Accept-- Acceptable — Accepted (properly fiSH, ratsah'. to take pleasure in; ci\ofiat). To accept is not only to receive, but. to receive with pleasure and kindness (Gen. xxxii. 20). It stands opposed to re- ject, which is a direct mode of refusal, and implies a positive sentiment of disapprobation (Jer. vi, 30; vii, 20). To receive, is an act of right — we receive what is our own ; to act ept, is an act of courtesy — we accept what is offered by another. Hence an acceptable, time, or accepted time (Psa. lxix, 13: 2 Cor. vi, 2), signifies
ACCEPTANCE
4:5
ACCHO
a favorable opportunity. " No prophet is accepted in his own country" (Luke iv, 24), that is to say, his own countrymen do not value and honor him as they ought. " Neither acceptesl thou the person of any" (Luke xx, 21). The word person hero is intended to denote the outward appearance in contrast with inward charac- ter. See Access.
Acceptance, (1) a term which imports the ad- mission of man into Ihc favor of God. As things are best understood by contrast with their opposites, so acceptance is to be understood from its opposite, re- jection, the sense of which will be found by reference to .Tcr. vi, 30 ; vii, 2ft. To understand aright the Scriptural idea of acceptance with God, we must keep in mind the fact that sin is highly displeasing to Cod. and is attended by the hiding of his face or the with- holding of his favor. Sin causes God to refuse to hold friendly intercourse with man; but the mediation of the Son of God restores this intercourse. Sinners are said to be " accepted in the Beloved" ( Eph. i, G) ; that is, in Christ. Thejr are no longer held in a state of rejection, but arc received witli approbation and kind- ness. It is to be noticed that it is an idea of a positive kind which the word acceptance contains. As the re- jection which sin occasioned was express, equally ex- press and positive is the acceptance of which Christ is the author. One who had disgraced himself before his sovereign would be particularly refused any share in the favors of the court. When this breach was re- paired, the excluded party would again be favorably received (Eden). See Accept.
(2.) Acceptance (Eph. i, G), in theology, is nearly synonymous with justification. We mistake the terms of acceptance with God icJien ice trust in, 1, the supe- riority of our virtues to our vices (Horn, iii, 20 ; Jas. ii, 10) ; 2, in a faith in Christ which does not produce good works (Jas ii, 11) ; 3, in the atonement, without personal repentance from sin (Luke xiii, 5) ; 4, in the hope of future repentance, or conversion on a dying bed (Prov. i, 24-31). See Adoption ; Justification.
Acceptants, a name that arose in the second pe- riod of the Jansenist controversy in France. The bull Uniijenkus (q. v.) of Clement XI, 1713, was ac- cepted by some of the French clergy unconditionally ; by others only on condition of its reference to a gen- eral council. The former were called acr< plants or con- stitutionalists ; the latter appellants. See Jansf.nists.
Acceptilation (acceptilatid), a term in theology, used, with regard to redemption, to denote the accept- ance on the part of God of an atonement not really equal to that in place of which it is received, but equiv- alent, not because of its intrinsic value, but because of God's determination to receive it. The term is bor- rowed fift>m the commercial law of the Romans, in which it is defined "an acquittance from obligation, by word of mouth, of a debtor by a creditor" (Pandects of Justinian), or '"an imaginary payment" (Institutes of Justinian). In the theology of the Middle Ages, the term was first used and the theory developed by Duns Scotus in his controversy with the followers of Thomas Aquinas He defended the proposition that ' every created oblation or offering is worth what God is pleased to accept it for and no more." The doe- trine continued to lie a subject of dispute between the followers of -Duns Scotus and those of Thomas Aquinas throughout the Middle Ages, and still divides the Ro- man ( 'alholie theologians, as the Popes have never au- thoritatively settled it The Lutheran and Calvinistic theologians mostly adopted the doctrine of a strict sat- isfaction; but the theory of a relative necessity found eloquent defenders in Hugo Grotius (q. v.), and the Arminian theologians Episcopius (q. v.), Limborch (q. v.), and Curccllaeus (q. v.). See Shedd, History of Doctrines, ii, 347 sq.
Access (Trpoaaywy);, a. bringing toward) is the privilege of approaching a superior with freedom. It
is distinguished from admittance thus : " We have ad- mittance where we enter; we have access to him whom we address. There can be no access where there is no admittance; but there may bo admittance without ac- cess. Servants or officers may grant us admittance into the palaces of princes; the favorites of princes only have access to their persons" (Crabbe, Engl. Syn. s. v.). See Acceptance.
(1.) Introduction, free admission into the presence of a superior. In the New Testament it signifies the free intercourse which we enjoy with Cod in the exer- cise of prayer, resulting from our having entered into a state of friendship with him (Rom. v, 2 ; Eph. ii, 18 ; iii, 12). It is more than simple admittance ; it is such an introduction as leads to future and frequent inter- course. When the vail of the temple was rent at the death of Christ, a new and living way of access to God was opened. Under the law, the high-priest alone had access into the holy of holies. By the death of Christ the middle wall of partition was broken down, and Jew and Gentile have both free access to God ; before this, the Gentiles, in the temple-worship, had no nearer access than to the gate of the court of Israel. All the privileges of Christianity arc equally bestowed on all believers of all nations. Sec PkAyer.