The herald., 1896-02-24

to inherit the advantages of Christ's death;
but how about the rest? Oh. there has
been no provision for them. They must
bear the penalty of their own sins; they
shall pay their own debt, by the suffering
OF the endless torment of the damned. But
to say nothing about the terrible conse-
quences to which this doctrine leads 1t 10
wrong in its premises and its conclusion
must therefore be erroneous. 1t is a
mistake to say that the debt has been
paid, as if sin and righteousness were to
be measured and weighed according to
commercial values. If sin were debt to
be paid, then Christ's suiferMgs would an
swer all claims against us, and we would
need no pardon, no mercy; justice would
demand our freedom. 1t is a mistake to
say that God has inflicted our penalty
upon Jesus. Sometimes in life friend
suffers for friend, and a mother suffers
for bad child, but even tho world has
never gotten low enough yet to iniilc un-
ishment upon the innocent for the gut ~
Indeed, il such brutality and cruelty we're
undertaken, it would he impossible to ac-
complish it; for penalty is connected with
guilt. the innocent may suffer. but cannot
in any true sense be punished or bear
penalty; for guilt cannot be transferred to
the innocent. Guilt can never be trans
ferrable; it must inhere in the person sin
ming. The idea of Furnishing Christ for my
sins is a horrible thought, and Is revolving
transferred from me to him and hence
cannot be punished in him. If it could it
would be uojust. If it were done would
be free from the law and would need no
pardon, mercy or salvation. But we do
need to seek salvation, to accept Christ by
faith and to work out our own salvation;
therefore tho satisfaction theory does not
answer the case; it neither meets the re-
qurement of the law, fulfills the prophe-
cies or supplies the worlds conscious need.
The last theory and the one which ex-
plains our doctrine is called the govern
mental theory. Here we have men in
state of sin adding willful transgression to
their guilt; under sentence of death, need
ing deliverance. God loving them in spite
of their fall and in the midst of their ruins;
hating sin, loving the sinner, desiring to
forgive, yet determined to sustain the
majesty of the law. Here the atonement
comes in as a governmental provision
UNFAIRLY endured for us as a substitute for
the punishment which might justly be in
flcted on us, and makes it possible for
God to maintain the authority of his law
while forgiving the penitent offender. The
fact is there is no necessity for the punish
ment of sin on account of its inherent Ia
ture or demerit. Rewards must be given
the righteous or injustice is done, for
righteousness secures reward as its right;
but sin secures no rights and it has
no claims on Justice. 1t may be punished
or not punished, treated barshly or gent
ly, severely or mildly, as best may serve
the good of others, the interests of society
or the government. Anything else that will
secure the betterment of society or the in
terest of government, may be substituted
for penalty, without injustice ito anybody.
Thus the sufrerings of Christ were substi-
tuted for punishment in vindicating the
government of God over his moral beings.
Hence, we are taught that sin is punished
to give sanction and value to law, to give
character aud dignity and power to moral
government. John Y. Mex is probably
no better now at heart. now that he is in
Sing Sing, than when he was at large in
Gravesend; but every other scoundrel has
been made to see that violating the elec-
ton laws with impunity is thing of the
past. He will! not be benefited, but his
punishment will benefit others and uphold
the authority of law aud the dignity Of the
state.