The Word Atonement. The word atonement is often used, especially in this country, to designate the priestly work of Christ. This word does not occur in the English version of the New Testament except in Romans V. 11, where it is interchanged with " reconciliation " as the trans- lation of the Greek word KaToXkay-q. In the Old Testament it fre- quently occurs. The objections to its use to express the work of Christ are, —
1. Its ambiguity. To atone is properly to be, or cause to be, at one. It is so used in common language as well as in theology. In this sense to atone is to reconcile ; and atonement is reconcilia- tion. It, therefore, expresses the effect, and not the nature of Christ's work. But it is also, in the second place, used to express that by which the reconciliation is effected. It then means satis- faction, or compensation. It answers in our version to the He- brew word "^53 ; which in relation to the offence or guilt, means to expiate. Thus in Leviticus v. 16, it is said, if a man commit an offence, vb:y -iQp^ iriS"?, the priest shall make atonement for him ; i. e., shall expiate, or make satisfaction for his offence. So in Ex. xxxii. 30 ; Lev. iv. 26 ; Num. vi. 11. In reference to the person of the offender, it means to reconcile by means of expiation, to pro- pitiate God in his behalf. See Ex. xxx. 15 ; Lev. iv. 20 ; xvi. 6. Ezekiel xlv. 17, "It shall be the prince's part to give burnt- offerings-, ... he shall prepare the sin-offering . . . 11?3 "iQ?^ bs^^a^l'Ti'^^ to make reconciliation for the house of Israeli Thus often elsewhere. While the verb to atone thus means to expiate and to reconcile by expiation, the substantive means, either the re- conciliation itself, or the means by which it is effected. This latter sense is not a Scriptural usage of the word, but is verv common in theological writings. Thus when we speak of the atonement of Christ, of its necessity, efficacy, application, or extent, we mean Christ's work, what He did to expiate the sins of men. This ambig- uity of the word necessarily gives rise to more or less confusion.
2. Another objection to its general use is that it is not suffi- ciently comprehensive. As commonly used it includes only the sacrificial work of Christ, and not his vicarious obedience to the divine law. The atonement of Christ is said to consist of his suffer- ings and death. But his saving work includes far more than his expiatory sufferings.
3. A third objection is that this use of the word atonement is a departure from the established usage of the Churches of the
470 PART m. Ch. VI.— priestly office.
Reformation. It is important to adhere to old words if we would adhere to old doctrines.
Satisfaction.
The word satisfaction is the one which for ages has been gen- erally used to designate the special work of Christ in the salvation of men. With the Latin theologians the word is " satisfaction''' with the German writers, " Genugthun," its exact etymological equivalent, " the doing enough." By the satisfaction of Christ is meant all He has done to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God, in the place and in behalf of sinners. This word has the advantage of being precise, comprehensive, and generally accepted, and should therefore be adhered to. There are, however, two kinds of satisfaction, which as they differ essentially in their nature and effects, should not be confounded. The one is pecuniary or commercial ; the other penal or forensic. When a debtor pays the demand of his creditor in full, he satisfies his claims, and is entirely free from any further demands. In this case the thing paid is the precise sum due, neither more nor less. It is a simple matter of commutative justice ; a quid pro quo ; so much for so much. There can be no condescension, mercy, or grace on the part of a creditor receiving the payment of a debt. It matters not to him by whom the debt is paid, whether by the debtor himself, or by some one in his stead ; because the claim of the creditor is simply upon the amoiint due and not upon the person of the debtor. In the case of crimes the matter is different. The demand is then upon the offender. He himself is amenable to justice. Substitu- tion in human courts is out of the question. The essential point in matters of crime, is not the nature of the penalty, but who shall suffer. The soul that sins, it shall die. And the penalty need not be, and very rarely is, of the nature of the injury inflicted. All that is required is that it should be a just equivalent. For an as- sault, it may be a fine ; for theft, imprisonment ; for treason, ban- ishment, or death. In case a substitute is provided to bear the penalty in the place of the criminal, it would be to the offender a matter of pure grace, enhanced in proportion to the dignity of the siibstitute, and the greatness of the evil from which the criminal is delivered. Another important difference between pecuniary and penal satisfaction, is that the one ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free, and that completely. No delay can be admitted, and no conditions can be attached to his deliv- erance. But in the case of a criminal, as he has no claim to have