and yet a wise and good government might not be will- ing to accept it — i. e. might not be propitious to the of- fender and to the proposal for his being forgiven. We can also conceive of a wise and good government being cordially disposed and greatly desirous to pardon an of- fender, but unable to gratify this gracious disposition because it can find no just grounds for such an act, and it is aware that a pardon arbitrary and destitute of un- exceptionable reason would relax the obligations of law, bring dishonor upon public justice, and prove of per- nicious example. It is also obvious that the same thing may be, and is most naturally fit and likely to be, both an expiation and a propitiation ; i. e. both a valid reason for pardoning, and a determining motive to the will of the competent authority to admit and act upon that reason." See Atonement.
Now, in applying these terms to the great and awful case of ourselves, the whole world of justly condemned sinners, and our judge, the infinitely perfect God, there are some cautions of great importance to be observed. Nothing can be admitted that would contradict incon- trovertible first principles. But there are two such prin- ciples which are often violated by inconsiderate advo- cates of the doctrine of salvation by the mediation of Christ ; and the violation of them has afforded the ad- vantage of all the plausible arguments urged against that doctrine by its adversaries. The first is the immu- tability of God. His moral principles — that is, his rec- titude, wisdom, and goodness, as expressed by his blessed and holy will— can undergo no alteration; for to admit such a supposition would be destructive of the absolute perfection of the divine nature, as it would imply either an improvement or a deterioration in the subject of the supposed change. We cannot, therefore, hear or read without unspeakable disapprobation and regret repre- sentations of the Deity as first actuated by the passions of wrath and fury towards sinful men, and as afterwards turned, by the presentation of the Saviour's sacrifice, into a different temper — a disposition of calmness, kind- ness, and grace. The second foundation principle is that the adorable God is, from eternity and in all the glorious constancy of his nature, gracious and merciful. He wants no extraneous motive to induce him to pity and relieve our miserable world. No change in God is necessary or desirable, even if it were possible. This is abundantly evident from many parts of the divine Word (Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7; John iii, 16; vi, 39; x, 17; Eph. i, 3-10; 2 Cor. v, 18, 19). The question whether sin- ners shall be pardoned is not one that can be referred to arbitrary will or absolute power. It is a question of law and government, and it is to be solved by the dictates of wisdom, goodness, justice, and consistency. God's disposition to show mercy is original and unchangeable : in this sense nothing is needed to render him propitious. But the way and manner in which it will be suitable to all the other considerations proper to be taken into the account that he should show mercy, none but himself is qualified to determine. "God is the righteous judge, and God is angry [with the wicked] every day." But this anger is not a commotion or a mutable passion : it is the calm, dignified, unchangeable, and eternal majes- ty of the judge ; it is his necessary love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity. Pardon, when on any consider- ation it takes place, brings the true and just idea of a change; but that change, in the great case before us, is not in the mind or character of the Supreme Ruler, but it is in the administration of his government, and in those outward acts by which that administration is in- dicated. This change is, in the order of moral right, the effect of an adequate cause. This cause lies in the whole mediatorial work of Christ, but most particularly and essentially in his sufferings and death, and these have constituted the expiation. See Atonement, Day of; Mediation.
The Romish Church believes the mass (q. v.) to be a sacrifice of propitiation for the living and dead; while the Reformed churches, justified by the express decla-
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICES G56 TliOPOSITIOXES DAMNAT.E
rations of Scripture, allow of no propitiation bul that one view, even be punished by God in his stead) is not only
offered by Jesus on the cross, whereby divine justice is appeased and "ur sius atoned for | Horn. iii. 20; 1 John ii. 2). See Sa< rifk e.
Propitiatory Sacrifices include both trespass- offering and sin-offering. See Sacrifice. In this place we are to examine the disputed question whal the
expressed by2 Sain. xii. 15 sq.; xxiv. in sq.; Isa. liii, 1 Bq. 1 1 1« > t l'i"\. xxi. 18), bin the representation of a transmission of guilt appears in Deut, xxi, especially verse 8; in tin- symbolic meaning of the covenant-sao- er. \wi\. 18 sq.; comp. Gen. xv, 17), and in the ritual servioe with the scapegoat (Lev. xvi, 21).
j idd <>■ fore them a- their objecl in offering See especially also Isa. xliii. ;;, where, too, the word
"IBS (k&pher, ransom), bo common where the sin-offer- ings are mentioned, is used. (Klaiber is right in say- ing that ~\&'3,kipper, from ~t2. Tcaphdr, properly means . ovi i : anil hence points out the remo\ al oi guilt, with- out determining the method. Yet it remains noti «ur- thy that this word kepher [covering over~\, elsewhere only used in the sense of expiation, is used hi re \\ ben the subject is penal substitution. Was it so easy and natural for the Israelites to view expiation as an act of substitution?) Nor musl we omit to remark that K3tt (chitteh [Gen. .xxxi. ;>:>J, meaning properly to atom for) is used for making compensation, and Klai- ber's explanation of tin- passage is awkward.