discussing the atonement would doubtless be, first, after the manner of exegetical and biblical theology, to collocate and carefully interpret all the express texts and all the extended teachings of Revelation upon the doctrine under examination, so as to bring the truth into our minds just as it lies in the Scripture. A classification of truths and summary of results would naturally follow. Reason and the logical understanding would now bring to light the necessary and universal principles and implications of the biblical statements, and, if possible, a single formula would be reached, embracing all the essential attributes of the doctrine, which, for the dogmatic theologian, would be the definition of atonement. Lastly, an historical survey would enable us to apply the test of the truth, as embodied in the definition reached by the processes described, to all the forms of the doctrine as set forth by the teachers and theologians of the universal Church. But the limits of this paper forbid the employment of this complete and scientific Exegetical, Dogmatic, Historical method, and it may the more freely be departed from since the exegetical ground has been frequently gone over with great thoroughness and accuracy, and with comparative freedom from dogmatic bias, while the historical treatment is rather in the interest of caution and additional interest than essential to the establishment of the doctrine. A proper point of departure, therefore, may be from the position of the systematic theologian, while exegetics largely, and perhaps historical theology to some extent, will be made to serve important uses in the progress of the discussion. Let us make a beginning by placing side by side two Methodist definitions of the atonement. By Methodist definitions, definitions by recognized Methodist theologians are meant. The latest, and, so far as the writer knows, the only, distinct treatise on atonement that Methodism has produced is the work of Dr. John Miley, Professor of Systematic Theology in Drew Theological Seminary. Dr. Miley early in his monograph gives us a formal definition of atonement. It is as follows: The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling, on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government.* *Miley, "The Atonement in Christ," p. 23. The second definition is taken from the unpublished lectures on the Twenty-five Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Churches delivered by the late Dr. Thomas O. Summers, as Professor of Systematic Theology in Vanderbilt University. The definition is in this language: Atonement is the satisfaction made to God for the sins of all mankind, original and actual, by the mediation of Christ, and especially by his passion and death, so that pardon might be granted to all, while the divine perfections are harmonized, the authority of the Sovereign is upheld, and the strongest motives are brought to bear upon sinners to lead them to repentance, to faith in Christ, the necessary conditions of pardon, and to a life of obedience by the gracious aid of the Holy Spirit.* An analytical comparison of the two definitions reveals several points of difference. 1. Dr. Summers calls atonement a satisfaction made to God, which form of expression Dr. Miley not only excludes from his definition, but carefully avoids and stringently opposes throughout his treatise, since he identifies the satisfaction theory with the Calvinistic scheme of commercial substitution, always calling this last mentioned doctrine the doctrine of satisfaction. 2. Dr. Summers gives the atonement relation to original as well as to actual sin, as is done by our Second Article of Religion-"whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for the original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." This Dr. Miley's definition ignores, and his whole essay does not touch the question except when he glances at the relation of the atonement to infant salvation; and in this momentary consideration it would appear that he attaches little weight to the teachings of the fifth chapter of Romans, since he makes no reference to it. A brief statement of exegetical results, if nothing more, would have been very pertinent. 3. Dr. Summers makes the atonement consist of the entire mediation of Christ, especially of his passion and death, while Dr. Miley speaks only of the vicarious sufferings, though he is doubtless *This definition is taken from the writer's notes as a member of Dr. Summers's class. The writer alone is responsible for the form given, but he has every reasonable guarantee that it is an exact reproduction of the Doctor's language. + Southern Methodist Discipline, ed. 1882, p. 12. Miley, "Atonement in Christ," pp. 262-265. in complete accord with Dr. Summers, as is evinced by his masterly treatment of the great passage in the second chapter. of Philippians: "The incarnation itself is a great fact of atoning value in the redemptive mediation of Christ. . . . There are two marvelous facts: the self-emptying-avtòv ¿kévwoe— or self-divestment of a rightful glory in equality with God; and an assumption, instead, of the form of a servant in the likeness of men."* Nevertheless, we are not to overlook the superiority of Dr. Summers's definition in point of comprehensiveness. 4. Dr. Summers assigns three results to the atonement, or grounds it in three necessities, though it is but right to state that the last he did not class in respect to urgency with the other two great necessities. In this last particular he and Dr. Miley are again in agreement. The three results or necessities are, (1) The harmonization of the divine perfections. This follows from the previous doctrine that the atonement is a satisfaction made to God. (2) The upholding of the authority of the Sovereign. (3) The bringing to bear of the strongest motives upon sinners to repent and believe. Here Dr. Summers has most felicitously combined all the elements of truth in the three great theories of atonement, Satisfaction, Governmental, and Moral. Dr. Miley represents the atonement only as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government. His atonement yields only a governmental result, and has its only ground in a governmental necessity. He himself has chosen the title and uniformly calls his theory Rectoral, or Governmental. 5. Finally, Dr. Summers's definition includes the securing of a life of obedience by the gracious aid of the Holy Spirit. He thus effectually guards the doctrine of atonement and its correlate justification by faith from antinomian accusation and abuse. He answers those objections that have been in the mouth of opponents from the time of Paul, the original expounder of these truths, until the present. Here doubtless our two Doctors are also in harmony; but mark the grasp and reach of Dr. Summers's formula. There may be other minor points of difference between these two definitions. It is not necessary for our purpose to be exhaustive; the differences enumerated lie out broadly on the face of the two formulas. Ibid., pp. 125–126. * Miley, "Atonement in Christ," pp. 276-278. But let us be careful that Dr. Miley's doctrine is not mistaken or misrepresented. It may be that he has not been able to include explanation, enlargement, and exposition within the limits of definition. Is it entirely certain that he does not ground the necessity for atonement in the essential nature and immutable character of God apart from his rectoral office and relation? It is granted that there are some passages in his book that on first reading, and considered apart from the underlying and pervading principle of his doctrine, seem to admit such a necessity. But a more attentive examination will often reveal limitations and saving clauses in the passages themselves; and, further, they are rebutted by explicit assertions to the contrary. An extended consideration of Dr. Miley's teaching, as will be shown by large quotation, will make it appear that he does not allow a separate and distinct demand for atonement in the divine nature apart from God's office as a Sovereign. He earnestly contends that if such a demand be allowed it must yield an atonement by commercial substitution, or, as he calls it, satisfaction. So far as a demand for atonement in the nature of God may be regarded as acknowledged by Dr. Miley, he identifies it with, and absorbs it in, the demand that lies in the necessities of government. His section in which he vindicates the necessity for atonement is entitled Necessity in Moral Government." * "The necessity for the redemptive mediation of Christ lies ultimately in the perfections of God," he says, and we think here is the great truth unequivocally stated, but he immediately adds the sav ing phrase, "as moral Ruler." In the same connection he continues: We have the truth of a divine moral government as the ground-fact in the necessity for an atonement. We have found the facts and principles of such a government strongly affirmative of this necessity. They thus respond to the explicit affirmations of Scripture thereon. Further, we have found this necessity to be grounded in the profoundest interests of moral government, for the protection of which the penalties of the divine justice have a necessary function. Here we have the real hinderance to a mere administrative forgiveness, and, therefore, the real necessity for an atonement. The true office of atonement follows accordingly.‡ *Miley, "Atonement in Christ," p. 74. + Ibid., p. 73. ‡ Ibid., p. 74. The penalties of divine justice are, therefore, not the manifestation of God's essential rectitude and holiness abstracted from all governmental considerations, nor is there any bar in the divine nature to sovereign forgiveness-this bar is wholly the demand of governmental exigencies. It is not desired to attach any inference to Dr. Miley's doctrine that he does not himself avow, and he shall be freely, but briefly, quoted by passages taken from every part of his book: In the governmental theory, the scientifically consistent necessity arises in the interest of moral government, and as an imperative requirement of some provision which may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty in the case of forgiveness.* ... We ground the necessity in the fact and requirements of moral government.... And God, as a righteous Ruler, must inflict merited penalty upon sin, not, indeed, in the gratification of any mere personal resentment, nor in the satisfaction of an absolute retributive justice, but in the interest of moral government, or find some rectorally compensatory measure for the remission of penalty.‡... While divine penalty falls only upon sin, the supreme reason for its infliction is in the rectoral ends with which moral government is concerned. Nor is the penal infliction a moral necessity apart from these ends. §. . . There is no sufficient reason why sin must be punished solely on the ground of its demerit. . . . And, all other ends apart, [the ends of moral government apart from the demands of God's essential nature,] retributive justice may remit its penalty. It may do this without an atonement. || . And with no absolute necessity for the punishment of sin, it seems clear that but for the requirements of rectoral justice, compassion would triumph over the disposition of a purely retributive justice.¶ But as penalties are remissible so far as a purely retributive justice is concerned; so, having a special end in the interest of moral government, they may give place to any substitutional measure equally securing that end.** The demerit of sin imposes no obligation of punishment upon the Divine Ruler.tt The rectoral ends of moral government are a profounder imperative with justice itself than the retribution of sin, simply as such.§§ The cross is the highest revelation of all the truths which embody the best moral forces of the divine government.|||| We challenge that both in the New Testament and in Christian experience the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is infinitely more than the embodiment of the forces of moral government! *Miley, "Atonement in Christ," p. 61. Ibid., p. 75. + Ibid., p. 63. Ibid., p. 232. Ibid., p. 239. | Ibid., p. 228; italicizing added by the writer. |