it is that this is a conception which the representatives of the old theology would stigmatize as a "purely subjective," "mere moral influence theory," utterly lacking in the truth and value of a satisfaction wrought wholly "outside of us."

The terms "subjective" and "objective," as used in application to our subject, are in sore need of definition. Let us note one or two further illustrations of this need. In his excellent discussion of atonement, Professor H. C. Sheldon refers to Dr. Bushnell's theory (as presented in The Vicarious Sacrifice) as a "subjective theory," and in contrast claims for his own a "Godward bearing," an objective element. This element Bushnell " repudiates." Let us see. What is the objective element in Dr. Sheldon's view? It is the revelation, in Christ's work, of God's "selfconsistent disposition," of the perfect harmony of his attributes; it is the maintenance of "the balance or conditioning interrelation of the divine perfections"; it is at once a manifestation of immeasurable love, and a sanction to moral order or a testimony to the supreme value and necessity of righteousness." This "latter element" is the specifically "objective element." It is the "background of holiness" on which is set the manifestation of love, so that God is revealed and operative in the work of Christ in "the totality of his ethical nature, or in entire consistency with himself." "The above," says Dr. Sheldon, "amounts to a definition of the objective element of the atonement."1 These seem to me to be very admirable statements; but does Dr. Sheldon mean to say that › Bushnell "repudiated" the objective element of Christ's work as he himself has defined it? I have read him to no

66

purpose if such is the case. The passages already cited (p. 235 8q.) from God in Christ and The Vicarious Sacrifice show how firmly he held (to quote again his own words) that it is a very "great mistake" so to "magnify even the love of the cross" as not to include "the righteous rule of God."2 It is true that Dr. Bushnell denied that 1 System of Christian Doctrine, pp. 402–404.

2 Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 171.

Christ's work was "Godward" in the sense of "giving God an incentive to be gracious"; but these are the very words in which Dr. Sheldon expresses his agreement at that point with Dr. Bushnell. Over and over again in

each of his writings on the subject Dr. Bushnell affirmed as much as Dr. Sheldon asserts when he says, "There is an objective element in the atonement, namely, that feature of Christ's work which meets the demand that the claims of divine holiness or righteousness should be signally expressed along with the supreme manifestation of God's love."1 But, of course, the old theories meant much more than this in asserting the objective bearing of Christ's death. In the forum of historic orthodoxy Dr. Sheldon's views would fall under the same condemnation as Dr. Bushnell's as "purely subjective theories." In the interest of clearness "subjective" and "objective," as applied in discussions of atonement, should either be defined or disused.

Another illustration, which I must forbear to present in detail, is found in Dr. David Somerville's exposition, in which the "objective element" is said to consist in Christ's "rendering to God in our name that obedience to his will which we had no power in ourselves to render; " as "furnishing, by what he did, the conditions that had, in the nature of things, to be present before the eternal love of God could be seen to be what it is, or could be believed in aright by us." But we must beware of the "error of regarding him as a vindictive God whose wrath has to be appeased before he can look with favor on the human race. "2 But the idea of a "vindictive God" who requires to be propitiated, appeased, and so reconciled to us, represents precisely the historical meaning of the "objective" or "Godward" bearing of Christ's sufferings and death. Moreover, Dr. Somerville seems to me to betray the feeling that the objective element which he admits scarcely measures up to Paul's idea of reconciliation on its divine side.

1 System, pp. 410, 411.

2 St. Paul's Conception of Christ, pp. 90–93.

If "objective" were used to express the notion that the work of Christ changed the disposition or feeling or attitude of God toward men, and so reconciled him to us, that would be clear; but when it is so weakened as to stand for the idea that in Christ God expressed his righteousness as well as his benevolence, or when, as often, it assumes the thought-concealing function of telling us that it designates one aspect of a "new relation" of God to the world, then we must say of it that it expresses, in the one case, what all theories maintain, and that, in the other, it is too vague and meaningless to serve any useful purpose.1

Now, whatever be one's personal opinions on the general subject which we have been reviewing, one conclusion is absolutely evident: the theories which are kindred to the thoughts of such men as Anselm, Melanchthon, Turretin, and even Grotius — the interpretations of the work of Christ in mathematical, legal, and official analogies are obsolescent. One may deem this

1 It is common, in controversy, to describe all efforts to interpret the work of Christ in terms of ethical or personal relations as "moral influence theories" whose principle is represented as being that God makes a display of his love in order to induce men to repent. This representation is of a piece with that which describes moral views as "purely subjective" or as advocating redemption by "mere example." The counterpart of this contention would be that many human parents hold that the best way to secure obedience in their children is to make an exhibit, from time to time, of their love to them and, upon occasion, to pose before them as moral models. But even this controversial caricature of the moral view will compare favorably with the theories of equivalent payment, penal example, and vicarious punishment. What the moral view really is may be learned from the following description of it by Professor Bowne: "God has revealed himself in his Son as our Father, as bearing us upon his heart, and as supremely desirous of saving us from the sinful life which must end in death if persisted in, and recovering us to righteousness and the filial spirit. For this the Divine Son has given himself; for this the Holy Spirit came and comes; and the work of both the Son and the Spirit roots in the Father's love. But in all this the aim is not to satisfy the demands of justice, nor yet to save men from penalty, but to save men from sinning, to lift them Godward, and to bring them to that spiritual attitude which will make it possible for God to bestow himself upon them in infinite and eternal blessing. It is not a problem in forensic technicalities, but in spiritual dynamics." The Atonement, pp. 116, 117.

a calamity, but he cannot deny that it is a fact. These theories are, doubtless, strongly intrenched in popular thought and are eagerly cherished by old school theologians; but, with slight qualifications, it may be said that they have no defenders. They are more or less championed in periodicals which are designed and adapted to promote the unquestioning popular acceptance of dogmatic tradition; but in the literature of investigation, in the theological monographs and doctrinal systems which are attracting attention and exercising widespread influence to-day, these theories find, practically, no place. Some of the most conservative scholars are awakening to the fact that, without important qualification, the theories which have prevailed in the past cannot hope for acceptance from the modern mind, and have even made cautious suggestions —not infrequently availing themselves of a truly diplomatic indefiniteness — respecting their adaptation. The task of accomplishing this adjustment is great, and who is sufficient for it? It must be the age-long labor of many minds; but one thing seems clear: it will require a careful reconsideration of those" previous questions" with which the doctrine of salvation is so vitally connected; namely: How are we to conceive the ethical nature of God? What were the aim and method of our Lord's mission? and, What is the relation in which he stands to our human history and destiny?

PART III

CONSTRUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

CHAPTER I

THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD

WE have already had frequent occasion to observe how largely men's conception of the nature and conditions of salvation is determined by their view of the moral character of God. The more primitive peoples, who have conceived of their gods as fickle and revengeful, have imagined that they could placate them or purchase their favor by costly sacrificial gifts. Similar conceptions may have been more or less associated even with Jewish offerings. In early Christianity, when a crude dualism prevailed, salvation could be regarded as achieved for man by a ruse or plot by which the Almighty outwitted the devil. For Anselm the problem was how to pay a sufficient homage to God's dignity which had been offended by sin; for Grotius, how adequately to safeguard the interests of his moral government. The advocates of penal satisfaction believed in a God who must punish sin; on what terms, then, could he forgive it, was their question. The Scotists and Socinians held that God could save men on such conditions as pleased him; why, then, had he chosen so tragic a method? Every theory of atonement has, explicitly or implicitly, its own particular theory of the ethical nature of God.

This fact is a sufficient reason for our placing in the forefront of our constructive discussion the question : What is the Christian conception of the ethical nature of God? But we cannot even raise this question without raising others along with it, for example: Is there any