ceeds.' In that very passage Paul does not say, Amend yourselves in order that you may be reconciled to God; but rather, Let not the grace of reconciliation appear to be in vain for you, as if you had not appropriated it. By Christ's offering up his life for man estranged from God, man is objectively reconciled to God. God has removed that which made the separation between himself and man. But what has been objectively accomplished for all mankind, must now be appropriated by each individual and thus become subjective. Hence, according to these different points of view, Paul could say- "Be ye reconciled (subjectively) to God," and "We are reconciled (objectively) to God by the death of his Son;" Rom. v. 10.

But those views in conformity to which the life and sufferings of Christ are considered merely as a manifestation of God's love, and the reconciliation effected by him as the subjective influence of this manifestation on the human heart, appear by no means adequate to the meaning of the Pauline declarations already quoted respecting the redemption of Christ. And although the gross anthropopathical notion of God's reconciliation with man, is evidently inconsistent with Paul's train of ideas, it does not follow, that by the expression reconciliation, only a subjective change in the disposition of man is denoted, for we are by no means justified in explaining the correlative ideas of an enmity with God, and a wrath of God merely as subjective, and among the various designations of the divine attributes connected with them, acknowledge a reality merely in the idea of the love of God. On the contrary, the common fact of human consciousness, according to which a man addicted to sin feels himself estranged from God, and cannot get rid of the feeling of his guilt and ill-deserts, reveals to us a deeper objective ground in the moral constitution of the universe and in the essence of God. In this universal fact, we have a witness of the revelation of God's holiness in the consciences of mankind, which is as undeniable as the revelation of his love. By the "wrath of God," though in an anthropopathical form, something objective and real is signified, which is not fully expressed by the idea of punishment, but includes what is the ground of all punishment, (on which account this phrase "the wrath of God" is sometimes used to

1 This is distinctly marked by his exhortation καταλλάγητε.

express merely punishment,) the ground of the necessary connexion between sin and evil, the absolute contrariety existing between God as the Holy One and sin.1 God recognises evil as evil, as that which stands in contrariety to his holiness, rebels against him and his holy order, and would exist independent of him. The mode in which God recognises evil, is also a sentence of condemnation upon it, and is a proof of its powerlessness and wretchedness. Evil is denied, if not contemplated as something occupying the place of God.

Thus in the mode by which man is freed by the love of God from that unhappy relation to God, in which he stands owing to the divine holiness, the love of God reveals itself only in connexion with his holiness, or as holy love. This connexion is pointed out by Paul in Rom. iii. 24. In this passage, he contrasts the revelation of God's holiness at that time by the publication of the gospel, and the non-punishment of past sins before the appearance of the gospel. By the πάρεσις τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων and the ἀνοχὴ τοῦ θεοῦ he understands the manner in which the conduct of God was manifested in reference to sin before the publication of the gospel, especially towards the heathen world, who knew nothing of the Old Testament revelations of the holiness of God in opposition to sin, and also towards the Jews, who, notwithstanding these testimonies in the delay of the divine judgments for their sins, instead of interpreting the longsuffering of God as a call to repentance, were sunk in carnal security. We may compare with this, Paul's language in Acts xvii. 30, speaking of the times of ignorance that God had overlooked. Though this is to be understood only relatively, in reference to the different standing-points of historical development, for Paul recognised, as we have already shown, in the moral nature of the heathen, a revelation of the divine law, of the divine holiness and punitive justice. But under their peculiar circumstances, there was from a kind of necessity a general obscuration of that religious and moral knowledge by which their thinking and acting was regulated. This induced on the part of God a passing over, a non-imputation of offences; though the reckoning taken of transgressions would never go beyond the measure of the possible knowledge of the law; Rom. v. 13. Thus there may be a chargeableness and a nonCompare Twesten's Dogmatik, ii. p. 146.

chargeableness under different aspects, by which the apparent contradictions in Paul's language may be reconciled.

Paul in Rom. iii. 25, declares that for both the Jews and heathens a revelation of the divine wrath must precede the revelation of the grace that forgives sin. The Tápeσis denotes only what was negative and temporary, the non-punishment of past sins on the part of God; so that the sense of the guilt of sin is not presupposed, and the removal of that sense is not effected.1 The peois, on the other hand, denotes objectively that act of God by which sin is really forgiven, that is, is considered in relation to God and the moral constitution of the universe as not existing; and, subjectively, that operation in the heart of man by which it is really freed from the consciousness of guilt; this means far more than the non-punishment of sin during a certain period. In those to whom this act of God relates, the consciousness of guilt and of the divine opyn, the subjective revelation of the divine punitive justice, is presupposed; and the operation that takes place in their dispositions necessarily implies forsaking a life of sin, and the renunciation of all fellowship with sin. According to the connexion of ideas in Paul's mind, we are led to take this view of the subject. In contrast with the former apparent overlooking of sin on the part of God, the holiness of God at this time is now manifested by his openly exhibiting Christ, through his offering up of himself, as a reconciler or sinoffering for the sins of mankind, so that he verifies himself as the Holy One, and permits every one to appear before him as holy, who shows that he is in fellowship with Christ by faith. The holiness of God manifests itself (according to the Pauline connexion of ideas already noticed) in the life and death of Christ in a twofold manner. First, inasmuch as he completely realized (in opposition to sin which had hitherto been predominant in human nature) that holy law to which the life of man was designed to correspond,-made satisfaction to the moral order of the universe, and glorified God in that nature which was originally designed to glorify him. God has verified

In scholastic language, rápeσis may be referred to the voluntas signi, and aperis to the voluntas beneplaciti.

2 That we ought not to translate Sikatos righteous, but holy, appears from that meaning of this word which lies at the basis of Skalour, to declare a person δίκαιος

himself as the Holy One, since he forgives sin only on the condition of the perfect fulfilment of the law; he has shown that he remits nothing from the requirements of perfect holiness, and we always bear in mind that this remission to those who through it obtain justification, is not a mere outward act, but becomes in all the cause and pledge of the fulfilment of the law. Secondly, inasmuch as Christ, as perfectly holy, underwent those sufferings which the divine holiness, considered as punitive justice in its opposition against sin, had suspended over human nature. We are not to conceive of

this, as if God arbitrarily imposed these sufferings, or Christ had arbitrarily subjected himself to them; but that it was grounded on the assumption of human nature in its present condition and relation to God-as the divine punitive justice revealed itself to them who were suffering the consequences of sin-and thus it was accomplished through the historical development of the life of Christ devoted to conflict with the sin that reigned in the human race, and through his condescending to their condition from the sympathy of love.2

That divine attribute which reveals itself in the necessary connexion of sin and evil, is founded in the reaction of the holiness of God against sin (the wrath of God), exhibits itself in the reaction of the moral order of the universe against evil, whence punishment proceeds. If punishment is conceived of merely as a means of amendment, and this is supposed to comprehend all that is intended by it, this is a degradation of a rational being and of morality making it mechanical. But if punishment is viewed at first as a revelation of the divine justice, as an objective reaction of the moral order of the universe against evil, another mode of viewing it also presents itself, according to which the punishment necessary in itself is appointed by the love of God, in order, since punishment and sin stand in this internal connexion with one another, to lead thereby to a consciousness of sin and guilt, to make rational creatures sensible of the relation they stand in to the moral world, and thus to call forth the feeling of the need of redemption. The self-will which rebels in sin against the moral order of the universe and God's holy law, must be humbled by suffering before the holy omnipotence of God and the majesty of his law. Where submission is not yielded freely, it will be compelled. Without the idea of punishment, the reality of evil and the dignity of rational creatures cannot be acknowledged. It belongs to the privilege of rational beings created in the likeness of God, and distinguishes them from other natural objects, that the idea of punishment finds its application in them. See the excellent remarks of Twesten, in his Dogmatik, i. p. 148.

2 The Pauline view of the work of redemption finds a point of connexion in Christ's words in Matt. xx. 28, whether we consider λÚTρov as a sum paid for release from captivity or slavery, or for redemption from

456

THE IDEAS OF ΑΠΟΛΥΤΡΩΣΙΣ, ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑ.

With the idea of reconciliation, the ideas of dπoλúτρwσis, σωτηρία, δικαίωσις are closely connected. The two first terms are used in a wider and a narrower sense; they denote the deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin, the owrnpia ȧπò τñs úpyñs, Rom. v. 9, first objectively as what has been gained by Christ for the human race; and also subjectively, what is effectuated by progressive development in each indi vidual by personal appropriation, from his first entrance into fellowship with the Redeemer, to the complete participation of his glory and blessedness in the perfected kingdom of God; but more especially what belongs to the perfect realization of the idea, the complete freedom from sin and all its consequences, from all evil,—natural and moral.1

With respect to the idea of dikaiwois, in order to determine it, we must refer to what we have already remarked on the Pauline opposition to the common Jewish notion of righteousness. He sets out from the same point as his adversaries, as far as he considers the participation in all the privileges and blessings of the kingdom of God indissolubly connected with the dialoovn, the genuine theocratic disposition and condition of life. The correlative idea of righteousness in this sense was blessedness, the participation of the blessings promised through Abraham to all his posterity, the fulfilment of all the promises relating to the kingdom of God, all the privileges of the children of God; and an entrance into all the relations in which they stand to God. But Paul maindeserved punishment; also in the institution of the Holy Supper, (in which he evidently alluded to the connexion between the Passover and the establishment of the Old Covenant,) which by the offering of himself to obtain and confirm the forgiveness of sins to mankind, marked the establishment of the New Covenant. The Pauline views are also supported by the manner in which Christ adopts the ideas of the wrath of God and of punitive justice from the Old Testament, without casting a doubt on their validity. The parable of the Lost Son, and other expressions which relate to forgiving love, offer no contradiction, but mark precisely the side on which God reveals himself in the work of redemption, and what, humanly speaking, could be the only motive to such an act of God towards a race estranged from him by sin; they do not, however, determine the manner in which the result designed by divine love is to be attained; the form and order followed by the compassionate love of God, for the love of God acts only as a holy and righteous love.

1 añoλúrρwσis is found in the latter sense in Rom. viii. 23, Eph. i. 14; and awrnpla in the latter sense in Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 5.