theological thought that it starts from the conceptions of God's fatherhood and love, as the old theology started from the notion of his justice, conceived as the principle of retribution and punishment. This point of view is primarily and predominantly legal; the thought of to-day is ethical. In this we see a return to the biblical standpoint. There righteousness and holiness are not contrasts to love, but synonyms of love; they are kindred to it, not independent of it. The a priori definitions of these terms in books of theology as having nothing in common with goodness, benevolence, or grace, and as meaning an unconditional necessity to punish, are radically unbiblical; they were never derived from Scripture and cannot be harmonized with it. These arbitrary descriptions of the divine attributes, it is safe to say, are sanctioned by no first-rate recent authority in exegesis or biblical theology.

It has been necessary to bring out into strong relief this contrariety between the old dogmatic definitions out of which the legal interpretations of atonement were spun, and the actual biblical conceptions of God, because here is the parting of the ways. The penal theories are right if their initial definitions of God's ethical nature are correct. But I have deemed it worth while to showlargely by appeal to the most eminent experts in exegesis that, whether right or wrong, they are not biblical. I have no hesitation in pronouncing them fundamentally erroneous. The old theories of atonement are not built upon the Christian concept of God. They were constructed without any study of the history and contents of that concept. They are a priori, speculative, arbitrary constructions, with no proper basis in exegesis or history. The most extreme of these forms of thought-the penal satisfaction theory is built up in violation and defiance defines love as the "higher unity" of God's attributes, inclusive of his goodness and his righteousness. "This higher conception of the righteousness of God," adds Lipsius, that is, the conception of it as "fatherly and of the same nature with love, "although it is definitely enough set forth in the Holy Scriptures, is entirely wanting in our dogmaticians, who conceive righteousness predominantly as penal, and in no case extend it beyond the sphere of the moral law of God."

of the biblical concept of God. Its definitions negative point blank the conclusions of the most capable and unprejudiced exegesis.

Even conservative writers who are very slow to break with long-established usage in theological thought and speech are beginning to see and to acknowledge this fact. We have already noted several examples in the cautious admissions of those who seek to maintain a quasi or semipenal view of Christ's death.1 I will give one other illustration. The late Professor Candlish observes that the old theories of atonement "have mainly proceeded on the plan of taking from Scripture the idea of righteousness, and interpreting this by various philosophic assumptions, while the series of statements about our union with Christ in his death have been overlooked or little used. To this," he adds, "appears to be due a certain hardness in all these forms of doctrine, as well as some of their theoretic difficulties, and a natural reaction against these led to the emphasizing of the neglected elements of Pauline and Johannine teaching.' "2

We conclude, then, (1) that the righteousness and holiness of God are, almost invariably, comprehensive designations in Scripture and include not merely the selfaffirming purity, but also the self-imparting impulse, the benevolence or grace of God. In no case do they denote mere retributive justice.3 (2) Love is the best name for the moral character of God, that is, of course, holy love, a love that is at once gracious and righteous. (3) Jesus' favorite name for God was 66 Father," and this term connotes original, creative, sustaining, and self-imparting love. (4) The separation of the moral attributes of God, the method of setting them up in independence, rivalry, and contrast, impairs the conception of the divine unity and is as false in its psychological assumptions as it is unscriptural in its applications and results. (5) God's perfections are in eternal unity and harmony, and his procedure in the work of

1 See pp. 190-197. 2 The Christian Salvation, p. 49. 346 Righteousness" is used in this sense in the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (ii. 16; viii. 29, 30, 32; ix. 8, 10).

salvation is in accordance with them all. The notion that they compete, rival, obstruct, or checkmate one another is crudely anthropomorphic and philosophically absurd. God must act as he is, in consistency and conformity with his total nature. The distinctions of independent and dependent, of necessary and optional attributes, of constitutional and voluntary perfections, are devised, ex post facto as means of defending an orthodox rationalism which cannot subsist without resort to such desperate expedients. Definitions and conclusions alike are unphilosophical and unscriptural. (6) It is false to assert that the primary note in the Christian concept of God is that he must always and unconditionally punish all sin. It is false to assert that he cannot forgive sin until he has punished it. To say that his holiness interposes an obstacle to forgiveness which must first be removed by sacrifice or suffering, is inconsistent with the biblical concept of God. The statement that the offering of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, or even the death of Christ in the New, is the ground of forgiveness, is also unwarranted. The assertion cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the prophets or with that of Jesus himself. The ground of forgiveness is the grace of God or what the Hebrew prophets call the "righteousness of God"— whatever may be its conditions, means, and accompaniments.1

In one of the discourses which compose Dwight's Theology (II. 200) the author is descanting upon the inexorable character of the divine law. It must be, he says, invariably executed. Its penalties are fixed and sure. As a biblical warrant for this unconditional necessity to punish, he quotes the prophetic word: "The soul that

1 "Grace is, indeed, the highest category under which we can think of God. It rises as much above righteousness as righteousness rises above the category under which natural religion conceives God, that, namely, of Might directed by intelligence. A God of righteousness is certainly a great advance upon a God of mere power; yet it is only a step upward toward a higher idea of God, in which the divine Being becomes self-communicating, redeeming Love. God cannot be said to have been fully revealed till he has been revealed in this aspect." A. B. Bruce, The Chief End of Revelation, p. 59.

sinneth, it shall die " (Ezek. xviii. 20).1 (Ezek. xviii. 20). "This threatening of the law against transgression," he declares, “is absolute. In it there is no mention, and plainly no admission, of repentance as the foundation of escape to the transgressor." I happen to possess the copy of this work which belonged to the late Professor Samuel Harris. On the margin opposite the above assertion he has written: "False! The very next words are, 'If he turn from his wickedness, he shall live' (v. 21) the most explicit assurance of pardon to penitents. The incident illustrates at once the exegetical methods by which the old theories were maintained and the nature of the appeal to history and fact by which they have been discredited.

1 The author overlooks the fact, by the way, that his application of this passage would exclude the possibility of substitution, or, indeed, the exercise of mercy on any terms. If the sinner must unconditionally suffer the penalty of his sin, then both substitution and salvation are out of the question.

CHAPTER II

THE PERSONALITY OF THE SAVIOUR

It is commonly regarded as an axiom in theology that the opinion which is held concerning the person of Christ will determine the conception of his saving work. We have seen that the theory of Anselm rested entirely upon a certain conception of Christ's person. He must be man in order to be competent to render what was due to God from man, and he must be God in order to be able to do what man is powerless to do. This conception, in less precise and definite form, is seen to be reflected in the various types of orthodoxy; the efficacy of the atonement, it is said, implies both the divinity and the humanity of our Lord.

If by this contention is meant that the saving value of Christ's work for men is dependent upon the truth of any one of the theories of his person which have obtained, at different periods, in ecclesiastical history, it would appear to me quite unwarranted. Would any one maintain, for example, that Christ's saving power is involved in the question, disputed in ancient theology, whether the human nature which he assumed in the incarnation was personal or impersonal? Will it be contended that the import of the Master's sufferings is dependent upon the questions at issue between the earlier Christologies and Kenoticism? There are undoubtedly individuals who would make claims of this sort, but I find no evidence that the foremost writers on the subject are disposed to pivot their views of atonement upon any specific Christological theory. Indeed, it is a noticeable fact that these writers do not discuss the doctrine of the person of Christ. A certain general view of his character and mission is, of course, presupposed, but