most liberal kind, but paraphrases are not the Bible, and that fact closes the case.

We doubt if much can be done to help the reader by means of the text itself. We cannot turn the Bible-methods wrongside-out; we must not reconstruct the material on modern lines. The intaglio cannot be changed to a relievo, and still be the veritable thing. To our thinking, although paragraphing, italicizing, capitalizing, may help a little, the margin and the commentary must in this matter be the chief resource. In this respect the Bible-authors must be left, without anachronism, speaking in the way that was required by their times; it is the commentator who must tell how their message would sound in the manner of to-day.

Thus we have one more class of cases excellently illustrating the fact of the impossibility of making a really adequate translation of the Bible. It reminds us also of the greatness of the task of so getting the Bible-standpoint that one constantly feels the sense, even when the form is diametrically opposite to his own.

ARTICLE IV.

PROFESSOR PARK'S THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM.

BY THE REVEREND FRANK HUGH FOSTER, PH.D., D.D.

THE most impressive part of Park's theological lectures, and the scene of his greatest service to theology, was in the discussions to which the progress of our review now brings us, viz. those upon

THE ATONEMENT.

The theory of the atonement had already undergone a complete change in the New England Theology in consequence of the controversies which resulted from the introduction of Universalism into America. Twelve years after Edwards' death, there had appeared in New York a certain James Murray, who soon transferred his principal activity to New England. He derived the doctrine of universal salvation from the premises of a strict Calvinism.' He argued: Christ's death procures salvation for all for whom he died, in strict justice, because he paid the exact equivalent of their punishment. But Christ died for all men. Therefore all men are already saved; and all they need is to be brought to the knowledge of this fact. The conclusion of this argument the New England theologians could not accept because it was unbiblical. minor premise they could not deny, because it was the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Hence they were driven to the revision of the major proposition, which had been generally

The

1 For a full view of this connection of Universalism with the history of New England theology, cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xlv. (1888) p. 670 ff,; and vol. xlvi. (1889) p. 85 ff.

accepted among them as among all other Calvinists. In making this revision, they did not go back to the beginning of the topic and start from a new principle, although they had such a principle in the theory of virtue which Edwards had left them, but were led by the particular circumstances of the controversy to redefine the old terms and preserve, in general, the tone and method of the older theology. At many a point the influence of the new theory appeared, as when general justice was explicitly defined by some of them as benevolence. But they still employed chiefly the analogies of earthly governments in the formulation and defense of their positions. And their new theory received the name of "the governmental theory."

By the time that Park appeared upon the scene the theory of virtue was much better understood. Its application to the character of God, and the development of the system of Christian duties in accordance with it, had given it a new scope and importance. Professor Park had a larger comprehension of its meaning and of the range of its application than any of his predecessors had had. It might have been a question of great interest, when he first began the presentation of his views upon the atonement, what he would do; whether he would reject all idea of atonement in deference to the supposed requirements of the love of God which should need. no propitiation; whether he would develop it afresh from the theory of virtue as a starting-point, exhibiting its ideal side and setting it free from a certain bondage to mechanical relations in which it had hitherto been confined; or whether he would let it stand substantially where his predecessors had left it. His historical sense, and his intense admiration of his predecessors and loyalty to them, finally cast the scale in the last direction. He continued to use the governmental Vol. LXI. No. 242. 5

analogies, which were rapidly becoming offensive to his times; and this fact, more than anything else perhaps, prevented him from coming to an understanding with the greatest thinker upon the atonement among his contemporaries, Horace Bushnell, or from doing much to prepare for the new epoch that was coming. There is something sad, if not tragic, about this, for Park studied every new writer upon this theme diligently, and has left incorporated in his lectures what he considered best and truest among their contributions to the theory.

As always, Park began with definition. The atonement is 66 that sacrifice of the God-man which is substituted for the punishment of men, and which therefore forms the sole ground on which God is justified and satisfied, and the chief motive by which he is influenced and by which he exerts an influence, in directly blessing men."

The “sole

The definition is highly technical. By "directly blessing men" is meant converting and saving them. ground" is the last cause on which God directly depends for blessing men. The term "propitiation" is later defined in exactly the same words as atonement except that the words "and by which he exerts an influence are omitted. He hastens in this connection to guard against the idea that God antecedently to atonement was "too angry to favor sinners." "God is made propitious by the sacrifice of Christ in the sense that it is made consistent and justifiable for him now to bestow blessings which it was not antecedently consistent for him to do. Therefore it is figuratively that God is propitiated. He is propitiated in the sense that the atonement is a new motive for him to bestow blessings upon men. Also in the sense that he changes his outward conduct just as if he had changed his moral purpose."

The definitions also introduce a number of weighty modifi

cations of old conceptions of the atonement. Park employed the word "satisfied" in his principal definition. But satisfaction was not the rendering of the strict equivalent in distributive justice. On the contrary, he defines "satisfaction" as "that sacrifice of Christ by which it is made consistent with God's blessedness that he waive the exercise of distributive justice." What he meant by distributive justice has been fully explained in a former article.1 He was thus gradually stripping off the artificial distinctions which had formerly encumbered the theory. He completed this process by his rejection of the application of the idea of imputation to the atonement. Christ's righteousness could no more be imputed to us than Adam's sin. In both cases the law holds that character is not transferable, since it is always produced by the individual choice. Something is done for us by the obedience of Christ, so that we receive the benefits of his death. But neither that obedience nor any other is imputed to us, for it is forever his obedience and not ours.

One other element which needs to be noted before we proceed to the more systematic development of Park's argument is the largeness of outlook given by his conception of the atonement as having relations to the entire universe. The suffering of Calvary was not an event done upon a small planet in one corner of the stellar universe, without relation to other worlds and beyond the knowledge of other intelligent beings. Neither did it provide for the salvation of men alone nor, much less, for the salvation of some limited portion of the human race who might happen to hear of it. But it was the display, once for all, of the divine character, and it formed the ground of all forgiveness which should anywhere take place throughout all space and time. When God has

1 Vol. 1x. (1903) p. 689 f.