offering thou wouldest not" (Psalms xl: 6, and li: 16) and other similar
utterances; and the distinction between these symbols and that which they
symbolized is brought out in the Epistle to the Hebrews by the argument
that if those sacrifices had afforded a sufficient standpoint for the
effectual realization of cleansing then the worshiper would not need to
have repeated them because he would have no more consciousness of sin
(Hebrews x: 2).

This brings us to the essential point of the whole matter. What we want is
the certainty that there is no longer any separation between us and the
Divine Spirit by reason of sin, either as overt acts of wrong doing or as
error of principle; and the whole purpose of the Bible is to lead us to
this assurance. Now such an assurance cannot be based on any sort of
sacrifices that require repetition, for then we could never know whether we
had given enough either in quality or quantity. It must be a once-for-all
business or it is no use at all; and so the Bible makes the
once-for-allness of the offering the essential point of its teaching. "He
that has been bathed does not need to be bathed again" (John xiii: 10).
"There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans
viii: i).

Various intellectual difficulties, however, hinder many people from seeing
the working of the law of cause and effect in this presentment. One is the
question, How can moral guilt be transferred from one person to another?
What is called the "forensic" argument (i.e., the court of law argument)
that Christ undertook to suffer in our stead as our _surety_ is undoubtedly
open to this objection. Suretyship must by its very nature be confined to
civil obligations and cannot be extended to criminal liability, and so the
"forensic" argument may be set aside as very much a legal fiction. But if
we realize the Bible teaching that Christ is the Son of God, that is, the