The at-onement by the Christian Trinity, or, The legal and spiritual salvation of man from sin makes manifest the dual philosophy of the gospel

Front matter

PRINCETON. N. J.

DAG aaron tase)

The at-onement by the Christan wt rinicy. (Ore ne

Preface

This book on the Atonement of Christianity is discriminative and discursive. It is suggestive and episodical. It is avowedly and in fact, scriptural. Its discovery of the ‘‘Missing Link’’ must be conceded; and this has brought out other things of interest. There are various conciliations and that of Christianity is now to be considered as preéminent.

The Christian Atonement is Heaven’s dictated Treaty of Peace with the human race. This endeavor to faithfully group the facts and instructions of the Bible truthfully around this rectified doctrine of the Atonement as truthfully and properly. understood, may be entitled to some fair consideration, as somewhat helpful to the Bible study of others.

We shall see in the Christian Atonement a distinction between redemption by Christ and completed salvation by the Holy Spirit. In the exodus from Egypt redemption and salvation coincided, but, in the comprehensive gospel scheme, salvation is consequent on redemption. Christ, the second person of the Deity, effects our redemption; but the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, in - fact, effects man’s personal and individual salvation from sin, ah? PREFACE,

The two-fold deliverances, from the broken law and the evil heart as comprehended in or constitutive of the Atonement, are herein intended to be seripturally stated and defended.

It is believed by the writer that there is a Scriptural link missing from the chain of orthodox Christian theology.

Whether it may not be found in the proper understanding of the Atonement, it is the purpose of this book to inquire; and so fully and so clearly to point it out in the light of our sacred Seripture, that the wayfarer shall recognize it.

THIS ATONEMENT ORIGINATING WITH THE FATHER, IS EFFECTED BY THE. JOINT WORK OF THE LOGOS AND OF THE PARACLETE,

The name Paraclete, from rapakhyntos means literally the calling of some-one along-side for needed help. The Scriptures make plain that the Holy Spirit has been in all the ages the Paraclete of the people of God. This is especially true of the followers of Christ and of Christ, Himself, “who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God.” Heb. 9:14

Paraclete is therefore the all-comprehensive proper name of the Third Person of the Trinity. ‘Comforting’ is only incidental.

The Atonement of Christianity PART IL.

CHAPTER I. View or Man—Morat Acency—Tur Moran Law—Covenant oF Works

The first view we have of man on this earth, as given in the sketch of his life in Eden, is not only novel and beautiful, but, whether fact or fiction, it is wonderful for its simplicity and for valid philosophic profundity, and comprehensiveness.

This graphic sketch represents man as a subject of (God’s moral government of the universe already established, long prior to man’s creation. Hence, as qualifying him for citizenship in this government, he was endowed with the three es-

sential constituents of moral agency—intelligence, conscience and freedom. Being thus constituted, inasmuch as all righteous and just government is founded on law, man was rationally and_ normally a subject to and under the moral law of this pre-existing government, with the ability and disposition to obey it, as the necessary condition of his well being. This state has been aptly designated a covenant of works, for all practically depended on man’s conduct. A covenant does not necessarily imply the equality of the parties, except as to the competence of each to perform his part of the engagement or stipulation to avoid some evil or attain some good. Man’s ability to keep this law is implied in warning against disobedience.

Gen. 2:17. (Appendix Al).

It seems to be a reasonable implication in all this, that after a certain probation, man would have been confirmed infallibly in this state of obedience, holiness and happiness. But this is not promised, nor is it a necessary 3onsequence or condition of a perfect moral and legal state and covenant of work. This legal state is the primitive state of natural religion. As a matter of fact man was left free and competent to obey or to disobey, under this covenant: Obey and live, disobey and die. Gen. 2:17.

Chapter II

Tur Lapse og Fatt-—ARCHANGEL T'EMPTER—ORIGIN or Moray Evin or Stn—NaturaAL AND Moran Apitity or Man—NaturRe AND DEFINITION OF Sin.

The result, however, was that man lapsed or fell from this Edenic state of innocence and voluntary obedience, the state of natural or primitive Edenic religion, into a state of wilful disobedience and misery.

But this sin was not, and could not have been, a spontaneous output of man’s innocent nature, and we learn that it was brought about by the over-mastering influence of an archangel already fallen and disobedient. (Appendix A2, 3.)

Sin did not originate with man, nor in this world, but with a higher order of intelligence and in another part of the universe.

Its origination, therefore, is a problem that transcends the history of our race, which is only accountable for its reception or extension into our cosmic order. But this is no mitigation of responsibility.

In this fallen state man does not lack any of the constitutional endowments of mind of the unfallen Adam, nor the natural ability to know, love and serve God; but like fallen Adam, he lacks the dis-

(15) | position, or moral ability to do so. He still possesses the same natural endowments as did Adam before his fall, excepting, their enfeeblement and the disposition to use these endowments aright. He has lost this disposition as did Adam in his disobedience, to use those powers aright in the knowing and loving service of God. Today, Adam is in the enjoyment of Jehovah’s presence, or epiphany in human form, as a daily companion and teacher of the glories of the surrounding universe; tomorrow, after the act of disobedience, Adam shrinks away from that presence and hides himself to avoid meeting Him. The change that has come over his internal state is manifested thus outwardly in concrete simplicity, as consisting of the loss of the disposition, desire or wish to use his heavenborn gifts in the company and joyously dutiful service of his Creator, Friend and Teacher, Jehovah.

And this simple narrative gives us a more truthful and really philosophic definition of the nature of sin than was ever set forth in the abstract and elaborate speculations of the schoolmen. The subsequent natural and moral history of our fallen race is an illustration and a confirmation of this view—this sound seriptural view—that sin is not a defect of the evolution of man’s nature, but the loss of a moral quality and energy of primary importance which he possessed in his original state of innocence and for the full restoration of which the Atonement makes full provision for the pardon of sin, the recovery of perfect holiness ;—in a word, the beneficiaries of the Atonement of Christianity are destined to attain the blessed experience of eternal life.

Chapter III

Tup PromisE—Two Osstactes—PrEcEPT AND PEn- ALTY OF LAwW—WEAKNEsS oF VioLaTepD Law— RESOURCEFULNESS OF Love—LecaL PropLEM— Tur SERPENT—PROTEVANGELIUM—THE Prom- Isk AS Cuimax AND FouNTAIN.

It is now to be observed that, in this fallen state, or state of sin, there are two obstacles, and only two, in the way of man’s gaining heaven since the loss of Eden; one is the broken moral law by the lapse or fall, just noticed; and the other is this alienation from God and aversion to God of man’s internal state of his heart and mind. In the state of innocence or natural Religion in Eden and under the original so-called covenant of works, or state of innocence, or natural Religion in Eden and obedience, man was only obliged to comply with the precept of the law; but, in his state of disobedience, he also came under its curse, or the penal claims of the law; without any relaxation of the claims of the precept; for every law, human or divine, has two constituents—its precept and its penalty. The penalty is the sanction of the precept, and in the absence of penalty and of a competent authority to enforce it, the precept is merely a rule of advice, within the discretion or good pleasure of the supposed subject thereof, and not law at all.

As the law of God is the formulation or expression of his justice, sin is properly defined as the transgression thereof or want of conformity therewith, whether as a state or an act, and it is, therefore, an offense against Divine justice and righteousness.

The law that condemns being a necessary expression of the nature of God, is obviously incompetent to reverse itself and accord deliverance or pardon from its own penalty unsatisfied. (Romans 8:1-3.) Hence, this deliverance being beyond the legal competence of God, unless the law was satisfied, the problem of the deliverance of man placed under the most serious requisition the resources of the triune God. It is a great and growing surprise that there is no explicit revelation of salvation of the fallen angels or other moral agents. Heb. 2:16., Am. Rev. Ver. This brought to light, as never before, the resourcefulness of the Divine nature—in that love, a co-eternally distinct but co-operative attribute with justice, was now seen to be competent to provide perfectly for meeting this exigency arising from the incompetence of the broken law, as Paul expresses it in the letter to the Romans, 8:1-3: ‘‘Hor what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” I. e., invoked on Himself the penalty of the broken Law. Rom. 3:17. This is an explicit statement of the scriptural mode, devised of Jehovah, whereby God may ‘‘be just (in pardoning sin), and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.’? (Rom. 3:26.) This profound solution of the legal problem of man’s fall, by the harmonious co-operation of the Divine attributes of justice and love, is the keynote to the triumphant utterance of the Saviour, in his interview with Nicodemus, (John 3:16.) “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish but have eternal life.’’ Here we see that the Saviour brings to light also the removal of the spiritual obstacle, as well as the legal obstacle between fallen man and Heaven.

That which especially concerns us at this stage of our inquiry is the enunciation of this mystery, set forth in the great promise on record, Gen. 3:15—‘‘that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.’’ The unfolding of this mystery extends from Eden to the general or final judgment. This serpent, which is ‘‘the old serpent’’ of Scripture, we are distinctly informed (Rev. 12:9, 20:2) was the metamorphosed archangel Satan himself, fallen and sinful, plausibly using ventriloquism for deception, and this promise, which is the most important promise in the Old Testament Scriptures, stands in the original Hebrew, firmer than Gibraltar, as a file on which the carping critics have broken their teeth. See Edersheim.

This promise is properly termed: The protevangelium, or the primitive gospel.

All that precedes this promise (Gen. 3:15) in the earlier scripture leads up to it and is for its sake, and all that follows to the close of the Apocalypse flows from it, as a stream from its fountainhead. The account of the general creation is not given for its own sake, but as preparing the way for the creation of man; and the account of the creation of man is not given for its own sake, as a part of his race history, but with reference to the fall; and the account of the fall is not given simply as a matter of valuable information; but as laying the foundation for this great promise of salvation,— that the seed of the woman should destroy the works of the Devil. Heb. 2:14. Gen. 3:15; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 7:25; John 17:4; John 3:8. ‘‘To this end was the Son of God manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil.’’ ‘‘I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.”’

And then, when we turn around and look forward to its fulfillment, it is found to be the one all comprehensive promise of the Messiah reproduced in a countless variety of forms and utterances that pervade the histories, psalms and prophecies, summoned up thus in 2 Cor, 1:20: ‘‘How many soever the promises of God, they are all yea and Amen in Jesus Christ—In him is the yea; wherefore also through him is the Amen unto the glory of God through us.’’

But the New Testament culmination of this promise, whose career constitutes the Christology of the Old Testament economy, is found most concisely embodied in Gal. 4:4: ‘‘When the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’’ There is, I believe, no other passage in the New Testament, which (to use the expressive phrase of Shakespeare) so _ perfectly binds the new dispensation to the old, ‘‘with bands of steel,’’ as Gal. 4:4.

Chapter IV

THe INcCARNATION—HPIPHANIES OF JEHOVAH—VIRGIN Brrre—View oF Screntists—Curist, Like Fatten ADAM, UNDER THE Broken Law—Dir- FERENCE OF BROKEN FROM UNBROKEN Law.

We have before us in this simple and explicit language of Galatians the fact of the incarnation, its nature, state and purpose. In the fullness of time, i. e., in God’s own time, He sent forth His Son, the second person of the Trinity. This classic passage has its equivalent in John’s Gospel, Chap. 1:14.

‘““The Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’’ That is to say, the same Jehovah, who in ethereal epiphanies appeared in human form ‘in Eden, also in like manner subsequently often appeared unto the people of God, in ancient days; but as already pointed out, especially to Adam, as probably a daily teacher and companion in Eden, for fifty or a hundred years before Eve was provided as his companion and helpmeet, is the same personality as the one here born of woman as her promised seed. When this appointed time came for the anticipated incarnation, or birth, that should transcend these ethereal epiphanies, in the human nature of flesh and blood, a true human body and a reasonable human soul were assumed. This was accomplished (Matt. 1:18-25) supernaturally by the conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and by His being born of her without personal sin, but burdened with the imputed sin of our race, as the prophet says, Isaiah, 53:6: ‘‘ Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.’’ (Appendix C.)

So far from there being any allusion to a human paternity or implication of it, in being born of woman, this explanation as given (Matt. 1:18-25) is plainly exclusive of it. Thus two natures, one human, the other divine, are associated by this Divine paternity, under the one or single personality of the superior nature, as in our own dual constitution, our personality chiefly pertains to the soul, the superior part. It should be noted that it is the single Divine personality of the Logos thus inclusive of both natures of whom the events and experiences of the entire earthly life of the Virgin-born Son of God are predicated. (1) Some of these predications are literally of him only as man. (2) Some of him as God. (38) Others as God-man.

The problem of incarnation is thus reduced to its ultimate and simplest terms, in the Virgin birth of the promised seed ‘‘born of woman,” or, as the old version has it, less correctly, “made of a woman.’’ Such anthropologists as Huxley and Ro-

THE ATONEMENT. O38 manes, distinctly affirm that Virgin birth is compatible with valid and complete humanity.*

This incarnated personality, it is explicitly affirmed in our Galatian text, ‘‘was born under the law’’ (genomenon hupo nomon). However, the legal correspondence of the Virgin-born Son of God — with the Edenic lapsed state of Adam under the dual claims of the broken law, is obvious. Christ was born, lived and died under the same broken law, as a putative sinner, although He was the promised Messiah of Gen. 3:15. When his birth took place, the law was a broken law, and to be under a broken law is to be subject to its dual claims, both preceptive and penal, that is, to be a sinner in some true sense, if it ig the Moral Law of God.

As has already been pointed out, a broken law has, upon all persons that are under and subject to it, the two-fold claim of its precept and of its penalty; only a sinner in some true and real sense, could thus be subject to the broken law of God. As to the promised seed, Gen. 3:15, the prophet Isaiah, 03:6, distinctly says ‘‘Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” And under the stupendous burden of this imputed sin of our fallen race, the Son of God came into our world. Every child born of a human mother was born under or subject to the moral law, as constituted moral agents.

*Prof Huxley wrote Dr. Gore, a churchman, and the biog: rapher of Prof. Darwin that “The mysteries of the church are child’s play compared with the mystery of nature,’ referring to the Virgin Birth and resurrection; and Prof. G. J. Romanes, the scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, remarks: “Even if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and even if such a fact in the human species has been unique, it would not betoken any breach of physiological continuity.” Quoted from Dr. Orr’s Virgin Birth, p. 222. And as discrediting the appeals to mythology, Dr. Orr justly affirms: “It is the fact that no one of these tales had to do with a virgin birth in the sense in which alone, we are here concerned with it.” Idem. p. 168. My brochure on the Virgin Birth read before the Presbyterian Minister’s Association of Washington, D. C., and published in the Philadelphia Presbyterian, October, 1916, and also in pamphlet.

Prof. Huxley was not a Christian. In ‘Nature,’ London, Eng., about forty years ago, he avowed his belief that Christianity is certainly doomed to ultimate failure. He repudiated the supernatural. He speaks in this matter simply as an anthropologist; and yet the supernatural does no violence to nature. With some it is a part of nature.

Chapter V

VicaRkious SuspstituTE—Mary’s ConFESSION AND THE CIRCUMCISION oF CHRIStT—Pror. DRIVER.

A putative or a vicarious sinner is under as real and as valid obligations as the principal for whom he stands. He is on a footing like to that of a substitute in war, and his voluntarily assumed accepted position is legal] and not sentimental, not for moral influence nor to set an example, but to discharge an existing and urgent lability.

On this vital point, of a likeness of the relation of the second Adam and the first Adam to the broken law, the offering of the birds by Mary, when properly considered, serves as a searchlight. In Lev. 12:6-8 we find the ceremonial law with which compliance is recorded in Luke 2:22-24,

That Mary presented birds instead of a lamb, as the ceremonial law mercifully provided is familiarly and correctly referred to as scriptural evidence and confession of her poverty—a very realistic and touching circumstance.

But the most important and pathetic significance of this solemn transaction seems almost to escape attention. When she offered the first bird, it was a burnt offering and signified consuming personal devotion to the worship and service of the

God of the altar; but the second bird was a ‘‘sin offering,’’ and when presented in sacrifice by her, it was an open and honest confession of sin for herself and for her babe.

Moreover, this babe, on the eighth day, was circumcised and ‘‘everyone circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law.’’ Gal. 5:3. Hence, Christ as a circumcised debtor to the whole broken law, was a sinner in some true sense; and of course putatively and representatively he owed it full satisfaction. It was on his thirty-third day that his mother confessed their sin in offering the blood of the second bird. We may say that the babe took the position of the mother, just as Hagar’s child took the servile status of its mother; if the mother was a bondwoman, the child was born in bondage; and so, if the mother was a sinner, the babe was also a sinner. This is the very meaning of original] sin. The Saviour was by birth an original sinner, putatively or by imputation. But not personally. 3

Prof. Driver, well known as ‘‘a higher critic,’’ commenting on the text and contents of Isaiah 53:6, in regard to the promised Messiah, says (I quote his exact language and the underscoring is his): ‘‘ It will be observed that the idea of vicarious suffering is here distinctly enunciated;’’ (he continues), ‘‘the subject of the prophecy suffers not with the guilty (involved with them in common catastrophe), but for them.’’ JI may add that this professor points out that these associated chapters of Isaiah, no less than twelve times designate the Messiah ag a vicarious sufferer. I quote Professor Driver for what his testimony is worth, for it is entitled in this case to the most serious consideration.

Chapter VI

Sreur-REDEMPTION—-SERMON ON THE Mount— VIEW Wortuy or CoNnsIDERATION—IMPORTANT 'T'ESTImMoNyY—Precepr CompieTeLy Mrsr—‘I Am.’’

If imputed righteousness renders the guilty putatively but not personally righteous, as in justification, then the imputed sin renders the righteous subject putatively though not morally a sinner. This is exactly the condition in which Jesus Christ was born. Instead of being born ‘‘without sin,’’ as the Catechism (Q. 22) erroneously states, no child was ever born of a human mother or lay in her bosom under such a load of (imputed) sin; and hence it becomes obvious that the saving of himself from this load of sin, set down to his personal account and voluntarily assumed, was necessary as the preliminary condition of preparation for his saving others. Physician, heal thyself! Self deliverance must precede altruistic deliverance.

But how can this personal self deliverance be accomplished? Surely not by the exercise of Almighty power arbitrarily and irrationally brushing aside the claims of God’s justice and broken law. This would have been simply an irrational and suicidal display of unbecoming violence and inconsistent arbitrariness, unlike the ways of God to man.

Manifestly, this deliverance could be accomplished wisely and justly, only by satisfying the just claims of the broken law. It becomes us, then, to ascertain whether this was done by Jesus in redeeming himself from under the broken law.

(1) First of all, then, was the claim of the precept of the law fully satisfied by him? It is my deliberate opinion, that the leading criterion by which we may safely and satisfactorily judge of his compliance with the precept unbroken, is the evidential! summary of the pertinent recorded incidents of our sketch of His life, but especially the so-called sermon on the Mount. The explanation of the law in this so-called sermon, was given by the Saviour in the midst of his ministry, as indicating not simply a matter of expository, didactic or exegetical instruction, touching the profound and searching spiritual import of the claims of the precept of the moral law, as beyond the perfect observance or possible compliance of fallen humanity; but rather and in particular as indicating and proclaiming the spiritual and truthfully perfect sense in which he himself undertook to keep it, and in fact and beyond question did thus keep its precepts perfectly. See explicit statement of the R. V., Mat. 5:17.

This I conceive to be the true import of that Seripture. It bears study and reflection. Such an undertaking would have been, as we well know, rash and hopeless for any fallen personal sinner. All that was required of Adam by the covenant of works in his state of innocence, was compliance with the precept alone of the unbroken law. The command not to eat of the forbidden tree was a concession of ability and a test of obedience, and our innocent first parents, by their confession, failed of compliance, (Gen. 2-17, 3:12-13; James 2:10; Gal. 3:10;) how much more likely the failure of any of their fallen and enfeebled descendants to satisfy the claims of the broken law. Eve, it is true, was misled by deception, but Adam was not deceived (1 Tim, 2:13-14), and only omniscience is a perfectly sure discerning guarantee against the wiles of sin and Satan. The second Adam, under the broken law, had to comply with its precept and also with its penalty. ‘‘For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in his own order.” (I Cor. 15:22.) i. e. only in Christ.

It was the avowal of this Divine incarnate person: ‘‘I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.’’ John 5:30. Again: ‘‘I delight to do thy will, O my God!’’ In reference to the preeept of the law, the Saviour also remarks: ‘‘ Yea, thy law is written within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. “The law of his God is in his heart.’ Ps, \37 :30.

In his character and life he knew no sin, he was ‘‘holy, harmless and undefiled, separate from sinners.’’ Heb. VII:26. There are thirteen of his prayers recorded in the gospels, each of them in few words except John, chap. 17; and in no one of them does he, in a single instance, confess sin, or imply it as part of his experience. He silences his enemies with the challenge: ‘‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’’ John 8:46. And he positively and broadly affirms: “He that sent me hath not left me alone, for I do always the things pleasing to him.” John 9:46-49.

In several instances he plainly claims to be the incarnated, sinless Jehovah. John 8:28. ‘‘Jesus therefore said: ‘‘When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.’? John 8:58. Jesus said unto them: ‘‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am.’’ John 18:19. ‘‘Hrom henceforth, I tell you before it comes to pass, that, when it comes to pass, ye may believe that I am he.’’

In these passages, the ‘‘I am’’ (Gr. ego eim1) is a reassertion by the Saviour to be Jehovah of the Old Testament claim in Ex. 3:14. ‘‘And God said unto Moses, ‘‘I AM THAT I AM,” and He said: ‘“‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.’’ The ‘‘I AM’’ in these passages of the Old and New Testaments is identically the same personality in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. The name Jehovah is from the Hebrew ‘‘ Havah,’’ ‘‘to be,” and occurs the first time in Gen, 2:4, and is repeated 6823 times in the Hebrew Bible, and, as is always proper with Proper Names, in translating any book, Jehovah is transferred and not translated and occurs the same number of times in the Revised Version. This proper name of the God worshipped by Christians is not adequately represented by our word ‘‘Lord,”’ which designates simply a superior over subordinates. It is from the verb ‘‘to be,’’ and designates the incommunicable self-existence and eternity of His Being. It is the common designation of the covenant relation of our God to His people, and is never in a single instance, used or predicated of any other being. |

Tus ATONEMENT. 31

The literal meaning of ‘‘Elohim,’’ (El), properly rendered ‘‘God,’’ is ‘‘power,’’ and ig closely related to the Allah of fatalistic Mohammedanism ; but it occurs less than half as often as Jehovah, and with less restriction. It sometimes designates angels or other powerful spirits.

Without pursuing this matter in detail, which would be an impossibility in this connection, let a general confirmatory citation suffice, as follows (Luke 2:11): ‘‘For there is born to you this day in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.’’ This message of the angel to the shepherds has a most unique and pertinent significance, for ‘‘Christ the Lord,’’ literally signifies ‘‘the anointed Jehovah.’’ (Appendix D.)*

*Tt strictly brings to light the broad New Testament fact, that should (as I think) have appeared in the New Version, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the incarnated Jehovah. In that case the confession of Thomas would stand: ‘“My Jehovah and my God.” John 20:28. It is believed that this line of instruction validly brings to light, in an unanswerable form, the Deity of our Saviour, the incarnated Son of God, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 1:19.) This is sufficient to intimate his claim.

Chapter VII

Tue Penatty—‘‘ Surety Drn’’—Sin a Caprtau CRIME IN Gop’s GovERNMENT—DEFINITION OF Smn— APOSTLE’S CREED—CrucIFIxION—Justin Martyr —TrrRTULLIAN—TIBpERIUS—W orsHIP OF EMPEROR —Curistianiry a Rexicio Iniictra—PoLycarp— FoRECASTS OF THE CRUCIFIXION.

(2) Accepting as reasonably satisfactory the evidence that the incarnate Son of God satisfied the Divine precept, the only remaining inquiry possible, in order to his rescue from under the broken law, is whether he also satisfied its penalty, or penal claims. We have already seen that the penal element is as essential an element and constituent of a law as its precept. The penalty of the moral law of the Edenie covenant of works, violated by man. was ‘‘death.’’ Here is its language: ‘‘In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die’’ (Heb.)—dying thou shalt die. (Gen. 2:17). This announcement, it will be noticed, is idiomatically emphasized—‘‘ thou shalt surely die.’’ Thus, sin is clearly declared a capital offense in the government and society of God. And as such it is the analogue of the deepest dyed crime of human government. The Scripture saith: ‘‘The wages of sin is death;’’ Rom. 6:23; also ‘‘The soul that sinneth, it shall