, 1879-02-16

otncr person must be punished in his stead. 1t
Is a mistake to suppose that these affirmations
have any authority beyond the intelligence OF
the persons who have made them. And
II it turns out that a theory OF
the atonement is formed On Scripture
interpreted By the principle affirmed by either
OF these partics it is clear that the theory ought
to be acknowledged to be sentimental, OF tradt-
riona1, or speculative, rather than biblical.
That is to say, sentiment, or tradition, or PHI
losophy are, after ALL the foandation-stoncs OF
the building.
Let this be advertised aud made plain. anu
then hcarer and preacher will be in right rela-
ton to one another. Let it be covered up, anu
the church-goer Is left to suppose that lie Is
listening to Scripture, when 10 TACT he is hay-
ing q drill, better or worse, i'll the school OF
Aristotle, or Abclard, or Thomas AQuinas, or
Hobbs, or Cudworth, or Locke, or Hamilton, or
some other of the great thinkers OF the world
It seems to me that it is high time this adver-
tiscment were put forth by the Old~schoo' theo-
1ogians; high time that they made this dstinc-
tion between revealed and scientific theology,
which is largely q distinction between divine
authority and speculation. Orthodoxy is Qu''e
inclined to oppose Liberalism on account o1 its
too free use Of the wisdom Of this world. 1t
seems to have forgotten, OR perhaps never to
have known, that Old School theories are open
to precisely the same objection.
Whether sin be finite or an infinite evil;
whether the justice of God or His dignity fe-
mands this or that reparation for j broken law;
what grade OF being could, II God please, act
the part Of Savior TO mankind, are pure qucs-
tions OF philosophy, the Bible giving no answer
to them. Whether view OF the atonement is
true because it fits into an e1aboratcly~con-
structcd system OF divinity Is only u question of
speculative theology, which ought to be
answered as such; the answer therefore being
given tn the people OIL its OWN merits, and not
as The dictum of the Bible.
The old-school view Of the atoncmcnt has
certain clean-cut aspect which is more or less
captivating; aud because it is framed outside Of
the record and is backed By u philosophy OF syl
logis,n. The more modern views OF the cyan-
gelical schools are mainly an affirmation of
fact, and because the New Testament hardly
goes beyond the fact, and it is understood that,
If the doctrine OF an 2tOncment is to be believed
at all. it is to be believed on divine warrant.
There is ouly one passuge in the whole range
of the New Testament which, SO far as know,
even seems to 1ooa towards a thcosophical ex-
position of the relations Of Justice and mercy.
It Is the famous text Of Paul (Rom., Ill, :95),
'sThat God might be just and the justiflcr Of
him which belicveth in Jesus" Now, II it were
the intent OF the New Testament to teach the
oiogy SO precise and definite. so logical And
theosophical rs is sometimes supposed, it is re-
marSable that the Book whose burden Is the
worlds hope by the cross should hare only one
the divine government. Christ SPEAKS OF Him.
self as the good shepherd who gives bis life for
the sheep; but no evangelist records any saying
Of His on the Judicial secret oi his death.
Peter. james, John, and Luke, all have much TO
say oi redemption, but not word on the tue,
osophical reasons for the death Of Jesus. Paul
Grapples with the great question OF lustlhcation
by faith,-frst against the moralist, then against
the ritualist, aud then against those who hope
to be saved without inward purity aud goodness,
his sharp logic cutting the 1allacy OF
false doctrine through and through; and yet
this Paul, glorying only in the Cross OF Christ,
has but single word which seems eren to 90
upinto the mystery OF the DIVINE neeeSsitles III
the forgiveness OF sin!
But even this one word does not indicate a the
ory beyond general idea. The text seems plain,
and it seems almost evasion to call its plain-
ness question. But, in point VI fact, the ex-
act meaning becomes exceedingly doubtful so
soon as we attempt to define the requirements
of Justice in the forgiveness OF sins. At al!
events, historical theology has made very bung-
ling work in the interpretation.
Ihe earlier writings of the Church exhibit
hardly anything of theory, the successors Of the
Apostles Tor nearly 200 years using almost ex-
clusirc1r the phraseoiogy Of the sacred writer's.
And so soon as the others begin to define we Oh
serve nov difficult york o1bsy syn hare before
well as theo1ogian, who could pronounce an
event to be s'credible because it was incredi-
ble," did not seem to dream Of 3 judicial
theory of the atonement- Irenpus, a
the meaning OF ttjustice,'' nut he
is SO obscure that 1t is uncertain whether he
regards the justice OF God to lie Justice to the
nature OF man, or justice to Satan, VINO owned
men as slaves. Origen AID. 1S5-25D III (Hageu-
bach, Ncander, Ozendam), ),-that large mind to
whom alter ages, even to our own time, Owe
vast debt, seemed to teach that the ransom was
paid to Satan, while he sets forth also more
modern view And the great augustine 4; ~ p;
the theology Of our day, does not shake of the
idea that the ''ransom," the "pricc,H was
paid to Satan, and warmly scouts the suppose
tion that God could not otherwise 'dcliver
man y than by the Incarnation and the Cross.
Aud for long period after him, period reach
ipr down to the twelfth century, this figment
of .'justicc to Satan" minslcd itself With all
expositions Of the justice of God in justifTing
the believer. Plain as that word in Romans
seems to be, the theo1ogians CROPPED about in
its mazcs for more than thousand years.
We come upon new theology in the illus
trious Ansclm a. D. 1033ll03), Archbishop OF
Canterbury for the twelve closing years Of bis
life. With characteristic holiness he denied
oil bargain with the Devil in the salvation Of
men, His theory was that the sinner owes to
God the penalty, or an atoncment. Man wishes
to escape the penalty, and is not able to atone
adequately for his transgression. But Christ
is able to make the atonement for him. After
this mid interpretation comes the tangc OF the
scholastics; the entire mind Of Europe, for want
OF other intellectual occupation, exercising
itself on the subtleties OF theology. Then came
Luther and Calvin, who did not scruple
to saY that Christ received the punishment
due to our sins. That is their idea OF Justice.
Since their time the doctrine OF the Cross has
been ovcrlad BY all manner OF explanations.
Only two years ago l heard most excellent
i'm r3fHti1rHT