extend pardon to the sinner in a manner consistent with the law, μη λογίζεσθαι τα παραπτωματα, and thus to indulge his mercy. Compare $ 90. Ill. 2.

VIII. The atonement removes the fears in reference to our pardon, which result from the denunciations of the law. To the accomplishment of this object the atonement was peculiarly well adapted. For, although the punishment was not inflicted on the individual who had incurred the guilt, it was nevertheless required of him who had undertaken the work of bestowing salvation on man, that he should endure the penalty of the law. And as so exalted a person (Rom. 8:32) would certainly not have taken the punishment of the sinner on himself without absolute necessity, it follows that the liability of the sinner to punishment, must, notwithstanding the dignity of Jesus, have been a very formidable obstacle to the extension of pardon (Matth. 26: 42), and consequently that the holiness and authority of the law (dinαiapa tov voμov Rom. 8:4. 1:32. Gal. 3: 10) must, in the sight of the Almighty, be perfectly inviolable. Mark 4:36. Nor was the punishment imposed on Jesus, connected with any injustice to himself. For, his most ardent wish was, to obtain the right to pardon the sinner in consistence with the principles and authority of the law. And, after he had suffered death, he received the reward of his obedience, according to the law which declares that obedience is entitled to reward. The moral excellence of the character of Jesus was displayed in the most splendid manner, and his glory thus advanced. And he finds the most elevated happiness in restoring fallen men and making them possessors of eternal blessedness.1

IX. The necessity of the atonement.—This display of the

1 Reinhardt's Dogmatik, p. 409.

free goodness of God, which could best be made to man, because of his peculiarly wretched situation, was as beneficial, not only to man, but also to the holy angels, as was the proof of his strictness as Judge, which God gave in the scheme of salvation. 1 Pet. 1: 12, which things (the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow) angels desire to look into. Ephes. 3: 10. For, in this last point of view, the scheme of salvation is also important to the angels themselves. Col. 1:20, and by him (having made peace through the blood of his cross) to reconcile all things unto himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Heb. 9: 23, it was necessary for the heavenly things to be purified. "The death of Jesus, being a most solemn declaration that we deserved punishment, is, at the same time, an honourable testimony in favour of the blessed spirits in heaven, a declaration that they are far too pure, for us to be received into their society, if Jesus had not prepared us for admittance among them, by delivering us from exposure to punishment. And thus also did God solve to them the problem, how sinners could be received into the society of those who had never incurred any guilt, without contradicting that opinion of the inviolable sanctity of the law and the certain punishment of the sinner, which is so salutary even to the angels themselves."

The whole scheme of salvation adopted by God, which derives the salvation of man from the merits of Christ, was not indeed necessary for the sake of God himself; for his own nature disposed him to have compassion on us (Ill. 7.) But it was necessary on our account. This however gives no sanction to that erroneous notion, that a sacrifice was necessary in order literally to appease the wrath of God, nor does it imply a condescension of God to human infirmity, as seems to be sup

1 On the Design of Christ's death, § 16.

posed, even by some writers who appear to entertain a reverence for the Holy Volume, such as Lang and Senff.1 On the contrary, the object was, to confirm the opinion of the sanctity and inviolability of the holy law of God, which denounces punishment on transgression, and promises reward to the virtuous; an opinion true in itself, and highly salutary not only to man, but even to the purest and most exalted spirits. For, to the angels in heaven, the punishment thus inflicted on the Son of God himself, must present the most awful demonstration of the inviolability of the divine law, and afford the strongest motive to constant obedience.

X. The authority of the law.-Rom. 3: 31, do we then make void the law through faith? far be it from us! yea, we establish the law.

XI. The law was satisfied by Christ.--Rom. 8: 3, 4. Gal. 2: 19. See supra Ill. 5.

XII. The justice of God was displayed.—Rom. 3: 25, 26, "God offered up the Lord Jesus as a sacrifice, for the purpose of showing his justice in that forgiveness of sins which, out of mercy, he had in times past extended to transgressors, εis εvδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αύτου δια την παρεσιν των προγεγονο των ἁμαρτηματων; and also to prove his justice in his present dealings; in short, to show that he might be just and still justify or pardon the sinner who believes in Jesus." A circumstantial exposition of this passage is given in the work on the Design of Christ's death, § 11. In p. 558, it is remarked, that if dexacoovvn righteousness, is translated "goodness," as some contend it ought to be, then v. 26 would contain a proposition which is partly contained in v. 24, and which is so selfevident as not to require being mentioned; and that those very passages of the

1 Versuch ueber die Herablassung Gottes, 23-34.

New Testament which speak of the death of Christ as a punishment of the law, also represent it as a proof of the divine justice. Rom. 8: 4. Gal. 2: 19. 3: 13.

An objection has been urged, that vicarious sufferings cannot be consistent with the punitive justice of God, because, in order to the accomplishment of the object of the punishment, which is reformation, it is necessary that the sinner should himself personally feel the punishment. To this, it may be replied:-1. that reformation is not the only object of the punishment. 2. that part of the object of the atonement which consisted in the reformation of the sinner, can thus be accomplished, just as well and even better, than by the personal sufferings of the sinner himself. Comp. § 92. and Ill. 8 of this section. Süskind and Seiler remove the objection, that the divine justice requires the personal suffering of the sinner himself, in this manner: "The promotion (say they) of moral excellence (the chief good), is the supreme design of God. Hence, if the remission of sins is better calculated to promote this supreme design of God than the actual infliction of the punishment, then remission of sins must be consistent with the divine justice." Lang, in his dissertation on the (permanent) connexion between the death of Christ and the pardon of sin, arrives at the following result, when discussing the question, whether the pardon of sins is possible on the principles of moral equity: "The fear of punishment impairs our power, and thus impedes our course toward holiness, the ultimate object of man. And yet reason requires that the punishment be executed. Now, the vicarious death of Christ entirely removes the conflict between these principles. The object of this punishment is by actual fact, to display to the

1 Süskind On the possibility of the remission of sins, in Flatt's Mag. No. 1. p. 1-67. and Seiler on the questions, Is the remission of sins possible? and, Are we authorized to expect that God will pardon us through Jesus Christ? 1798.

world the necessary connexion between transgression and misery. The lively view of this connexion in reference to our own persons, urges us to reformation. But if we suffer the punishment ourselves, the pain which we feel, will involuntarily have the greatest influence on us, and thus the reformation produced will be merely a legal one, will result not from a hatred to sin, but from a fear of punishment. But in the case of the substitute (Christ) who endures the punishment for us, the odiousness of sin is displayed in a clearer light, and thus a purely moral reformation, a reformation resulting from proper motives, is rendered the more easy." Compare § 73. Ill. 1.

XIII. The doctrine of the atonement is not a mere accommodation to the notions of the Jews.-In reply to the hypothesis, that the doctrine of the atonement was taught by the apostles, merely as an expedient to reconcile the Jews to the loss of their ritual sacrifices, we remark:-1. Jesus did not distinctly teach, that the sacrifices of the Jews would be abolished. Hence there was no necessity for his speaking of his death as being for the remission of sins. Matth. 26: 28. And still less was there any such necessity in the case of John the Baptist. John 1: 29.-2. The apostle Paul contends against the abuse of the vicarious death of Christ (Rom. 1: 6 &c.), but does not deviate from his ordinary representations of this doctrine, though he had the most direct occasion to do so. He does not obviate the abuse by saying, that this doctrine was a mere accommodation or condescension to the current opinions of the Jews, and that repentance is the meritorious cause of pardon. In this case also, he deduces the sanctifying influence of the death of Christ from its atoning efficacy, and not the latter from the former.1 -3. In the epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle Paul institutes not merely a transient, but a very circumstantial comparison be

1 See Schwartze sup. cit. and Ewald sup.