
human way Of conceiving Of the government Of
God.
There being no revealed theory OF the atone
ment, is it lawful to have Il theory: Certainly,
revealed" theory, nor to put it into a creed,
subscription to which is required.
There being no revealed theory, is it COM
potent for us to dcuV any given theory! Ger
family. il we have suitable grounds for the
denial.
We may deny that Christ suffered the wrath
of uod EXCEPT in the boldcsJ figure OF speech,
Us we deny anything which is at once unscrip-
turaI, BRUTAL, anu Impossible.
we NAV deny that God punished His SOU, i'll,
stead of Furnishing the transgressor, ior several
reasons.
The theory, instead Of explaining the Justice
OF Tod, entangles the question NIL the more.
The view seems to charge on God all injustice
in order to be just. II Is wrong intrinscally and
cternully-a wrong which no exigeEcics can
make right-to infct "pcnalty'' in auy literal
sense on IN Innocent person. The salvation Of
the entire universe could not change the moral
suffered could not change it. Innocence and
penalty simply cannot befy1kcd together-ex-
cept By figure OF speech. The very words con-
tradict each other. Illustrations to the contrary
do not touch the matter in hand. They only
turn the language over into iguratiyc speech.
Tile reasoning. which is used to support this
position is very singular. 1t is reasoned: God
has said, 1.-THE soul that sinneth, it shall die"
and He cannot unsay His word. The sinner
must die, Or somebody must d!c for him. God
sword Of justice, but lie need not maintain His
Tcracisy on the person who was to feel the edge
Of tile sword. Again, it is reasoned: Sin is all
infinite evil, and deserves punishment. The
desert is intrinsic. The penalty, therefore,
must be infinite, and must fall upon the sinner,
or upon Il substitute, just as though sin we're
all entity, something to BIZ plssed from man to
man, it being just, and the yer; and suDlincst
justice, to punish, not the maletactor, but an
other person.
Again, it is simply impossible for Christ to
suffer the penalty Of sin, even though it were
Just to lay it upon Him. H. coulQ not suffer re-
morse,-that undying worm which, because
wrong is wror9, gnaws tile tendcre5t nerves Of
being through and throu=h,-tflat inward sea
which tosses the soul on It's molten waves
thnt sefnlade furnace OF flame which is It more
terrible than the bull Of Phalaris.'' He could
not suffer the aversion OF God, for God, Infinite
though He be, could not turn Ills face from
Him, nor contradirt tho words, This is Ny be-
1s-nH Enn i'm whom I q E.aH 1FpnS9I ~ There
is only one thing in the whole range Of penal
infic1ion which By any possibility He could suf-
fer, .nd that is the smallest Of them ll,-nat-
uraI death, which even man suffers after he has
to endure penalty for sin is in the sinner
himself. Nor is it within tue power Of the
Almighty, should He desire it, to iufllct
penalty on the innocent, except in way purely
external, WHICH at its greatest is only the inci-
dent OF punishment for sin.
Again, to say that Christ endured the penalty
for sin, were it not otherwise q solccism which
could only originate in 4 rude age, is to involve
all New Testament ideas in confusion. What
ever Christ did in life and death He did for man-
kind. The Gospel is good will to men. The
Precipitation is, in set ternls declared to be for
the sins of the whole world" There is no other
reading OF evangelist or apostle. But it Christ
was punished in our stead, then, penitent or
proligate, pure or vile, there is no man VINO is
not safe from the curse of the law; no man
druukard thief, adultercr, or scorner-who has>
not good title to eternal life. This is so mon
strous that the thcologian is Obliged to turn right
about and deny that Christ is q the Savior Of all
men, and limit the atonenent to the elect
He has to go throug& the Whole New
Testament and detowcr the golden say
ings of Christ and His Apostles until
God becomes the Great lnsincere, and even the
wall OF Jesus over Jerusalem becomes the CRY
ished for not receiving Him who was not sent
to them, and Will be cast into outer dardncss
for rejecting an atonement which vas made for
brother or sister, but not for them, and will be
worthy Of everlasting fire fur tdenying the
Lord who {Dcver) bought tLen.''
The theory that Christ suffered that which
takes the place of penalty is free from the in-
hereut contradictions which attach to the views
OF Calvin and Luther aud the rear-guall OF
extremists who have not set shaken of the
nightmare OF the scholastic aye. And while
it may be so stated US to nccessitatc limited
atouement, and all the confusion Of that
scheme, it may also be so stated as to leave
the New Testament to read in its own natural
way.
The "moral- influence :" theory We may con-
sistently with all that have said call in ques-
tion, and for two strong reasons: First, that
which is peculiar to this theory is neGatlou-
AL evangelical Christians hold that Cnrist's
life and death are great power over the hearts
and conscicnces OF men. This theory denies
that there is ANYTHING different from this in
Chrsts work for us. Now, as the New IcSta-
meut is fuil OF terms indicating tue meQlatofia,
saSr;6cial, and prestly character Of Christ, we
deny any theory whose vcry pecusiarity it is to
dcny these things. Aud, secondly, the ''moral-
influence ~ theory has no logical basis. In the
evangelical theory the peculiar moral power OF
the Gospel proceeds from the sacrilcial and
prlcstiy offices OF Christ. In the sslnora-inilu-
cnce u theory it proceeds from dramatic cxhi-
bition which has no reality, from q life
which has one side toward God, from q
c.uciixion which, after all, is only
violent death. The evangelical view makes
Calvary the altar of the world. The moral-in
ftuence view has no altar Tor the world. The
former has power because there, on that altar,
something was done for mankind. The latter
speaks OF tile great moral power of that event,
although nothing was done there for mankind.
The view OF the cross melts the sinner, BECAUSE
sacri1ic;al tragedy affects him as real, when in
fact it is unreal.
All these views are but the struggles OF the
human mind 10 grasp the meaning OF the great
event of New Testament history,-indeed, Tho
great evcut OF all time. Cnristians may dis
agree as TO theory, and yet agree as to faci
Aud when the 1licolo5lans shall become suiii-
cicnty Intelligent and sufficiently conscientious
to make their disciples acquainted with the DIS
tinctIon between u philosophy or scliolium
and their Bibles, see not why We NAV not say
tl1at the great obstacle to spiritual harmony in
diversity is at last put away.
ARTHUR SwAZEY.