Medium theory of the atonement : and review of Dr. Burney's Soteriology

Front matter

SSS

WAG MASS Sx

S

PART I.—THE NECESSITY FOR AN ATONEMENT. CHAPTER Il. —THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

Suc. 1. Goda Spirit, Not Material . . . Mental Conceptions of God Inadequate God Not Limited . ela , Bible Representations Real . The Holiness of God . . The Righteousness of Gedieaan . The Jealousy of God . . i.

Pic—Sin AND PENALTY “5 5 kon a. ya a

SEc. 1. Sin as Depravity . 2. Sin as Transgression : 3. paneedeenee and d Penalty. 4. Death :

IV.—RESTITUTION OR RETRIBUTION

Src. 1. Restitution the Ground of Penalty . 2. God’s Vengeance and Penalty . 38. God’s Judgment and Penalty 4, Penalty a Positive Infliction

Part Ii.—the Nature Of The Atonement. Chapter V.—the Person Of Christ

Src. 1. The Humanity of Christ . . .. . 2. The Divinity and Penalty. .... 8. The Divinity and Righteousness .

VI.—THE SPIRIT BAPTISM .

Sec. 1. What is the Spirit Hoe “is ae eG 2; What are the: Resultsiof I$?) .° . wos

VII.—TuHE Day oF ATONEMENT

Src. 1. Propitiation 2. Substitution .

VITIL.—THE OFFERINGS .

' Sec. 1. The Burnt-offering 2. The Peace-offering . 8. The Sin-offering .. . 4, The Trespass-offering .

Pe Pa BOOU me Fite we ob + klk Src. 1. Abel’s Sacrifice. . eaten rik aa Cac 2. The Offering of a irae WG

CHAPTER X.—REDEMPTION « « 6 «© 6 « © aoe) alee ee

Sec. 1. The Year of Jubilee. . <3 Ww seae se oe 2. The Goel, or Redeemer . . «. - «© 6 « © « « 3. The F irstling Of:Aan ASS. < 5s © cieuen men 4, Redemption by Purchase . . .. + + + «ss 5. Redemption by Power... . «++ « « « 6. The Passover and the Sea . .....+..--s

PART IlI.-THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT,

Sec. 1. The Ninth, Tenth, and pluie Romans. . 2. Predestination . 3 2 it he ee teke 3. Election and Spirit Baptism — cd We ~

AIL DEVINE TRPLURNCE SY oe ac wae ey ee oe el a

Src, 4, nability woese mio wheter ie ey eee ee ee 2. Savings Health 7. ie Wert <li arses ean ne et a me

Sao, To Boror the Pleshe. 2 Gn see ech Ove Se 2. Born of the Spirit . Sy Ee) del ates ie 3. The Two Natures in Conflict ese etn ee 4. The Nature'of the Change 5". ..aen as bee

DEC..L; Sap 26 0s) hema sae Caen ge re mntene 2. SOR KI oe teres ree ee ee ee ee 3... COMIESSION 2 <r -WMieunieits oan) Ma, eee ee

SEC, c1..) Wid are Dons. coc ee ae rae cae 2. An Eternal Relation 7.9.9. 20. se 2S ne 8. "Pounded ombirtin nce eee ce oe ee 4. A Loving re Sato teas eS 5. Heirship. . . ip ARLer aS oo Re.

XX VI.—PRESERYVATION OF THE SAINTS. . . 2 © «6 + 2 « ¢

Suc..1. Arminian Texts bxamined). 2. ty as eae oe 2. Spirit Baptism and Perseverance . ....

PART IV.—REVIEW OF DR. BURNEY ON SOTERIOLOGY. CHAPTER XX VIL.—BuRNEY ON LAW: < 39eU4 (soe) ee eee

XVIII.—BURNEY ON PENALTY ... “¢ or ‘on XIX.—BURNEY ON NATURAL AND — pe eS ‘ % S.X..—BURNEY .ON THE OPPERINGS: 3° 7S cia wene le ee

XXI.—BURNEY ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST ..... XXII.—BuURNEY’sS OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTITUTION

XXIII.—BuRNEY ON THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE Tule

XXIV.—MISCELLANEOUS....

Sec. 1. Burney on the ProdigalSon . ...... 2. Burney on the Offering of Isaac. : 3. Burney on the Prayer of Jesus on the Cross x 4, Burney on Contrast of Penal and Non-penal Theories . 3

5. Burney on Salvation of Infants . 4 6. Burney, Non-penal Beets in Harmony with Science .. . és ug a eee

. . .

. . .

Preface

For many years past there has been a revival of Bible study throughout Christendom, going hand in hand with earnest work for the salvation of men. Largely through the work of the Young Men’s Christian Association, and prominent evangelists, such as Moody and Whittle, this movement to make the Bible better understood is growing in power. Conferences for Bible study have been held, attended by eager crowds. ‘“* Bible Readings”’ have become general in the churches, and as the movement advances, the rich spiritual treasures of the Word are being unfolded, so that many thousands are led to love the Scriptures as never before.

This book is an effort to give more formal expression to the great Bible truths that have been unfolded in the progress of this movement. Truths that are being proclaimed from hundreds of pulpits in almost every denomination, and that are sung - wherever “Gospel Hymns” are used.

Having for years read all books, tracts, and “‘ Reports of Bible Conferences” that throw light upon “the truth,” it would be difficult to give due credit for expositions of Scripture that may be found in this book that have been advanced before. But we claim for the theory of the atonement, as such, that it is new.

We submit it to Bible students as an effort to present from a Bible stand-point a view of the atone-

Vill PREFACE.

ment free from the objections of the past. We trust it will lead to a greater unity in the church, and the removal of many obstacles in the way of honest inquirers.

We had finished the manuscript of the three first Parts when Dr. Burney’s book was published. We have reviewed this in Part IV.,as by so doing it makes’ the work more complete.

The Christian world has been divided into three great divisions, or schools of thought. These, in modern days, are known as Calvinist, Arminian, and Socinian.

Dr. Burney’s theory is a medium theory, but it occupies (theologically) ground mid-way between Arminianism and Socinianism. It is, really, semi-Socinianism.

The theory of this book is medium as between Calvinism and Arminianism. A medium Evangelical theory of the Atonement.

While the whole work is essential to the full development of the theory, Chapters III., V., VI., VII., and X., present what is distinctive.

And now this bark, which was built and freighted in an atmosphere of prayer, is launched with the earnest petition that the great Head of the Church will use such truth as it may contain for his own glory and the extension of his kingdom.

G. H. SHELDRAKE.

August, 1888. al

ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER \E.

The doctrine of the atonement is the great central truth of the Bible, around which all other truths revolve, as our solar system does around the sun.

It certainly can not be regarded as a matter of indifference what we believe about it, because it affects the question of the divine attributes, the Person of Christ, the nature and result of the fall, the character of law and penalty, the conditions of salvation, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Unsoundness as to the atonement leads to error in all the vital doctrines of the Bible, and in exact proportion to the unsoundness. It seems to be the opinion of some that it matters but little what ‘theories’? are held, so long as Christ is looked to as the Savior. But this is to ignore things of the first importance. Error as to the atonement may be so great as to be utterly incompatible with salvation, leading men to self-reliance and the rejection of a Savior. Thus it may lead dzrectly to the soul’s loss. ‘This is not true, however, of any “theory”? that leads or requires men to trust in

Christ. But it may, and does, lead zzdzrectly to the ruin of the souls of men, by robbing the preaching of the cross of its spirituality and power.

It is true that in every age the men who have been largely instrumental in leading men to Christ have preached strongly the doctrine of a vicarious atonement. ‘The simple story of Christ’s love in suffering—the just for the unjust—has been the power of God to salvation. To modify, or render unmeaning, the preaching of the cross, is infallibly to lessen its vitality and attractive power. So that, indirectly, error may be fatal to the welfare of souls. Indifference to error, here, is criminal.

Again, the connection between a man’s doctrine and walk is such that all error tends to destroy spirituality and weaken the testimony of the Church.

In this work we shall discuss the atonement from the Bible stand-point mainly, the Bible being our standard of authority. We believe that it sets forth a vicarious atonement, that from Genesis to Revelation this is the one glorious truth that gives beauty and vitality to its teaching.

Before entering upon our argument we will present in this chapter an outline of the principal theories of the atonement, a brief historical sketch of the development of these theories, and some definitions.

SECTION I.—TZheortes of the Atonement

It does not come within the scope of this work to enter upon an examination of all the theories that have originated in the fertile brains of men for the last nineteen centuries. Many of them have long since died a natural death, like the theory of Marcion, who held that Christ’s sufferings were divine, but not real.

As most of the early fathers combat the heresy of Marcion, some even writing extensive treatises against him, we have a full exposition of his theory. He denied that the Incarnation was real, holding that Christ was manifested in appearance only.

‘‘Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also his nativity, because, of course, he was afraid that his nativity and his flesh bore mutual testimony to each other’s reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh with- Parenativity. -- . At allvevents, he who represented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was equally able to pass off his nativity as a phantom; so that the virgin’s conception, and pregnancy, and child-bearing, and then the whole course of her infant, too, would have to be regarded as putative.”’ (Tertullian, ‘‘On the flesh of Christ,’’? Chapter I.)

It follows, that his body being unreal, his sufferings and death existed in appearance only; the whole being but a symbolic representation that men must die to earthly life to be redeemed, hence the extreme zesthetic character of the life he demanded of his followers. |

Omitting such theories as these, and dealing only with those that are current in our day, we would group them into three great divisions: The Moral Influence, Governmental, and Vicarious. There are various modifications of these, but practically they may be so classified.

The Moral Influence theory represents the work of Christ as affecting the sinner alone. It denies that the work of Christ in any way influenced God, its design being to reconcile man to God, not God to man.

The Governmental theory also holds that the atonement affects the sinner, and not God, but teaches, in addition, that it was demanded by the needs of moral government. As failure to enforce law leads to anarchy, while punishment deters from crime and strengthens the government, the death of Christ was demanded by this governmental need.

The Vicarious theory, which has been, and is, the almost universal faith of Christendom, teaches that while the death of Christ influences the sinner and strengthens government, it first of all was necessary to meet the demands of God against the sinner. Its advocates teach that until that demand was met and satisfied, man could not be saved. They hold that Christ meets and satisfies this demand for us—in our place—as our substitute, so that God can ‘‘be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”’

All theories that limit the effect of the atonement to the sinner may be classed as Moral Influence theories. All that hold, in addition, that it was required by the needs of moral government alone, as Governmental. All that hold that it substitutionally met demands arising from the divine nature, as Vicarious.

The advocates, both of the Governmental and Moral Influence theories, agree in denying that there is any such principle as vindicatory justice in God (that is, that there is a demand in the divine nature that wrong should be punished), but the Governmental teaches that justice in God ‘‘is to be referred to a general governmental rectitude, based upon a benevolent regard for the highest ultimate and most general well-being of the subjects of his moral government.”’

The advocates of the Moral Influence theory hold that the single ultimate principle that determines God in the great work of redemption is benevolence. They also hold that the sole object of the life and death of Christ is to produce a moral effect upon the sinner, and thus reconcile him to God. ‘They may be divided into two schools as to the character or this effect :

First, the Natural Moral Influence theory. This makes it an influence that subdues the heart and will of the sinner by the natural influence of love, thus bringing the life into harmony with God’s will. It does not recognize the necessity of the inner work of the Holy Spirit.

Second, the Supernatural Moral Influence theory. This school emphasizes the need for a divine work to be done in the soul; and while holding that the work is moral and not legal, still maintains a true regeneration, and deliverance from sin by a vital ‘union with Christ, or an imparted life.

Besides holding the views as to justice already indicated, the advocates of the Governmental theory agree :

‘‘r. That lawis a product of the divine will, and therefore relaxable.

2. God’s sovereign prerogative includes the right of pardon. a

3. But the goverumental rectitude . . . in view of the fact that indiscriminate pardon would encourage the violation of law, determines God to condition the pardon of human sinners upon an imposing example of suffering in a victim so related to mankind and to himself, as effectually to demonstrate his determination that sin shall not be indulged in with impunity.”’

The advocates of a Vicarious atonement may be divided into two great schools:

First, the Calvinistic. This teaches that the sufferings of Christ were an exact equivalent for those of the saved, fully meeting the demand of law and of the divine justice. It pays the debt in full.

Second, the Arminian. This teaches that the sufferings of Christ, while vicarious, were not a full equivalent, but that God was pleased to accept them in the place of those that the sinner would have to endure.

The Arminian theory was largely elaborated by Limborch, its distinctive feature being that the death of Christ was a sacrificial offering. While holding the idea of relaxation, it differs from the Governmental theory in that it recognizes a demand in the divine nature, as well as that which arises from the needs of government. While holding that Christ’s sufferings were penal, Arminians deny that they were an exact equivalent. "They took the place of the penalty, having the same effect in rec-

INTRODUCTION. a onciling God. ‘They were not a substituted penalty (which must be an exact equivalent), as Calvinists teach, but a substitute for the penalty (which may be of inferior worth).

SECTION I].—Ai/zstorical Sketch.

It is claimed that the theory of a vicarious atonement was unknown to the church before Anselm, who, it is said, was the author of the theory of substitution. It is true that Anselm was the first to set forth the doctrine of a vicarious atonement in its full, clear, scientific form, just as the Moral Influence theory was first elaborated by Abelard, and the Governmental by Hugo Grotius; but that a vicarious atonement was not the faith of the church before Anselin’s time, we can not admit, because the reverse is true.

As to the Apostolic Fathers (those who lived during the life of the apostles), their language was that of the Bible; and therefore they taught, as we confidently believe, a vicarious atonement.

As examples of their teaching, we give the following:

‘Tet us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world.’ (First Epistle of Clement, Chapter VII.)

‘‘Tet us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus, Christ, ‘who bore our sins in his own body on the tree,’ ‘who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,’ but endured all things for us, that we might live in him.’’? (Epistle of Polycarp, Chapter VIII.)

“He himself took upon him the burden of our iniquities, He gave his own Son a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the blameless one for the wicked, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible one for the wicked, the immortal one for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins but his righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous one, and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors.” (Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter VIII.)

‘For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up his flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by his blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scriptures] saith thus: ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with his stripes we are healed.’”’ (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter V.)

‘‘ Become the imitators of his sufferings, and of his love, wherewith he loved us when he gave himself a ransom for us, that he might cleanse us by his blood from our old ungodliness.”’? (Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VIII.)

From the time of these Fathers until the eleventh century the church was occupied with the discussion as to the PERSON of Christ, giving but little attention to his work. Yet we find repeated statements that present the idea of a vicarious atonement:

‘‘Having become the ‘Mediator between God and men;’ propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling our disobedience by his own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. For this reason also he taught us to say in prayer, ‘and forgive us our debts;’ since indeed he is our Father, whose debtors we were, having transgressed his command-

ments.”’ (Irenzeus against heresies, Book V., Chapforex “Sec, 1.)

‘“The first and principal ground of the Logos becoming man was the condemnation of the law by which we are burdened with guilt and eternal punishmnent, might be removed by the payment of the penalty.’’

‘“The death of the incarnate Logos is a ransom for the sins of men.’’

‘Laden with guilt, the world was condemned by law, but the Logos assumed the condemnation, and, suffering in the flesh, gave salvation to all.’ (Athanasius contra Arianos, I. 45-60.)

Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, John of Damascus, and others, use similar language.

Augustine writes but little of the work of Christ, although he taught a vicarious atonement. He seems to have held, however, the opinion that pre- -vailed largely before Anselm, that Christ was offered as a tansom to Satan, who held men by right of conquest, for he says:

‘Tt would have been injustice if Satan had not had the right to rule over the being whom he had taken captive.”’

Gregory the Great is more direct than those we have quoted. He says:

‘Guilt can be extinguished only by penal offering to justice,. .. hence a sinless man must be offered. . . . Hence the Son must be born of a virgin, and become man for us. He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by Virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice.’ (Moralia in Jobum, Xvil. 46.)

So far, therefore, as the period before Anselm was concerned, while we have no formal discussion of the doctrine, it was plainly held by the majority of the Fathers; and in their writings we find all the features that enter into the later and more scientific statement.

In the eleventh century there appeared a man of sterling worth, ripe scholarship, and possessed of a mind of remarkable clearness and depth, who was to turn the thought of Christendom from the consideration of the person to the work of Christ.

Anselm was born in Piedmont in the year 1033. After his mother’s death, and because of his father’s harshness, he left his home and made his way into France. Here he became a monk, at the age of twenty-seven, in the monastery of Bec, and three years later became its friar. He soon made it the foremost seat of learning in Europe. In rog2 he crossed into England, and in the following year was

INTRODUCTION. iT elected Archbishop of Canterbury, which position he held until his death in r1r09. His writings made a profound impression in his own age, and perhaps more than those of any man influenced the theological opinions of a. entire church as to Christ’s work.

He has been called ‘‘the first scholastic philosopher and theologian.”

‘In his great work, Cur Deus homo, he undertakes to make plain, even to infidels, the rational necessity of the Christian mystery of the atonement, The theory rests upon three positions; that satisfaction was necessary on account of God’s honor and justice; that such satisfaction can be given only by the peculiar personality of the God-man; that such satisfaction is really given by the voluntary death of this infinitely valuable person. ‘The demonstration is in brief this: All the actions of men are duemior the furtherance of God’s glory; if, then, there be sin—that is, if God’s honor be wounded, man of himself can give no satisfaction; and as an insult to infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite—that is, it must outweigh all that 1s not God. Such a penalty can only be paid by God himself, and as a penalty for man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only possible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is exempt from the penalty of sin; his passion is therefore voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is infinite; God’s justice is: thus appeased; and his mercy may exrend,to, men.’

We believe that while Anselm in many ways presents clearly the doctrine of substitution, his philosophy has some serious defects. The most serious is the making sin committed on earth to be infinite demerit. ‘This is part of the Calvinistic theory of substitution; and while it is held by some who are not Calvinists, it is always at the expense of logical consistency.

If the philosophy of Anselin as to the demerit of sin be true, we are logically driven either to the rejection of substitution or the acceptance of a limited atonement.

Anselm held, and rightly, that unless the atonement was demanded by an inherent and necessary attribute of the Godhead, it could never be scientifically vindicated.

The discussion of the theory of Anselin led to the development of that of Abelard.

Abelard, when but twenty years of age, went to the celebrated school of Notre Dame at Paris, becoming a pupil of William of Champeau, who was then teaching the doctrines of Anselm. Possessed of a brilliant intellect and seeing the weak places in the philosophy of Anselm, he soon entered into a dispute with his master, and history says, overcame him in debate. He seems then to have embarked in a career of disputation, traveling extensively, and overcoming all opposition. In 1115 he occupies the chair at Notre Dame, and thousands of students flock to his school. His connection with Heloise, which constitutes one of the great romances of the Middle Ages, led to his downfall; and after a stormy life, he died in 1142.

As to the atonement, he begins and ends with the benevolence of God; which is separated from, and not limited by, his holiness. He denied that

INTRODUCTION. ve)

there was any thing in the divine nature that necessitated satisfaction, holding that the object of Christ’s work was to produce sorrow in the human soul and reconcile man to God.

The theories of Anselm and Abelard held possession of the field for over four centuries, until the time of Hugo Grotius. It may be said that ‘‘in the annals of precocious genius there is no greater prodigy on record than Hugo Grotius.’? Born in the Low Countries in 1583, he made good Latin verses at nine, was ready to enter the university at twelve, and at sixteen received the degree of Doctor of Law at Leyden, and began the practice of law. His aspirations, however, were for authorship, his writings being very numerous. His contributions to history, politics, and poetry are valuable, and show the versatility of his genius. His contributions to law gave him a world-wide fame, it being said that he had almost created a new science, that of international law. In theology he stands preeminent, chiefly as the first to formulate the governmental theory of the atonement. He held that God accepted the satisfaction of Christ, not because it possessed a strictly infinite value, but because, in his benevolence, he is willing to accept it as satisfaction, just as the creditor may discharge the debtor, by part payment, or by none.

Regarding law and penalty he taught:

‘‘All positive laws are relaxable. Those who fear that if we concede this we do injury.to God, because we thereby represent him as mutable, are much deceived. For law is not something internal in God, or in the will of God, but it is a particular effect or product of his will. But that the effects or products of his will are mutable is very certain. Moreover, in promulgating a positive law which he might wish to relax at some future time, God does not exhibit any fickleness of will. . . . It is objected to this view that it is zatwradly just that the wicked should be punished with such a punishment as corresponds to their crime, and therefore that punishment is not a matter of optional choice, neither is it relaxable. In answer to this objection, it is to be noticed that it does not always follow that injustice is done when justice is not done. Furthermore, a threat to punish is not like a promise to reward. For from the promise to reward there accrues a certain right or claim on the part of him to whom the promise is made, but the threat of punishment only declares the transgressor’s desert of penalty and the right to punish on the part of him that threatens.”’

Relaxation, instead of satisfaction, is the theory of Grotius. But the question arises, if God can relax at all, why not entirely? Where is the necessity for the sufferings of Christ? Grotius replies that, so far as God’s nature was concerned, he could have done this; but he could not relax entirely with safety to the created universe. ‘To maintain his government was, therefore, the ground upon which an atonement was required, and not any thing in the nature of God. ‘The theory of Grotius is exemplary, not expiatory, or retributive. It was made to prevent future sin, not to atone for that which was past.

SECTION II].—Definztions.

Definitions are properly in place in this introduction, although the meaning of the words used that are scriptural, are, in reality, part of the argument itself.

First. ATONEMENT.

The word as now used by theologians has the same sense that the word ‘‘satisfaction’’ had in the seventeenth century and the word ‘‘redemption”’ still later; it is used to designate the entire work that Christ has done for us. It is so used when we speak of ‘‘theories of the atonement.’’ .This is never its Bible meaning. The moral influence and governmental are theories of Christ’s work; but zz the Bible sense of the word atonement, they are, in reality, denials of the atonement.

The etymology insisted upon by Socinians of at-one-ment is a very doubtful one, probably suggested by the spelling. Any argument that is founded upon this doubtful etymology must be faulty, because it can not be made from the word used by the Holy Spirit.

192 (kaphar) the verb, has the root meaning ‘“to cover,’’ and is defined by Gesenius:

‘1, To cover over sin, to hide, spoken of God as the offended party—that is, fo forgive, to pardon on |p ae 2. Spoken of the offender or his representative, to cover sin, to hide—that is, co do away by some expiatory act, 4o purge, so that he may be pardoned; hence (a) 4o expiate an offense, fault, 4o atone for

.. . (0) to make expiation or atonement for an offender, to free him from guilt. . . . (¢) to appease, to placate the person offended . . . . So of impending evil—that is, to avert by expiation.’’ The corresponding noun D2) (A~ppurim) Gesenius defines: ‘‘Axpzatéons, atonement.”

They are the only Hebrew words translated ‘atonement,’ and it is worthy of note that while the root meaning is ‘‘ to cover,’’ the words are never so translated. Kaphar is translated by other words than ‘‘atonement,’’ an examination of which will help us to see the Bible meaning of the word.

. Gene Fi 54, Pitch a Gen. xxxii. 20, ‘‘ Appease.”’

Ex. xxi go, ““Ramsomt:?

Lev. xvi. 20, ‘* Reconciling.”

Num. xxxv. 31, 32, ‘‘Satisfaction.”’ Num. xxxv. 33, ‘‘Cleansed.”’

Ps. Ixxix. 9,“ Purse-away.