GIFT OF 
 THOMAS RUTHERFORD BACO^' 
 

THE ATONEMENT. 
 
THE .ATONEMENT. 
 
 THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION LECTURE 
 
 FOR i8ys* 
 
 y\ . O 
 
 R. W. DALE, M.A., 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
 NEGLIGENTIA MIHI VIDETUR, SI, POSTQUAM CONFIRMATI SCMUS IN FIDB, NON 
 STUDEMUS QUOD CRECIMUS lliTEL.LlGE&E."~Anseim. 
 
 THIfeU Er/ITION. 
 
 Eontion : 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 
 
 PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 MDCCCLXXV. 
 
 {All rights reserved. ) 
 
J>3 
 
 UNWIN BROTHERS, IRINTERS BY WATER-POWER. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 By the Committee of the Congregational Union 
 OF England and Wales. 
 
 nr^HE Congregational Union Lecture has been 
 -*- established with a view to the promotion of 
 Biblical Science, and Theological and Ecclesiastical 
 Literature. 
 
 It is intended that each Lecture shall consist of 
 a course of Prelections, delivered at the Memorial 
 Hall, but when the convenience of the Lecturer shall 
 so require, the oral delivery will be dispensed with. 
 
 The Committee hope that the Lecture will be main- 
 tained in an unbroken Annual Series ; but they promise 
 to continue it only so long as it seems to be efficiently 
 serving the end for which it has been established, or as 
 they may have the necessary funds at their disposal. 
 
 For the opinions advanced in any of the Lectures, 
 the Lecturer alone will be responsible. 
 
 i8, South Street, Finsbury, 
 
 January^ 1874. 
 
 272568 
 
J 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory i 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 The History of our Lord J^esus Christ in I^e- 
 
 LATION TO THE FaCT OF THE ATONEMENT . 35 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 The Fact of the Atonement : the Testimony of 
 
 OUR Lord 65 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 The Fact of the Atonement: the Testimony of 
 
 St. Peter • • • 97 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 The Fact of the Atonement: the Testimony of 
 
 St. John and St. J^ames . . • • i49 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 The Fact- of the Atonement: the Testimony of 
 
 St. Paul 191 
 
viii Contents. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 General Considerations Confirmatory of the 
 
 Preceding Argument 265 
 
 LECTURE VIIL 
 
 The Remission of Sins 311 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 The Theory of the Atonement Illustrated by 
 THE Relation of our Lord Jesus Christ to 
 the Eternal Law of Righteousness . .353 
 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 The Theory of the Atonement Illustrated by 
 the Relation of our Lord Jesus Christ to 
 the Human Race 399 
 
 APPENDIX .441 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THESE Lectures were prepared at the request 
 of the Committee of the Congregational Union 
 of England and Wales, and were delivered in the 
 Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, during the months 
 of February, March, and April in the present year. 
 
 Concerning the method which I have followed, 
 there is little to be added to the explanations con- 
 tained in the Lectures themselves. It may, how- 
 ever, be well to state that in illustrating the 
 testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His 
 Apostles to the Fact of the Atonement, my intention 
 is simply to show that the Death of Christ is con- 
 ceived and described as being the objective ground 
 on which we receive the Remission of sins. The 
 premature attempt to construct a Theory of the 
 Atonement on the basis of those descriptions of the 
 Death of Christ which represent it as a Ransom for 
 us, or as a Propitiation for the sins of the world, 
 
X Preface. 
 
 or on phrases in which Christ is described as dying 
 for us, or dying for our sins, has been the mis- 
 chievous cause of most of the erroneous Theories by 
 which the glory of the Fact has been obscured. 
 
 Until we have considered the actual relations of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, both to the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness which the sins of men have violated, 
 and to the human race, — and until we have dis- 
 covered what light these relations throw upon the 
 Fact that His Death is the ground on which sin 
 is forgiven, — it appears to me that we are in no 
 position to determine with any confidence to what 
 extent the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which 
 is described as a " Ransom," is analogous to other 
 ransoms, or to what extent the Death of Christ, 
 which is described as a " Propitiation," is analogous 
 to the propitiatory acts by which men are accus- 
 tomed to allay the anger of those whom they may 
 have offended, or to the propitiatory sacrifices by 
 which the heathen have attempted to avert the 
 displeasure of angry gods. These descriptions can- 
 not be made the foundation of a theory of the 
 Atonement, but they are sure tests by which we 
 may ascertain the accuracy of a theory. Unless our 
 conception of the Death of Christ gives a natural 
 explanation of all the forms in which it is repre- 
 sented by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the writers 
 
Preface, xi 
 
 of the New Testament, our conception is either false 
 or incomplete. 
 
 The series of Lectures of which this is the third, 
 may be regarded as taking the place of another 
 series, known as the Congregational Lecture, 
 which commenced in the year 1833, and which was 
 suspended about i860. The third Lecture in the 
 earlier series was also on the Atonement. It was 
 delivered in the Congregational Library, exactly 
 forty years ago, by the late Rev. Joseph Gilbert, 
 of Nottingham, who was one of the most learned 
 and thoughtful theologians among the Congregational 
 ministers of his time. I read and re-read Mr. 
 Gilbert's Lectures at a time when my own theolo- 
 gical convictions were unformed. How much I am 
 indebted to them it would be difficult to say. They 
 always seemed to me singularly judicious and able. 
 
 To my friends the Rev. Dr. Henry Allon, the 
 Rev. J. G. Rogers, the Rev. Professor Simon, and 
 Professor Massie, I am under obligations of various 
 kinds. That Dr. Allon and Mr. Rogers, notwith- 
 standing their own heavy engagements, should have 
 been good enough to assist me in the irksome task 
 of revising the proofs of this volume, calls for my 
 most grateful acknowledgments. 
 
 Three or four paragraphs which appeared in two 
 articles on the Atonement, published in the British 
 
xii Preface, 
 
 Quarterly Review for October, 1866, and October, 1867, 
 have been transferred to the text of these Lectures. 
 Should any of my readers notice this fact, they must 
 be good enough to accept my assurance that, in 
 making use of the British Quarterly articles, I am 
 not guilty of plagiarism. 
 
 R. W. DALE. 
 
 Birmingham, 
 May 6, 1875. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
LECTURE r. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 FRANCIS TURRETIN, — the greatest of Cal- 
 vinistic theologians — in the first of his celebrated 
 dissertations on the Satisfaction offered by our Lord 
 Jesus Christ for the sins of men, speaks of the 
 doctrine of the Atonement as "the chief part of our 
 salvation, the anchor of Faith, the refuge of Hope, 
 the rule of Charity, the true foundation of the Chris- 
 tian religion, and the richest treasure of the Chris- 
 tian Church." " So long," he says, ** as this doctrine 
 is maintained in its integrity, Christianity itself and 
 the peace and blessedness of all who believe in Christ 
 are beyond the reach of danger ; but if it is rejected, 
 or in any way impaired, the whole structure of the 
 Christian faith must sink into decay and ruin." ^ 
 
 Such words as these are true only of the Atonement 
 itself; they cannot be justly used concerning any doc- 
 trine or theory of the Atonement. There are large 
 numbers of Christian men who have never been able to 
 discover any direct relation between the Death of Christ 
 and the forgiveness of sin, and who sometimes protest 
 
 I Note A. 
 
4 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 with vehement moral indignation against the doctrine 
 which alone explains the power of the Cross over their 
 own conscience and heart. It remains true that 
 Christ's Death — though they know neither how nor 
 why — has done more than either His teaching or His 
 life to constrain and enable them to trust in the mercy 
 of God for the pardon of sin ; and because Christ is the 
 Propitiation for the sins of the world, God has re- 
 sponded to their trust, and they are eternally saved. 
 For it is not the doctrine of the Death of Christ that 
 atones for human sin, but the Death itself; and great as 
 are the uses of the doctrine in promoting the healthy 
 and vigorous development of the spiritual life, the 
 Death of Christ has such a wonderful power, that it 
 inspires faith in God, and purifies the heart, though 
 the doctrine of the Atonement may be unknown or 
 denied. 
 
 Even among those who accept, in their direct 
 and obvious sense, the explicit declarations of Holy 
 Scripture, that '' Christ once suffered for sins, the Just 
 for the unjust, to bring us to God," there are very 
 many — and perhaps their number is rapidly increasing 
 — who shrink from the attempt to determine the 
 precise function of the Death of Christ in human 
 redemption. Reverence restrains their speculation. 
 In the presence of the Son of God, dying for the sins of 
 men, they can only acknowledge with penitence the 
 greatness of their guilt and adore the infinite ten- 
 derness and strength of the Divine Love. Or they 
 beUeve that the mystery of His Death transcends the 
 
i»] Introductory. 5 
 
 limits of human intelligence, and belongs to provinces 
 of the Divine life and thought which are altogether 
 inacessible to us. Or the history of theological doc- 
 trine has convinced them that the attempt to form a 
 theory of the Atonement is not only presumptuous but 
 perilous, and will inevitably introduce into our con- 
 ception of the supreme manifestation of the Divine 
 Mercy elements derived from human imperfection, by 
 which its moral and spiritual power will be diminished 
 and its original glory obscured. It is even feared, and 
 not without reason, that we may so speculate on the 
 relations between the Death of Christ and the Divine 
 government of the human race, as to provoke men to 
 deny that, in any sense, the Lord Jesus Christ died 
 to atone for the sins of the world. We are warned 
 that the fact may be rejected, because our explanations 
 of it are incredible. 
 
 No one who has thought much on this doctrine can 
 be insensible either to the difficulties which encompass 
 it, or to the grave and complicated evils which a false 
 conception of it may inflict on the life of the Church. 
 The difficulties are obvious. In the present condition 
 of theological thought many of them are insoluble ; and 
 it is more than doubtful whether some of them will 
 ever disappear until we have the open vision of God 
 on the other side of death. 
 
 For any comp^pte theory of the Atonement must 
 include a definition of the eternal relations between 
 the Son of God and the Father. It is the habit of 
 
6 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 some modern theological thinkers to say that the 
 names by which we know the several Persons of the 
 Trinity are derived from their revealed relations to 
 mankind. This may be conceded; but surely these 
 relations are conditioned by relations deeper than 
 themselves. We cannot imagine that He whom we 
 know as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 could have laid aside His glory and assumed the same 
 relationship to the Son that the Son assumed to Him : 
 if this were possible, then the relationship as known to 
 us between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father 
 would be purely contingent and arbitrary, and would 
 rest on no eternal fact in the nature of God. What 
 may be described as the internal and mutual relations 
 of the Trinity must contain the ultimate solution of 
 some of the questions suggested by the relation of 
 Christ in His redemptive work to the Father. But 
 the development of the doctrine of the Trinity has 
 been practically arrested for thirteen or fourteen 
 hundred years ; and in those early centuries when 
 that doctrine absorbed the theological thought of the 
 Church, the theory of the Atonement had as yet 
 assumed so rudimentary and imperfect a form that it 
 was impossible for theologians to appreciate the close 
 and profound relations between these two great pro- 
 vinces of Christian speculation. During the Athana- 
 sian controversies the construction of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity suffered very seriously through the absence 
 of a just theory of the Atonement ; and until the 
 doctrine of the Trinity has received a much richer and 
 
I-] Introductory, *j 
 
 fuller development, there are questions relating to the 
 theory of the Atonement to which we can give no 
 reply. 
 
 Nor, on the other hand, has the thought of the 
 Church ever reached a firm, coherent, and permanent 
 conception of the original relation of the Eternal Word 
 or Son of God to the created universe, and especially to 
 our own race — a relation which appears to underlie the 
 possibility of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and to involve the solution of some of the severest 
 speculative difficulties connected with the theory of 
 Redemption. It cannot, indeed, be alleged that the 
 question has never been seriously investigated. It 
 was forced upon the consideration of the early Church 
 by the wild dreams of Gnosticism ; it was partially 
 illustrated by the profound thought of Athanasius ; 
 it was not overlooked by the schoolmen of the 
 Middle Ages; it has occupied a prominent place in 
 the noblest theological speculation of Germany during 
 the last half century. But the question has never 
 passed out of the province of speculation into the 
 province of faith. It belongs to theologians, and not 
 to the commonalty of the Church. The great 
 words of St. Paul — " For in Him were all things 
 created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible 
 and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions 
 or principalities or powers • all things were created 
 by Him and for [et? imto'l Him : and He is before 
 all things, and in Him all things consist"^ — give us 
 I Col. i. i6, 17. 
 
8 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 a glimpse of vast and fruitful provinces of truth which 
 are almost unknown to us. They have been traversed 
 from time to time by the solitary path of adventurous 
 speculation, but the Church has never made her home 
 there : the golden harvests are unreaped ; not even 
 a wandering sect has pitched its tents and fed its flocks 
 on those rich and boundless plains. They belong to a 
 remote and glorious realm lying far beyond the frontiers 
 of familiar truth — a realm whose mountain ranges and 
 whose rivers are laid down in no theological survey 
 which the Church has accepted as authentic, and 
 whose wealth has never enriched the common thought 
 of Christendom. All things were created " in Him," 
 "by Him," "for Him;" "in Him all things con- 
 sist," — these wonderful words are still " dark with 
 excess of light." They affirm the existence and define 
 the character of relations between the Divine person- 
 ality of the Lord Jesus Christ and the universe which 
 we have never been able to grasp ; but a clear con- 
 ception of these relations is indispensable to a satis- 
 factory theory of the Atonement. 
 
 There are some other preliminary questions lying 
 on the border land of philosophy and of theology, of 
 which at present we appear to have discovered no final 
 and generally accepted solution, although the solution 
 has been repeatedly attempted both in ancient and in 
 modern times. How, for instance, are we to conceive 
 of the law of righteousness, which we have violated 
 by the sins for which Christ died ? Is the law the ex- 
 pression of God's arbitrary will, or is it necessary and 
 
I-] Introductory. g 
 
 eternal ? If necessary and eternal, is God so related 
 to it that His freedom is determined and controlled by 
 the law, so that the law is supreme and God only its 
 minister ? Or is there a sense in which, even in 
 relation to the eternal law of righteousness, He is 
 **God over all, blessed for evermore"? 
 
 These questions, again, involve the nature and ne- 
 cessity of Punishment. Are we to think of Punishment 
 as a stern but benignant expedient for the discipline of 
 God's moral creatures ? Or are the penalties which 
 vindicate the authority of the Divine law rooted in 
 principles as necessary and immutable as those which 
 are expressed in its precepts ? 
 
 In the presence of questions like these, which con- 
 front us on the very threshold of any serious inquiry 
 into the doctrine of the Atonement, the hardihood of 
 speculation must be abashed; and it may appear to 
 many devout minds that the inquiry is not only pre- 
 sumptuous and perilous, but profane. Some of these 
 problems are confessedly insoluble in the present con- 
 dition of theological science ; some of them appear to 
 lie beyond the farthest range of our intellectual powers. 
 We can find peace and strength and consolation in the 
 certainty of the remission of sins for Christ's sake. Is 
 it not safer to cease to speculate on the mode in which 
 His Death is related to the Divine government and to 
 the redemption of our race ? To confess the limitations 
 of human knowledge is the part not only of devout 
 humility, but of the highest wisdom. When God de- 
 scended in clouds and fire and glory on the mountain 
 
10 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 in the desert, the people were commanded to stand afar 
 off, and were warned that if they ventured, at the 
 impulse of a daring curiosity, to ** break through unto 
 the Lord to gaze," they would perish. Are we not 
 guilty of a similar offence in attempting to penetrate 
 a more august and awful mystery ? The words of 
 Richard Hooker express the temper which we should 
 cherish in all our thoughts on the ways of God, and 
 never is that temper more necessary than when we 
 are contemplating the very crisis and agony of the 
 Divine struggle with the sins and miseries of mankind, 
 the supreme act of the Divine love, the central mystery 
 towards which all other mysteries converge : " Dan- 
 gerous it were for the feeble brain of man to wade far 
 into the doings of the Most High, whom, although, to 
 know be life, and joy to make mention of His name, 
 yet our soundest knowledge is to know that we know 
 Him not as, indeed. He is, neither can know Him; and 
 our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence, 
 when we confess without confession that His glory 
 is inexplicable. His greatness above our capacity and 
 reach. He is above, and we upon earth ; therefore it 
 behoveth our words to be wary and few." ' 
 
 We may accept the caution, but it is doubtful whether 
 it lies within our power to remain neutral in the presence 
 of conflicting theories of the Atonement. The funda- 
 mental question. Whether the Death of Christ has a 
 direct relation to the remission of sins, or whether it was 
 I Ecclesiastical Polity, bk. i. cap. 2 ; Works, vol. i. p. 201. 
 
I.] Introductory. II 
 
 simply a great appeal of the Divine love to the human 
 race — "God's method of conquering the human heart" 
 — determines the whole attitude of the Christian soul to 
 Christ. One of these two conceptions we must accept, 
 one we must reject, not merely as theologians, but as 
 Christians. One of these two theories is implicated 
 in every devotional act, in every confession of sin, in 
 every prayer for forgiveness, in every thanksgiving for 
 redemption. 
 
 If we say that we are sure that the Death of Christ 
 reveals the infinite love of God, but that we cannot 
 tell whether it has a direct relation to human sin and 
 human forgiveness, and that we must be satisfied 
 to remain in doubt, we do not liberate ourselves from 
 the responsibility of a decision. Our election between 
 the rival theories is made, even when we think that 
 we have refused to make it. What we relegate to 
 the shadowy region -of uncertainty forms no spiritual 
 habit and quickens no spiritual affection ; what we 
 regard as true, becomes one of the active forces of our 
 spiritual life. 
 
 If we go so far as to acknowledge that there are parts 
 of our Lord's teaching, and of the teaching of His 
 Apostles, which are perfectly conclusive in favour of 
 one of these alternatives — the alternative which repre- 
 sents the almost unanimous faith of Christendom from 
 the earliest times to our own — it is hardly possible for 
 us to escape a conception of the Sacrifice of Christ 
 which will amount to a theory of the Atonement. We 
 may refuse to speculate on the i^ecessities of the Divine 
 
12 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 government or of the Divine nature, which the Death 
 of Christ has been supposed to satisfy, or on its pre- 
 cise relation to the exercise of the Divine mercy in 
 the remission of sin ; but if there is habitual trust 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Propitiation for the 
 sins of the world, we shall have a theory, spite of 
 ourselves. 
 
 It seems very difficult to attribute any religious 
 authority to the New Testament writers and yet to 
 refuse to accept a theory of the Atonement. The 
 rudiments of a theory are contained in all the terms 
 by which they describe the nature and purpose of 
 the Death of Christ. " Christ died for the ungodly;" 
 He "suffered, . . . the Just for the unjust;" these 
 words must either remain non-significant for us, or 
 else we must make our choice between interpreting 
 them as meaning that the Death of Christ had a 
 vicarious, or perhaps a representative, character, or as 
 meaning nothing more than that in some general way 
 His death was intended for our advantage ; and if we 
 accept the last hypothesis we have still to determine 
 the kind of benefit that we derive fronl it. 
 
 The Apostles often represent the Death of Christ as 
 a '^ransom," and speak of its effect as "redemption." 
 We can, of course, practically obliterate these expres- 
 sions by declining to attach any meaning to them ; but 
 if we feel that to cancel isolated passages in the mere 
 text of the apostolic writings is a less presumptuous 
 offence than to cancel ideas which are wrought into 
 the whole substance of apostolic teaching, we shall 
 
I.] Introductory, 13 
 
 endeavour to discover what conception of the Death of 
 Christ underlies expressions in w^hich it is represented 
 as being analogous to the price that is paid for the 
 ransom of slaves. 
 
 That the Apostles believed in the existence of a very 
 intimate relation betw^een human sin and the Sacrifice 
 of Christ, is indisputable. Not in set and uniform 
 phrases, but under a considerable variety of forms, 
 they affirm that it was for our sins that Christ 
 suffered. It is not easy — it is, perhaps, impossible — 
 for those who are constantly reading the New Tes- 
 tament to leave this relation vague and indefinite. 
 We shall incline either to the theory that Christ 
 suffered for our sins, because suffering came upon Him 
 instead of coming on us, or that in the depth and per- 
 fection of His sympathy with us our guilt seemed to 
 become His own, or that His Death was simply the 
 natural result of the antagonism of the human heart to 
 perfect goodness, and that He therefore " suffered for 
 sins," just as all good men have suffered who elected 
 to endure the worst that malice and wickedness could 
 inflict upon them rather than be unfaithful to God. In 
 any case, we adopt a theological theory. 
 
 There are other forms under which the Death of 
 Christ is represented in the New Testament which make 
 it still more difficult to practise a severe abstinence 
 from all speculation on this great mystery. When, for 
 instance, St. John affirms that our Lord Jesus Christ 
 " is the Propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
 only, but also for the sins of the whole world," the 
 
14 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 Apostle does not simply affirm that in some undefined 
 way the Lord Jesus Christ secures for us the Divine 
 pardon : he expresses a definite conception of the way 
 in which Christ secures it. We may refuse to analyse 
 this conception ; we may pronounce it impossible to 
 determine whether a Propitiation was necessary before 
 God could forgive us, or how, and in what sense, Christ 
 was a Propitiation ; but if we admit this conception of 
 the work of Christ into our minds at all, we surrender 
 ourselves to a theological theory. The results of re- 
 fusing to make the theory a definite object of reflection 
 may be most mischievous. We may come almost un- 
 consciously to ascribe to God those blind movements 
 of passion which, among ourselves, are sometimes 
 exhausted by the infliction of cruel suffering, and some- 
 times placated by ignominious submission or by still 
 more ignominious intercession : our idea of God may be 
 corrupted, and we may involve the Sacrifice of Christ 
 in the deepest dishonour. To speculate is perilous ; 
 not to speculate may be more perilous still. 
 
 It is very possible for our theory of the Atonement to 
 be crude and incoherent, but it is hardly possible to 
 have no theory at all. Some conception, however 
 vague, of the relations between human sin and the 
 Death of Christ, and between the Death of Christ and 
 the Divine forgiveness, will take form and substance in 
 the mind of every man who is in the habit of reading 
 the New Testament, and who believes that the teaching 
 of Christ and of His Apostles reveals the thought of 
 God. 
 
I.] Introductory, 15 
 
 Further, to insist that a due reverence for the awful 
 greatness of God requires us to accept the fact that 
 we are forgiven for Christ's sake, but to make no 
 attempt to discover the principles of the Divine govern- 
 ment or the perfections of the Divine nature which the 
 fact illustrates, appears to be inconsistent with the 
 characteristic spirit of the Christian revelation and a 
 renunciation of the prerogatives which belong to the 
 sons of God. " The entrance of Thy words giveth 
 light : " this is the testimony of one who lived in those 
 early times when God dwelt apart, when " clouds and 
 darkness'* were round about Him, and the hearts of 
 saints were longing for that clearer vision of His glory 
 which was to be the joy and wonder of later and 
 happier generations. Even then the Divine Word was 
 something more than a dark formula in an unknown 
 tongue. It was not an incantation or a spell. When 
 it came to men even as a definite law the underlying 
 principle shone through. 
 
 It was necessary, no doubt, in the earlier stages of 
 the history of our race that the Will should be chas- 
 tened and disciplined by authoritative commandments ; 
 for men must be formed to the practice of the ele- 
 mentary virtues before it is possible for them to recog- 
 nise the beauty and nobleness and eternal obligation 
 of Righteousness. But commandments which at first 
 seemed arbitrary were so transfigured that to devout 
 souls the Divine "statutes" became "songs" which 
 filled with music the house of their pilgrimage. When 
 the heir differed nothing from a servant, though he was 
 
1 6 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 lord of all, God relaxed the bonds of mere external 
 authority for those who had the spirit of children, and 
 treated them not as slaves, but as sons. Now that 
 ** the fulness of time has come " it is at once our duty 
 and our blessedness to accept complete emancipation, 
 and to ** stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ 
 hath made us free." 
 
 This liberty is something more than exemption from 
 the mere inconveniences imposed by the irksome re- 
 straints of the ancient law. It is one of the noblest 
 prerogatives of that higher and more intimate rela- 
 tionship to the Father into which we have entered 
 through our union with Christ. It determines the 
 spirit and form of the whole revelation of God's cha- 
 racter and will, and it should determine our own 
 attitude in the presence of that revelation. 
 
 The precepts of the Lord Jesus Christ are all of a 
 kind to enlighten the conscience, and not merely to 
 control the will. They are useless so long as the 
 principles of which they are the expression do not 
 shine in their own light. They are positively mis- 
 chievous to those who try to obey them as rules instead 
 of using them freely as aids to the apprehension of 
 great ethical and spiritual laws. " Give to him that 
 asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, 
 turn not thou away; " ** Take no thought for your life, 
 what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink ; nor yet for 
 your body what ye shall put on ; " *' Judge not, that ye be 
 not judged;" — these commandments and many others 
 are unavailable as mere rules of conduct. They fulfil 
 
!•] Introductory. ly 
 
 a higher purpose, and are intended so to exalt and 
 purify our ideal of perfection that every Christian man 
 may become a law to himself. 
 
 The revelation of Truth in the New Testament 
 conforms to the same method. It comes to us not as 
 dogma, but as doctrine. We are " taught of God," and 
 are not merely required to profess our faith in the 
 articles of a creed. There are, no doubt, positive 
 declarations that the Lord Jesus Christ was God 
 manifest in the flesh, — declarations which have been 
 built up by theologians into massive arguments for 
 the defence of the great truth of our Lord's divinity. 
 But the reverence and worship with which we bow 
 down before Him who is seated at God's right hand, 
 *'far above all principality, and power, and might, and 
 dominion, and every name that is named, not only in 
 this world, but also in that which is to come," the 
 loyal homage that we offer to " the King of kings and 
 Lord of lords" are not the answer of a blind submission 
 to the "proof-texts" of dogmatic theology. We, too, 
 have seen " His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten 
 of the Father," " we have heard Him ourselves, and 
 know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the 
 world." 
 
 " He that followeth Me " — this was His own promise 
 — " shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light 
 of life." He has declared that if we " continue " in 
 His "Word," we "shall know the Truth." What we 
 receive at first on His bare authority, we shall come to 
 know for ourselves — as He knew it ; not, indeed, with 
 
 3 
 
1 8 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 the same fulness and completeness of knowledge, but 
 with the same directness of intuition. 
 
 If it should be said that this immediate knowledge 
 of spiritual truth is transcendental, and that even those 
 to whom it comes in largest measure may be unable to 
 translate it into the forms of the logical understanding ; 
 that the vision of God which is promised to *' the pure 
 in heart " is one thing, and the theory of God which is 
 attempted by the theological or philosophical intellect 
 a different thing altogether, I admit it. This admis- 
 sion, however, can be of little service to those who 
 contend that the Death of Christ as the Propitiation for 
 the sins of the world is a mystery of which we can 
 know nothing, and which we cannot attempt to pene- 
 trate without presumption. All theological theories, 
 which are anything more than empirical classifications 
 of Scripture texts, are imperfect attempts to express in 
 the language of the intellect what has been imme- 
 diately revealed to the spirit ; as all scientific theories 
 are attempts to express in the language of -the intellect 
 w^hat has been immediately revealed to the senses. 
 We are related to two worlds — the world of physical 
 phenomena and the world of spiritual facts and persons. 
 Of both we have an immediate and direct, though 
 limited, knowledge. The function discharged by science 
 for the knowledge which comes to us, we know not how, 
 of the boundless and incessant flux of colour, and 
 sound, and form in the material universe, is discharged 
 by theology for the knowledge which comes to us, we 
 know not how, of the universe of spiritual life and 
 
I-] Introductory, ig 
 
 action. That there should be presumption in the 
 attempt of sinful creatures like ourselves to look on 
 the very face of God, I could understand. I could 
 understand the humility and dread with which devout 
 men might warn us that so long as the imperfections 
 of this mortal condition are still upon us, it must be 
 presumptuous to invoke the illumination of the Holy 
 Ghost to reveal to us the very thought and life of God as 
 expressed in the redemptive work of Christ ; but such 
 warnings cannot be listened to, for it was of this imme- 
 diate revelation that our Lord was speaking when He 
 said, " This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, 
 the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast 
 sent." And since we are encouraged to hope and to 
 pray for this transcendent knowledge, it is difficult to 
 perceive how we can be guilty of presumption in at- 
 tempting to give to what has been revealed to us 
 accurate intellectual expression. And this is what I 
 mean by a theory of the Atonement. 
 
 I propose, therefore, in this series of Lectures to 
 show that there is a direct relation between the Death 
 of Christ and the remission of sins, and to investigate 
 the principles and grounds of that relation. I have 
 first to establish a Fact, and then to attempt the con- 
 struction of a Theory. 
 
 The proof that in the New Testament our Lord's 
 Death is represented as the objective ground on which 
 God absolves us from sin and delivers us from eternal 
 
 3^^ 
 
20 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 destruction has been exhibited with great elaboration 
 and with a large amount of exegetical learning in many 
 treatises on the Atonement. All the passages have 
 been classified and carefully analysed which affirm that 
 our Lord died for sinners, that He died for our sins, 
 that He bore our sins, that He was made sin for us, 
 that He was made a curse for us, that we have re- 
 mission of sins and deliverance from wrath through 
 Him, that He gave His life as a ransom for us, that 
 His death was a Sacrifice, that He is the Propitiation 
 for the sins of the world/ The collection of passages 
 seems to be very complete, and I do not know that the 
 classification can be improved. Nor is there much to 
 be added to the criticism and illustration of the 
 separate texts on which the argument is built, for 
 since the days of Socinus these texts have been 
 investigated and reinvestigated in the interests of 
 hostile schools of theology. 
 
 It is not my intention, therefore, to present the 
 argument precisely in this form. The proof as it 
 stands appears to me to be conclusive, and within the 
 narrow limits of this series of Lectures it may not be 
 possible for me to add anything to its cogency. But I 
 propose to adopt a somewhat different method, which, 
 if it were properly handled, might, I think, greatly 
 strengthen the argument. 
 
 It must be obvious to every reader of the New 
 Testament that a mere catalogue of texts in which 
 any great truth is definitely taught can never give a 
 I Note B. 
 
1-] Introductory. 21 
 
 just impression of the place whicli that truth held in 
 the thought and faith of the Apostles. This obser- 
 vation has a special application to texts selected from 
 the apostolic epistles. For these epistles were for the 
 most part occasional writings. They were suggested by 
 accidental circumstances. The space which is given 
 to the illustration of particular doctrines or duties was 
 determined, not by the intrinsic and permanent im- 
 portance of the doctrines or duties themselves, but by 
 the perils which threatened the Christian faith or the 
 Christian integrity of the Churches to which they were 
 written, and by many other circumstances of a tem- 
 porary character. The exhortations addressed to the 
 Church at Corinth to contribute liberally to the relief 
 of the distressed Christians in Judaea fill as many 
 columns in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians as 
 the discussion of the doctrine of the Resurrection in 
 the First Epistle. ' The moral scandals and disorders 
 in the Corinthian Church occupy as many pages in 
 the two epistles to that Church as the doctrine of 
 Justification in the Epistle to the Romans ; and these 
 disorders and scandals were of a kind which are never 
 likely to occur except in the transition from a heathen 
 to a Christian life. 
 
 The frequency and distinctness with which a doc- 
 trine is asserted in the apostolic writings is, therefore, 
 no test of its importance. It might even be contended 
 with considerable plausibility that the importance of 
 a doctrine is likely to be in the inverse ratio of the 
 number of passages in which it is directly taught; for the 
 
22 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 central and most characteristic truths of the Christian 
 Faith are precisely those which the Churches were least 
 likely to abandon. These truths were safe, and the 
 Epistles generally deal with the truths which were in 
 danger. Even in writing to Churches largely composed 
 of converts from heathenism, it was not necessary for 
 St. Paul to dwell at length on the unity of God and to 
 denounce idolatry, for if a man was a Christian at all, 
 he had finally abandoned the altars and the divinities 
 of his heathen countrymen. Nor was it necessary to 
 reiterate that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and 
 the Saviour of men, for unless men had acknowledged 
 His claims they would have had no place in the 
 Churches to which the Epistles were addressed. 
 From the very nature of the apostolic writing:s those 
 truths which belong to the essence of the Christian 
 creed are, for the most part, implied rather than 
 explicitly taught ; they are appealed to and taken for 
 granted as the recognised motives to Christian living 
 and the recognised sources of Christian hope and 
 consolation ; they are frequently the inspiration of 
 rapturous thanksgiving, and they frequently constitute 
 the substance and the argument of a prayer. 
 
 To make collections of '* proof-texts " is therefore an 
 unsatisfactory means of arriving at a knowledge of 
 apostolic faith. We must resort to less easy and less 
 direct methods. Some of the passages which are most 
 decisive in the determination of what the Apostles 
 believed could find no place in such arrangements of 
 *' proofs " as are common in theological treatises. 
 
"i-] Introductory, 23 
 
 An illustration of what I mean occurs in the well- 
 known passage on the Lord's Supper in the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians. Its direct intention is to 
 rescue the Lord's Supper from dishonour and to se- 
 cure its reverential celebration. St. Paul uses words 
 which have caused many devout persons to approach 
 the Lord's Table with dread. But that in a Church 
 founded by the Apostle himself a very short time before 
 the Epistle was written, it should have been possible 
 for the Lord's Supper to be associated with the dis- 
 graceful excesses which he rebukes, and that in rebuking 
 them he makes no use of the awful argument which 
 would have come at once to the lips of a priest of the 
 Church of Rome or a Ritualistic priest of the Church 
 of England, is a proof, from which there can be no 
 appeal, that St. Paul had never taught and did not 
 believe that the consecrated bread and wine are 
 changed into the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 To take another illustration. There is no passage 
 in the New Testament which is more destructive of 
 the humanitarian theory of our Lord's person than that 
 in which St. John says that *' every spirit that con- 
 fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not 
 of God ; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof 
 ye have heard that it should come; and even now 
 already is it in the world." ^ 
 
 As a " proof-text " these words would be alleged in 
 support of the truth that our Lord was really man ; but 
 that it should have been necessary for the apostle to 
 ^ I John iv. 3. 
 
24 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 assert His humanity with such vehemence is an 
 absolute- demonstration that the Church had been 
 taught to regard Him as being infinitely more than 
 man. In our times the philosophical difficulties of the 
 Incarnation are often solved by the denial of the super- 
 human dignity of our Lord ; but this was impossible in 
 the first century. His superhuman dignity had so filled 
 the imagination of the Church, that the solution was 
 sought in the denial of His humanity. 
 
 No catena of quotations can adequately represent 
 the overwhelming evidence that the Apostles believed 
 in the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. If all the 
 "proof-texts" usually alleged from the apostolic epistles 
 in support of this doctrine were cancelled, the proof 
 would remain almost as strong as before. There is 
 hardly a page in which it is not clear that to the 
 founders of the Christian Church, Christ was infinitely 
 more than an inspired teacher or an example of perfect 
 holiness. He is never out of their thoughts. All their 
 teaching centres in Him, and in Him they find the 
 sanction of every duty and the foundation of every 
 hope. To the saved He is wisdom and righteousness, 
 sanctification and redemption; and when He is revealed 
 from heaven with His mighty angels, and in flaming 
 fire, the lost are to be punished with eternal destruc- 
 tion. The history of the world before His Incarnation 
 was a long and weary waiting for His coming, and with 
 His second advent the history of the world is to come 
 to a close. In Him all earthly relations are trans- 
 figured, and those who are one with Him have already 
 
!•] Introductory. 25 
 
 passed into the kingdom of heaven. He is the object 
 of a reverence which cannot be distinguished from 
 worship, and of a love as fervent as that which glows 
 in the anthems of the cherubim and seraphim that 
 surround the throne of God. In Him the Apostles 
 ** live and move and have their being." His will is 
 their supreme law; His glory their supreme end; His 
 approbation their supreme reward. To select a score 
 of passages in which it is affirmed that Christ is 
 God, or in which divine attributes, divine preroga- 
 tives, or divine works are ascribed to Him, and to treat 
 these quotations as though they constituted the evi- 
 dence that, to St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, the 
 Lord Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, is to 
 do injustice to the argument. The real proof lies in the 
 absolute sovereignty in which Christ is enthroned over 
 their moral and spiritual life ; and the illustrations of 
 this can hardly be subjected to logical analysis and 
 arrangement. 
 
 What is true of the Divinity of our Lord is also true 
 of His Atonement for human sin. That the Apostles 
 regarded the Death of Christ as a Sacrifice and Propitia- 
 tion for the sins of the world appears in many passages 
 which yield no direct testimony to the doctrine. It some- 
 times determines the form and structure of an elaborate 
 argument, which falls to pieces if this truth is denied. 
 At other times it gives pathos and power to a practical 
 appeal. It accounts for some of the misconceptions 
 and misrepresentations of apostolic teaching. It ex- 
 plains the absence from the apostolic writings of very 
 
26 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 much that we should certainly have found in them if 
 the Apostles had not believed that for Christ's sake, 
 and not merely because of the effect o-n our hearts of 
 what Christ has revealed, God grants us remission of 
 sins. It penetrates the whole substance of their theo- 
 logical and ethical teaching, and is the very root of 
 their religious life. If, instead of selecting pas- 
 sages in which it is categorically affirmed that Christ 
 died for us — died that we might have remission of sins, 
 died as a Propitiation for sin — we selected those which 
 would lose all their force and all their significance if this 
 truth were rejected, it would be necessary to quote a large 
 part of the New Testament. For reasons which I shall 
 attempt to explain in the next Lecture, it is equally 
 impossible to exhibit the testimony of the four Gospels 
 to this truth by the mere enumeration of those passages 
 in our Lord's teaching in which He speaks of the 
 nature and purpose of His Death. 
 
 It may appear to some persons that the questions 
 which I propose to discuss have no longer any real 
 interest to mankind. It can hardly be said indeed 
 that the temper of our times is not favourable to 
 theological investigation. But in this country, at 
 least, the great race of dogmatic theologians has dis- 
 appeared, and purely doctrinal controversies, which 
 once created fierce excitement, and in which the 
 noblest intellects of Christendom revealed the wealth 
 of their learning and the splendour of their genius, 
 have come to be regarded with indifference. But surely 
 
I-] Introductory, 27 
 
 the question whether the original teachers of the 
 Christian Faith represented the Death of Christ as a 
 Propitiation for the sins of mankind, is invested, at 
 least, with the greatest historical"^ interest by the vast 
 and enduring influence which their writings have 
 exerted, not only on the religious thought, but on the 
 civilization and political fortunes of the foremost races 
 of the modern world. 
 
 The questions we are to investigate have an in- 
 terest of another kind ; for in the whole range of prob- 
 lems which have exercised the genius of men from the 
 very dawn of philosophy to our own times, there are 
 none which transcend in majesty, in difficulty, or in 
 speculative importance, the problems of which a true 
 theory of the Atonement ought to contain a partial if 
 not a complete solution. 
 
 But it is neither the historical nor the speculative 
 interest of this subject that has induced me to under- 
 take to discuss it. The Christian Faith, in the judg- 
 ment both of its enemies and its friends, is at this 
 moment threatened by dangers as formidable as any 
 which it has ever had to confront during the whole 
 course of its history. For myself I am unable to dis- 
 cover any signs that its power is decaying, much less 
 that its glory is destined to early extinction. In our 
 own days, and after the lapse of eighteen centuries, its 
 influence is gradually extending among the civilised 
 populations of Asia; it is redeeming the races of 
 Central and Southern Africa from barbarism ; it is 
 giving intellectual culture and a higher morality, as 
 
28 Introductory. [lect. 
 
 well as a purer faith, to the scattered tribes of the 
 Pacific Ocean; and, notwithstanding all adverse appear- 
 ances, it is, I believe, maintaining its power over the 
 kindred nations of Europe and America. The very 
 bitterness and vehemence, the anger and the scorn, the 
 infinite variety of argument, and the inexhaustible 
 energy of hostility with which Christianity is assailed, 
 demonstrate how strongly it is entrenched in the com- 
 mon faith and common traditions of Christian nations, 
 and demonstrate, too, the intensity of the devotion 
 and the depth of the reverence with which it is cherished 
 in the hearts of innumerable Christian men. 
 
 There were times, indeed, when the Christian priest- 
 hood exerted an authority in the States of Europe 
 which they have happily lost. The science and learn- 
 ing of the West were in the hands of the doctors of 
 the Church, and the priests of Rome inherited the 
 great traditions and the principles of policy which had 
 made the Eternal City the mistress of the world. They 
 laid a strong hand on the vigorous but uncultivated 
 and superstitious nations which overran the dislocated 
 provinces of the fallen empire, and governed them by 
 their sagacity, by their courage, by their knowledge of 
 the science of legislation, by their general intellectual 
 superiority, by the compactness of their organization, 
 and by their lofty pretensions to be the representatives 
 of the august authority of God and the channels of His 
 infinite mercy. Those were the days when the wealth 
 and power of princes were at the command of the Church; 
 and majestic cathedrals and stately monasteries, en- 
 
I.] Introductory, ' 29 
 
 riched with costly marbles, with curious sculpture, 
 with shrines of silver and of gold, rose towards heaven 
 in every country of Europe from the North Sea to the 
 shores of the Mediterranean ; and bishops were the 
 chancellors and ambassadors of mighty kingdoms, and 
 great priests outshone the splendour and defeated the 
 ambition of great nobles. They were *'Ages of Faith;" 
 but the Faith was not the Faith which listens for itself 
 to the voice of God, and finds in Him absolution from 
 guilt, consolation in sorrow, and the hope which 
 triumphs over death and exults in the vision of an 
 immortality of glory. It clung to the priest rather 
 than to Christ, and was filled with awe and wonder 
 by the power and magnificence of the Church rather 
 than with devout fear and perfect joy by the majesty 
 and love of the living God.^ And so, when the rulers 
 of the Church became luxurious, feeble, and corrupt, 
 and when the great resources of the races which they 
 had disciplined and civilised began to be developed, the 
 Ages of Faith gradually vanished away. 
 
 Many causes contributed to that great revolution. 
 The orators, philosophers, and poets of the ancient 
 world rising from the tomb of centuries wrested from 
 priests and monks the intellectual supremacy which 
 had been a principal element of their power. States- 
 
 ^ Les ^veques avoient remplacd, pour lui [Clovis], non point les 
 pretres de la Germanie, mais les idoles dans le culte desquelles il 
 avoit 6t6 dleve. C'etoient les dveques qu'il servoit, qu'il adoroit, 
 et il pactisoit avec eux comme un homme accoutum^ k encenscr 
 des fetiches. — Sismondi, Precis de VHidorie aes FraiigaiJ, voi. i. 
 page 39. 
 
30 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 men and kings, who had learnt the art and prin- 
 ciples of government from the Church, began to desire 
 to govern for themselves, and they chafed under the 
 pretensions of ecclesiastical consuls deriving their 
 authority from Rome. The schism widened ; the 
 revolt went on ; every new generation added new ele- 
 ments of bitterness to the conflict ; and now that a 
 great part of Europe has finally broken away from the 
 control of the Church, it has become apparent that 
 though Christendom had submitted to the ascendency 
 of the priesthood, it had never really submitted to the 
 authority of Christ. 
 
 The irreligion and the unbelief which were once 
 suppressed by the power of a vast ecclesiastical organ- 
 ization, are suppressed no longer ; and the sullen moral 
 resistance which was offered for centuries to the true 
 Faith, and which revealed itself in the violent passions, 
 the coarse vices, and the rude superstitions of an igno- 
 rant population, reveals itself now in an active and 
 energetic intellectual antagonism. 
 
 There may, however, be as much living Faith in God 
 in these days of open revolt against the throne of 
 Christ as in the days when the Church ruled the na- 
 tions with an uncontested authority. But the revolt is 
 general. Unbelief has become not only articulate, but 
 eloquent. It is rich in the old learning, and it claims 
 for its own the new sciences. It has the audacity of 
 youth and the restless energy of genius. Its hostility 
 to the characteristic truths and claims of the Christian 
 revelation is relentless and uncompromising. I prefer 
 
I.] Introductory, 31 
 
 the new conditions of the conflict to the old. We are 
 stripped of every adventitious advantage. Henceforth 
 the triumphs of the Church will be real — the triumphs 
 of the truth of Christ and of the power of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 In this hour — not of peril, but of fierce struggle — 
 the Church must use all her varied and boundless 
 resources — her science, her learning, her logic, her 
 eloquence — and must use them with a patience, a 
 courage, and an energy corresponding to the great 
 issues of the strife. 
 
 But our true strength lies in those moral and spi- 
 ritual forces by which, in all ages, the victories of the 
 kingdom of heaven have been won. We must not be 
 satisfied with an attempt to demonstrate the authority 
 of the Christian Faith ; we must so preach it that, even 
 apart from demonstration, its authority shall be con- 
 fessed. The consciences of men must be made to appre- 
 hend the reality of sin, and their hearts must be filled 
 with dread and with hope by the anger and the mercy of 
 the living God. The mysterious instinct, suppressed but 
 not destroyed, which bears witness to the kinship of the 
 human soul to the Father of spirits, must be quickened 
 into activity ; and then, without any argument of ours, 
 men will recognise in the voice of Christ an august 
 sovereignty to which they cannot refuse to do homage, 
 and will discover for themselves that in dying, the Just 
 for the unjust, to bring us to God, He has met the 
 deepest wants of their spiritual life as well as revealed 
 the infinite wealth and tendern'jss of the Divme love. 
 
32 Introductory, [lect. 
 
 The power of the Spirit of God is with us, and He, in 
 wonderful ways, finds direct access to the innermost 
 life of man, piercing through intellectual difficulties 
 and antagonisms which seemed to create invincible 
 obstacles to the Truth. The human conscience and 
 heart are also with us. There is an indestructible 
 conviction in the human soul that God must be on the 
 side of righteousness, and that all sin must be intoler- 
 able to Him. There are vague fears of His displea- 
 sure which cannot be dissipated ; there is a restless 
 craving for access to Him ; there is a sense of loneli- 
 ness and desolation so long as the soul has not found 
 Him, which no intellectual or sensual excitements can 
 permanently stifle ; there is a hope, faint and falter- 
 ing, yet with strange vitality in it, that although God 
 seems no longer " nigh at hand," He cannot have 
 forsaken and forgotten us altogether, and that in some 
 way He will surely return to us. 
 
 It is because the great truths and laws, of which the 
 Atonement of Christ is the highest and most perfect ex- 
 pression, appeal directly to these central and enduring 
 elements of the moral life of man, and because the Atone- 
 ment satisfies what .in every age, and through all the 
 changes of his intellectual and social condition, is man's 
 chief necessity, that we in our times should rely upon the 
 power of the Death of Christ for the triumph of the 
 Divine Righteousness and Love over the doubt as well 
 as the sins and sorrows of mankind. We ourselves 
 may derive inspiration and energy from the truths 
 which we must preach to others, for the zeal of the 
 
1 1 Introductory. 33 
 
 Church has always been kindled into intensest fervour 
 at the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and the Cross 
 has always been the symbol of her strength and the 
 prophecy of her victories. 
 
 I may be unable to contribute any additional force 
 to the evidence that the Death of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ was an Atonement for sin, and I may fail 
 to illustrate its relations to the life of God, the life 
 of man, and the laws of the spiritual universe ; but if 
 any of those who listen to these Lectures, and any of 
 those who read them, are drawn to deeper and devouter 
 thought upon the mystery and glory of His great 
 Sacrifice, I shall not have written or spoken in vain. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 
 IN RELATION TO THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 A* 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 THE HISTORY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN RELATION 
 TO THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 IT is assumed in this series of Lectures that the 
 Lord Jesus Christ was ** God manifest in the 
 flesh." The revelation which has come to us through 
 Him is, therefore, different in kind from that which has 
 come to us through the Prophets of the Old Testament 
 and the Apostles of the New. 
 
 It is said of Moses that the Lord spake to him " face 
 to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend," ^ and that 
 Isaiah " saw His glory." ^ St. Paul declared that the 
 gospel preached by him was *'not of man ;" — ** I neither 
 received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 
 revelation of Jesus Christ." 3 And St. John describes 
 his own function, and that of the other Apostles, when 
 hie says, " The life was manifested, and we have seen 
 it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal 
 life which was with the Father, and was manifested 
 unto us." ^ 
 
 But the Lord Jesus Christ was Himself the "bright- 
 ness of [God*s] glory, and the express image of His 
 
 ' Exod. xxxiii. ii. 2 John xii. 41. 3 Gal. i. 12. 
 
 4 I John i. 2. 
 
^8 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 person."' And to one of the Apostles, who was 
 longing for the immediate vision of God, and who 
 said to Him, " Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,'* 
 our Lord replied, " He that hath seen Me hath seen 
 
 -fthe Father." =* When Prophets have told us their 
 visions and Apostles their gospel, their work is done. 
 They are weak, erring, sinful men like ourselves. They 
 have seen the Divine glory, and they tell us what they 
 have seen. They have been taught of God, and they 
 tell us what they have learnt. But the revelation is 
 over when they cease to speak. Their personal cha- 
 racter and history, their relations to their friends and 
 to their enemies, their occupations, their sorrows and 
 their joys — all these have only a secondary and human 
 interest. It is not so with our Lord Jesus Christ. Far 
 more of God was revealed in what He was, in what 
 He did, and in what He suffered, than in what He 
 taught. 
 
 The resources of human language had been almost 
 
 ^ exhausted, before Christ came, in the attempt to cele- 
 brate the majesty, the holiness, and the mercy of God ; 
 and although, as a Teacher of religious truth, the Lord 
 Jesus Christ had a unique power, we misapprehend 
 the character of the supremacy which He claims, if we 
 suppose that it is to be illustrated and vindicated by 
 placing His mere words side by side with the words of 
 Prophets who preceded Him. I doubt whether He 
 ever said anything about the Divine compassion more 
 pathetic or more perfectly beautiful than had been said 
 ^ Heb. i. 3. 2 John xiv. 9. 
 
II.] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 39 
 
 by the writer of the hundred-and-third Psalm : " Like 
 as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth 
 them that fear Him. For He knoweth our frame ; He 
 remembereth that we are dust." It is not in the words 
 of Christ that we find a fuller and deeper revelation of 
 the Divine compassion than in the words of the 
 Psalmist, but in His deeds. 
 
 "There came a leper and worshipped him, saying, 
 Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And 
 Jesus ['' moved with compassion :" Mark i. 41] put 
 forth His hand and touched him " — touched the man, 
 from whom his very kindred had shrunk ; — " touched 
 him," — it was the first time that the leper had felt the 
 warmth and pressure of a human hand since his loath- 
 some disease came upon him ; — " touched him, and 
 said, I will, be thou clean." ^ 
 
 And when the heart of Christ was filled with sorrow 
 by the news of John the Baptist's death, and He went 
 into ** a desert place apart," He did not, in the weari- 
 ness of His grief and the solemn anticipation of His 
 own end, turn away, vexed and annoyed, from the 
 people that followed Him into His solitude ; but when 
 He saw the great multitude. He ** was moved with 
 compassion, and he healed their sick." * 
 
 Every form of human sorrow affected Him. '* He 
 came nigh to the gate of the city [of Nain], and, be- 
 hold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son 
 
 ^ Matt. viii. 2, 3; Mark i. 40, 41; Luke iv. 12, 13. It is re- 
 markable that every one of the Synoptical Gospels notices the fact 
 that our Lord " touched " the man. 2 Matt. xiv. 14. 
 
40 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 of his mother, and she was a widow." She was a 
 stranger, and made no appeal to His pity. But "when 
 the Lord saw her. He had compassion on her, and said 
 unto her. Weep not. And He came and touched the 
 bier ; and they that bare him stood still. And He said. 
 Young man, I say unto thee. Arise. And he that was 
 dead sat up, and began to speak." Nor is this all. 
 The story is completed by the simple words, which 
 suggest a scene of ineffable tenderness: "And He 
 delivered him to his mother."^ 
 
 Still more affecting is the narrative of the death 
 and resurrection of Lazarus. Our Lord had finally 
 left Galilee, and had come to the neighbourhood of 
 Jerusalem, to remain there till He was betrayed, 
 condemned, and crucified. The dark succession of 
 sorrows through which He was to pass was near, and 
 He knew it; but when He saw Mary "weeping, and 
 the Jews also weeping which came with her, He 
 groaned in spirit, and was troubled." They asked 
 Him to come with them to the grave, and " Jesus 
 wept." He was about to raise His friend, but the 
 actual grief of those whom He loved, almost broke 
 His heart, and He wept; wept too, perhaps, as has 
 been suggested, " in .pure sympathy with the sorrows 
 of humanity, for the myriad myriads of desolate 
 mourners who could not, with Mary, fly to Him, and 
 say, * Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my mother — 
 brother — sister had not died !' " ^ When we read these 
 
 I Luke vii. 11-15. 
 « Henry Rogers: Defence of the Eclipse of Faith, p. 143. 
 
iJj in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 41 
 
 narratives, and remember His own declaration, " He 
 that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," even the 
 words of the Psalmist seem to lose all their tenderness 
 and power. 
 
 The point on which I am insisting is so important, and 
 is so often forgotten in this controversy, that, obvious as 
 it is, I must venture to illustrate it still more fully. 
 
 It is acknowledged even by those who not only 
 reject the doctrine of the Atonement but deny our 
 Lord's Divinity, that He revealed the infinite mercy of 
 God as it had never been revealed before. It is certain 
 that since His coming, and as the result of His coming, 
 the Divine mercy has attracted a stronger and a deeper 
 trust, and that sinful men have had more perfect rest 
 in God. 
 
 But how was the nobler revelation made ? Is it 
 possible to quote from the discourses of our Lord any 
 more thrilling representations of the mercy of God than 
 can be quoted from the Old Testament ? Did He say 
 more than Nehemiah said : " Thou art a God ready to 
 pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of 
 great kindness"?^ Or more than Jonah said, who 
 shrunk from threatening Nineveh with the Divine 
 judgments, because he feared that the threatenings 
 might, after all, never be fulfilled : " Therefore I fled 
 unto Tarshish ; for I knew that Thou art a gracious 
 God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kind- 
 ness, and repentest Thee of the evil *' ? = Did our Lord 
 say more than Isaiah said : ** Though your sins be as 
 I Neh. ix. 17. 2 Jonah iv. 2. 
 
42 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they be 
 red like crimson, they shall be as wool :" " Let the 
 wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
 thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and He 
 will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, and He 
 will abundantly pardon " ? The passages of Scripture 
 which come to our lips when we wish to acknowledge 
 in nobler and richer words than our own the long- 
 suffering of God and His readiness to pardon sin, are 
 rarely taken from the discourses of Christ ; they are the 
 words of Psalmists, Prophets, and Apostles. 
 
 If it is objected that there is nothing in the Old 
 Testament, and nothing else in the New, comparable 
 to the three great parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost 
 Piece of Money, and the Prodigal Son, the very objec- 
 tion sustains the position for which I am contending. 
 These parables were spoken by our Lord in self- 
 defence. They explained and vindicated what the 
 Pharisees charged Him with as a crime : " This man 
 receiveth sinners and eateth with them ;" and to me 
 even these wonderful parables are a less affecting 
 illustration of the energy and tenderness of the Divine 
 mercy than the freedom with which the Son of God, 
 the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Holy One 
 and the Just, sat at table with irreligious and sinful 
 men, spoke to them as a friend, and encouraged them 
 to forsake sin and win eternal life and glory. It was 
 by His assumption of our nature, by the gentleness and 
 kindness with which He treated those who were guilty 
 of the worst sins, by His merciful words to repenting 
 
n.] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 43 
 
 harlots and publicans, by the look of love and sorrow 
 which broke the heart of the Apostle who had just 
 denied Him, and by the large and generous promise, 
 with which, in the very act of dying, He responded 
 to the prayer of the penitent thief, and, above all 
 it was by shedding His blood for the remission of 
 our sins that He revealed, as Prophets and Apostles 
 could never reveal, the infinite mercy of God; for, 
 written in light under every line of the narrative of His 
 earthly history, we should recognise His own words : 
 " He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." 
 
 To say, therefore, that "the words of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ must ever be regarded by His disciples as the 
 central glory of the Bible and the most precious 
 heritage of humanity;*'^ to describe a classification 
 of the Sayings of our Lord as " a complete guide 
 on the great subjects of Christian faith and practice,'* 
 and as comprehending " the clear, complete, and 
 authoritative teaching of the Divine Head of the 
 Church,'** implies a very imperfect conception of the 
 manner in which Christ has revealed the Father. It 
 is true that He spake as never man spake, and His 
 words are ** spirit and life ;" but what He revealed 
 cannot be exhibited in a catena of quotations from His 
 teaching. To quote His words only is to leave out the 
 larger half of the revelation which has come to us 
 
 ^ Preface to The Divine Teacher; being the Recorded Sayings of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ during His Ministry on Earth. 
 
 2 Preface to The Sure Resting-Placej being Selected Sayings of 
 our Lord Jesus Christy arranged as a Manual of Faith and 
 Practice. 
 
44 T^^ History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 through Him. He himself is the truth, the light, as 
 well as the life of men ; the very Word of God. 
 
 It is this which constitutes the glory of the Four Gos- 
 pels ; they contain the history as well as the teaching 
 of Him whom we acknowledge as God manifest in the 
 flesh. They stand alone. They admit neither of com- 
 parison nor contrast with any other books either in the 
 Old or the New Testament. St. Paul develops the Chris- 
 tian idea of Faith as it is not developed in any of our 
 Lord's discourses; but the power and mercy and authority 
 of Christ attract and command the Faith whose nature 
 and functions the Apostle only illustrates. Cancel 
 every passage in the Gospels in which our Lord insists 
 on the necessity of Faith in Himself, and you neither 
 impair the harmony between His teaching and the 
 teaching of St. Paul, nor do you so impoverish the 
 theological wealth of the Gospels as to make them in- 
 ferior in value to the Epistles. St. Paul insists that in 
 order to be saved I must trust in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, but when I see Christ, and know who He is, 
 I cannot help trusting in Him for salvation. It is not 
 necessary that He should tell me to believe ; before 
 He speaks of Faith my heart clings to Him for the 
 pardon of sin and for the gift of eternal life. 
 
 St. John tells us that " God is love." I do not know 
 that there are any words of our Lord in which this truth 
 is expressed with such simple and lofty sublimity. But 
 shall we, therefore, conclude that the disciple is greater 
 than his Master? Any such conclusion would be 
 strangely illegitimate. St. John had learnt the truth 
 
n.] Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 45 
 
 from Christ. Christ may never have uttered it in words, 
 but His whole life was the expression of it. He came 
 to manifest God, and this is the concise summary and 
 ultimate result of what was revealed in His personal 
 character, in His mighty and merciful works, and in 
 His fastings, temptations, sufferings, and death — " God 
 is love." 
 
 The principle which I wish to maintain, — that the 
 Truth which Christ revealed is to be found in His his- 
 tory as well as in His teaching, is of great importance, 
 not only in relation to the doctrine of the Atonement, 
 but in relation to the whole Faith and Life of the 
 Church. It seems to have been overlooked by some 
 modern writers ; among the rest by the late Rev. 
 Frederick Robertson, of Brighton.^ After a very just 
 protest against the opinion of those " who would not 
 scruple to assert that, in the highest sense of the term, 
 it [the Sermon on the Mount] is not Christianity at all, 
 but only preparatory to it — a kind of spiritual Judaism ; 
 and that the higher and more developed principles of 
 Christianity are to be found in the writings of the 
 Apostles," he proceeds to remark that ** it seems ex- 
 tremely startling to say that He who came to this 
 world expressly to preach the Gospel, should in the 
 most elaborate of all His discourses omit to do so : it 
 is indeed something more than startling, it is absolutely 
 revolting to suppose that the letters of those who spoke 
 of Christ should contain a more perfectly developed, a 
 freer and fuller, Christianity than is to be found in 
 I Sermons, Third Series, p. 144. 
 
46 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 Christ's own words." It would be hardly fair to Mr. 
 Robertson to criticise too closely statements which 
 appear to express a vehement indignation rather than a 
 deliberate theological judgment, or else I might observe 
 that our Lord does actually omit " in the most elaborate 
 of all His discourses " some of the highest and most 
 characteristic elements of His own teaching. The 
 Sermon on the Mount is not " a kind of spiritual Juda- 
 ism ; " it is, to use Mr. Robertson's own words, "deeply 
 and essentially Christian ; " but though it contains very 
 much of the gospel it does not contain the whole. It 
 is silent on the New Birth, concerning which our Lord 
 spoke to Nicodemus ; it is silent on the living and en- 
 during relation between our Lord and His disciples, 
 which He illustrated in the parable of the Vine; it does 
 not explicitly insist on the necessity of Faith in Him- 
 self as the condition of eternal redemption. But the 
 whole passage rests on a grave misconception of our 
 Lord's mission. It is implied not only that Christ 
 *' came to this world expressly to preach the gospel," 
 but that this was the chief if not the only purpose of 
 His coming. The real truth is that while He came to 
 preach the gospel, His chief object in coming was that 
 there might be a gospel to preach. 
 
 To me there would be nothing " startling," much 
 less "revolting," in supposing that there might be in the 
 writings of the Apostles " a more perfectly developed, a 
 freer and fuller, Christianity than is to be found in 
 Christ's own words," any more than in supposing that 
 there might be a clearer and richer exposition of the 
 
II.] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 47 
 
 aesthetic truths and principles illustrated in the Apollo 
 Belvedere, in a treatise written by a critic who never 
 handled a chisel than in the recorded conversations, if 
 we had them, of the great sculptor himself ; or in sup- 
 posing that a military critic who never commanded a 
 regiment might give us a more scientific explanation of 
 the victories of Napoleon than is contained in Napoleon's 
 own despatches and letters. I am very far, indeed, 
 from believing that the Epistles are actually richer 
 in Christian truth than the discourses of our Lord. 
 The Apostles came very slowly to the apprehension 
 of some of the simplest and clearest parts of His 
 teaching ; and I cannot doubt that there are trea- 
 sures of wisdom in His words which the Apostles 
 never exhausted, and which remain unexhausted still. 
 
 But there is nothing " revolting," nothing even 
 ** startling," in supposing that the Life of Christ may 
 contain revelations of truth, and revelations of infinite 
 value, to which He himself never gave a definite form 
 in language. Much less can there be anything either 
 "revolting" or "startling," in supposing that when His 
 great work was finished the Apostles may have dis- 
 covered that truths of which their Master had rarely 
 spoken, and to which they had listened unintelHgently 
 and reluctantly, were invested by His Passion and 
 Death with exceptional and even supreme importance. 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ did not translate all that He 
 was and all that He did into words. As "the heavens 
 declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 
 his handiwork," as "day unto day uttereth speech, and 
 
48 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 night unto night showeth knowledge,*' though " there 
 is np speech nor language," and "though their voice is 
 not heard" — so, even in the silence of Christ there is 
 a revelation transcending all that is contained in the 
 raptures of Psalmists, the visions of Prophets, and the 
 wisdom of Apostles. 
 
 The highest achievements even of human genius — 
 paintings, poems, great buildings — must speak for 
 themselves; "notes and comments" may sometimes 
 obscure instead of revealing their perfection. Heroic 
 deeds and the courageous endurance of martyrs, are also 
 beyond the reach of the most philosophical and eloquent 
 exposition. The virtues they express are expressed 
 more perfectly in action and in suffering than in words. 
 And when God was living among men He was not 
 always explaining Himself. Complete explanation was 
 impossible. You cannot translate the Alps into a series 
 of propositions : and there is no formula for the purple 
 and golden pomp of a sunset, or for the majesty of a 
 thunderstorm. 
 
 If there are any in our own times who would 
 contend that there is a sense in which the writings 
 of the Apostles " contain a more perfectly developed, 
 a freer and fuller, Christianity than is to be found in 
 Christ's own words," they only mean to assert that 
 what appears in the Gospels as History reappears 
 in the Epistles as Doctrine ; that what appears in the 
 Life of Christ as Fact appears in the teaching of the 
 Apostles as Theory. And this assertion is only a partial 
 statement of a principle which lies at the very root of a 
 
"•] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement. 49 
 
 living and noble and generous theology — that since the 
 Lord Jesus Christ was the Eternal Word of God, the 
 brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image 
 of His person, the revelation of Truth contained in 
 His Life and Death is infinite : it transcened the 
 thought of Apostles; it was not exhausted in the dis- 
 courses by which our Lord Himself illustrated the cha- 
 racter of His work and the purposes of His mission : 
 it remains, and will remain for ever, a perpetual fountain 
 of light and glory. The words of Christ are great, but 
 Christ Himself is greater still. 
 
 I propose, therefore, to consider, first of all, what the 
 History of our Lord suggests concerning the unique 
 character of His Death. Even if He had said nothing 
 — and happily He said much — about the relation of 
 His Death to the guilt and the redemption of the 
 human race, it seems to me that the doctrine of the 
 Atonement developed in the Epistles would be the only 
 satisfactory explanation of some of the most remarkable 
 phenomena recorded in the Four Gospels. 
 
 It is not undeserving of notice that all the four 
 Evangelists were agreed about the exceptional import- 
 ance and significance of our Lord's last sufferings. 
 Only two of them relate the circumstances of His 
 Birth, which we might have supposed none of them 
 would have omitted. Only two tell the story of the 
 Temptation.^ The Sermon on the Mount appears 
 
 I St. Mark simply states the fact that " He was there in the 
 wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan ; and was with the wild 
 beasts."— Chap. i. ver. 13. 
 
 s 
 
50 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 neither in the second Gospel nor in the fourth. St. 
 John says nothing about the Transfiguration, the 
 Agony in the Garden, or the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper. The story of the Resurrection and of the 
 appearances of the risen Christ to His Disciples 
 occupies only twenty verses in St. Matthew's narra- 
 tive ; only twenty — perhaps only nine ^ in St. Mark's; 
 and St. John appears to have said in thirty verses 
 all that he intended to say, and to have added 
 another five and twenty at the request of his friends. 
 St. Matthew tells us nothing of our Lord's Ascen- 
 sion into heaven, nor does St. John ; and even if 
 the closing verses of St. Mark's Gospel came from 
 his own hand, he tells us nothing more than the 
 bare fact that the Lord *' was received up into heaven, 
 and sat on the right hand of God." The time and 
 the place are left indefinite, and our Lord's parting 
 words to His Disciples and the vision of angels are 
 passed over in silence. But the Betrayal, the Arrest, 
 the appearance before Caiaphas, Peter's denial, the cry 
 of the people for the release of Barabbas and the 
 crucifixion of our Lord, Pilate's judgment, the inscrip- 
 tion fixed on the cross, are contained in all the four 
 Gospels ; and they all bring the story to a close with 
 words which indicate that to the veiy moment of our 
 Lord's Death there was no loss of consciousness or ex- 
 haustion of strength. 
 
 I The last eleven verses of St. Mark's Gospel being of doubtful 
 genuineness. 
 
II-] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 51 
 
 The Evangelists found no precedent for this 
 elaborate account of the Death of our Lord in the 
 Old Testament. The death of Moses, of Aaron, of 
 David, is told with a severe simplicity and brevity; 
 the writers of the ancient Scriptures felt that it is 
 to the life of prophets and saints — not to the cir- 
 cumstances of their death — that the enduring interest 
 of their history belongs. St. Luke dismisses in one 
 brief sentence the martyrdom of an Apostle — " And 
 [Herod] killed James the brother of John with the 
 sword." And if the martyrdom of Stephen is told at 
 greater length, it is plainly for the sake of what Stephen 
 said, rather than for the sake of what he suffered. 
 
 It may be suggested that the deep and reverential 
 love with which the Evangelists regarded our Lord con- 
 strained them to dwell on the mournful hours in which 
 His earthly sufferings culminated ; or that they narrated 
 at great length all that happened in connection with 
 His Death in order to illustrate the deliberation and 
 unanimity with which the Jews rejected the Messiah, for 
 whose coming so many centuries had been hoping ; or 
 that it was necessary to emphasise the circumstances 
 of His Death in order to invest His Resurrection with 
 reality and glory. But a careful examination of the 
 four Gospels will lead us to prefer a different ex- 
 planation. In the importance which the Evangelists 
 attach to the Death of our Lord, they are but following 
 the line of His own thought. 
 
 To Him, His Death — whatever may have been its 
 significance — was distinctly present from the very 
 
52 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 commencement of His ministry, and He constantly 
 spoke of it as necessary to. the accomplishment of 
 His misssion. 
 
 I wish to illustrate this statement with some fulness. 
 The manner in which He anticipated His Death 
 when it was still remote, the increasing terror which it 
 created in His mind as it gradually drew nearer, and 
 the mystery of His moral sufferings while on the cross, 
 appear to require some such explanation as is supplied 
 by the doctrine of the Atonement. 
 
 It seems more than probable that in the hours which 
 He spent with John the Baptist, about the time of His 
 Baptism, He had spoken of the Death by which He 
 was to atone for the sins of men, and that what He had 
 said suggested the form of John's testimony to Him : 
 " Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins 
 of the world." ^ At the first Passover after His public 
 ministry began He prophesied that, by putting Him to 
 death, the Jewish people would destroy the sanctity 
 of their Temple, and that henceforth the true Home 
 of God would be in Himself and in those who are 
 spiritually one with Him. ^ A few days later He told 
 Nicodemus that, " as Moses lifted up the serpent 
 in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted 
 up." 3 To the people that thronged the synagogue at 
 Capernaum, and who the day before had wanted to 
 " take Him by force and make Him King," He spoke 
 of His Death as necessary to the life of the world.^ 
 
 I John i. 29. Note C. 2 John ii. 19-21. 3 Ibid. iii. 14. 
 
 4 Ibid. vi. 51-56. 
 
II-] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 53 
 
 It was " a hard saying," especially in the form in 
 which He uttered it, and " from that hour many of 
 His disciples went back, and walked no more with 
 Him." 
 
 Peter made his great confession : " Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God ; " and " from that time 
 forth began Jesus to show unto His Disciples how that 
 He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of 
 the Elders and Chief Priests and Scribes, and be killed 
 and be raised again the third day."^ He was Trans- 
 figured, and Moses and Elias " spake of the decease 
 which He should accomplish at Jerusalem ;" ^ and as 
 He came down from the mountain He charged Peter 
 and James and John to " tell no man what things 
 they had seen till the Son of man were risen from the 
 dead." ^ While they were in Galilee, after the Trans- 
 figuration, Jesus repeated the prophecy of His Death. '♦ 
 When He described Himself as the Good Shepherd, 
 He repeated no less than three times, in the course of 
 a very few sentences, that He was to lay down His life 
 for the sheep. As He was going up to Jerusalem for 
 the last time. He '' took the twelve disciples apart in 
 the way," and told them again that he was about to be 
 put to death. ^ When the mother of Zebedee's children 
 asked that her sons might sit, the one on the right 
 hand and the other on the left, in the kingdom of 
 heaven, His Death rose immediately to His thoughts : 
 
 I Matt. xvi. 16, 21. 2 Luke ix. 31. 3 Mark ix. 9. 
 
 4 Matt. xvii. 22. 
 
 5 Ibid. XX. 17-19 ; Mark x. 35-45 ; Luke xviii. 31-34. 
 
54 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 *' Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the 
 cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptised with the 
 baptism that I am baptised with?" ^ After His great 
 discourse on the Judgment, He said to His Disciples, 
 ** Ye know that after two days is the Passover, and the 
 Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."^ When Mary 
 of Bethany broke the alabaster box and poured the 
 costly perfume on His head, He justified her against 
 the murmuring of His Disciples by saying : " She is 
 come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying." ^ 
 
 It cannot, I think, be fairly said that these re- 
 peated intimations of His approaching Death show 
 nothing more than our Lord's desire to prepare His 
 Disciples for the catastrophe which seemed for the time 
 to be the destruction of all their hopes. They indicate 
 that from the very first His Death had taken possession 
 of His own mind, that the anticipation of it was con- 
 stantly recurring to Him, that He lived almost always 
 under its shadow. 
 
 He not only spoke of it: He looked forward to it 
 with anxiety and fear. There are passages in which 
 this is very plainly indicated. It was of His Death 
 that He was thinking when He said, ** I have a bap- 
 tism to be baptised with, and how am I straitened till 
 it be accomplished." ^ This was while he was still in 
 Galilee, twelve months before the final crisis ; but He 
 saw it afar off, and — if we may venture to say it — was 
 eager to have it over. When it came near, it filled 
 Him with agitation and, at last, with terror. In the 
 
 I Matt. XX. 22. 2 Ibid.xxvi. 2. 3 Markxiv. 8. 4 Luke xii. 47. 
 
II-] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement. 55 
 
 week which preceded His crucifixion, some Gentiles, 
 who had come up to Jerusalem to celebrate the 
 Passover, wished to see the great Teacher whose 
 miracles and bold antagonism to the ecclesiastical 
 rulers had created so much excitement in the city. 
 When He saw them His heart was thrilled with a 
 sudden joy. They were the representatives of the 
 "great multitude that no man can number of all 
 nations and kindreds, and peoples and tongues," who, 
 through Him, would be rescued from sin and eternal 
 perdition, and restored to the life and light of God, and 
 He exclaimed, ** The hour is come that the Son of man 
 should be glorified."^ But there rose up at once 
 between Him and that great glory the dark presence 
 of death. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a 
 corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth 
 alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth fruit." ^ And 
 the vision of death sunk upon Him like a vast and 
 gloomy cloud, obscuring all the splendour. His heart 
 was shaken with fear, and He said, " Now is my soul 
 troubled, and what shall I say ? Father, save me from 
 this hour." And yet He could not turn aside, for He ^Y 
 adds, '* But for this cause came I to this hour." ^ 
 
 At the Last Supper the agitation returned. ** He 
 was troubled in spirit," ^ and troubled because the 
 traitor was sitting with Him at the table, and He knew 
 that the deed of treachery was about to be consum- 
 mated, and that in an hour or two He would be in the 
 hands of His enemies. As soon as Judas left, the 
 
 I John xii. 27. 2 ibid xii. 24. 3 Ibid. xii. 27. 4 Ibid. xiii. 21. 
 
56 The History of oily Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 agitation seems to have passed away for a time, and 
 the heart of our Lord recovered its calmness. 
 
 He delivered a discourse, in which He revealed all 
 the tenderness and depth of His love for His disciples 
 (whom He now called His friends, instead of His 
 servants), and a wealth of spiritual thought which is 
 unsurpassed and hardly equalled in any other passage 
 of His teaching. His whole nature rose to its loftiest 
 activity. Not a solitary intellectual power was latent ; 
 not a solitary affection slumbered. The discourse was 
 followed by a prayer, which is the evidence that He 
 was in full and conscious communion with the Father. 
 It is the prayer of One on whom the full glory of 
 heaven has descended. 
 
 He then passed out of the city, crossed the ravine 
 through which the Kedron flows, and entered into an 
 olive-orchard, not far, probably, from the garden now 
 called Gethsemane. The Paschal moon must have been 
 filling the valley with its light, resting tranquilly on 
 the olives and palm-trees which then clothed the sides 
 of Olivet, and making the towers of the Temple and 
 the walls of the city, on the other side of the ravine, 
 shine like silver. The whole scene was suggestive of 
 perfect peace. 
 
 But suddenly a great terror came upon Him. Mat- 
 thew tells us that ** He began to be sorrowful," ^ and 
 Mark, that " He began to be sore amazed."* And He 
 said to Peter, James, and John, *' My soul is exceeding 
 sorrowful, even unto death." ^ He had chosen these 
 * Matt xxvi. 37. 2 Mark xiv. 33. 3 Matt. xxvi. 38 ; Mark xiv. 34. 
 
"•] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement. 57 
 
 three to be with Him in the trouble which was be- 
 coming darker every moment, and which He felt 
 would soon become almost too terrible for H'im to 
 endure. He clung to the relief and support which 
 the mere presence of those we love affords us in times 
 of great distress. But He could not remain with 
 them. Matthew says, " He went a little further." ^ 
 Luke uses a word which implies that He was restless, 
 and was unable to stay where He was^ — that He tore 
 Himself away from them. Then followed a succession 
 of prayers, which were uttered in what we may, 
 perhaps, venture to call successive spasms of spiritual 
 anguish and effort. He was like a great tree, bending 
 and almost broken under a storm. His resolution to 
 endure the worst was rooted too deeply and securely 
 for Him to be torn away from it ; but again and again 
 it almost seemed as though He must yield to the 
 tremendous strain. His Death was near; the woe 
 which had been present to Him from the beginning of 
 His ministry was descending upon Him, and He shrank 
 from it, and cried, ** O My Father, if it be possible, let 
 this cup pass from Me ; nevertheless, not as I will, but 
 as Thou wilt." ^ 
 
 It is not thus that good men have been accustomed 
 to confront death. St. Paul speaks several times of 
 his own approaching end, but never with an agitation 
 
 ' Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
 2 Krti avTog dirttTTrdaOr] cnr' avrdv. Luke xxii. 41. The same word 
 occurs in St. Luke's account of St. Paul's departure from the elders 
 of the Ephesian Church, who met him at Miletus (Actsxxi. i). 
 
 3 Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
58 The History of om Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 like this. He had a desire *' to depart, and to be with 
 Christ ;" and vast numbers of Christian men have con- 
 fronted cruel torments for Christ's sake with unshaken 
 fortitude, and have forgotten the sharp pain of the 
 axe and the sword, and the rage of wild beasts, and the 
 fierce heat of the fires of martyrdom, in the triumphant 
 energy of their faith and their passionate longing to 
 see the face of Christ. But to Christ death rose up in 
 appalling terror between Himself and His return to 
 God. He said to His disciples that, if they loved 
 Him, they would rejoice because He had told them 
 that He was going to the Father ; ^ but He Himself 
 could not rejoice. Even before He was nailed to the 
 cross, He was overwhelmed with a sorrow which 
 nearly crushed His strength, and under which He 
 felt that He must die. 
 
 I cannot believe that His terror was caused by His 
 anticipation of the physical tortures of crucifixion. 
 Crucifixion was a very painful form of death, but while 
 these indications of our Lord's dismay in anticipation 
 of His last hours are recorded by the Evangelists, it is 
 significant that not one of them dwells upon the 
 physical anguish which He must have endured upon 
 the cross. Their ample narratives say nothing of the 
 throbbing pain which He must have suffered from the 
 nails which were driven through His hands, nothing 
 of the sharp pangs which must have shot through 
 every fibre of His frame, nothing of the fever which 
 must have been kindled in His blood. But they speak 
 ' John xiv. 29. 
 
II.] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement. 59 
 
 of a mysterious spiritual sorrow which forced Him to 
 utter the most bitter cry that can ever break from a 
 human heart ; and it was into the dark shadow of 
 this sorrow that He seems to have come as soon as 
 He entered into Gethsemane. 
 
 The agony of the garden is, indeed, inexplicable 
 until we see Him on the cross. It was an awful 
 death — a death of great physical suffering, but the 
 physical suffering was the least terrible element of 
 its complicated woe. He had come into the world to 
 restore men to righteousness and to God, but during 
 the few hours which preceded His crucifixion there had 
 been committed a series of atrocious sins, and it must 
 have seemed to Him that He had been led to His 
 Death by a dark procession of the basest crimes of 
 which wicked men can be guilty, and their evil and 
 malignant forms surrounded Him in His agony, mock- 
 ing His sufferings and exulting in His shame. Corrupt 
 and ambitious priests, whose power He imperilled, had 
 conspired and plotted against His life ; lying witnesses 
 had charged Him — Him, the Son of God! — with blas- 
 phemy ; He had been betrayed by a false friend ; the 
 people who a few days before had rent the air with cries 
 of *' Hosanna," who had brought to Him their sick, 
 their blind, their deaf, their dumb, and He had healed 
 them all, and to some of whom He had given their 
 dead children alive again — the people, maddened with 
 resentment because He refused to satisfy their hopes 
 of secular greatness and glory, savagely cried for His 
 blood; the Roman governor, after pronouncing Him 
 
6o Tke History of our Lord Jesus Christ, [lect. 
 
 innocent of the crime that was charged against Him, 
 gave Him up to sacerdotal hatred and popular fury. 
 Those few brief hours had revealed the infirmity of 
 His friends as well as the relentless wickedness of 
 His enemies. His very Disciples, as soon as He was 
 arrested, " all forsook Him and fled." Peter, who had 
 been most vehement in his protestations of devotion, 
 denied Him thrice with oaths and cursings. As He 
 hung on the cross between two criminals, the object of 
 heartless jests and insults, it seems as though only 
 a solitary Apostle and a few faithful women remained 
 near Him. 
 
 All this He could have endured; but there came 
 another and still more appalling sorrow. His fellow- 
 ship with the Father had been intimate and unbroken. 
 He had lived in the life of God. Till now He could 
 always say, *' I am not alone, for the Father is with 
 me," but He can say it no longer. The light of God's 
 presence is lost. He is left in awful isolation, and He 
 cries, ** My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken 
 Me?"^ In the ''hour of great darkness " which has 
 fallen upon Him He still clings to the Father with 
 an invincible trust and an immeasurable love, and the 
 agony of being deserted of God is more than He can 
 bear. His heart is broken. Death comes upon Him 
 from within as well as from without ; and He dies as 
 much from the loss of the sense of God's presence as 
 from the exhaustion of crucifixion.* 
 
 This is not martyrdom. 
 
 I Matt. xxvi. 46 ; Mark xv. 14. * Note D. 
 
n.] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement. Gi 
 
 What is it ? He has never sinned. He is the Son of 
 God, and inherits the infinite love of the Father. In the 
 hour of His anguish He is consummating the work 
 which is dearest to the Father's heart ; but He endures 
 that loss of fellowship with the Divine blessedness, that 
 exile rom the joys of God's presence, which is the 
 effect of the Divine wrath in the case of the impenitent. 
 
 What is the explanation of this mysterious anguish ? 
 He has come to make known to sinful men the love of 
 God, and He Himself, who has never sinned, is forsaken 
 of God. He has declared that He is the way to the 
 Father, and that no man cometh to the Father except 
 through Him — and now, even to Him, access to God is 
 closed. The Son of God, the only -begotten Son, in 
 whom the Father is well pleased, is not only the victim 
 of human malignity ; in the very extremity of His woe. 
 He is deprived of all Divine consolation ; He declares 
 that God has forsaken Him! 
 
 I decline to accept any explanation of these words 
 which implies that they do not represent the actual truth 
 of our Lord's position. There are times when great suf- 
 fering may force from our lips words about God of which, 
 when the suffering is over, we repent. We think, we say, 
 that He has forsaken us, and we charge Him unjustly. 
 Did Christ repent that He had uttered this cry ? Impos- 
 sible. There are times when we mistake depression and 
 gloom, which are the effect of purely physical causes, 
 for the effect of the withdrawal of God's presence. Did 
 Christ commit that mistake ? I say, again, Impossible. 
 
 r take the words in their clear and unqualified 
 
62 The History of our Lord Jesus Christ [lect. 
 
 meaning. It is only by taking them in this way that 
 very much that is contained in the previous history of 
 our Lord becomes intelligible. He knew that He was 
 to die this awful death ; that He was to be forsaken of 
 God in His last hours. This explains why it was that 
 his mind was filled with the thought of His Death 
 from the very first, and why, as it approached, it filled 
 Him with dismay. 
 
 Surely this supreme anguish must have a unique 
 relation to the redemption of mankind. If not, why 
 was it that the anticipation of His Death was associated 
 with some of the greatest moments in His history ? 
 Why did He speak of it to Peter, when Peter confessed 
 that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God ? 
 Why did it occur to Him when the Greeks came to 
 speak to Him at the Feast ? Why did He institute a 
 religious rite to commemorate it ? 
 
 When I try to discover the meaning of the sorrow of 
 Christ on the cross, I cannot escape the conclusion 
 that He is somehow involved in this deep and dreadful 
 darkness by the sins of the race whose nature He has 
 assumed. If the dread with which He anticipated His 
 Death, and if the Divine desertion which made His 
 Death so awful, are to pass into Doctrine, I can conceive 
 of no other form in which they can appear than 
 that which they assume in the ApostoHc Epistles — 
 " He was delivered for our offences." ^ ** He died for 
 our sins;"^ He *' suffered, .... the Just for the 
 unjust ;" 3 " He was made a curse for us." ^ 
 I Rom. iv. 25. 2 I Cor. xv. 3. 3 i Pet. iii. 18. 4 Gal. iii. 13. 
 
"•] in Relation to the Fact of the Atonement, 63 
 
 As I look, as I listen, I am driven to exclaim, 
 *' Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our 
 sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions and 
 bruised for our iniquities. The Lord hath laid on Him 
 the iniquity of us all." ^ In no other way are His 
 sufferings explicable. To fulfil these words of ancient 
 prophecy, He can endure no greater, no keener anguish. 
 If this is not the explanation of His desertion on the 
 Cross, then the Cross, instead of declaring that God 
 has not forsaken the human race, notwithstanding all 
 its crimes, seems to be an appalling testimony to all 
 nations and to all centuries, that not even the purest 
 goodness can secure for One who has assumed our 
 nature the strength and the peace which come from 
 the perpetual manifestation of God's presence and love. 
 Instead of revealing the infinite love of God refusing 
 to forsake those who have sinned, it is an awful proof 
 that He may forsake in the hour of their utmost and 
 sorest need those who have perfectly loved and per- 
 fectly obeyed Him. Either the Death of Christ was 
 the Atonement for human sin, or else it fills me with 
 
 terror and despair. 
 
 « Isa. Iv. 4-6 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT : THE TESTI- 
 MONY OF OUR LORD. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT : THE TESTIMONY OF 
 OUR LORD. 
 
 WE have now to inquire whether our Lord gave 
 any account of His Death which at all explains 
 the mysterious facts which we considered in the previous 
 Lecture, and to which the Evangelists give so much 
 prominence. 
 
 Had He been silent on the relation of His sufferings 
 to human redemption, it would have remained true that 
 His Death was present to His mind from the very com- 
 mencement of His ministry; that when it came near, it 
 filled Him with dismay ; and that on the cross He was 
 forsaken by the Father. But He was not silent. Nor 
 are we left to discover His inner thought concerning 
 His Death from obscure allusions to it of ambiguous 
 meaning, or from words spoken incidentally and sug- 
 gested by circumstances which we might call accidental, 
 or from parables which might be of doubtful interpreta- 
 tion, or from illustrations derived from Jewish institu- 
 tions about whose precise significance there might be , 
 interminable controversy. It was of infinite importance 
 that there should be no misapprehension of His 
 meaning, and He therefore selected for the full and 
 
 6 - 
 
68 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 final explanation of the nature and intention of His 
 Death an hour of pathetic solemnity. The explanation 
 was not drawn from Him by any request of His 
 disciples or by any taunts of His enemies : it came 
 altogether from Himself, and as -the result of a de- 
 liberate purpose. It was veiled under no metaphor. 
 It was expressed plainly, directly, explicitly. As if to 
 save it from all the chances and perils which are in- 
 separable from the transmission of thought to remote 
 countries and remote generations. He connected it with 
 the institution of a new and peculiar sacred rite, which 
 was to be celebrated by His disciples to the end of time. 
 
 We have four accounts in the New Testament of the 
 institution of the Lord's Supper, St. Matthew's, St. 
 Mark's, St. Luke's, and that given by St. Paul in the 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians. The variations be- 
 tween them are neither uninteresting nor unimportant, 
 but it is unnecessary that I should discuss them. 
 
 It was the night before His Passion, the night, as 
 St. Paul reminds us, in which He was betrayed. Our 
 Lord and His disciples were celebrating the Passover,^ 
 
 I The force of the argument in the text is not really affected 
 if it is contended that the Lord's Supper was celebrated on the 
 night before the true Passover night. I believe, however, that the 
 traditional view of the Church is sound, and that our Lord cele- 
 brated the Passover with His disciples at the time appointed by the 
 Law, and that during the celebration He instituted the great feast 
 of the Church, which has taken its place. The question is dis- 
 cussed at length by all the critical commentators. There is a 
 useful summary of opinions in Lange's Cofn?nentary on St. Johii^s 
 Gospel^ vol. iii. p. 347, and an elaborate discussion of the subject 
 in Wieseler's Syjtopsis of the Four Gospels^ p. 308, seq. 
 
III.] the Testimony of our Lord, 69 
 
 and as they were eating, Jesus took bread and gave 
 thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 
 " Take eat, this is My body which is given [or broken] 
 for you : this do in remembrance of Me." And He 
 took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, 
 saying, " Drink ye all of it ; for this is My blood of the 
 New Testament [or covenant] , which is shed for many 
 [or for you] for the remission of sins : this do ye as oft 
 as ye drink it in remembrance of Me." ^ It appears, 
 therefore, that our Lord declared that His Death is 
 in some way related to " the remission of sins." 
 
 He declared, indeed, that it was for the remission of 
 sins that He was about to die. Other ends might 
 be accomplished by His Death, but at a time when 
 we might reasonably suppose that His mind would be 
 filled with the chief and direct objects of His Passion, 
 this is the only one of which He speaks. His blood 
 was shed " for the remission of sins." 
 
 He never says that He was tempted " for the re- 
 mission of sins ;" or that He endured hunger, thirst, 
 weariness, and poverty, *' for the remission of sins ;" or 
 that it was for this that He was transfigured, or that it 
 was for this that He endured the agony of Gethsemane, 
 or that it was for this that He spoke to men about the 
 powers and laws and mysteries and glories of the 
 kingdom of heaven. The whole of His ministry is 
 a revelation of the righteousness and of the love of 
 God, an authoritative appeal to the heart and con- 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 26-28 ; Mark xiv. 22-24 ; Luke xxii. 19, 20 
 I Cor. xi, 23-25. In the text the four narratives are combined. 
 
70 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 science of the human race, a mighty force constraining 
 men to repent of sin and to trust in the infinite love of 
 the Father. And if His Death contributed to our 
 eternal redemption only by producing in us those dis- 
 positions which render it right and possible for God to 
 forgive us, it would be no more intimately related to 
 the remission of sins than every part of His public 
 ministry. Men have been filled with terror by His 
 awful declarations concerning judgment to come and 
 the final doom of the impenitent, and have entreated 
 Him to deliver them from '' the worm that dieth not 
 and the fire that is not quenched.'* The parable of the 
 Prodigal Son has broken their hearts with sorrow for 
 sin, and inspired them with trust in the Divine mercy. 
 I suppose that there is hardly a word of His recorded in 
 the four Gospels that has not drawn some man nearer to 
 God. His miracles. His tears — tears shed at the grave 
 of His friend and over the city of His murderers — all 
 the incidents of His earthly life, are charged with the 
 same wonderful power. In an indirect way, it might 
 be said that His teaching from first to last, all that He 
 did, all that He endured, was intended to secure for us 
 the remission of sins. But never, even incidentally — 
 never, even by implication — does our Lord affirm that 
 it was for this that He wrought miracles, or revealed 
 truth, or submitted to the sorrows and pains which 
 preceded the cross. He does affirm that it was for the 
 remission of sins that He died. He must have believed 
 that the relation between His Death and the remission 
 of sins is different in kind from that which exists 
 
III.] the Testimony of our Lord, 71 
 
 between His teaching or His example and the re- 
 mission of sins. 
 
 There is another peculiarity in our Lord's manner 
 of speaking about His Death. As I have said already, 
 the four narratives contained in the New Testament of 
 the institution of the Lord's Supper vary : no two of 
 them have preserved our Lord's words in precisely the 
 same form, but the same fundamental conception of 
 His death appears in them all. St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark do not tell us that when our Lord broke and dis- 
 tributed the bread He said that He was about to die 
 for others ; but they both tell us that when He took the 
 cup He said, " This is My blood of the New Testa- 
 ment [or covenant] , which is shed for many." St. Paul 
 does not tell us that when He took the cup He said 
 that His blood was to be shed for others ; but he tells 
 us that when our Lord took the bread He said, " This 
 is My body which is broken for you." St. Luke alone 
 represents our Lord as declaring that His Death was a 
 death for others, both when He broke the bread and 
 when He passed the wine. The preservation of this 
 central idea, notwithstanding the variations of the four 
 narratives, is very impressive. 
 
 This was not the only time that He described His 
 Death as a death for others. That same night, after 
 the institution of the Supper, He said to His disciples, 
 *' Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay 
 down his life for his friends. Ye are My friends if ye 
 do whatsoever I command you." ' 
 ' John XV. 13. 
 
72 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 Three months before, He had claimed to be the 
 Good Shepherd, and in illustration of His claim He 
 emphasised in the most remarkable manner His readi- 
 ness and His intention to die for His flock. He does 
 not say that He will lead His sheep to the greenest and 
 most abundant pastures, and to streams which are not 
 dried up by the summer's heat or swollen by the rains 
 of winter into dangerous torrents; but He declares 
 again and again that He will die for them. " I am the 
 good Shepherd ; the good Shepherd giveth his life for 
 the sheep." "As the Father knoweth Me, even so 
 know I the Father: and I lay down My life for the 
 sheep." ^ Up to this point, however, it remains uncertain 
 whether He was to die for the flock of God in any other 
 sense than many faithful shepherds have died for it. 
 Jewish prophets, Christian apostles, many reformers 
 and missionaries, and many courageous ministers of the 
 gospel in evil times, have died rather than betray their 
 trust. Had our Lord said nothing more, it might have 
 been possible to interpret His words as meaning that 
 He was to die as they have died. The shepherd 
 may lose his own life while he is struggling with the 
 wolf; the wolf may be killed, or, even if not, the 
 struggle may give the flock time to escape, though the 
 shepherd perishes. To prevent any misconception, He 
 breaks up His illustration. The shepherd that dies 
 defending his flock does not die voluntarily ; he dies 
 because the wolf is too strong for him : but our Lord 
 declares that it is not to be so with Him : ** I lay down 
 I John X. II, 15. 
 
in.] the Testimony of our Lord, 73 
 
 my life. . . . No man taketh it from Me, but I lay 
 it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and 
 I have power to take it again." ^ His devotion to men 
 is as great as that of the shepherd who imperils and 
 actually loses his life in protecting his flock against the 
 wolf; He, too, dies for the sheep; but He lays down 
 His life deliberately and of set purpose : *' no man 
 taketh it from (Him)." Our Lord's Death is unique. 
 The parallel fails. He died for men in some other 
 sense than those have died who have shrunk from no 
 dangers in the service of the Church and of God. Words 
 of our Lord, which we have already considered, suggest 
 a partial explanation of the peculiarity of His death : 
 His blood was shed " for the remission of sins." 
 
 There are other words of His which contribute 
 additional illustration to the sense in which He laid 
 down His life " for the sheep." On His way to Jeru- 
 salem, and a very short time before His death, He 
 had spoken to Peter and the other Apostles about the 
 greatness of their future position in the kingdom of 
 heaven : " Verily I say unto you. That ye which have 
 followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man 
 shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon 
 twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."^ 
 After this, indeed. He had warned them that a great 
 crisis in His personal history was very near, and that 
 He was going up to the holy city to die. His words 
 were very distinct, and so terrible that we might have 
 supposed that all personal ambition in the hearts of the 
 ^ John X. 17, 18. 2 Matt. xix. 28. 
 
74 ^^^ F^ct of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 disciples would have given place to anxiety and dis- 
 tress about the sufferings which menaced their Lord. 
 He had said : " Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and 
 the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief 
 priests, and unto the scribes ; and they shall condemn 
 Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles ; 
 and they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and 
 shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him ; and the third 
 day He shall rise again." ^ But they do not seem to 
 have believed that He meant exactly what He said. 
 There was something in His manner which *' amazed " 
 them, and " as they followed [Him] they were afraid;"^ 
 but that these terrible words were to be literally ful- 
 filled was incredible. They knew that He was accus- 
 tomed to speak in parables. His commonest sayings 
 had often a hidden sense. His thoughts had always 
 transcended theirs. More than once they had missed 
 His meaning because they had mistaken the form for 
 the substance : and now, whatever He meant, He could 
 not mean that He was to be actually betrayed to His 
 enemies by one of themselves, and put to death. 
 Heavy storm-clouds might be gathering about Him, 
 but He would break through them with victorious 
 splendour ; and if the final struggle was at hand, the 
 kingdom of God would immediately appear, and the 
 *' thrones" He had promised them would be theirs. 
 They thought it no harm to speculate about how the 
 honours of His kingdom would be distributed among 
 them. James and John might have felt that their rank 
 I Mark x. 33, 34. 2 jbid. x. 32. 
 
III.] ihe Testimony of our Lord, 75 
 
 was secure but for those ominous words with which the 
 Lord had closed what He had said to them about 
 their coming glory : " Many that are first shall be last, 
 and the last shall be first." ^ To make their position 
 certain, they came to Him, or rather their mother 
 came for them, and asked that He would reserve for 
 one of them the throne on His right hand, and for the 
 other the throne on His left hand, in His kingdom.^ 
 In reply. He spoke of His sufferings, and said that 
 they, too, would suffer; but He gave no promise 
 that their request would be granted. The rest of 
 the Apostles, naturally enough, were ** moved with 
 indignation," and *' much displeased with James and 
 John." But Jesus called them to Him, and told 
 them that the law of greatness in the kingdom of God 
 was unlike that which determined the rank and power 
 of princes in earthly states : ** Whosoever will be great 
 among you, shall be your minister : and whosoever of 
 you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For 
 even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but 
 to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." ^ 
 
 I Matt. xix. 30. 2 Ibid. xx. 20, 21. 
 
 3 Mark x. 43-45. " This price of redemption He gave avri, and 
 not merely virkp, in the wider sense, /. <?., ifistead of, in exchange of, 
 or as a substitute, Matt. xvii. 27; Heb. xii. 16. This redemption 
 at the price of His life was made avri ttoWCjv. The expression 
 many is not intended to indicate a smaller number as compared 
 with all, — the latter expression occurring in Rom. v. 18 ; i Tim. 
 ii. 4. In the opinion of the author, the term is intended by way of 
 antithesis to the One whose life was the ransom of the many. At 
 the same time the expression undoubtedly indicates not only the 
 objective bearing, but also the subjective efficacy of the ransom, by 
 which many are in reality redeemed. Comp. Rom. v. 1 5 ; Matt, 
 xxvi. 28."— Lange's Gospel of Matthew, vol. ii. p. 254. 
 
76 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 As the ethical idea of Sacrifice has become vague 
 and indefinite to us because we are not familiar with 
 the original institution, so the ethical idea of Redemp- 
 tion has lost very much of the sharpness of its outline 
 because we are not in the habit of paying ransoms. 
 But to the people of our Lord's time the payment of 
 ransoms was a familiar custom, and under the Jewish 
 law ransoms were the subject of very definite regu- 
 lations. Some of these regulations were probably 
 obsolete, but they were not unknown. To a Jew a 
 ransom was the money which a man paid to recover 
 possession of his inheritance when he had parted with 
 it ; ^ it was the price he paid when he purchased the 
 freedom of any that was " nigh of kin to him " who 
 had become a slave to a stranger ; ^ it was what he 
 gave in exchange for the life of the first-born of an 
 unclean animal which he wanted to keep, and which 
 the law required him either to redeem or to destroy ; ^ 
 it was the five shekels which he had to pay for the life 
 of his first-born child ; ^ it was the half shekel which 
 every man over twenty years of age had to pay at 
 the census, to avert Divine judgments — "atonement 
 money " — a price which every man paid for his life ; ^ 
 it was the money which the parent, wife, child, or 
 brother of a man who had been killed by an ox, known 
 to be vicious or dangerous, claimed from the owner, 
 and on the payment of which the owner was permitted 
 
 I Levit. XXV. 25-27. 2 Ibid, XXV. 47-49. 
 
 3 Num. xviii. 15 ; Exod. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20 
 
 4 Num. xviii. 16. 5 Exod. xxx. 12, 13, 16. 
 
III.] the Testimony of our Lord, 77 
 
 to live ; ^ it was what the murderer, in accordance 
 probably with ancient custom, might offer to "the re- 
 venger of blood," to prevail upon him not to inflict the 
 penalty of death, but which the Mosaic law in its 
 just severity forbade him to accept, so that for the life 
 of the murderer no ransom was possible.^ A ransom, 
 when given for persons, rescued them from slavery or 
 from death ; it averted Divine judgments ; it cancelled 
 the claims which deprived them of freedom, or the 
 crime by which they had forfeited life. It was in money 
 that the ransom was usually paid, but there was one 
 large class of cases in which, by the sacrifice of the 
 life of one creature, another was redeemed from death. ^ 
 And our Lord had come to "give His life a ransom 
 for many." It was in this sense, then, that He was to 
 " lay down His life for " those who were no longer His 
 servants, but " His friends ; " and in this sense that 
 the Good Shepherd was to give His life for the sheep. 
 
 The explanations which our Lord gave of His Death 
 are coherent. He gave His life a ransom for us, and 
 therefore it is that through the shedding of His blood 
 we receive the remission of sins, and escape eternal 
 destruction. 
 
 The passages which I have quoted, if they stood 
 alone, would be sufficient to demonstrate that to our 
 Lord's own mind His Death was something more than 
 the incidental or even the inevitable consequence of 
 
 ^ Exod. xxi. 29, 30. 2 Num. xxxv. 31. 
 
 3 Ibid, xviii. 15 ; Exod. xiii. 13 ; xxxiv. 20. 
 
78 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 His fidelity to the truth, and of His antagonism to the 
 corrupt ambition, the hypocrisy, and the evil passions 
 of the ecclesiastical rulers of the Jewish people ; that 
 He did not die as martyrs die, because He chose death 
 rather than apostasy; that His Death has a unique 
 relation to the redemption of our race ; that whatever 
 may be effected for the restoration of mankind to God 
 by His Incarnation, by the fulfilment in Him of the 
 Divine ideal of human perfection, by the revelation in 
 His life and character, in His miracles and teaching, 
 of the Divine holiness and love, the remission of sins is 
 rendered possible by His Death. But these passages 
 do not stand alone, there are others which sustain the 
 general argument. 
 
 Why was it that in His conversation with Nicodemus 
 our Lord insisted on His Death with such singular em- 
 phasis, and ascribed to it such great results ? The 
 conversation opens with a declaration of the necessity 
 of the New Birth. To enter the kingdom of God, a 
 man must receive the life of God. But to whom is 
 this Divine and eternal life given ? How is it to be 
 brought within the reach of those who have transgressed 
 the Divine laws and provoked the Divine anger ? Is 
 it enough that the holiness and grace of the Son of 
 God should fill the hearts of men with shame and grief 
 for their sin ? that the blessedness of His communion 
 with the Father should make them passionately desire 
 to receive the life which dwells in Him, that His blessed- 
 ness may become theirs ? that His compassion. His 
 mercy, His "exceeding great and precious promises" 
 
in.] the Testimony of our Lord, 79 
 
 should inspire them with trust in the infinite love of 
 God, and give them courage to appeal to Him for that 
 supreme gift by w^hich they are to be " made partakers 
 of the Divine nature," and rendered capable of entering 
 the Divine kingdom ? This is not the impression that 
 v^e receive from our Lord's words. That the Divine 
 life may become ours, the Son of God must die. 
 
 ** As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so 
 must the Son of man be lifted up " — His Incarnation is 
 not enough, His Ministry is not enough, He must die — 
 " that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, 
 but have eternal life." ' It is this conception of His 
 Death that gives form to the words which follow: — 
 "God so loved the world, that He gave" — did not 
 merely send, but gave — "His only begotten Son" — 
 surrendered Him up to all that was involved in the great 
 work of saving mankind, delivered Him over to the 
 death which has just been illustrated by a reference to 
 the lifting up of the brazen serpent — ** that whosoever 
 believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting 
 life." * 
 
 I reminded you in the previous Lecture of the con- 
 flicting joy and dread which agitated the heart of Christ 
 when certain Gentiles, who had come up to Jerusalem 
 to celebrate the Passover, wished to see Him just before 
 the close of His public ministry ; but I did not quote 
 all that He said to them. The time was approaching 
 when men of every race would be attracted to Him, 
 but as yet the nations He had come to save belonged 
 ^ John iii. 14, 15. 2 ibid. iii. 16. 
 
8o The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 to ''this present evil world," and the power of "the 
 prince of this world " was unbroken. His Death, which 
 was now so near, was to establish a new and Divine 
 order. " Now shall the prince of this world be cast 
 out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will 
 draw all men unto Me."^ His Death, not His birth, 
 was to be the great crisis in the history of man- 
 kind. His Death, not His living ministry, was to 
 reverse the evil fortunes of the human race. His 
 apparent and temporary defeat was the condition of 
 His real and enduring victory ; He must die on the 
 cross in order to become the Prince and Saviour of the 
 world. Discourses richer in spiritual truth than the 
 Sermon on the Mount, and more pathetic than His 
 address to His disciples on the night before His 
 Passion ; parables of diviner beauty than that of the 
 Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son ; manifestations of 
 sympathy with human suffering more tender than 
 His tears at the grave of Lazarus; manifestations of 
 mercy for human sin more generous and more touch- 
 ing than His lament over the city of His murderers — 
 all these would be in vain : He must die, if all men 
 are to be drawn to Him. Other explanations of the 
 necessity of His Death may be given. I prefer His 
 own. He gave His life a ransom for many ; His blood 
 was shed for the remission of sins. 
 
 There is a discourse of our Lord's in which His 
 direct intention is to illustrate the relation of His Death 
 to the gift of eternal life rather than to the remission o^ 
 ' John xii. 32. 
 
III.] the Testimony of our Lord, 8i 
 
 sins, but which is not without value in this argument. 
 It was delivered in the synagogue of Capernaum, in 
 the very synagogue, perhaps, whose ruins are still to be 
 seen at Tell Hum, and on a lintel of which is sculp- 
 tured the pot of manna, the visible symbol and me- 
 morial to the modern traveller of the discourse delivered 
 within its walls eighteen centuries ago. On the pre- 
 vious day He had fed five thousand men, besides 
 women and children, on five barley loaves and two 
 small fishes. The miracle was wrought on the other 
 side of the lake of Galilee, but the crowd had followed 
 Him to Capernaum. They wanted Him to repeat the 
 great historical miracle of the wilderness. *' What 
 sign showest Thou, then, that we may see and believe 
 Thee ? What dost Thou work ? Our fathers did eat 
 manna in the desert " — not mere barley loaves and 
 fish miraculously multiplied — "as it is written. He 
 gave them bread from heaven to eat."^ Our Lord 
 replied that He was the true bread from heaven, the 
 bread of God, the bread of life, and that *' if any man 
 eat of this bread he shall live for ever.""^ But He went 
 on to speak of His Death as necessary to the eternal 
 life of mankind. '* The bread that I will give is My 
 flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. . . . 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh 
 of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no 
 life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My 
 blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the 
 last day."3 
 
 I John vi. 30, 31. 2 Ibid. vi. 51. 3 Ibid. vi. 51, 53, 54. 
 
 7 
 
82 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The people were confounded and the disciples per- 
 plexed. He at once removed the impression that they 
 were literally to eat His flesh; for He said that "the 
 Son of man" was to ** ascend up where He was before ;" 
 and He added that *' it is the spirit that quickeneth, 
 the flesh proliteth nothing;" and the spirit was in a 
 sense and in a measure already theirs. *' The words 
 that I speak [or have spoken] to you, they are spirit 
 and they are life."^ 
 
 But the startling form under which He had repre- 
 sented His Death as the necessary condition of the 
 life of the world, He leaves unexplained. The expla- 
 nation is suggested by the words of the Evangelist 
 at the commencement of the narrative : " The pass- 
 over, the [great] feast of the Jews, was nigh." ^ 
 From the manna which fell in the wilderness, our 
 Lord's mind passed to the lamb that was killed on 
 the night of the Exodus. When the angel of the Lord 
 smote the first-born of Egypt, ** from the first-born of 
 Pharaoh that sat on the throne, unto the first-born of 
 the captive that was in the dungeon," his terrible 
 sword had not smitten the first-born of the Jews. They 
 had been delivered because, in obedience to the com- 
 mand of God, the blood of the paschal lamb was on 
 the lintel and door-posts of every house. The lamb 
 was slain, and the first-born were saved. The blood 
 of the lamb was sprinkled on the outside of the house, 
 
 1 John vi. 62, 63. 
 
 2 Ibid. vi. 4. See GODET : Commentaire su?- rEvmigile de S. yean, 
 vol. ii. 79, 132, seq. 
 
ni.] the Testimony of our Lord. ^-^ 
 
 the family within ate the flesh. And Christ was the 
 true Passover Lamb ; His Death averted death from the 
 true Israel of God, " the church of the first-born ; " 
 and His flesh was to give new life and strength to 
 those who received Him. 
 
 At the time these words w^ere spoken His meaning 
 was hidden even from the Apostles. Another pass- 
 over came, and He celebrated it with them on the 
 night before He was crucified ; and then ** He took 
 bread and blessed it, and brake it ; and said, Take, 
 eat ; this is My body. And he took the cup, and gave 
 thanks, and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; 
 for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed 
 for many for the remission of sins." Even then they 
 probably failed to grasp His meaning. But after He 
 had risen again, and when they discovered that He 
 had accomplished for them a greater deliverance than 
 Moses had accomplished for their fathers, then doubt- 
 less they recognised the same wonderful truth in the 
 "hard saying" which had troubled them in the syna- 
 gogue at Capernaum, and in the new rite which He 
 had instituted in the upper chamber in Jerusalem. 
 Our Lord was the true paschal lamb ; His blood, 
 " shed for many for the remission of sins," saved them 
 from death ; His flesh was to be the perpetual support 
 of their new and free and happy life.^ 
 
 There is another consideration which appears to 
 
 ^ " As much as to say the blood of the lamb was shed in Egypt 
 for the salvation of the first-born of the Israelites. This my 
 blood is shed for the remission of sins." — Chrysostom : Catena 
 Aurea, Matt. xxvi. 28. 
 
 7* 
 
84 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 have some force. The silence of a great Teacher Hke 
 our Lord is often as expressive as His speech. He 
 came to a people that claimed to stand in a nearer 
 relation to God than the rest of mankind, and He 
 acknowledged the claim. He recognised the Divine 
 commission of Jewish prophets, and the Divine autho- 
 rity of Jewish institutions. He called the temple His 
 " Father's house." He kept the feasts. He told the 
 leper whom He healed to go to the priest and to offer 
 the gift that Moses commanded. Even when con- 
 versing with a Samaritan, He asserted the prerogatives 
 of the Jewish race : " Ye worship ye know not what : 
 we know what we worship : for salvation is of the Jews." ^ 
 He said that the Jewish Scriptures testified of Him. 
 He declared that He had not come to destroy the law 
 or the prophets, but to fulfil them ; the fundamental 
 ideas of the national institutions and the national life 
 were to reappear, developed and perfected, in the king- 
 dom of heaven. 
 
 Now among the institutions of Judaism, sacrifices 
 were the most conspicuous ; they stood at the very 
 centre of the religious thought and service of the nation. 
 To offer them was the special function of a numerous 
 and powerful priesthood. The ritual of sacrifice was 
 governed by the most minute and elaborate regulations. 
 All the offerings were not of one kind. Some of them 
 were intended to express, as their chief idea, the perfect 
 surrender of the soul to God ; others were intended to 
 be the expression of happy fellowship with God and 
 ^ John iv. 22. 
 
in-] the Testimony of our Lord. 85 
 
 hearty thanksgiving. But there was one class of 
 sacrifices— a class separated into two groups — which 
 were specifically intended to atone for certain kinds of 
 offences against the Mosaic law. The offender brought 
 his sacrifice to the priest, and the offering of the 
 sacrifice secured forgiveness. Whatever theory we 
 may form of the Divine idea underlying this symbolic 
 institution, the Law appeared to affirm that the relation 
 between the offering of the sacrifice and the remission 
 of the sin was immediate and direct ; ^ and this was 
 obviously the belief of the Jews in the time of our 
 Lord. 
 
 It is true that no sacrifices secured forgiveness 
 for specific moral offences : a Jew who had broken 
 one of the Ten Commandments could not bring a 
 sheep or a lamb to the priest, and atone for his sin. 
 But every year there was a great ceremonial at which 
 all the sins of the nation were confessed, and in some 
 sense atoned for. Those who had been trained to con- 
 nect the remission of a ceremonial offence with the 
 offering of the sacrifice required by the Law, were cer- 
 tain to connect the remission of graver offences with 
 the offering of the sacrifices on the Day of Atone- 
 ment. The disproportion between the sacrifices of 
 that day and the guilt of the whole nation prevented 
 the consciences of those who were troubled by the sense 
 of sin from finding perfect rest in the ritual ; but the 
 idea of remission of sins was inseparable from the idea 
 of a sacrifice for sins. 
 
 ' Lev, iv. 
 
86 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 Sacrifices for the sins of the whole nation were also 
 offered at other times — at the beginning of every month 
 and at the great festivals. Nor was the idea of expia- 
 tion altogether excluded from the burnt-offerings which 
 were presented in the temple every day.^ 
 
 That the Jewish people believed that sacrifice and 
 remission were directly related to each other, is clear 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 The writer takes this belief for granted when he illus- 
 trates the greatness of the sacrifice of Christ by con- 
 trasting it with the sacrifices of the ancient law. 
 " Under the law, without shedding of blood, is no re- 
 mission ; '"* "where remission [of sins and iniquities] 
 is, there is no more offering for sin." ^ ** Christ was 
 once offered to bear the sin of many,"'* and " after He 
 had offered one sacrifice for sins. He for ever sat down 
 on the right hand of God." ^ 
 
 It may be alleged that the whole argument of the 
 anonymous writer of this epistle is nothing more than 
 a concession to Jewish habits of thought, a kindly and 
 skilful endeavour to facilitate the transition of Jewish 
 believers from the old faith to the new ; that it was 
 necessary to invest Christ with sacerdotal functions, 
 and to express the significance of His Death by sacri- 
 ficial symbols, because the Jews had been so long 
 accustomed to find access to God through a priesthood, 
 and to connect the remission of sins with the shedding 
 of blood. Let this hypothesis be granted ; for the mo- 
 
 I Note E. 2 Heb. ix. 22. 3 Ibid. x. 18. 
 
 4 Ibid. ix. 28. 5 Ibid. x. 12. 
 
in.] the Testimony of our Lord. 87 
 
 ment I have no occasion to dispute it. Whether they 
 were true or false, the ideas which determine the whole 
 argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews were firmly 
 rooted in the mind of the Jewish people. If they were 
 true — if the relation created by the institutions of Juda- 
 ism between the remission of sins and sacrifice for sins 
 was the symbolic expression of a Divine law — there is 
 an end of the controversy : our Lord's Death is the ob- 
 jective reason on the ground of which God pardons 
 human transgressions. But if these ideas were false, 
 how was it that our Lord did not protest against them ? 
 If the Jewish people had misinterpreted their national 
 institutions, if God never intended to train them to 
 the recognition of a direct relation between the offer- 
 ing of sacrifices and the remission of sin, how can 
 His silence be explained ? More than once He came 
 into violent collision with the faith and customs of the 
 nation. The Scribes and the Pharisees found fault 
 because His disciples omitted to wash their hands be- 
 fore eating bread. In itself the custom was not only 
 harmless, but decent and cleanly : the only harm was 
 that it had been made a religious obligation. Our Lord 
 defended His disciples with an unusual vehemence 
 of indignation, and charged the authoritative religious 
 teachers of the nation with making the word of God 
 of none effect through their traditions.^ Again and 
 again He deliberately provoked the most bitter hostility 
 by working miracles on the Sabbath day : the healing 
 of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda on the 
 ^ Mark vii. 1-13. 
 
88 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 Sabbath was indeed the origin of that unrelenting an- 
 tagonism which at last culminated in the conspiracy 
 to put Him to death. 
 
 But surely mere ceremonial superstitions, and ex- 
 cessive rigidity in keeping the Sabbath, however 
 inconsistent with the true idea of a perfect life, were 
 harmless compared with the error — if it were an error 
 — involved in the Jewish conception of the functions and 
 powers of an atoning sacrifice. Those who deny that 
 remission of sins is granted on the ground of an 
 objective sacrifice for sins, maintain that the theory 
 against which they protest obscures the glory of the 
 Divine mercy, rests on false ideas of the Divine 
 justice, and exerts a most pernicious influence on the 
 whole development of religious thought and life. If 
 the theory which they reject is false, they are right in 
 the earnestness and energy with which they denounce 
 it. But this theory penetrated the whole substance of 
 Jewish thought, and I ask again. How is the silence 
 of our Lord to be explained ? His silence ! It is no 
 ordinary silence which has to be accounted for. At the 
 very commencement of His ministry He received with- 
 out a protest the testimony of John the Baptist — 
 * Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin 
 of the world." ^ His silence was a definite acceptance 
 of the testimony ; it was an acknowledgment that He 
 had come to fulfil the idea of the sin-offering of the 
 Jewish law, and to secure for men the remission of their 
 sins. 
 
 ' John i. 29. 
 
III.] the Testimony of our Lord, 89 
 
 But He came to "fulfil" **the prophets " as well as 
 " the law." Demonstrations of Christian doctrine rest- 
 ing on isolated passages selected from the Jewish 
 Scriptures are, no doubt, unsatisfactory and incon- 
 clusive. Nothing can be more uncritical than the use 
 which theologians have made of the Old Testament. 
 To discover richer treasures of evangelical truth in the 
 book of Leviticus than in the four Gospels, in the 
 minor prophets than in the Epistles of St. Paul, 
 betrays not only intellectual perversity, but an utter 
 ignorance of the principles which have determined the 
 whole course of the Divine procedure in accomplishing 
 human redemption. There is great interest, indeed, in 
 watching the gradual brightening of the great hope of 
 a Deliverer, the development of the Messianic idea in 
 richer and richer forms, forms suggested as much by 
 the vicissitudes of Jewish history as by the direct re- 
 velations which were made to Jewish prophets. The 
 institutions and Scriptures of the ancient faith have not 
 become obsolete ; but Truth as well as Grace came by 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ; history is better than prophecy ; 
 and facts are greater than symbols. 
 
 It is certain, however, that to our Lord Jesus Christ 
 the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms were 
 full of Himself.^ He found in the literature and in- 
 stitutions of Judaism, the hopes which He had come 
 to fulfil, the cravings which He had come to satisfy, 
 the ideas which were to be illustrated in His personal 
 history. Could we have listened while He expounded to 
 I Luke xxiv. 44. 
 
90 The Fact of the A tonemement : [lect. 
 
 the two disciples who were on their way to Emmaus 
 *' the scriptures .... concerning Himself," or have 
 sat with the larger company that same evening, 
 assembled together with shut doors for fear of the 
 Jews, and heard Him when He " opened their under- 
 standing, that they might understand the scriptures, 
 and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it be- 
 hoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the 
 third day : and that repentance and remission of sins 
 should be preached in His name among all nations ; " ^ 
 we should have received large accessions to our know- 
 ledge concerning the thought of Christ about His own 
 work and His relation to the history and faith of the 
 Jewish people. 
 
 But on the night preceding His Death He had 
 definitely connected His last sad hours with a very 
 memorable passage of Old Testament prophecy. What- 
 ever maybe our interpretation of the direct and original 
 reference of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, our Lord 
 declared that in Him the idea of that chapter was to 
 be fulfilled : " This that is written must yet be accom- 
 plished in Me, And He was reckoned with transgressors: 
 for the things concerning Me have an end." ^ 
 
 The representations of our Lord's Death which we 
 have considered in this Lecture throw an intense light 
 on the sense in which He intended that the prophecy 
 would be fulfilled in Himself. Our Lord spoke of lay- 
 ing down His life for His sheep and for His friends ; 
 and the prophet declares that the Servant of Jehovah, 
 I Luke xxiv. 26, 27, 45, 46. 2 ibid. xxii. 37, 
 
Ill-] the Testimony of our Lord, 91 
 
 whose sufferings he is describing, " was wounded for 
 our transgressions, was bruised for our iniquities : 
 
 the chastisement of our peace was upon Him 
 
 He was cut off out of the land of the living : for the 
 transgression of My people was He stricken" (vv. 5, 8). 
 Our Lord said that He had come to give His life a 
 ransom for many : the prophet says, " He hath borne 
 our griefs and carried our sorrows ; . . . . with His 
 stripes we are healed" (vv. 4,5). John the Baptist 
 pointed to Him as the Lamb of God that taketh away 
 the sin of the world : the prophet declares that Jehovah 
 will make the soul of His Servant " an offering for sin." 
 The prophet says, *' All we like sheep have gone astray, 
 and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all. 
 .... He bare the sin of many. . . . By His know- 
 ledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for He 
 shall bear their iniquities" (vv. 6, 12, 11) ; and Christ 
 told His disciples that His blood was to be "shed for 
 the remission of sins." The whole prophecy, in all 
 its separate parts, finds its parallel in various sayings 
 by our Lord, in which He describes the character of 
 His sufferings and their relation to the redemption 
 of mankind. ^ 
 
 The results of this investigation of our Lord's testi- 
 mony concerning His Death are these : — 
 
 I. His Death was neither the incidental nor the 
 inevitable consequence of His collision with the passions 
 and prejudices of the Jewish people. 
 I Note F. 
 
92 The Fact of the A tonenient : [lect. 
 
 2. The laying down of His life was a voluntary act. 
 
 3. To lay down His life was one of the ends for 
 which He came into the world. 
 
 4. His Death is immediately related to the deliver- 
 ance from condemnation of those who believe in Him, 
 to the remission of sins, and to the establishment of 
 His sovereignty over the human race. 
 
 5. He accepted the testimony of John the Baptist 
 that He was the Lamb of God that taketh away the 
 sin of the world, and He associated His Death with 
 the sacrifice of the passover lamb on the night of the 
 Exodus. 
 
 6. He described His Death as a death for others, and 
 more specifically He said that He gave His life a ran- 
 som for others. 
 
 In any adequate theory of the purpose of the Death 
 of Christ, these various statements must find a place 
 and an explanation. It is further necessary, in any 
 theory of His Death, to account for the extent to which 
 it filled His mind from the commencement of His 
 ministry, the increasing fear with which He anticipated 
 it as it came nearer, and the mysterious sorrow He 
 endured on the cross, a sorrow which compelled Him 
 to cry, " My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken 
 Me?"' 
 
 Dr. Jowett, in his essay " On Atonement and Sa- 
 tisfaction," referring to the alleged absence from our 
 Lord's teaching of any clear and unambiguous passages 
 I Note G. 
 
in.] the Testimony of our Lord, 93 
 
 which can be quoted in support of this doctrine, says : 
 *• It is hard to imagine that there can be any truer 
 expression of the Gospel than the words of Christ 
 Himself, or that any truth omitted by Him is essential 
 to the Gospel. ' The disciple is not above his master, 
 nor the servant greater than his lord.' The philosophy 
 of Plato was not better understood by his followers 
 than by himself, nor can we allow that the Gospel is to 
 be interpreted by the Epistles, or that the Sermon on 
 the Mount is only half Christian, and needs the fuller 
 inspiration or revelation of St. Paul, or the author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews." ^ I will not stay to insist 
 on the fundamental error involved in the suggestion 
 that our Lord's relation to His Apostles has even the 
 remotest analogy to the relation between Plato and his 
 followers. What Plato taught contained nearly every- 
 thing that Plato contributed to the development of the 
 intellectual and moral life of mankind ; but whatever 
 may be our theory of the Death of Christ, the larger 
 part of what Christ revealed of God is contained in 
 His personal character, in the relations which He sus- 
 tained to various descriptions of men, in the sufferings 
 to which He Himself submitted, and in the miracles 
 by which He relieved the sufferings of others.^ But 
 Dr. Jowett's reference to the relation between Plato 
 and his followers suggests the relation between Plato 
 and his master. 
 
 We have two representations of the teaching of 
 Socrates — one in the Memorabilia of Xenophon, the 
 
 I The Epistles of St. Paul, ii. 555. 2 See Lect. ii. pp. 37-49- 
 
94 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 other in the Platonic Dialogues — and the differences 
 between them are not altogether unlike those which are 
 alleged to exist between the teaching of the historical 
 Christ, as it may be ascertained from the Gospels/ and 
 the theological theories developed in the Apostolic 
 Epistles. Now, if in the Memorabilia it had been re- 
 corded that Socrates referred to his approaching mar- 
 tyrdom in terms at all like those in which it appears 
 that our Lord spoke of His Death ; if — forgive me if the 
 hypothesis appears strained and forced — we had learnt 
 from Xenophon that when Socrates was beginning to 
 discuss philosophy with the sophists and young men of 
 Athens, he had accepted testimony which implied that 
 he was to be sacrificed to the gods for the sins of 
 the Athenians'; if we learnt that his mind was oppressed 
 from the very first by the anticipation of the sorrows of 
 his last hours ; if to those who came to him inquiring 
 about the Supreme Good he had said that he must die 
 in order that the Supreme Good might be theirs ; if he 
 had spoken again and again of laying down his life 
 for others ; if he had said that his life was not to be 
 taken from him by the power of his enemies, but that 
 he would lay it down of himself; if he had declared 
 that the halfjuwy, to whose voice he always listened, 
 
 I The differences between the Synoptists and St. John are of 
 inconsiderable importance in relation to this argument. The state- 
 ment of the case would have been only slightly enfeebled if all 
 allusions to the Fourth Gospel were cancelled. Further, the 
 characteristic theology of the Fourth Gospel is not of a kind to 
 create distrust of any testimony it may contain to the Doctrine of 
 Expiation. 
 
ni.] the Testimony of our Lord, 95 
 
 had revealed to him that the very purpose for which he 
 had been born was that he might give his life a ransom 
 for many ; if he had deliberately connected the idea of 
 his own death with expiatory sacrifices which his 
 countrymen were accustomed to oifer to the gods ; if he 
 had declared that the lines of an ancient poet, pre- 
 dicting that the sins of the Athenians were to be laid 
 upon the head of one of the greatest of Athenian citizens, 
 were to be fulfilled in himself ; and if during his last 
 day in prison, and just before the slave brought him 
 the hemlock, instead of discoursing on immortality, 
 he had instituted a religious rite to be celebrated by 
 his friends in commemoration of his death, and said 
 that he was about to die that his disciples and his 
 feliow-citizens might receive the remission of sins; — 
 if, I say, all these things had been told us of 
 Socrates by Xenophon, and if we believed that they 
 were the true expression of his own conception of 
 his martyrdom, Xenophon's testimony alone would 
 have been sufficient to assure us that Socrates himself 
 believed that his death was an atonement, a satisfac- 
 tion, a sacrifice for the crimes of Athens. Plato might 
 then have written another dialogue ; under the lofty and 
 beautiful cypresses of the woods consecrated to Jupiter, 
 he might have assembled Phaedo, Apollodorus, Crito, 
 Critobulus, Hermogenes, and the other friends of 
 Socrates who were with him on the day of his mar- 
 tyrdom ; and he might have developed a theory of the 
 expiatory power of the death of Socrates even more 
 elaborate than that which Christian theologians have 
 
96 The Fact of the Atonement, [lect. in. 
 
 found of the Death of Christ in the Epistles of St. Paul 
 and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and we might have 
 claimed the authority of Socrates for the theory of 
 Plato without incurring the reproach which Dr Jowett 
 directs against evangelical theology, when he reminds 
 us that " the disciple is not above his master, nor the 
 servant greater than his lord." 
 
 Let the Gospels stand alone, let the testimony of the 
 Epistles be completely suppressed, and the strong foun- 
 dations of that conception of the Death of Christ which 
 has been the refuge of penitents and the joy of saints 
 for eighteen hundred years will remain unshaken. 
 The words of Christ, and the words of Christ alone, are 
 a sufficient vindication of the ancient faith of the 
 Church. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT: THE TESTT 
 MONY OF ST. PETER, 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT: THE TESTIMONY OF 
 ST. PETER. 
 
 IN the present Lecture I propose to consider the 
 testimony to the Atonement contained in the dis- 
 courses and the First Epistle of St. Peter. 
 
 But it may be alleged that the attempt to establish 
 this doctrine by an appeal to apostolic testimony is pre- 
 mature, and that the moral objections which have been 
 urged against the theory that the Death of Christ was 
 in any sense a Propitiation or Sacrifice for the sins of 
 the world, ought first to be discussed, and, if possible, 
 dissipated. The moral objections to the doctrine of 
 the Atonement are felt by many persons to be far too 
 grave to be overborne by mere apostolic authority. 
 These objections may even impair the force of the 
 argument from the testimony of our Lord in the pre- 
 vious Lecture. With many who confess that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ was ** a Teacher sent from God," and who 
 even acknowledge that He was ** God manifest in the 
 flesh," the repugnance to the idea of expiation is so 
 strong, that while they receive the Four Gospels as 
 containing a fairly authentic account of our Lord's life 
 
100 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. ' 
 
 and teaching, they believe that the Apostles could not 
 have received this idea from Christ Himself, and they 
 are perplexed that the writers of the Gospels should 
 have attributed to Him language which appears to 
 sanction it. 
 
 The tendency to discriminate between apostolic 
 teaching and the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ is, 
 I believe, very general. To His words — when we are 
 sure that we have them — absolute authority is con- 
 ceded; but there are many who hesitate to concede the 
 same authority to the words of St. Peter or of St. John. 
 The hesitation does not often assume a very definite 
 form. It is the result of a spiritual instinct, or of what 
 seems to be a spiritual instinct, rather than of a theo- 
 logical theory. Men feel that if Christ were still visibly 
 present among us, accessible in all hours of difficulty 
 and doubt, they would infinitely rather trust Him than 
 trust themselves. If at any time His words seemed to 
 be in conflict with their own highest conceptions of 
 moral and spiritual truth, they would feel sure that He 
 must be right and that they must be wrong. But if it 
 were only an Apostle that was still living in the world 
 the case would be different ; they are not quite clear 
 that the same submission would be due. 
 
 If, therefore, we can be certain that Christ Himself 
 taught the doctrine of the Atonement, it is acknow- 
 ledged that however strong the objections to the doctrine 
 may seem to us, we cannot challenge it, and can only 
 confess that we are in the presence of a great mystery. 
 But the objections are of such a kind, that those 
 
IV.] the Testimony ofSt.P^ier, ' loi 
 
 who feel their force are not willing to accept the 
 doctrine if it is sustained by apostolic testimony- 
 alone ; and they are half inclined to believe that the 
 words in which our Lord is represented as teaching 
 this doctrine, must have been attributed to Him by 
 mistake. For the theory of the Atonement is declared 
 to be inconsistent with all our conceptions of the Divine 
 Justice, and a travesty of the Divine Mercy, and to be 
 irreconcilable with the moral and spiritual nature both 
 of God and man. 
 
 I am not about to make any attempt to remove these 
 objections in the present Lecture. Just now, for a 
 reason which will appear presently, I am rather anxious 
 that their full force should be recognised. Perhaps I 
 have not stated them with sufficient clearness and 
 energy, and it may therefore be well to quote the most 
 concise and vigorous statement of them with which I 
 am familiar. The Rev. James Martineau has expressed 
 with perfect accuracy, the position not only of those 
 who, with himself, deny the deity of our Lord, but of 
 very many who, while rejecting the idea of Atone- 
 ment, regard the Incarnation as the central and 
 characteristic fact of the Christian religion. 
 
 " Faith in the human conscience," he says, " is necessary to faith 
 in the Divine perfection, and th's again is the needful prekide to the 
 
 beUef in any special revelation This Moral Perfection of 
 
 God being assumed as a postulate in the very idea of a Revelation, 
 no system of religion v/hich contradicts it can be admitted as 
 credible on any terms. But," he proceeds to say, " the doctrine of 
 the Atonement involves a plain denial of God's moral excellence. 
 Theologians speak as if there were some crime, or at least some 
 weakness in the clemency which freely receives a repentant crea- 
 
103 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 ture into favour." .... But " how is the alleged immorality of 
 letting off the sinner mended by the added crime of penally crush- 
 ing the sinless ? " ^ 
 
 Something, perhaps, of the energy of this protest 
 was inspired by certain theological theories, for which 
 I have no occasion to offer apology or defence ; but 
 the objection is directed against every theory which 
 affirms that in any sense our iniquities were laid 
 upon Christ ; that there is a direct relation between 
 His Death and the remission of sins ; that it is for 
 Christ's sake that the penitent is received back again 
 into the light and joy of God. It is the Idea of an 
 objective Atonement which provokes repugnance, no 
 matter what may be the form in which that Idea 
 is represented. The repugnance is so deep that no 
 system of religion in which the Idea is present ** can 
 be admitted as credible on any terms.'' 
 
 In the course of these Lectures I trust it will be- 
 come apparent that in the Death of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ as a Sacrifice and Propitiation for the sins 
 of the world, the Moral Perfections of God find their 
 highest expression, and the deepest necessities of 
 man's moral and spiritual life their only complete 
 satisfaction ; but I have been anxious to state thus 
 early the principal objection to the doctrine which I 
 hope to establish, because that objection seems to 
 suggest a practical solution of the difficulty with 
 regard to the authority of apostolic teaching. 
 
 Let me re-state the difficulty. With those persons 
 to whom these Lectures are addressed, the authority 
 "^ Studies of Christianity^ pp. 186-188. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St, Peter, 103 
 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ is absolute. He is God 
 manifest in the flesh, and in Him the very truth of 
 the Divine character has been revealed to mankind. 
 But it is maintained that the Apostles may have mis- 
 apprehended very much of His teaching. It is- clear 
 that they did not easily liberate themselves from the 
 influence of Jewish habits of thought and Jewish 
 traditions. Their inspiration, whatever it may have 
 been, did not make them omniscient. There were 
 many things of which they knew nothing ; there were 
 some things which they thought they knew, about 
 which, for a time at least, they were mistaken. Their 
 authority, therefore, is not decisive. When we are 
 sure that Christ is speaking, we are sure that we 
 have the very thought of God, but we cannot determine 
 the extent of the inspiration of the Apostles ; and it is 
 alleged that when they are speaking we are not sure 
 whether what they are telling us came to them from 
 the teaching of the Holy Ghost, or from their own 
 erring thoughts about the will and work of their 
 Master, or even from the common and untrustworthy 
 conceptions of Divine truth which prevailed among 
 their fellow-countrymen. It is probable that even in 
 reporting the words of Christ their report may have 
 been coloured by religious errors of their own ; it is still 
 more probable that these errors may have misled them 
 when they attempted to illustrate and develop Chris- 
 tian facts and doctrine. Even, therefore, if it can be 
 shown that the apostles taught that in some sense 
 the Death of Christ is the ground on which God. 
 
104 ^^^^ P'^ci of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 forgives human sin, it does not follow that they had 
 learnt it from Christ Himself, or by a special revela- 
 tion from heaven. 
 
 I wish to show that on this particular question we 
 cannot reject the authority of the Apostles — whether 
 they were inspired or uninspired — without rejecting the 
 authority of Christ Himself, and the moral objections 
 to the Idea of Atonement suggest the proof. 
 
 For in the judgment of those who reject this Idea, 
 as well as in the judgment of those who receive it, 
 our reception or rejection of it determines our whole 
 conception of the Divine character. When reading 
 the impassioned denunciations of the Idea of the 
 Atonement which are to be found in the pages of 
 some modern writers, it is hardly possible to resist 
 the conviction that in their opinion those who receive 
 it and those who reject it worship different Gods, 
 and belong to forms of religion which, in their funda- 
 mental principles and essential spirit, are mutually 
 antagonistic and destructive. 
 
 If there is any measure of truth in this representation 
 of the gravity of the controversy, it is quite unnecessary 
 to consider to what extent the inspiration granted to 
 the apostles secured them from religious error." It is 
 unnecessary to raise the question whether they re- 
 ceived any supernatural inspiration different in kind or 
 degree from that which is granted to the commonalty 
 of the faithful. The original Apostles were the friends 
 of Christ, and they were entrusted by Him with the 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St, Peter, 105 
 
 task of propagating the Faith of which He was the 
 Founder. I believe that they had an exceptional form 
 of spiritual illumination to qualify them for their work ; 
 but in the present argument I need not insist on 
 this. Let it be conceded, if the concession is asked 
 for, that beyond their personal intimacy with the Lord 
 Jesus Christ — whom I assume to have been the Son 
 of God — they had no special prerogatives, no surer 
 access to Divine Truth than any of ourselves, no 
 greater immunity from religious error. Let it be con- 
 ceded that the substance as well as the form of their 
 writings bears traces of their Jewish training, and, if 
 you will, of their Jewish narrowness, their Jewish pre- 
 judice, and their Jewish superstition. Still therS must 
 have been some limits to their possible mistakes. If St. 
 Peter and St. John, while professing to deliver to man- 
 kind the revelation which had come to them through 
 Christ, gave representations of His Death and of its 
 relations to human redemption, which, to quote the 
 words of Mr. Martineau, are " an outrage upon the first 
 principles of rectitude," and betray a " reckless dis- 
 regard of all moral considerations," from the thought 
 of which it is a just matter of astonishment " that all 
 good men do not recoil," ^ He who " spake as never 
 man spake " must have been the most inefficient of 
 moral teachers. 
 
 On a question of such magnitude and of such broad , 
 and practical interest as this, a question vitally affect- 
 mg the character of God and determining the whole 
 I Studies of Christianity^ p. 1 88. 
 
io6 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 attitude of the soul in relation to Him, I should be 
 satisfied to learn what Christ taught from the testimony 
 of any two or three men of fair intelligence who were 
 in moral sympathy with Christ, and who had had 
 sufficient opportunity of learning His mind. 
 
 That on this point the teaching of the original 
 Apostles must have been in harmony with the teaching 
 of our Lord, is still further demonstrated by the fact 
 that it was their special commission to fulfil His in- 
 tention " that repentance and remission of sins should 
 be preached in His name among all nations, beginning 
 at Jerusalem."^ 
 
 It is incredible that He should have invested men 
 with such a commission as this, who were capable of 
 associating with the infinite mercy of God in the 
 remission of sins an idea which justly revolts the 
 conscience of mankind, and ascribes to God Himself a 
 gross, deliberate, and systematic violation of the prin- 
 ciples of eternal righteousness. If the idea of Atone- 
 ment rests upon so appalling a misconception of the 
 Divine character and of the principles of the Divine 
 government, and if that idea is present in the teaching 
 of the Apostles, we have to explain — not how so grave 
 and fatal an error is consistent with the theory that 
 they had received supernatural inspiration to qualify 
 them for becoming the religious teachers of mankind — 
 but how it was possible for men of the most ordinary 
 capacity so grievously to pervert and corrupt the 
 ' Luke xxiv. 47. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter, 107 
 
 teaching of their Master. You cannot elude the argu- 
 ment founded on their testimony by distinguishing 
 between His teaching and theirs. On a subject of such 
 gravity, a subject involved in the very substance of 
 the commission they received from Christ, such dis- 
 tinctions are unavailing. Whatever moral objections 
 may be urged against their teaching on a point like 
 this, are an impeachment of the authority of Christ. 
 
 It is unnecessary, for the purposes of the present 
 argument, to discuss the nature or the limits of apos- 
 tolic inspiration. The varying forms in which the 
 Apostles state the relation between the Death of Christ 
 and the forgiveness of sin may be their own ; but if 
 their varying statements are harmonious expressions of 
 the same idea — that the Death of Christ is the im- 
 mediate ground on which God grants to the penitent 
 remission of sins — the Apostles must have received the 
 idea from Christ Himself. 
 
 In our times the doctrine of inspiration is in a very 
 unsettled and even chaotic condition, and many devout 
 men are unable to determine to what extent the super- 
 natural illumination of the Holy Ghost protected the 
 Apostles from religious error. The inquiry has con- 
 siderable speculative interest, but the solution of it is 
 practically unimportant in relation to the chief articles 
 of the Christian Faith. Whether Jesus of Nazareth 
 died on the cross and rose from the dead, whether 
 He wrought miracles, whether He appealed to the 
 Jewish nation with the authority of a Teacher sent 
 
io8 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 from God, whether He claimed a unique relation to 
 God, whether He condemned sin and taught the 
 necessity of repentance, whether He asserted the 
 necessity of a supernatural life as the condition of 
 entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, whether he 
 affirmed that the forgiveness of sin and escape from 
 eternal condemnation depend upon faith in Himself 
 — these are questions on which the concurrent testi- 
 mony of His personal friends is decisive. There are 
 some points on which, apart from special inspiration, 
 it is quite conceivable that they may have mistaken 
 their Master's meaning; there are others, and these 
 the greatest, on which, even apart from inspiration, 
 mistake was impossible. The importance of the inspi- 
 ration of the original Apostles may be said to vary in 
 an inverse ratio with the importance of the religious 
 doctrines on which they are writing. 
 
 In considering, therefore, the testimony of St. Peter, 
 St. James, and St. John, to the doctrine discussed in 
 these Lectures, I do not think it necessary to claim 
 for them any such spiritual illumination as would have 
 saved them from all religious error. The argument 
 does not require it. Whatever errors they may have 
 fallen into, it is inconceivable that they should have 
 taught that the Death of Christ is the objective 
 ground on which God forgives human sin, unless they 
 had learnt it from Christ Himself. 
 
 We will consider, first, the discourses of St. Peter 
 contained in the early chapters of the Acts of the 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 109 
 
 Apostles ; his address on the day of Pentecost to the 
 great multitude, composed of devout Jews from many 
 lands, and speaking many tongues ; his address de- 
 livered in Solomon's porch to the crowd assembled by 
 the healing of the lame man who had been accustomed 
 to ask alms " at the gate of the temple which is called 
 Beautiful ; " his reply to Annas and Caiaphas, when 
 the miracle was challenged, and he was asked "by 
 what power or by what name " it had been wrought ; 
 his speech when he was brought a second time before 
 the Council; and his explanation of the gospel to 
 Cornelius the centurion, and the kinsmen and friends 
 gathered in his house. These discourses are especially 
 interesting, because they are among the very few apos- 
 tolic addresses preserved to us which were delivered 
 to persons who were not believers in Christ. 
 
 The substance of them all is the same. Peter 
 declared that Jesus of Nazareth, as the Jewish people 
 
 knew, was *' a man approved of God by 
 
 miracles and wonders and signs which God did by 
 Him," in the midst of them ;^ that He was the Christ 
 of whom Moses and the prophets had spoken, and for 
 whose coming they and their fathers had been waiting 
 and longing for centuries;^ that in crucifying Him the 
 people and their rulers had committed a great crime ; ^ 
 that God had raised Him from the dead ; "^ that He was 
 now reigning in heaven, and was appointed by God to 
 
 I Acts ii. 22 ; x. 38. 
 * Ibid. ii. 30-36 ; iii. 13, 22-26 ; iv. 10 ; v. 31 ; x. 43. 
 
 3 Ibid. ii. 23 ; iii. 14, 15 ; iv. 10 ; v. 30 ; x. 39. 
 
 4 Ibid. ii. 24, 32 ; iii 15 ; iv. 10 ; v. 31 ; x 40. 
 
no The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 be the Prince and Saviour and Judge of men ; ' that 
 
 it was the immediate duty of men to repent of the sin 
 
 of rejecting Him, to be baptized into His name, to 
 
 acknowledge His authority, and to rely on Him for 
 
 salvation ; ^ that if they repented and believed in Him 
 
 they would receive remission of sins and the gift of the 
 
 Holy Ghost; 3 and that *' through His name," and only 
 
 through His name, was remission of sins possible to men/ 
 
 But St. Peter does not tell the people that our Lord's 
 
 Death was an expiatory sacrifice. Dr. Young thinks that 
 
 on our theory the omission is inexplicable. He says : — 
 
 " The personal friends and companions of Jesus, who had been 
 most intimately and affectionately associated with Him for three 
 years, .... who had witnessed His Death, and had seen Him, 
 and had intercourse with Him after His resurrection ; who, after 
 His departure, had, at His command, waited in solemn prayer to 
 God during seven days for that Holy Ghost whom He had pro- 
 mised to send forth, and on whose souls at last an extraordinary 
 Divine power had descended, — they certainly must have known 
 what their Master intended should be preached as His gospel, 
 and above all must have known that which was most essential 
 and Divine in it. And when only seven weeks after His Death, 
 on the day of Pentecost, they assembled in Jerusalem, it is 
 impossible to doubt that their minds and their hearts must have 
 been full of Christ, of His teaching, His thoughts, His spirit, and 
 
 His very words A noble occasion of disburdening their 
 
 full hearts was presented. Jerusalem was crowded with multi- 
 tudes from all corners of the known world ; a mighty audience 
 was prepared, and they were not only expected, but invited to 
 speak. And they did speak. Thoroughly instructed as they were 
 in the life and death and doctrine of the Lord, glowing with love 
 
 ^ Acts ii. 33 ; iii. 21 ; v. 31 ; x. 42. 
 
 2 Ibid. ii. 38 ; iii. 19, 23 ; v. 11, 12 ; x. 42, 43. 
 
 3 Ibid. ii. 38 ; iii. 19 ; v. 31, 32 ; x. 42, 43. 
 
 4 Ibid. ii. 38 ; iv. 12 ; x. 43, 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St, Peter, iii 
 
 of Christ and love of their yet blinded countrymen, specially 
 entrusted with the message of salvation, and specially endowed to 
 proclaim it, they did speak, and with great freedom and fervour 
 and fulness. But their theme, what was it? The expiation of 
 human sin, and satisfaction to Divine justice, by the sacrifice and 
 sufferings of Jesus on the cross ? Pardon obtained from God 
 through means of that sacrifice and these sufferings ? If ever 
 there was an occasion, whether we look to the speakers or to the 
 hearers or to the circumstances, when these announcements, 
 supposing them to be fundamental and vital, must have been 
 made, this was that occasion. But they were not made, and 
 nothing like them was once uttered. Peter's sermon on the day 
 of Pentecost to the crowding, eager multitudes at Jerusalem, the 
 first Christian sermon ever preached in this world, contains from 
 beginning to end nothing of this kind."^ 
 
 The substance of this criticism is repeated in Dr. 
 Young's observations on the other discourses and 
 addresses of St. Peter contained in the early chapters 
 of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The clearness and force with which it is maintained 
 that the original Apostles " must have known what 
 their Master intended should be preached as His 
 gospel, and above all must have known that which 
 was most essential and Divine in it," are admirable, and 
 confirm what has been already said on that subject 
 in the earlier part of this Lecture. But the criticisms 
 on St. Peter's omission of all reference to the expia- 
 tory character of the Death of Christ rest partly on 
 a misconception of evangelical doctrine, and partly 
 on what appears to me to be a failure to appreciate 
 the influence which the historical circumstances in 
 which these discourses were spoken must have had 
 on their contents and character. 
 
 I T/ie Lije and Light of Men^ pp. 349-351. 
 
112 The Fact of the Atonement-: [lect. 
 
 As directed against those evangelical theologians 
 who maintain that there can be no true faith in Christ 
 where there is not a clear recognition of His Death as 
 the Propitiation for the sins of the world, Dr. Young's 
 argument is conclusive. If that position could be 
 maintained St. Peter's silence would be incapable of 
 explanation; but that position is no essential part of the 
 evangelical creed. There is true Christian faith wher- 
 ever the Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as '* Prince 
 and Saviour," the Founder of the kingdom of heaven, 
 the Moral Ruler of mankind, the Author of eternal 
 salvation. That He atoned for sin on the cross is the 
 explanation of the power which He has received to 
 forgive sin ; but a penitent heart may rely on Him for 
 forgiveness, and for restoration to holiness and to God, 
 without apprehending the relation of His Death to 
 human redemption. It was St. Peter's immediate 
 object to prevail upon the Jews to repent of the crime 
 of rejecting and crucifying the Lord Jesus, and to 
 persuade them that He was the Messiah of Jewish 
 prophecy and Jewish hope, through whom, and through 
 whom alone, it was possible to obtain the pardon of 
 sin and eternal life and glory. If they repented of their 
 crime, confessed that Jesus whom they had crucified 
 was Lord and Christ, and trusted in Him for salvation, 
 their faith would be true and genuine ; and they would 
 receive the redemption which Christ had achieved for 
 them by His Death, though, as yet, they might not 
 know that only through His Death was their redemp- 
 tion made possible. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 113 
 
 It was but seven weeks before, as Dr. Young reminds 
 us, that the Jewish people had crucified the Lord Jesus 
 Christ as an impostor. To have spoken of the ex- 
 piatory power of His Sacrifice to those who had been 
 guilty of that supreme offence, or who had condoned it, 
 would have been useless. It would have been worse 
 than useless. There was one solitary aspect under 
 which, for the time, it was indispensably necessary 
 that they should regard the Death of Christ. In 
 crucifying Him, they had committed an appalling 
 crime. It was their immediate duty to repent 
 of this crime, and to confess its enormity. With 
 startling boldness and relentless severity St. Peter 
 insists on all the circumstances which aggravated 
 their guilt. For a moment he speaks of Christ as 
 having been " delivered by the determinate counsel 
 and foreknowledge of God " ^ — words which show 
 that already the Apostle regarded the Death of Christ 
 not as an accidental event, but as entering into the 
 Divine conception of His mission — but he instantly 
 returns to his immediate practical purpose, and adds : 
 " Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have cruci- 
 fied and slain." To have explained that the Death of 
 Christ was a Propitiation for the sins of the world 
 would have perplexed the minds of those to whom he 
 was speaking, and broken the force of those terrible 
 denunciations by which he endeavoured to awaken 
 their consciences and alarm their fears. 
 
 On the evangelical theory of the Atonement this 
 ^ Acts ii. 23. 
 9 
 
114 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 seems to me an adequate explanation, both of the con- 
 tents and omissions of the Apostle's discourses. But 
 how are these discourses to be explained on Dr. Young's 
 own theory? He, too, acknowledges, what indeed it 
 is impossible for any one who admits in any sense the 
 authority of the New Testament to deny, that the 
 Death of the Lord Jesus Christ has even a greater 
 place in the moral and spiritual redemption of our race 
 than His life. 
 
 " On the cross," he says, " Christ presses into the very centre of 
 the world's heart, takes possession of it, and there in that centre 
 preaches^ as nowhere else was possible, the gospel of God's love ! 
 ' Be ye reconciled to God,' He cries. * Come back to your Father ! 
 He hath sent Me to call you back! Inflexibly righteous as He is, 
 He pities, He loves you, and only waits to forgive and welcome.'" ^ 
 
 True — gloriously true — although it is only part of the 
 truth! But how was it that St. Peter said nothing 
 about it ? He and the Apostles had, as we have been 
 reminded, " a noble occasion of disburdening their 
 full hearts" on the day of Pentecost. On Dr. Young's 
 theory, ** the cross, symbol of dishonour and weakness, 
 is the mightiest power in the universe ; " * it is the last 
 and most wonderful revelation of the Divine love. 
 But how was it that the Apostle was as silent about 
 the revelation of the love of God in the Death of Christ 
 as about its expiatory purpose ? To Dr. Young the 
 cross is the ultimate demonstration of the Divine com- 
 passion and mercy ; but of this those who listened to 
 the early discourses of St. Peter heard nothing. He 
 appeals to the cross again and again, not to fill their 
 I The Life and Light of Men, p. 43. 2 j^id, p. 1^6. 
 
^v.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 115 
 
 hearts with hope, but to intensify their anguish and 
 their terror. The recollection of his cowardice in 
 denying his Master on the night before the crucifixion 
 seems to add fire and vehemence to his denuncia- 
 tions : — " Him ye have taken, and with wicked hands 
 have crucified and slain :" " God hath made that same 
 Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ:" 
 **Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired 
 a murderer to be granted to you ; and killed the Prince 
 of life, whom God hath raised from the dead :" "By the 
 name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom 
 God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man 
 stand before you whole : " *' We ought to obey God 
 rather than men " — and you especially are men whom 
 we cannot obey if we are to obey Him, for "the God of 
 our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged 
 on a tree." The Apostle never misses an opportunity 
 of representing the crucifixion as the most terrible of 
 sins. He denounces those who had committed it with 
 a persistency and boldness which must have shaken 
 their hearts with fear. He never changes his tone. 
 From first to last, in these early discourses, the Death 
 of Christ is never a revelation of the infinite wealth 
 of the Divine love : it is always a revelation of the 
 enormity of human sin. It is never appealed to in order 
 to awaken hope, but always in order to create dismay. 
 I ask again, How is this to be explained on the 
 theory of Dr. Young and of those who think with him ? 
 It can be explained only by such considerations as those 
 which I have alleged in reply to Dr. Young's criticisms. 
 
 9* 
 
ii6 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 And these considerations are less available for Dr. 
 Young's theory than for our own. For the expiatory 
 power of the Death of Christ is effective for all who rely 
 on Him for the forgiveness of sins, even though they may 
 know nothing of its expiatory intention ; but the power 
 of the Death of Christ as an appeal of the Divine love 
 to the human heart cannot be felt unless the Death is 
 distinctly recognised as a revelation of that love. On 
 our theory, Peter's silence did not prevent those who 
 listened to him from obtaining the remission of sins 
 which the Death of Christ brought within their reach : 
 if they trusted in Him as their Saviour they were for- 
 given, though they knew nothing of the relation between 
 His Death and their forgiveness. But on Dr. Young's 
 theory the silence of St. Peter was fatal. Dr. Young 
 maintains in common with all evangelical theologians 
 that the Death of Christ has a critical importance in 
 relation to human redemption, but if its whole value lies 
 in its power over the human heart as a revelation of the 
 love of God, the Death is absolutely valueless where 
 that revelation is not seen and understood ; and St. 
 Peter, by representing the crucifixion exclusively as a 
 human crime, and saying nothing to suggest that the 
 Death of Christ was a manifestation of the Divine love, 
 made "the cross of Christ of none effect." 
 
 But I repeat that it was necessary that those 
 by whom our Lord had been ** crucified and slain " 
 should be made to feel and confess their guilt ; and 
 therefore whenever St. Peter in these early addresses 
 speaks of the Death of Christ, it is to give intensity 
 
IV.] the Testmiony of St, Peter, 117 
 
 and energy to the exhortation to repent. He speaks 
 of it neither as the most wonderful and pathetic 
 revelation of the love of God, nor as the expiation 
 for the sins of the human race. 
 
 There are two points, however, in these addresses 
 which require notice — the frequency and earnestness 
 with which the Apostle declares that men may obtain 
 the remission of sins, and the manner in which he con- 
 nects this great blessing with the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 It does not appear that either the twelve apostles or 
 the seventy disciples said much about the forgiveness of 
 sins during our Lord's earthly life. They were com- 
 missioned to proclaim that the kingdom of heaven was 
 at hand, and to charge men to repent. The promise of 
 the remission of sins, if it formed any part of the sub- 
 stance of their preaching, had only a subordinate place. 
 How was it that it assumed such prominence imme- 
 diately after our Lord's Death and ascension into 
 heaven ? How was it that St. Peter, though he in- 
 sisted so earnestly on the aggravations of the sin which 
 the Jewish people had committed in crucifying Christ, 
 never threatened them with the Divine judgments for 
 their crime, but repeated incessantly the promise of 
 forgiveness ? 
 
 Nor does he speak of the infinite mercy of God as 
 the ground on which they might hope for pardon. He 
 invariably connects the remission of sins with the name 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ — " Repent, and be baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission 
 
ii8 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 of sins.'*' The impotent man had been made whole 
 "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," and 
 " there is none other name under heaven given among 
 men, w^hereby w^e must be saved." ^ It w^as the plain 
 and urgent duty of men to repent of their sins, but 
 forgiveness is not represented as the direct result of re- 
 pentance or as the immediate expresssion of the Divine 
 mercy — "Through His name, whosoever believeth in 
 Him shall receive remission of sins."^ The spiritual 
 order is changed. The old argument of the penitent, 
 " Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy 
 lovingkindness; according unto the multitude of Thy 
 tender mercies blot out my transgressions," passes 
 into a new form, and the " name " of Jesus Christ is 
 made the solitary foundation of human hope. To St. 
 Peter this was the fulfilment of ancient prophecy )^ and 
 henceforth sinful men were to rest their confidence in 
 the power and grace of Him whom the Jews had slain 
 and hanged on a tree, for " Him hath God exalted by 
 His right hand to give repentance . • . and forgive- 
 ness of sins."^ 
 
 These statements do not necessarily imply that by 
 His Death the Lord Jesus Christ had atoned for human 
 sin, but they imply that the relation between Him and 
 the remission of sins is absolutely unique. He has 
 not simply made a new revelation of the mercy of 
 God, and so strengthened the grounds of human con- 
 fidence in the Divine readiness to forgive ; nor has He 
 
 I Acts ii. 38. 2 Ibid. iv. 12. 3 Ibid. x. 43. 
 
 4 Ibid. X. 43. 5 Ibid. v. 31. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 119 
 
 simply originated new motives to repentance. He 
 is the channel, and the only channel, of the Divine 
 mercy. For the pardon of sin the faith of the 
 human race is henceforth to rest on Him. Preaching 
 of this kind, so far as I know, has never been asso- 
 ciated with a theology which declares that the whole 
 purpose of our Lord's life and sufferings was to 
 produce a moral and spiritual impression on the 
 nature of man. It rests upon another and wholly 
 different conception of His work. It does not necessa- 
 rily imply the theory of expiation, but it trains the 
 soul to assume precisely that attitude in relation to 
 Christ which the expiatory theory requires. The faith 
 of those who believed the gospel as St. Peter preached 
 it would receive no shock — it would be complemented 
 and perfected — by the discovery that Christ, in whose 
 name they trusted for the remission of sins, had atoned, 
 by His Death, for the sins of the world. 
 
 From the early discourses of St. Peter, addressed to 
 persons none of whom had as yet received the Chris- 
 tian faith, and some of whom were the bitter enemies 
 of Christ, we turn to his great epistle, addressed to 
 persons who were not only Christians, but who were 
 suffering persecution for Christ's sake. The epistle is 
 not doctrinal, but hortatory. It was written not to ex- 
 plain the articles of Christian belief, but to inculcate 
 Christian duty, and to strengthen and console its 
 readers in their earthly troubles by reminding them of 
 the great objects of Christian hope. 
 
120 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The omissions of the epistle are hardly less instruc- 
 tive than its contents. St. Peter had been the friend 
 and companion of Christ for three years. Many of our 
 Lord's sayings intended to comfort the sorrowful, and 
 especially to inspire with energy and constancy those 
 who are *' persecuted for righteousness' sake," must 
 have been always present to his memory, and must 
 have been the perpetual solace of his heart. He quotes 
 none of them. The Christian people to whom he is 
 writing appear to have been in danger of suffering the 
 loss of all things through their fidelity to Christ. It 
 might have assisted to reconcile them to their mis- 
 fortunes to be reminded that Christ Himself was poor, 
 and had not where to lay His head. Of the poverty of 
 Christ St. Peter says nothing. They were in great 
 distress, and he must have remembered innumerable 
 scenes in our Lord's earthly history illustrating the 
 tenderness of His sympathy — scenes which to Christian 
 people, in every country, and through eighteen cen- 
 turies, have been unfailing springs of consolation and 
 hope, sweetening the bitterness of suffering, and sus- 
 taining faltering faith in the pity and love of God, and 
 which have touched the hearts of innumerable men to 
 whom the Christian faith was only a beautiful fiction ; 
 but to none of these is there any allusion. From the 
 first line of the epistle to the last there is not a single 
 sentence from any of our Lord's discourses, public or 
 private : neither promise nor parable spoken by Him. 
 is once quoted. Though His resurrection is men- 
 tioned three or four times, there is not a solitary 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St, Peter. 121 
 
 reference to any of His beneficent miracles. But there 
 are no less than eight passages in which the Apostle 
 speaks of our Lord's blood, His Death, or His suffer- 
 ings. The Spirit of Christ in the prophets " testified 
 beforehand of the sufferings of Christ," ^ and the Apostle 
 describes himself as *' a witness of the sufferings of 
 Christ."^ Those to whom he is writing were "elect 
 . . . unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ." 3 They had been *' redeemed . . . with the 
 precious blood of Christ."* They are reminded that 
 Christ "suffered for sins," and "bare our sins in His 
 own body on the tree " ; ^ that He " suffered for sins, 
 the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; 
 being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the 
 Spirit. " ^ They are exhorted to " arm " themselves 
 " with the same mind" with which Christ suffered,^ and 
 to rejoice, inasmuch as they are " partakers of Christ's 
 sufferings."^ No doubt some of these references to our 
 Lord's sufferings were suggested by the sufferings of 
 the Christian people to whom the letter was written, 
 and have very little if any relation to the doctrine of 
 expiation. But it is significant that St. Peter's whole 
 interest and thought should seem to have been con- 
 centrated on the cross and the resurrection. 
 
 This subordination — I might almost say suppression 
 — of the ministry of Christ, this elevation of His Death 
 and of His triumph over death into a position of 
 supreme importance, is not peculiar to the Epistle of 
 
 MPet. i. II. 2 Ibid. V. I. 3 Ibid. i. 2. 4 Ibid. i. 19. 
 
 5 Ibid. ii. 21-24. ^ Ibid. iii. 17. 7 Ibid. iv. i. ^ ibid. iv. 12. 
 
122 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 St. Peter; it is the common characteristic of all the 
 epistles of the New Testament. How was it that 
 when the Apostles were enforcing the duty of sub- 
 mission to human governments, they never appealed 
 to our Lord's great saying, " Render to Caesar the 
 things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that 
 are God's ** ? How was it that they never spoke to 
 parents of Christ's love for little children ? How was 
 it that when they charged children to obey their 
 parents, they never enforced the precept by reminding 
 them that Jesus Himself was " subject " to Joseph and 
 Mary ? How was it that His works of compassion, in 
 which He seems to have found relief in His own sorrows, 
 are never mentioned, to confirm by the force of the 
 highest example the duty of doing good to all men ? 
 How are we to explain the almost uniform practice of 
 the Apostles in deriving their motives to the discharge 
 of Christian duty, their confirmations of Christian hope, 
 their scla:e for Christian suffering, from the hours of 
 shame and anguish in which our Lord's earthly history 
 closed, and from His resurrection and ascension into 
 heaven ? Some explanation is indispensable if we are 
 to reconstruct for ourselves the inner faith of the 
 Apostles, and if we are to interpret their writings 
 accurately. It was not the habit of the Jewish mind 
 to dwell in this way on the death of prophets and 
 saints. It is not the habit of men generally to be 
 silent on the courage and sanctity and wisdom of 
 illustrious religious reformers, and to recur perpetually 
 to their martyrdom. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 12 j 
 
 If it be answered that, on any theological theory, the 
 Death of Christ infinitely transcends in pathos and 
 power the death of the noblest of those who have 
 perished through their fidelity to truth, or their zeal for 
 the good of men, the rejoinder is obvious. His life 
 equally transcends theirs in moral and spiritual interest 
 as being the revelation, at once, of the character of 
 God and of God's idea of human perfection. The 
 question returns, How was it that St. Peter in this 
 epistle said nothing about our Lord's life and teaching, 
 and referred so frequently to His Death ? 
 
 It also deserves notice that in the Apostle's references 
 to the sufferings and Death of Christ in this epistle 
 there is hardly a trace of the stern and vehement in- 
 dignation with which, in his early addresses, he had 
 denounced the crime of the crucifixion. When we do 
 honour to the memory of martyrs, we usually con- 
 demn the cruelty and injustice of their persecutors. 
 But St. Peter, although he speaks so often of the 
 Death of Christ, expresses no abhorrence — expresses 
 no censure even — of the treachery and ingratitude and 
 malice of the Jewish nation and its rulers. The cen- 
 sure where it is present is only implied ; it was no part 
 of his intention to make the memory of those who 
 committed the great offence the object of enduring 
 hatred. In this, too, he illustrates the common spirit 
 and habit of the writers of the New Testament. Very 
 rarely, and even then without any passion and intensity 
 of resentment, do any of them speak of the sin of Judas, 
 
124 ^^^ P(^<^t of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 or of the high priest, or of the people that clamoured 
 for our Lord's blood. They trusted in the sacrifice of 
 Christ for the remission of their own sins, and when 
 speaking of the cross, it would have been contrary to 
 the habit and temper which the cross encouraged, to 
 say hard things about the sins of others. It almost 
 appears as if the Death of Christ, which expiated before 
 God the sins of the human race, gradually blotted from 
 the memory even of those who loved Him best the 
 crime of His murderers. 
 
 The epistle is addressed to Christians who are 
 described as " the elect strangers of the dispersion," 
 living in various countries of Western Asia. It is 
 probable that they were principally Gentiles. If they 
 were Jews they were no longer acknowledged by their 
 countrymen as true children of Abraham : by their 
 apostacy from Judaism, they were regarded as having 
 forfeited the great prerogatives and hopes of the elect 
 race. But to St. Peter, whether they were Jews or 
 Gentiles, they were the heirs of all the ancient pro- 
 mises and the direct descendants of the ancient saints. 
 They were " scattered abroad," and, like the patriarchs, 
 were " strangers and pilgrims " on earth, belonging to 
 no worldly kingdom, but citizens of a " heavenly 
 country." Or, perhaps, and more probably, this 
 description was suggested by the calamities which 
 had driven a great part of the Jewish nation out of 
 the land of their fathers. The "dispersion" was 
 the ordinary name for those Jews who were living in 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter, 125 
 
 heathen countries, and this is the title which St. 
 Peter gives to the Christians ** scattered throughout 
 Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." 
 They, and not the mere descendants of Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob, according to the flesh, were the " children 
 of God scattered abroad," who are ultimately to be 
 brought into an eternal and glorious kingdom. For 
 them is reserved " the inheritance incorruptible and 
 undefiled, and that fadeth not away,"^ of which the 
 land of promise was but a transient prophecy and 
 symbol. They were the " elect race," the '* consecrated 
 nation," the " people " that God had made in a special ^ 
 sense His own.^ All the titles which the Jews had 
 received from God were theirs, and with a nobler 
 meaning ; all the sacred institutions and prerogatives 
 of Judaism were theirs, and in a nobler form. They 
 were themselves the very temple of God ; ^ they were 
 priests — every one of them — and they had direct access 
 to the Divine presence ; priests belonging to a more 
 mysterious and august line than that of Aaron, for 
 they were a " royal priesthood," "♦ uniting in themselves 
 the double honours which priestly and regal dignities 
 separately symbolised. 
 
 It is in harmony with all these passages that the 
 Christian people to whom the letter is written are 
 described as " elect according to the foreknowledge of 
 God the Father, unto . . . sprinlding of the blood of jfesus 
 Christ.''^ The Jewish nation was separated from the 
 
 I I Pet. i. 4. 2 Ibid. ii. 9. 3 Ibid. ii. 4. 
 
 4 Ibid. ii. 5. 5 Ibid. i. 2. 
 
126 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 rest of mankind, and received into a unique relation- 
 ship with Jehovah at Mount Sinai, by being sprinkled 
 with the blood of sacrifices : half of the blood was 
 sprinkled on the altar, half of it on the people ; and 
 St. Peter says that the true elect race was separated 
 from the rest of mankind by being sprinkled with the 
 blood of Christ. The Death of Christ was therefore a 
 sacrifice. What does this mean ? 
 
 It may be urged that sacrificial language derived' 
 from the institutions of Judaism is extremely uncertain 
 in its meaning, and that it is practically unintelligible 
 to most of us ; that some learned scholars and theolo- 
 gians have maintained that the Jewish sacrifices were 
 never supposed to represent the idea of expiation, and 
 that they expressed nothing more than the complete 
 surrender to God of the life of the persons who offered 
 them ; that however this may be, it is incredible that 
 our apprehension of the true meaning and purpose of 
 the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ should depend 
 upon our being able to recover the conceptions which 
 v/ere current among the Jewish people in the time of 
 our Lord of the precise intention and character of 
 their peculiar religious services which have now long 
 become obsolete ; that if instead of interpreting St. 
 Peter's sacrificial language by the common sacrificial 
 conceptions of his Jewish contemporaries, we are re- 
 quired to interpret it in the light of the original idea 
 of the Jewish institutions, it is unreasonable to insist 
 on our mastering a difficult and obscure province of 
 Jewish learning before we can become simple Christian 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St, Peter. 127 
 
 believers. Or it may be maintained that when a Chris- 
 tian Jew is expressing his conception of the Death of 
 Christ in language suggested by the institutions of 
 Judaism, it is impossible for us to distinguish with any 
 confidence between the Idea and the form under which 
 the Idea is presented, or to be quite sure whether he 
 intends us to understand that all the contents of the 
 temporary symbol reappear in the eternal fact. 
 
 Whatever force there may be in these considerations, 
 there are other passages in this epistle to which they 
 do not apply — passages which enable us, without any 
 learned inquiry into the sacrificial institutions of Ju- 
 daism, to determine in what sense St. Peter used sacri- 
 ficial language to describe the nature and effect of our 
 Lord's Death. 
 
 Like St. Paul, he thought it necessary to exhort 
 slaves^ to be obedient to their masters. The free 
 spirit of the Christian faith made men resent servi- 
 tude, and but for the earnestness with which the 
 Apostles protested against any violent and premature 
 attempt to break up the existing social order, might 
 have led to all the useless horrors of a servile revolt. 
 In appealing to them to manifest a spirit of patience 
 and meekness, he reminds them of what Christ en- 
 dured, and of how He endured it. By charging them 
 to imitate so great an Example, he recognises and 
 vindicates the dignity of which they were conscious, 
 
 ^ I Pet. ii. 18. The word which St. Peter uses (6i/c«rai) does not 
 necessarily denote that the persons addressed were slaves. It is a 
 milder term than that which is usually employed for that purpose ; 
 but the context shows that their position was really that of slavery. 
 
128 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 and which made them impatient of their wrongs, while 
 he enforces the duty of submission. " If when ye do 
 well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is 
 acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye 
 called : because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us 
 an example, that ye should follow His steps : who, when 
 He was reviled, reviled not again ; when He suffered, 
 He threatened not; but committed Himself [rather ^ de- 
 livered over those who inflicted His sufferings] to Him 
 that judgeth righteously : who His own self bare our 
 sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead 
 to sins, might live unto righteousness : by whose 
 stripes ye were healed"^ 
 
 What St. Peter affirms in this passage is that Christ 
 suffered, that is, died *^for'' these Christian slaves. 
 The phrase is certainly a remarkable one. It cannot 
 have been used accidentally and without any particular 
 meaning. It is not a phrase by which the Jewish 
 writers were accustomed to describe the death of their 
 prophets who had perished in the service of God and 
 of the nation. There were martyrs and heroes in their 
 history who **were tortured, not accepting deliverance," 
 who had " trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, 
 moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were 
 stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were 
 slain with the sword ; " but the sacred books of the 
 Jews either pass over these sufferings and martyrdoms 
 in silence, or mention them without any extraordinary 
 emphasis. It is never said that any of these illus- 
 I I Pet. ii. 20-24. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 129 
 
 trious saints " died for " men. But the phrase is 
 constantly used to describe the Death of our Lord. 
 Whether it means that He died in our stead, or as our 
 Representative, or merely, in a more general sense, 
 on our behalf, it is not necessary, as yet, to inquire. 
 Every one of these meanings has been found in the 
 expression ; every one of them is a fair representation 
 of the original words vi^hen taken separately from the 
 context in which they happen to stand. But we may 
 be quite sure that the fact of the Atonement — if it be 
 a fact — is neither to be established nor imperilled by 
 controversies on the force of a Greek preposition, about 
 whose precise value scholars can have any grave 
 doubt.' 
 
 In what sense, then, does St. Peter intend to say 
 that Christ died for us ? Or, rather — for this is the 
 more exact form of the question which the subsequent 
 part of the passage solves — what was there in the 
 Death of Christ which made it in any sense the words 
 can bear a Death "for us" — a Vicarious Death, or a 
 Representative Death, or a Death on behalf of man- 
 kind ? 
 
 St. Peter appeals to our Lord's sufferings as an 
 example of patience ; but if this were all, it is difficult 
 to understand why, like the other writers of the New 
 Testament, he should speak of Christ's suffering, or 
 dying, " for us," and never speak of Christ's living " for 
 us.'* It, was not in His last hours alone that He 
 translated the Divine law of human perfection into a 
 I Note H. 
 10 
 
130 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 human history. In His courage as well as in His 
 patience, in His compassion for the sufferings of men 
 as well as in the meekness with which He endured 
 His own sufferings, He left us an example that we 
 should follow His steps. 
 
 Again, if all that St. Peter meant by Christ's dying 
 for us, was that we derive a certain religious benefit 
 from the example of His constancy, it is curious that 
 neither he nor any of the other Apostles speak of 
 His having been tempted " for us " in the wilderness ; 
 or of His having agonised " for us " in Gethsemane ; 
 or of His having been homeless " for us ; " or of His 
 having wrought miracles *' for us ; " or of His having 
 delivered His discourses and spoken His parables 
 "for us." I do not mean to contend that such ex- 
 pressions would have been inadmissible. But they 
 never occur ; and the more earnestly it is maintained 
 that when the Apostles speak of Christ's dying " for 
 us," they mean nothing more than that He intended 
 us to receive, from His voluntary submission to death, 
 moral and spiritual advantages the same in kind as 
 those which we receive from His teaching and His 
 life, their non-occurrence becomes only the more re- 
 markable and surprising. 
 
 But let the phrase Christ " suffered for us *' receive 
 any interpretation that it will bear ; exclude from it 
 if you will the remotest suggestion of the Vicarious 
 or Representative character of His Death; and this 
 passage still contains insoluble difficulties for those 
 who imagine that Christ's Death was nothing more 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter, 131 
 
 than the most illustrious of martyrdoms. For St. 
 Peter defines the cause and describes the nature of 
 the suffering : Christ " bare our sins in His own 
 body on the tree." Every phrase discloses a separate 
 element of the Apostle's conception of our Lord's 
 Death. 
 
 " He bare our sins." No language could be less 
 ambiguous. St. Peter was a Jew, and the meaning 
 of the phrase was for ever fixed and determined by 
 its use in the Jewish law. " Whoso curseth his God 
 shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the 
 name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.'* ^ The 
 man who without an adequate reason omitted to 
 keep the Passover was "to be cut off from among his 
 people : because he brought not the offering of the Lord 
 in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.""^ 
 The meaning of the phrase is further illustrated by 
 the words of God to Moses, declaring that the genera- 
 tion which had sinned in the desert should not enter 
 the Land of Promise. **As for you, your carcases 
 they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children 
 shall wander in the wilderness forty years. . . . After 
 the number of the days in which ye searched the 
 land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye 
 bear your iniquities.'''^ The expression reappears in 
 the prophets. Ezekiel declares in God's name that 
 if his contemporaries perished it would be for their 
 own sins, and not for the sins of their fathers. 
 " When the son hath done that which is lawful and 
 
 I Lev. xxiv. 16. 2 Num. ix. 13. 3 Ibid. xiv. 32, 34. 
 
 10 * 
 
133 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 right .... he shall surely live. The soul that 
 
 sinneth, it shall die The son shall not hear 
 
 the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father 
 hear the iniquity of the son."^ But what the pro- 
 phet declares is not to happen between man and man, 
 the Apostle declares has actually happened between 
 us and Christ. *' He bare our sins." 
 
 "He bare our sins in His own hodyJ" Had St. 
 Peter meant that Christ " bare our sins " in the sense 
 in which some modern theologians interpret the 
 phrase — that He " bore them on His feeling, became 
 inserted into their bad lot by His sympathy as a 
 friend,"^ — why did he speak of Christ as bearing our 
 sins " in His own body " ? It would be contrary 
 to the principles which should govern our interpre- 
 tation of writings so informal as the apostolical 
 epistles to suppose that he intended to affirm that 
 it was in His body alone that Christ suffered for 
 us ; but it is equally contrary to the principles on 
 which writings of any kind should be interpreted to 
 suppose that St. Peter could have written these words 
 had he beheved that Christ suffered for us only in 
 His sympathies. This would be to dissolve all re- 
 lations between language and thought.^ 
 
 As if protesting unintentionally and unconsciously 
 
 against the theories of later times, the Apostle adds 
 
 another clause which ought to have rendered this 
 
 misapprehension of his meaning impossible : " He 
 
 I Ezek. xviii. 19, 20. 2 BUSHNELL : Vicarious Sacrifice^ p. 9. 
 
 3 See British Quarterly Review, October, 1866. Pp. 430-435. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 133 
 
 bare our sins in His own body on the tree.''^ When 
 we speak of a man ascending the scaffold for crimes 
 which he has never committed, we should be as- 
 tonished if any one imagined that we were thinking 
 of the moral anguish which a good man must endure 
 when charged with foul and shameful sins. The moral 
 anguish may be more intolerable than the physical 
 penalty, and when he appears on the scaffold to suffer 
 the sentence which has been unjustly pronounced 
 against him, the sense of his disgrace may become 
 most vivid, and his recoil from the terrible charge which 
 has blasted his name most violent; but if we say, with- 
 out explanation, that with crimes laid upon him of 
 v/hich others were guilty he went up on to the scaffold, 
 our Avords could never be legitimately interpreted as 
 referring to his mental distress. Nor can it have been 
 merely of any anguish of moral sympathy that St. 
 Peter was thinking when he wrote that Christ *' bare 
 our sins in His own body on the tree." If that had 
 been all, his language would have taken an altogether 
 different form. 
 
 The force of the passage towards the close of the 
 next chapter — " For Christ also once suffered for sins, 
 the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to 
 
 ^ "Vix uno verbo tfKpamg vocis civa<pspeiv exprimi potest. Nota 
 ferre et offerre. Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum portasse 
 peccata nostra, in quantum ilia ipsi erant imposita. Secundo, ita 
 tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulerit in altari. Respicit ad 
 auimantes, quibus peccata primo imponebantur, quique deinceps 
 peccatis onusti offerebantur. Sed in quam aram ? ^vkov ait 
 Petrus, lignum, h.e. crucem."— Vitringa : quoted by Alford 
 in loc . 
 
134 ^^^ ^^^^ of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 God " ^ — cannot be fully appreciated unless we con- 
 nect it with the line of thought in which it occurs. 
 In the appeal to the sufferings of Christ which I have 
 already discussed, it was the Apostle's direct purpose 
 to enforce the duty of submitting patiently, as Christ 
 submitted, to undeserved evils. Here, the direct in- 
 tention is different. St. Peter is thinking now, not of 
 the spirit in which unmerited sufferings should be 
 endured, but of the estimate which Christian people 
 should form of them. 
 
 He says that it is the law of the Divine government 
 that well-doing shall be crowned with happiness. ** He 
 that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his 
 tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile : 
 let him eschev/ evil, and do good ; let him seek peace, 
 and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the 
 righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers : 
 but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 
 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers 
 of that which is good ? '"* Under the Divine order, 
 peace, safety, wealth, and honour are the inheritance 
 of righteousness. But that order is disturbed, and 
 for a time the best men may have to endure great 
 trouble. Is this a reason for despondency? Should 
 it discourage the endeavour to keep God's com- 
 mandments ? By no means. St. Peter has said that 
 it is the Divine law that men should be the happier 
 in every way for their righteousness ; but he adds, " If 
 ye suffer for righteousness' sake," still " ye are blessed. 
 1 I Pet. iii. i8. 2 ibid. iii. 10-13. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 135 
 
 Be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. . . . 
 It is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer 
 for well - doing than for evil doing."^ He then re- 
 minds them of our Lord Himself. " For Christ 
 also once suffered." Does the Apostle say " for well- 
 doing " ? This is what we should have expected ; this is 
 what the strenuous movement of his previous thought 
 seems to render inevitable ; this is what seems ab- 
 solutely necessary in order to make his appeal to 
 Christ's example effective and even pertinent ; but in- 
 stead of, this he says *' Christ also once suffered for 
 sins.'^ It seems as though the intimate relation be- 
 tween our sins and Christ's sufferings had taken such 
 complete possession of the Apostle's mind and heart, 
 that to dissolve or suppress that relation even for a 
 moment was impossible to him. Even when he is 
 telling Christian people that it is better, " if the will 
 of God be so," that they should suffer for " well-doing 
 than for evil-doing," he cannot add, *'for it was for 
 well-doing that Christ suffered." The habit of his 
 'mind does not permit it ; and he therefore says, '' For 
 Christ also suffered for sins.'' ^ 
 
 That St. Peter was still thinking, not of the moral 
 anguish which came upon the soul of Christ from the 
 depth of His sympathy with our sinful race, is evident 
 from the words which immediately follow : *' Christ 
 also once suffered for sins, .... being put to death in 
 the flesh." He '' suffered for sins " once, and He " suf- 
 fered for sins " by dying for them. 
 
 I I Pet. iii. 14-17. 2 Note I. 
 
136 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The " sins " for which He died were not sins with 
 which He was falsely accused by His enemies : this 
 would have brought His death into the category of or- 
 dinary martyrdoms for righteousness' sake. We have 
 ali"eady learnt that " He bare our sins in His own body 
 on the tree ; " and it is this truth that St. Peter reaffirms 
 in another form, when, after saying, " For Christ also 
 once suffered for sin," he adds, " the Just for the unjust, '' 
 He suffered for us because He suffered for our sins. 
 
 He suffered " for " us. Those who deny that His 
 Death had anything in it of a vicarious or representa- 
 tive character, are in the habit of changing the pre- 
 position. They contend that the meaning of this 
 expression and of others like it is exhausted, when 
 " [Christ] is conceived to simply come into the corpo- 
 rate state of evil, and bear it with us, faithful unto 
 death for our recovery."^ *'Bear it with us." This is 
 the very symbol of the theory which ascribes the whole 
 power and value of the sufferings of Christ to their 
 moral and spiritual influence on the nature of man. 
 But this is not what St. Peter says ; this is not what 
 any of the Apostles are in the habit of saying. How is 
 it that the New Testament writers uniformly avoid the 
 *' with " when they are speaking of Christ's sufferings 
 in relation to human sin ? They never tell us that in 
 the greatness of His love He came to suffer with us 
 the worst evils which had come upon the race through 
 sin — that He suffered with us as a loyal wife might 
 
 I BUSHNELL : Vicarious Sacrifice^ p. 442. The words quoted are 
 a comment on Gal. iii. 13, Christ is "made a curse for us." 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 137 
 
 suffer exile or imprisonment with her husband, or as a 
 philanthropist might suffer the privations and hard- 
 ships of a savage race, which he could civilize only by- 
 sharing the miseries from which he had resolved to 
 rescue them. This was not their way of thinking 
 about the work of Christ. If it had been, it is inex- 
 plicable that they should never have expressed it, even 
 by accident. St. Peter — ^^nd in this he represents all 
 the Apostles — says that Christ " suffered for us," not 
 " with us ; " he does not say that He *' suffered for 
 sins, the Just with the unjust " — the calamities which 
 had fallen on the guilty being shared by the Innocent ; 
 but that He *' suffered, .... the Just /or the unjust," 
 a form of expression which suggests a very different 
 form of thought.^ 
 
 Christ's ultimate object was to " bring us to God." 
 It would be perfectly consistent with the apostolic 
 conception of our Lord's Death, if in these words St. 
 Peter had intended to describe its effect upon our own 
 moral and spiritual life, inspiring us with penitence for 
 sin, and constraining us to trust in the Divine mercy, 
 and to return to our true home in the Divine presence. 
 But I doubt whether this would be a legitimate inter- 
 pretation of his language. " That He might bring us 
 to God " (iva y/jbdf; Trpoa-aydyr) tm OeoS), suggests the 
 conferring of a new dignity and privilege, rather than 
 the creating of a new disposition. It recalls the idea 
 of St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians,^ that 
 
 I We are said to suffer with Christ, to be crucified with Him ; 
 but Christ is never said to suffer with us. ^ Ephes. ii. 18. 
 
138 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 through Christ Jew and Gentile " have access {rrjv 
 TTpocrajcoyrjv) to the Father," an idea expressed in 
 another form in the Epistle to the Romans.^ " By 
 whom .... we have access {rrjv Trpoaaycoyrjv) into 
 this grace wherein we stand." The guilt which hin- 
 dered our access to God has been atoned for, and we 
 are no longer excluded from the honour and blessed- 
 ness of approaching Him. 
 
 Both of these passages illustrate, not only the ele- 
 ments which entered into St. Peter's conception of our 
 Lord's Death, but the great place which that concep- 
 tion held in his religious thought. Most readers of the 
 New Testament probably imagine that the idea of the 
 Atonement controlled the mind of St. Paul more power- 
 fully than the mind of St. Peter ; and the whole theory 
 of expiation is supposed by some theological writers to 
 have been constructed by the speculative intellect of the 
 only Apostle who had been trained in the schools of 
 Jerusalem. St. Paul, so it is alleged, first led away the 
 faith of the early Church from the simplicity of Christ. 
 
 Yet St. Paul could speak of the sufferings and 
 Death of Christ as an example, without the faintest 
 allusion to the idea of Atonement : St. Peter could not. 
 In that noble passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, 
 in which St. Paul is enforcing " lowliness of mind " and 
 the duty of caring not for our own interests, but for the 
 interests of others, he elaborately develops the suc- 
 cessive stages of our Lord's voluntary humiliation. 
 ^ Rom. V. 2. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter, 139 
 
 He was "in the form of God" and became man ; and 
 "being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Him- 
 self" still further, and descended to a lower deep than 
 that which His assumption of humanity rendered in- 
 evitable ; for He " became obedient unto death, even 
 the death of the cross." ^ But there is not a word 
 about His bearing our sins or suffering " for us." 
 This fact is the more interesting because the con- 
 ception of our Lord's Death as a vicarious Death, or a 
 Death on behalf of mankind, which is vividly and re- 
 peatedly expressed in other parts of St. Paul's writings, 
 seems to lie in the direct line of his thought. He is 
 sustaining, by an appeal to the example of Christ, the 
 exhortation, " Look not every man on his own things, 
 but also on the things of others," as well as the exhor- 
 tation to cultivate indifference to personal distinction and 
 glory. He would have positively increased the energy 
 of that appeal if He had said explicitly — what he takes 
 for granted — that the humiliation of Christ was " for 
 us," that He "became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross," because He was bearing our sins 
 and achieving our redemption. And yet his mind was 
 £0 filled with the thought that in His humiliation and 
 Death Christ had left us " an example that we should 
 follow in His steps," that he kept clear of the other 
 purposes which Christ's sufferings accomplished. 
 
 But St. Peter, when he was speaking of Christ as 
 an example, could not speak of Him as an example 
 only. He seems to forget his immediate purpose; 
 I Phil. ii. 6-8. 
 
140 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 that Christ " bare our sins," that " He suffered, . . . 
 the Just for the unjust," constituted no necessary part 
 of his reference to the Death of Christ as illustrating 
 the patience with which it is our duty to suffer wrong- 
 fully. It did not lie in his way to speak of the Death of 
 Christ in its relation to our sins, but he cannot help 
 turning aside. This diversion from the line in which 
 His thought and exhortation were running is a proof 
 that the conception of Christ's Death as a sacrifice for 
 the sins of men had such power over his mind and heart 
 that he could not escape from it, even when the subject 
 on which he was writing seemed to require him to 
 represent our Lord's sufferings only under their exem- 
 plary aspect. Had the Apostles described the Death 
 of Christ by sacrificial language, only when they were 
 speaking of the remission of sins, the evidence that 
 they regarded it as a real and proper sacrifice would 
 have been greatly diminished. It might have been 
 alleged that, with their Jewish habits of thought, it was 
 almost inevitable that they should connect the remis- 
 sion of sins with a sacrifice ; but since they represent 
 the Death of Christ as a sacrifice, even when they 
 appeal to His patience in the endurance of suffering as 
 an example, it is clear that the sacrificial idea was a 
 permanent and essential element in their conception 
 of His Death. 
 
 There is an earlier passage in the epistle in which 
 the same characteristic of St. Peter's habit of thought is 
 strikingly illustrated. He tells his readers that they 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter, 141 
 
 had been " redeemed " from their *' vain conversation 
 received by tradition " from their fathers, '* not with 
 corruptible things, as silver and gold, .... but with 
 the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without 
 blemish and without spot."^ Their former life was a 
 life of moral and spiritual slavery; the ransom by 
 which they had been liberated was the "blood of 
 Christ." This, it may be alleged, is mere rhetoric ; 
 and if the passage stood alone it would, no doubt, be 
 illegitimate to insist very strongly on the analogy 
 suggested between the Death of Christ and the price 
 which is paid to purchase the liberty of captives. But 
 the rhetoric is of a very singiJlar kind. The Christian 
 people to whom St. Peter is writing were, at least for 
 the most part, Gentiles ; ^ they had worshipped idols 
 instead of the true God, and many of them may have 
 lived in the immoralities of heathenism. It would 
 have been natural to remind them that the preachers 
 of the Christian gospel had taught them " not to think 
 that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, 
 graven by art and man's device ; " or that the greatness 
 and goodness of God had been revealed to them in the 
 Life and Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ ; or that 
 the nobler morality and glorious hopes of the new Faith 
 had kindled their imagination, won the homage of their 
 
 » I Pet. i. 18, 19. 
 
 2 If, as some maintain, they were Jews, and if the "vain conver- 
 sation " from which they had been " redeemed " consisted in Jewish 
 formahsm and a rehance on their faithful observance of the ex- 
 ternal precepts of the ancient faith, and on their loyalty to the 
 traditions of their fathers, the force of the argument in the text is 
 not diminished. 
 
142 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 conscience, and touched their hearts ; or that they had 
 been filled with fear by what they heard about the 
 wrath to come ; or that the power of the Holy Ghost 
 had constrained them to repent of their old sins, and 
 to turn from idols, to serve the living and true God. 
 Language of this kind would represent our own way 
 of thinking about the rescue of heathen people from 
 heathenism. But St. Peter's thought took another 
 form. They had been delivered by a sacrifice. *' The 
 blood of Christ" — not the revelation of new truth 
 concerning God, not the gracious aspects of the gospel 
 to the poor and the sorrowful, not the promises of 
 pardon to the sinful and of strength to the morally 
 weak, not the assurances of a blessed immortality — 
 but *'the blood of Christ," had accomplished their 
 deliverance. But for this, no message of peace would 
 have come to them from the God against whom they 
 had revolted. But for this, they would have received 
 no revelation of His glory, and would have been left 
 to perish in their heathenism. But for this, the dark- 
 ness which had descended on the heathen world as 
 the penalty of sin would have become perpetually 
 deeper as the result of persistence in sin. But for this, 
 the force of their old and evil life would never have 
 been broken. But for this, the power of the Holy Ghost 
 would never have come upon them. They had been 
 delivered from their old heathen life because Christ had 
 atoned for their old heathen sins. 
 
 The passage is very remarkable. St. Peter is speak- 
 ing of a great subjective change through which these 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter, 143 
 
 Christian people had passed, a change in their faith, 
 a change in their morality ; but he omits to recognise 
 both the human agencies and the supernatural spirit- 
 ual forces which had prevailed upon them to renounce 
 heathenism and to become Christians, and he ascribes 
 their emancipation from their fprmer sins and super- 
 stitions to the sacrifice which has created new rela- 
 tions between man and God.^ It is sometimes charged 
 against evangelical theologians, that even if the idea 
 of Atonement is true, they have given it a supremacy 
 which it has no right to claim. We can shelter 
 ourselves under the authority and example of the 
 Apostle. It would be difficult to produce from the 
 writings of any of the modern representatives of evan- 
 gelical theology a passage like this. 
 
 We can understand now why it was that St. Peter 
 thought of Christian believers as an elect race sepa- 
 rated from the rest of mankind by the " sprinkling of 
 the blood of Christ ;"^ why it was that when he spoke 
 of the prophets inquiring and searching diligently 
 " who prophesied of the grace that should come " to 
 men in the last days, he added, *' searching what or 
 what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was 
 in them did signify when it testified beforehand the 
 sufferings of Christ ; " 3 and why he describes himself as 
 " a witness " of those sufferings.^ To him the death of 
 Christ was the sacrifice for the sins of the world. 
 
 ^ Note J. 2 I Pet. i. 2. 
 
 3 Ibid. i. II. More accurately, "the sufferings destined or ap- 
 pointed \o Christ." 4 I Pet. v. i. 
 
144 ^^^^ ^^^^ ^f ^^^ Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The frequent recurrence of this conception of our 
 Lord's Death in the epistle is remarkable, because 
 it seems to have been no part of the Apostle's im- 
 mediate purpose to strengthen the faith of his readers 
 in the Divine mercy for the remission of sins. From 
 the beginning of the epistle to the end, his constant 
 endeavour is to confirm their hope of immortal glory, 
 to console them in their temporal sufferings, and to 
 stimulate them to the imitation of Christ's example. 
 That he believed that the Death of Christ is rich in 
 motives to Christian holiness, is obvious from passage 
 after passage in which it is made the ground of his 
 practical exhortations. That he also believed that the 
 ultimate design of the Death of Christ is to secure our 
 perfect sanctification, is equally obvious. But how is 
 it that when he appeals to the sufferings of Christ as 
 an argument for Christian virtue, he says that Christ 
 suffered for our sins ? How is it that he could not 
 bring himself to say that Christ suffered for our right- 
 eousness ? The expression would not have been an 
 unnatural one. We speak of men suffering for the 
 freedom of their country, and St. Peter might have 
 spoken of Christ suffering for the righteousness of the 
 Church. But this would have been foreign to his 
 habitual conception of our Lord's Death. Christ suf- 
 fered for our righteousness by suffering for our sins. 
 Our sins were the immediate cause of His Death, our 
 sanctification was to be one of its ultimate effects. 
 
 That St. Peter had a larger knowledge of the trans- 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 145 
 
 cendent significance of the Death of Christ when he 
 wrote his epistle than when he deHvered the discourses 
 contained in the .early chapters of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, can hardly be doubted. Whatever measure 
 of supernatural light came to him on the day of Pente- 
 cost, it cannot be imagined that he at once appropriated 
 the whole contents of the Christian revelation ; and that 
 neither the sorrows, the sins, the joys and the triumphs 
 of his personal life, during subsequent years, nor his 
 apostolic activity, nor the light of God which is the 
 permanent home of all that are in Christ, did nothing to 
 enrich and strengthen his original idea of the Christian 
 redemption. But he knew from the first that the blood of 
 Christ was shed for the remission of sins, and although 
 he was silent about this great truth in the discourses 
 recorded by St. Luke, he uniformly insisted on that 
 kind of faith in Christ of which this truth is the com- 
 plete vindication. 
 
 The theology of the epistle explains the practical 
 exhortations of the discourses. In Jerusalem, a iew 
 weeks after the crucifixion, he had said that the 
 Messiah had been given over " by the determinate 
 counsel and foreknowledge of God " to the " wicked 
 hands " of men, to be *' crucified and slain." ^ They 
 "slew [Him] and hanged [Him] on a tree."^ In the 
 epistle, he explains why God surrendered the Christ to 
 the power of His enemies; *' He bare our sins in His 
 own body on the tree : " ^ and this was the reason of 
 
 I Acts ii. 23. 2 Ibid v. 30. 3 i Pet. ii. 24. 
 
 II 
 
146 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 another fact which he had also declared to the Jewish 
 Council — that having been exalted to the right hand 
 of God, Christ had power "to give . . . remission 
 of sins."' To the Jewish rulers St. Peter declared 
 that " there is none other name under heaven given 
 among men, whereby we must be saved," than the 
 name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had cru- 
 cified;^ — yes, the Jewish rulers themselves could re- 
 ceive salvation only through Him who had been the 
 Victim of their violence and wickedness. The reason 
 is given in the epistle: Christ had "suffered for sins, 
 the Just for the unjust, that He might bring" — 
 them, as well as the rest of mankind — "to God."^ 
 "To Him," said Peter, addressing Cornelius, "give 
 all the prophets witness, that through His name, who- 
 soever believeth in Him shall receive remission of 
 sins.""^ And according to the epistle, when the pro- 
 phets predicted the salvation which had at last come 
 to men through Christ, "the Spirit of Christ which 
 was in them " bore testimony to " the sufferings of 
 Christ," as well as to "the glory that should follow."^ 
 
 It is clear that to the very last St. Peter, though a 
 Christian Apostle, was still a Jew. He had soon learnt 
 that the Gentiles were to be admitted to the kingdom 
 of heaven without being required to submit to circum- 
 cision and to keep the Mosaic law, but his imagination 
 was always filled with the ancient glories of his race. 
 
 I Acts V. 30, 31. 2 Ibid. iv. 12. 3 i Pet. iv. 18. 
 
 4 Acts X. 45. 5 I Pet. i. II. 
 
IV.] the Testimony of St. Peter. 147 
 
 The wonderful deliverances which God had wrought 
 for them, the sanctity and majesty of the Temple, the 
 sacred functions of the priesthood, the mystery of 
 sacrifice — all these had entered into the very substance 
 of his moral and religious life. He could not escape 
 from their spell. He did not try to escape. They 
 were all transfigured and glorified by the energy of 
 his Christian faith, and they supplied the intellectual 
 forms under which he conceived, and the language in 
 which he expressed, the blessings and prerogatives 
 which are the inheritance of the Church. 
 
 He was a Jew for another reason. He was still 
 under the power of the characteristic spirit of his 
 race. By a history of unprecedented glory and of 
 unprecedented suffering — a history which fulfilled and 
 yet defeated the expectations created by those great 
 promises which were their richest inheritance, they 
 had been disciplined to an invincible confidence in 
 their national future. The Paradise described in the 
 earliest pages of their sacred books never seems to 
 have touched the imagination of their poets: through- 
 out their whole literature there is nothing like 
 pathetic regret for its vanished innocence and peace. 
 For Jewish poets, the golden age was in the Future. 
 It was to come with the Christ whose power and 
 righteousness and gentleness were to redress all 
 wrongs, relieve all sorrows, and bring to those over 
 whom He reigned perpetual security, honour, and 
 blessedness. Theirs was a religion of hope. 
 
 And St. Peter is the Apostle of Hope, as St. Paul 
 
148 The Fact of the Atonement, [lect. iv.] 
 
 is the Apostle of Faith, and St. John the Apostle of 
 Charity. He is eager for *' the inheritance incorrup- 
 tible and undefiled,- and that fadeth not away;'* for 
 '* the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time;" 
 for " the appearing of Jesus Christ.'* Like all his 
 race, His eye is on the Future, not on the Past ; and 
 to him the gospel seems rather a promise than a 
 history. But with all this, the sufferings of Christ 
 are never forgotten. The sins which exiled us from 
 God, Christ ** bare in His own body on the tree, that 
 we being dead to sins should live unto righteousness ; " 
 and the glory which will fulfil the new hope which has 
 come to us through Christ's resurrection is inseparably 
 and eternally associated with His Death on the cross. 
 
 Throughout the history of the Church no other 
 theory of the Death of Christ than that which re- 
 presents it as an expiation for the sins of the world 
 has ever given it the same supreme place in the 
 religious thought and life of Christian men. It is 
 among those, and only among those, who have ac- 
 cepted this theory, that we find the apostolic feeling 
 about the Death of Christ. It is reasonable to infer 
 that, substantially, they inherit the apostolic faith. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT : 
 THE TESTIMONY OF ST. JOHN AND ST. JAMES. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT: THE TESTIMONY OF 
 ST. JOHN AND ST. JAMES. 
 
 IN St. Paul's account of his memorable conference 
 with the Apostles at Jerusalem, after the close of 
 his first great missionary journey, he appears to divide 
 the work of evangelising the world between St. Peter 
 and himself. He and St. Peter are, at least, the 
 acknowledged leaders and representatives of the whole 
 movement.^ For St. John, " the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved," who, in the energy of his moral nature and in 
 the depth of his devotion to his Lord, equalled, if he 
 did not surpass, all his brethren, there seems to be left 
 only a subordinate place. 
 
 But if St. Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision, 
 and St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. John may, 
 perhaps, be justly called the Apostle of the Christian 
 Church. Apart from the very uncertain tradition that 
 he preached the gospel among the Parthians, there is no 
 reason to suppose that any considerable part of his life 
 was devoted to the conversion either of Gentiles or of 
 Jews. The contrast between the Fourth Gospel and the 
 
 I " When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was 
 committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." 
 —Gal, ii. 7. 
 
152 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 first three suggests the true character of his work. 
 The Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke 
 appear to preserve those discourses and parables of our 
 Lord, and those passages of His history, which were 
 perpetually repeated by the early Christian preachers 
 when addressing persons who had not yet acknowledged 
 His authority, or who, having submitted to baptism 
 and entered the Church, required further instruction in 
 the elementary facts and principles of the Christian 
 faith. It is quite clear that the Gospel of St. John was 
 written for those who had long been Christians. His 
 catholic epistle has the same character. The readers 
 for whom it was written must either have been born of 
 Christian parents, or if they were heathens or Jews by 
 birth, must have lived so long in the atmosphere of the 
 Church, as to have lost almost all traces of their earlier 
 habits of life and thought. It was not necessary to 
 confirm them in their renunciation of Judaism, or to 
 warn them against continuing in the practice of those 
 coarse vices into which converts from heathenism were 
 in constant danger of relapsing. 
 
 Nor was the strength of St. John given, like St. 
 Paul's, to the vindication of Christian truth against 
 heresies which were possible only in the earliest days 
 of the Church, and which were soon to become obso- 
 lete. Here and there we may detect the expression of 
 St. John's antagonism to speculations — vague and 
 chaotic in his time — which, in the next century, were 
 developed into Gnosticism ; but commonly his mind 
 moves in calm and lofty regions of truth, remote from 
 
V ] the Testimony of St, John and St, James, 153 
 
 the agitation of transient controversies. To a thought- 
 ful person living at the close of the first century^ St. 
 John, of all the Apostles, would have seemed to be the 
 one whose teaching was likely most powerfully to 
 control the movement of Christian speculation, and 
 to determine both the form and the substance of the 
 theology of the Church. 
 
 But M. Reuss hardly exaggerates the truth when he 
 says that St. John has been neglected by those who 
 have organised the dogmatic thought of Christendom ; 
 that his characteristic theology, happily for itself, has 
 never been embodied in the systems and creeds of 
 ecclesiastical orthodoxy. " It has retained its virgin 
 purity untouched by the scholasticism of the schools, 
 and has thus escaped the unhappy mesalliance which 
 has done such deep injury to the theology of St. Paul."^ 
 The fortunes of St. John might have been different 
 had not the theological development of the Eastern 
 Church been prematurely arrested. In the West, for 
 reasons which it is not difficult to discover, the su- 
 premacy of St. Paul has been almost unbroken from 
 the days of Augustine to our own. 
 
 Among many of those who reject the idea of the 
 Atonement, there is a strong desire to assert for St. John 
 his rightful position. It seems to them that he is the 
 representative of a nobler and more spiritual type of 
 the Christian Faith than that which appears in the 
 
 I Reuss : Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age. Translated 
 by Annie Harwood. London : Hodder and Stoughton. Vol. ii. 
 335- 
 
154 ^^^^ P^^i of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Those who 
 contend that *' the true Christian knows no covenant or 
 mediation with God, but only the old, eternal, and un- 
 changeable relation, that in Him we live and move and 
 have our being," are in the habit of thinking that their 
 faith is the faith of St. John.^ That God is life and 
 light and love ; that in Christ humanity achieved its 
 ideal unity with the life of God; and that the Christian 
 redemption consists in the final restoration of mankind 
 to union with God in Christ — these it is alleged are the 
 ideas which constitute the substance of Christianity as 
 conceived by " the disciple whom Jesus loved," and 
 they ought to displace the theories of Divine justice, 
 and of expiation, and of an unreal and technical for- 
 giveness of sins, which the Church has built up on the 
 teaching of St. Paul. 
 
 It is true no doubt, and should be cordially acknow- 
 ledged, that Mysticism, which in every age of the Church, 
 and especially in times of general corruption, has had 
 so strong an attraction for the purest and most saintly 
 souls, can place its devotional books — if the perfect 
 and unearthly beauty of very many of them needs any 
 apostolic sanction — under the shelter of the great name 
 of St. John. Even Pantheism, so long as it affirms the 
 reality of sin and the eternal obligation of the Moral 
 Law — if any philosophy which fulfils these conditions 
 can be called Pantheistic — may vindicate its right to 
 
 I FiCHTE : Charactetistics of the Present Age. Lecture vii. The 
 Way towards the Blessed Life. Lecture vi. London : John Chap- 
 man. 
 
v.] the Testimcmy of St. John and St. James. 155 
 
 recognition as a form of speculation not altogether 
 alien from the Christian faith by an appeal to the same 
 authority. With still greater reason may those theo- 
 logians claim to be the representatives and guardians 
 of one of the principal elements of St. John's teaching, 
 to whom the Incarnation is the fulfilment of the Divine 
 idea of human nature, and the assurance and the pro- 
 phecy to those who are in Christ of their eternal fellow- 
 ship with the life of God. 
 
 For all Christian mystics, therefore, and for all who 
 maintain that the Incarnation is the fundamental truth of 
 the Christian revelation, but who on moral and spiritual 
 grounds are hostile to the idea of Atonement, the appeal 
 to the authority of St. John is critical. It must, I 
 think, be admitted that when he wrote his Gospel and 
 his Epistle he had passed altogether out of the atmo- 
 sphere of Judaism.^ His thought had taken new forms, 
 and he had learnt to speak a new language. If in both 
 his language and his thought we think we can discern the 
 influence of contemporaneous speculation, there is no 
 reason to suppose that this influence was friendly to the 
 idea of an objective Atonement. It is infinitely improb- 
 
 I This is true, although the Fourth Gospel is singularly rich in 
 passages which recognise the Divine authority of Jewish institu- 
 tions and the Divine presence in Jewish history. St. John has pre- 
 served many passages in our Lord's teaching, not contained in the 
 other Evangelists, which show how fully our Lord acknowledged 
 that Judaism had been a great revelation of God to man . I do not 
 intend to press the very strong proofs which are supplied by the 
 Book of the Revelation, not because I am doubtful about its Johan- 
 nine authorship, but because I am anxious to keep the argument 
 from the authority of St. John free from entanglement with the 
 controversies in which that subject is involved. 
 
156 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 able that this idea can receive any sanction from the 
 writings of St. John's maturer years, if it is really alien 
 to the Christian faith, inconsistent with the deeper 
 and more spiritual elements of our Lord's teaching, the 
 creation of a formal and legal theory of God's relations 
 to the moral universe, or the result of a determination to 
 preserve in Christianity the rudimentary conceptions 
 and language of Judaism. 
 
 It is confessed by those who oppose the doctrine of 
 the Atonement, that St. John is the representative of 
 the highest and most spiritual form of Christian 
 thought. Those conceptions of God which are alleged 
 to be irreconcilable with any theory affirming the ne- 
 cessity or possibility of any other reason for the exer- 
 cise of the Divine mercy in the forgiveness of sin than 
 the repentance of the sinner himself; those conceptions 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ and of His eternal relations to 
 mankind which are alleged to be obscured and even 
 contradicted by the doctrine of an objective Atonement, 
 whatever form the doctrine may assume ; those concep- 
 tions of the true nature of the Christian Redemption 
 which it is alleged can never find any adequate expression 
 in a theology which rests on the idea that the Death of 
 Christ was intended to meet any necessities of the 
 Divine nature or government, instead of being intended 
 to act as a great spiritual force on the spiritual nature 
 of man — all these are the very substance and life of St. 
 John's theology. But, like St. Peter, he insists on the 
 exceptional and supreme significance of our Lord's 
 
v.] the Testimony of St, John and St. James, 157 
 
 Death. It is " the blood of Jesus Christ " which 
 *' cleanseth us from all sin."^ We come to know the 
 real nature of love in the Death of Christ, for " He laid 
 down His life for us. " * 
 
 If it is urged that by the cleansing from sin in the 
 first of these passages is meant our moral purification 
 only, and that the removal of our guilt is not included, 
 except as the result of deliverance from sin, it is at 
 least remarkable that St. John should have attributed 
 the sanctifying power of Christ exclusively to His 
 Death — not to His teaching, not to the manifestation 
 of the Eternal Life through the whole of His earthly 
 ministry, not to the direct action of the Holy Spirit on 
 the hearts of those who believe. How are we to ex- 
 plain this reference to ** the blood of Jesus Christ " ? 
 
 The line of thought in which it occurs greatly 
 augments its significance. St. John has been speaking 
 of the fellowship of Christian people with the Father 
 and the Son. ** God is light, and in Him is no dark- 
 ness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with 
 Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. 
 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we 
 have fellowship one with another, and " — what ? Does 
 he add that the light in which God dwells, and in 
 which we dwell with Him, so fills and penetrates and 
 transfigures our whole nature, that we sin no more ? or 
 that through our fellowship with God His life becomes 
 ours, and that therefore we are delivered from all sin ? 
 This was what might have been expected, and the 
 5lJohni.7. 2 Ibid. iii. 16. 
 
158 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect: 
 
 sudden transition from the high transcendental concep- 
 tion of the believer's present relation to God to " the 
 blood of Christ," is startling even to those who habitually 
 think of His Death as the great crisis in the history of 
 the human race. But if St. John wished to speak, not 
 merely of the sanctification of those who " walk in 
 the light," but also of the remission of the sins into 
 which they may be still betrayed, the transition is 
 explained. Even for those who have *' fellowship " 
 with God the expiatory power of the Death of Christ 
 continues necessary, for they are not yet beyond the 
 reach of temptation or the possibility of sin.^ 
 
 There are two other passages which are inconsistent 
 with the theory that we receive the remission of sins 
 through Christ only indirectly, and because He de- 
 livers us from the power of sin. ** I write unto you, 
 little children, because your sins are forgiven you for 
 His name's sake."^ This clearly implies that there is 
 some objective ground in Christ for the forgiveness of 
 sin. The Divine forgiveness is not the simple and im- 
 mediate response of Infinite Mercy to human penitence, 
 
 ^ **That the forgiveness of sin was present to the Apostle's 
 mind when he spake of the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ, 
 is evident from what he goes on to say — that ' if we confess our 
 sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
 from all unrighteousness ;' as well as from what he adds a few verses 
 thereafter, that 'if any man sin we have an advocate with the 
 Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and He is the propitiation for 
 our sms/ &c. — Crawford: The Doctrine of Holy Scripture re- 
 specting the Atonement (first edition), page 50. Cremer {Biblico- 
 Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh, T. & 
 T. Clark. 1872) has a very excellent article on Ka^api^w. 
 
 2 I John ii. 12. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James, 159 
 
 nor is the sole function of Christ so to reveal God as to 
 awaken faith in the Divine love, sorrow for sin, and a 
 desire for restoration to holiness and to the blessedness 
 of the Divine presence. When these moral and spiritual 
 effects have been produced by Christ's appeal to the 
 conscience and the heart, when sin is confessed, and the 
 troubled soul clings to the mercy of God for salvation, 
 its *' sins are forgiven ... for His name's sake.'' 
 
 The same idea of a direct relation between the Lord 
 Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sin is contained in 
 an earlier passage in the same chapter : " My little 
 children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. 
 And if any man sin, we have an Advocate {irapdicKrjTov) 
 with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous " ^ 
 An Advocate with the Father ! One whom we 
 may call to our help, who will come forward as our 
 Representative and Patron, to plead our cause ! ^ 
 These are not the words of a morbid and gloomy 
 fanatic, to whom the infinitely merciful Father seems 
 a revengeful assertor of personal rights, a stern and 
 unrelenting and terrible Divinity, whose pity and com- 
 passion are inaccessible to the tears and prayers of those 
 who have offended Him, and whose blind wrath must 
 be placated first by the blood and then by the inter- 
 cession of a Mediator. Nor are they the words of a 
 
 ^ I John ii. I. 
 
 2 " irapaKKriTOQ^ .... he who has been, or may be called to help 
 (Helper; ; in Dem. 343, 10, of a legal adviser : .... a pleader, 
 an advocate ; one who comes forward in favour of and as the 
 representative of another. Diog. . . Thus Christ also, in i John 
 ii. I, is termed our Substitute, Intercessor, Advocate."— C REM ER ; 
 Biblico-Theological Lexicon. 
 
i6o The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 mechanical and unimaginative theologian, to whom 
 the rigid forms under which human tribunals ad- 
 minister an imperfect justice are an adequate repre- 
 sentation of the order of the Divine government, and 
 who therefore could conceive of no relaxation or 
 remission of the sentence pronounced on an offender, 
 apart from a legal argument addressed to the Judge, 
 demonstrating that the honour of the Law had been 
 sufficiently vindicated, and the claims of Justice satis- 
 fied. They are the words of the most Christian of 
 the Christian Apostles, of the one Apostle who had 
 most completely escaped from the spirit of Judaism, 
 which, it is alleged, had represented God as agitated 
 by the most violent and turbulent of human passions. 
 Nor in escaping from Judaism had he become a 
 Roman, with hard and severe conceptions of law, 
 which he transferred to his theology. Whatever new 
 elements or forms of thought are found in his epistle, 
 beyond those which bear witness to the exceptional 
 intimacy of his communion with his Master, have 
 some kinship to speculations in which the most 
 imaginative philosophy of Asia was blended with the 
 loftiest and most spiritual philosophy of Greece. It is 
 St. John, — the very Apostle of Love, it is St. John 
 who in one brief sentence — "God is love" — has 
 translated into human language all that human lan- 
 guage can express of what the Eternal Word revealed 
 of God in a life of transcendent beauty and beneficence; 
 it is St. John who, in the presence of Infinite Love, 
 gives courage and hope to the penitent by saying, " We 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James, i6i 
 
 have an Advocate with the Father." Let these words 
 mean what they will, they are plainly intended to train 
 the soul to a faith in Christ of precisely that kind 
 which the theory of expiation vindicates, but which the 
 '' moral theory " of the Atonement excludes. Christ, 
 in some sense, appeals to God for us, and not merely 
 to us for God. He is the life of our holiness, but there 
 is also some power or virtue in Him which, if it is to 
 be known and described by its effects, must be spoken of 
 as a reason or ground on which God forgives us our sins. 
 
 What this power or virtue is, St. John describes in 
 the next sentence : *' He is the Propitiation for our 
 sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of 
 the whole world."* 
 
 It has been contended that while the pagan mean- 
 ing of this word is undoubted, and that while it was 
 constantly used by pagan writers to m^ark the supposed 
 effect of sacrifices, in propitiating the gods to whom 
 they were offered, the Jewish translators of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures into Greek used the word in a widely dif- 
 ferent sense, and that while the New Testament writers 
 used the accepted sacrificial word they did not use 
 it in the accepted meaning. 
 
 " That meaning," says Dr. Young, " as accepted by the pagan 
 world, was throughout an utter falsity. They were no gods to 
 whom the pagan sacrifices were offered ; the anger which it was 
 sought to appease by means of these sacrifices was all unreal, and 
 the appeasing effect was mere delusion. But the Apostles of 
 Christianity had something real and true and great to announce 
 in the room of the falsities and fancies of paganism. There was a 
 real God, a real hatred of sin, but at the same time a real and 
 
 ^ I John ii 2. 
 
 12 
 
1 62 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 infinite love of the human soul. There was also a real 'propitiation^ 
 but immeasurably far away from that which the bewildered pagan 
 mind had pictured.'^ 
 
 " A real Propitiation, but immeasurably far away 
 from that which the bewildered pagan mind had pic- 
 tured." Granted. In what then did it consist ? 
 
 " Instead of the fiction of an incensed Jupiter or Pluto, there 
 was seen on earth the image of the brightness of the God of love. 
 Christ came not to appease anger, for it was owing solely to the 
 unprompted and unbounded mercy of the Father that He ever 
 lived, and that at last He died on a cross, but to be the wondrous 
 medium of reconciling and restoring human hearts to Him from 
 whom they had revolted. Incarnate love — bleeding, dying love — 
 is the power whereby God is recovering the world to Himself." ^ 
 
 This is as true as it is forcible and eloquent ; but is 
 this a description of a " real Propitiation " ? The idea 
 of Propitiation, whether among Pagans or Jews, is pre- 
 cisely inverted. Neither Pagans nor Jews ever spoke of 
 a " Propitiation for sins " when they intended to speak 
 of that which changed the disposition of the sinner. 
 The pagan sense of the term is admitted : '* to offer a 
 propitiation," was to appease by sacrifice or prayer the 
 anger of imaginary gods. The Jewish sense of the 
 term is equally definite. Not a solitary instance can 
 be alleged in which to propitiate, or any of its deriva- 
 ' tives, when used in relation to the restoration of kindly 
 relations between man and man, denotes that by which 
 a change is produced in the disposition of a person 
 who has committed an offence ; it always refers to 
 that which changes the disposition of the person who 
 has been offended; and when used in relation to offences 
 
 I Dr. Young : The Life atid Light ofMe?t, pp. 322, 323. 
 2 Ibid. pp. 323, 324. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. 163 
 
 against the Divine law, it always describes the means 
 by which the sin was supposed to be covered in order 
 that the Divine forgiveness might be secured.^ To 
 suggest that St. John could have used the word in 
 order to describe the glorious power of Christ over the 
 heart of a sinner, is to invert the fundamental idea 
 which the word uniformly conveyed, and to violate the 
 most obvious principles by which language should be 
 interpreted. 
 
 It is true that " Propitiation " was one thing to a 
 Pagan, another thing to a devout Jew, and another 
 thing to a Christian Apostle. It is equally true that 
 "sin" was one thing to a Pagan, another thing to a 
 devout Jew, and another thing to a Christian Apostle; 
 but are we at liberty to argue from this that the word 
 which had been used by Pagan and Jew to denote sin 
 may, perhaps, be used by an Apostle to denote righteous- 
 ness ? Apart from the most decisive evidence of a 
 change of use, would it be legitimate to suppose that 
 the original meaning of the word had been absolutely 
 reversed? It is equally illegitimate to suppose that the 
 word which had been used both by Pagan and Jew to 
 denote the means of appeasing Divine anger, or avert- 
 ing a Divine penalty, is used by an Apostle to denote 
 the means by which God reconciles and restores hu- 
 man hearts to Himself. To establish such a change 
 of meaning, the strongest evidence must be demanded, 
 and no such evidence has been produced. 
 
 It is necessary, no doubt, to avoid that " hard- 
 
 » Note K. 
 12 * 
 
164 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 favoured narrow literalism that lives on proof-texts 
 made by paying no regard to the poetic genius of 
 religious language, and by seizing on single clauses 
 that, in figure, seem to favour a certain point, paying 
 no regard to other clauses in other figures, that require 
 to be accepted as qualifiers and correctives ; " and it is 
 true that " we have no literal language for religious 
 ideas." ^ But it is also true, and many of those who find 
 it so difficult to recognise any expiatory character in the 
 Death of Christ are the last to deny it, that man was 
 made in the image of God, and that there are deep 
 analogies between the relations of men to each other 
 and their relations to Him. Hence the language which 
 conveys our own moral ideas is not a vehicle altogether 
 unsuitable for the higher service of conveying the 
 thoughts of God ; and the terms by which our own 
 moral acts are described may serve to describe the acts 
 of God., The language we use is not " literal " when 
 we speak of God as drawing near to man, stretching 
 out His hand to help us, listening to our prayers ; but 
 the expressions are not only sufficiently vivid for the 
 imagination, and sufficiently accurate for the logical un- 
 derstanding, but sufficiently true for the higher reason 
 which alone is directly conversant with religious ideas. 
 They are the creation of that ** poetic genius " which 
 has created the language of the affections as well as of 
 religion, of philosophy as well as of faith, — touching 
 and etherealising words of mean, material, and sensuous 
 origin, so as to fit them for the regal uses of the in- 
 ' BUSHNELL: Forgiveness and Law, page 163. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. 165 
 
 tellect and the heart, translating them from their 
 native home among things seen and temporal, and 
 making them citizens of the kingdom of heaven. But 
 there is nothing capricious in the process by which these 
 transformations are accomplished. The words are 
 sown in corruption, and raised in incorruption ; sown 
 in dishonour, raised in glory ; sown in weakness, raised 
 in power; but through all changes the outlines of 
 their original form remain, and their identity is pre- 
 served. 
 
 The ** poetic genius of religious language " could not 
 be pleaded as a reason for suggesting that perhaps we 
 mean the same thing when we say that God forgives 
 and when we say that God punishes; when we speak of 
 God being moved to mercy, and wh^n we speak of the 
 soul being moved to penitence. Nor can it be pleaded 
 as a reason for alleging that when Christ is described 
 as a Propitiation for our sins, it may mean that He 
 inclines us to forsake them, and so eifects our recon- 
 ciliation to God. As a Propitiation, His face is turned 
 towards God, not towards man. Propitiation is the 
 immediate antecedent — I will not say the indispensable 
 condition — -of the Divine forgiveness. It is directly re- 
 lated to the function of the Lord Jesus Christ as our 
 "'Advocate with the Father," whatever other relation 
 it may have to His function as the Living Word in 
 whom the authority and love of God plead with the 
 heart and conscience of mankind. 
 
 Are we then to infer that because St. John uses this 
 word " Propitiation," he believed that there was re- 
 
1 66 The Fact of the Atonement: lect.] 
 
 sentment in the heart of God, like that which the 
 heathen attributed to their divinities, and which they 
 endeavoured to allay by prayers and sacrifices ? Must 
 we not take off what Dr. Bushnell describes as " the 
 pagan colour of the word," before it is capable of 
 Christian uses ? " Take off the pagan colour ? " — Yes ; 
 but leave some trace of its original form and power. 
 The "pagan colour" had, in fact, been taken off by 
 the almost uniform use of the word in the Greek trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament. It was contrary to the 
 Jewish habit of thought to speak of *' propitiating God," 
 either by prayers or sacrifices, as Jacob propitiated 
 or " appeased " Esau with the present of camels and 
 goats, and sheep and cattle.^ The heathen *' propitiated" 
 their gods, for their gods were capricious and revenge- 
 ful ; but with all the anthropomorphism of Judaism, 
 something restrained the Jews from describing any 
 religious acts as being intended to propitiate Jehovah. 
 Propitiation is spoken of in page after page of the Old 
 Testament ; it is expressly represented as having a 
 relation to God, and its purpose is to turn away the 
 wrath of God ; and yet God is never, except in one 
 passage,^ the direct object of the act. When any of the 
 external and ceremonial precepts of the law had been 
 broken, it is not said that the priest is to celebrate an 
 expiatory rite in order to " propitiate God," but in order 
 to make propitiation for the offence or for the offender. 
 
 * Gen. xxxii. 20. 
 
 2 Zech. vii. 2 : and in this case t^iXdaaaOai is not the representa- 
 tive of the Hebrew word for which it usually stands. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. 167 
 
 These are the uniform expressions. And when sins were 
 committed for which the law provided no expiation, and 
 the anger of the Lord " waxed hot " against the whole 
 people, the same expression reoccurs. '* Ye have 
 sinned a great sin," said Moses to the people after 
 they had worshipped the golden calf, " and now I will 
 go up unto the Lord ; peradventure I shall make an 
 atonement [or propitiation] for your sin."^ Though 
 the terrible words were still in his ears, '' Let Me 
 alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and 
 that I may consume them,"^ he does not say, "Per- 
 adventure I shall propitiate God," but, *' Peradventure 
 I shall make propitiation for your sin." 
 
 The Jews never attributed to Jehovah the unreason- 
 ing and unreasonable passion which was ascribed to 
 heathen deities. In Him there is never any causeless 
 anger to propitiate ; and, therefore, it was their habit 
 when they spoke of Propitiation to describe it as Pro- 
 pitiation for sin ; the justice of the Divine displeasure 
 was always and explicitly acknowledged. The " pagan 
 colour " of the word had already disappeared. If any 
 stain was left, it was completely removed by St. John 
 himself. Christ is indeed our " Advocate with the 
 Father " and " the Propitiation for our sins ; " but this 
 is not because the Father is reluctant to forgive and to 
 save us. , The Advocate is of the Father's own appoint- 
 ment ; the Propitiation is the Father's own provision. 
 ** Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He 
 loved us, and sent His Son " — at the impulse of His 
 I Exod. xxxii. 30. 2 l\i\^, xxxii. 10. 
 
1 68 The Fact of the Atonement: [i^ect. 
 
 own infinite mercy — ''to be the Propitiation for our 
 sins."^ 
 
 The argument of this Lecture mi.!:;ht be strenj^thened 
 by adducing those passages from St. John's Gospel in 
 which our Lord speaks of the relation between His 
 Death and human salvation, — passages which are as 
 numerous in the Fourth Gospel as in the first three, 
 and which while of supreme importance as evidence of 
 our Lord's own teaching, are available as illustrations 
 of the theology of the Evangelist himself. But this 
 would be to go over ground which we have gone over 
 already. There is, however, one remarkable passage 
 in which St. John speaks in his own name. 
 
 The resurrection of Lazarus had made the claims of 
 Christ more formidable than ever to those who had 
 resolved to reject Him. It was a great and startling 
 miracle. It was wrought in the immediate neighbour- 
 hood of Jerusalem, and within a few weeks Jerusalem 
 would be filled with a vast and ungovernable multitude 
 from all parts of the land and from remote countries. 
 This last miracle of the Nazarene teacher would be 
 certain to create universal excitement. It would be 
 talked about in the streets of the city, and in the courts 
 of the temple, and on the house-tops, and in every 
 chamber where the Passover would be celebrated. 
 Innumerable friends of Jesus from the towns and vil- 
 
 I I John iv. lo. The whole of this argument rests on the use of 
 i\d(Ticofj.ai in the LXX. It is also true that the Hebrew word which 
 ikdaKOfiat usually represents never refers directly to God, but to the 
 sin which is to be so " covered" as to cause the anger it had pro- 
 duced to cease. This " covering " was an IXacr/io'^ . 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. i6g 
 
 lages of Galilee, and large numbers of foreign Jews, 
 would be certain to cross Olivet to Bethany, to see 
 Lazarus. Jesus Himself, who at former feasts had 
 spoken openly and without fear to great crowds in the 
 Temple, would probably appear there again, and He 
 would have larger crowds than ever to listen to Him. 
 The man whom He had raised from the dead might be 
 with Him. It was impossible to tell what might 
 happen. 
 
 And so the chief priests and Pharisees gathered a 
 council, and said, " What do we ? for this man doeth 
 many miracles. If we let Him thus alone, all men 
 will believe on Him ; and the Romans will come and 
 take away our place and nation. And one of them, 
 named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, 
 said unto them. Ye know nothing at all, nor consider 
 that it is expedient for us that one man should die for 
 the people, and that the whole nation perish not. " ' 
 In these words the Evangelist recognized a prophecy 
 declaring the true significance and purpose of the 
 Death of Christ. 
 
 If any one cares to suggest that to find a prophecy 
 in the words of such a man as Caiaphas, and at the 
 very moment that he was counselling a selfish and 
 atrocious crime, is evidence of an unspiritual and 
 mechanical conception of Divine inspiration, and 
 proves that St. John must have been under the con- 
 trol of a very unintelligent and superstitious reverence 
 for the chief priest of his race, it is unnecessary for 
 1 John xi. 47-50. 
 
170 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 the purposes of this argument to offer any reply. 
 What we are immediately concerned with is St. 
 John's conception of the Death of Christ, and of this 
 the passage is conclusive evidence. Nor would any 
 lingering superstition about the sanctity of the High 
 Priest, or about the Divine significance of words ut- 
 tered by men invested with sacerdotal authority, inva- 
 lidate his testimony to the teaching of his Master. 
 The "beloved disciple" might not be emancipated 
 from all the traditions of his country and his age, 
 and he would yet be a trustworthy witness to what 
 Christ had taught on so great a subject as the pur- 
 pose of His sufferings and Death. 
 
 But he requires no apology. From the time the 
 law was given on Sinai, that system of ceremonial 
 worship of which the High Priest was the centre had 
 been the divinely - appointed organ and discipline of 
 the religious life of the Jewish people. The High 
 Priest was at once the representative of the nation 
 in the presence of God, and the representative of God 
 to the nation. He, and he alone, had access to that 
 mysterious sanctuary which was made awful by the 
 visible symbol of the Divine Glory. Through him, 
 in periods of national perplexity and peril. Divine 
 oracles had spoken. Around him gathered, in these 
 last and evil times, all the sacred and historic glories 
 of the elect race. Moses had gone, and left no suc- 
 cessor. The kings had gone. The prophets had gone. 
 The High Priest remained, the heir of sixteen cen- 
 turies of wonder and hope, and mystery and glory. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. 171 
 
 Not yet had he ceased to be ''the Lord's anointed;" 
 not yet had the temple in which he ministered, and 
 its altars and sacrifices and festivals, lost the sanctity 
 they derived from their ori.e^inal institution. 
 
 But the hour was approaching when his dignity 
 and power were to pass away for ever. The sacred 
 and venerable system over which he ruled, estab- 
 lished by the authority of God, was on the eve of 
 dissolution ; soon the incense and the sacrifices would 
 cease to be acceptable offerings, and the priests 
 would be dismissed from their service as the con- 
 secrated ministers of the Most High. In a few hours 
 the veil of the temple was to be rent by an in- 
 visible hand, and Jerusalem would no longer be " the 
 place where men ought to worship.*' And when the 
 catastrophe was near, in the very hour when the 
 deed was plotted which made it irrevocable, Caia- 
 phas, the representative of all the sacred traditions of 
 Judaism, was compelled — so at least it seemed to St. 
 John — to bear a final testimony to that great truth 
 for the disclosure of which Judaism had been a pro- 
 tracted discipline and preparation. He did not mean 
 it, but he was still High Priest, and there came upon 
 him, in the very crisis of his guilt, the power which 
 had rested on his predecessors in happier days, and 
 the words in which he counselled the most awful of 
 crimes became a prophecy — the last of the prophecies 
 which came through the lips of a descendant of Aaron 
 ■ — the last and also the greatest. He " spake not of 
 himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied 
 
173 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 that Jesus should die for that nation : and not for that 
 nation only, but that also He should gather together 
 in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."^ 
 The ancient light and glory, long obscured, gleamed 
 forth for a moment in the deepening darkness, and then 
 it was extinguished for ever. 
 
 *' The kingdom of heaven " came at last. The 
 Prince, whose greatness and majesty had been seen 
 afar off by prophets and psalmists, was enthroned 
 at the right hand of God ; He received the heathen 
 as His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 
 earth as His possession. The wider realms over 
 which He had come to reign were to be governed by 
 nobler laws than those which had regulated the life 
 of the Jewish people, and God was now nearer to man 
 than when He had commanded Moses to erect the 
 Tabernacle in the desert, and when He had filled the 
 Temple of Solomon with His glory. 
 
 But it was not at once that even those who believed 
 in the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus discovered that 
 the old order had vanished and given place to a new. 
 The sun had gone down, but the light still lingered 
 on the sacred hills which had been for so many 
 generations the centre of the faith and hope and joy 
 of saints ; and long after the authority of the ancient 
 institutions had passed away, Jewish Christians con- 
 tinued to venerate and to practise the customs of their 
 fathers. As might have been expected, it was in the 
 ' John xi, 51, 52. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. 173 
 
 Church at Jerusalem that the traditions of Judaism 
 had the greatest power. Twenty years after the 
 Ascension, a strong party in that Church insisted on 
 the necessity of requiring even Gentile converts to 
 submit to circumcision.^ Eight or nine years later 
 there were " many thousands " of those who believed 
 who were still "zealous of the law."^ 
 
 Of the Church at Jerusalem, St. James, " the Lord's 
 brother," was the recognized ruler. To what extent he 
 continued to conform to the law of Moses, is uncertain ; 
 but it is extremely improbable that there was anything 
 in his life to offend even the strictest and most rigid of 
 the Pharisees who had confessed that Jesus was the 
 Christ. The Gentiles he was willing to release from 
 the obligations of the ancient law ; but it seems clear 
 that in his judgment it was, at least, expedient that 
 Jews who had become believers should not abandon 
 the customs of their race. Neither St. Peter, nor even 
 Barnabas, St. Paul's own friend and companion in 
 labour, was resolute enough to resist his influence. 
 At Antioch, " before that certain came from James 
 [Peter] , did eat with the Gentiles ; but when they 
 were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing 
 them which were of the circumcision ; and the other 
 Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that 
 Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimula- 
 tion."3 
 
 The general impression produced by thle references 
 to St. James in the New Testament is confirmed by 
 I Acts XV, 5. 2 Ibid. xxi. 20. 3 Gal. ii. 12, 13. 
 
174 ^^^ P^^i of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 ecclesiastical tradition. The testimony of Josephus, 
 as quoted by Eusebius, — that the calamities of the 
 siege of Jerusalem "avenged James the Just, who 
 was the brother of Him that is called Christ, and 
 whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding His pre- 
 eminent justice' — if genuine, proves how completely 
 St. James must have preserved the habits and cus- 
 toms and spirit of his people, and how perfectly 
 he fulfilled the Jewish ideal of sanctity. If spurious, 
 the passage is hardly less significant, for it is quoted 
 not only by Eusebius, but by Origen, and shows 
 that traditions which existed in the Church early in 
 the third century implied that there had never been 
 any violent breach between St. James and those of 
 his countrymen who continued to venerate the ancient 
 law. 
 
 The very curious extract from Hegesippus, which 
 is also given by Eusebius, though the details are 
 partly unintelligible and partly incredible, must 
 have had some foundation. St. James is repre- 
 sented as a Nazarite from his birth, drinking neither 
 wine nor strong drink, and abstaining from animal 
 food. No razor ever came upon his head ; he never 
 anointed with oil ; and he never used a bath. He 
 spent the greater part of his time in the Temple, 
 praying for the people, so that his knees became hard 
 like the knees of a camel. The story of his martyr- 
 dom — if through the impossible accessories of fable 
 any substantial fact is accessible — seems to indicate 
 I Ecc. Hist. ii. 23. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. 175 
 
 that the Jewish rulers were dreading an outburst of 
 violence among the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth at 
 a Feast of the Passover, and that knowing the 
 authority of St. James over the adherents of his sect, 
 and having confidence in his good sense, moderation, 
 and freedom from fanaticism, they appealed to him 
 to maintain order and quietness ; but that from some 
 cause or another this appeal resulted in a public and 
 impressive declaration on the part of St. James to 
 our Lord's Messiahship.^ Whether or not this is the 
 root of the singular story told by Hegesippus, and 
 quoted without any apparent consciousness of its 
 improbability by Eusebius, the story itself is an 
 evidence of the kind of impression which the early 
 Church had preserved of St. James's character, and 
 of his relations to the Jews who did not believe. No 
 such legend could have sprung up in those early 
 times in connection with the names of any other of 
 the Apostles. Origen could not have given as genuine 
 a passage of Josephus, declaring that in the opinion 
 of many of the Jews their miseries were a Divine 
 judgment for their treatment of St. Paul. Nor is 
 it probable that Hegesippus, writing in the middle 
 of the second century, would have thought it credible 
 that the ecclesiastical rulers of Jerusalem lived on 
 such terms with St. John or even with St. Peter as 
 to enable them to seek apostolic influence to prevent 
 tumults among Jewish Christians excited by the convic- 
 tion that our Lord's second Advent was at hand. But 
 » Eusebius : Ecc. Hist. ii. 23. 
 
176 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 St. James was a Jew to the last. The other Apostles 
 were scattered over the world, and new scenes and new 
 conditions of life assisted to emancipate them from 
 the habits and thoughts of their youth. St. James 
 never left Jerusalem, and never forsook the Temple. 
 A new Faith had come to him, and a new Hope ; 
 but he never passed into the large freedom which 
 was achieved by his apostolic brethren. 
 
 If, therefore, the expiatory forms under which the 
 other New Testament writers represent the Death 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ were the result of their 
 Jewish training; if they speak of His blood in con- 
 nection with the remission of sins and cleansing from 
 sin, only because their religious thought found its 
 most natural expression in language derived from the 
 altars, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the temple 
 of their early religious associations, in the Epistle 
 of St. James we might expect the constant recurrence 
 of sacrificial metaphors. Here, surely, we shall have 
 the eternal truths of the new revelation clothed in the 
 perishable robes of the ancient ceremonialism. How 
 else can such a man give shape and colour and sub- 
 stance to spiritual ideas ? 
 
 It is, to say the least, extremely curious that 
 from the beginning of the Epistle to the end he 
 never speaks of the Blood of Christ, or of the Sacri- 
 fice of Christ, or of the Propitiation offered by Christ 
 for the sins of the world, or of the Redemption of 
 men through the Death of Christ, or of any of those 
 priestly functions of Christ v/hich are illustrated at 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St. James. lyy 
 
 such length in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He, the 
 most Jewish of the Apostles, never illustrates the work 
 of Christ from the institutions of Judaism. He is 
 so much of a Jew that he describes the assembly of 
 the Church or its meeting-place as a *' synagogue," ^ 
 and yet we search his epistle in vain for a single 
 passage to justify us in describing the Death of 
 Christ as a Sacrifice for sin. The epistle, it is 
 true, is not a long one. Had he written more, it 
 is possible that we should have found in it the same 
 language about the Death of Christ that we find in 
 the writings of the other Apostles. But to those who 
 think that the representations of our Lord's Death in 
 the epistles of St, Paul and St. John are to be ac- 
 counted for and set aside as being only interesting 
 illustrations of the enduring power of Jewish insti- 
 tutions over their religious thought, the absence of any 
 such representations in the Epistle of St. James must 
 be remarkable. It is clear that the Apostle whose 
 whole life was passed in the atmosphere of Judaism, 
 and who was probably in the courts of the temple 
 every day, was not absolutely obliged to use Jewish 
 metaphors when he explained Christian doctrine or 
 enforced Christian duty. Why then should sacrificial 
 language, when used by St. Paul or St. John to describe 
 the Death of Christ, be peremptorily dismissed as being 
 the accidental result of their Jewish training ? 
 
 Perhaps, however, it was just because the Levitical 
 ritual was constantly before him that he did not exalt 
 ' Jas. ii. 2. 
 13 
 
17S The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 it to Christian uses. Distance may have been neces- 
 sary to give it enchantment; it was too near in its 
 base and material reality to be transfigured. This 
 explanation is hardly admissible. He was a Jew still, 
 and yet he had an eye to which some of the character- 
 istic elements of Judaism shone with altogether a new 
 light. He could speak of the law of the Christian life 
 as a " law of liberty." Even the visible and formal 
 worship of the temple suggested to him a noble con- 
 ception of the manner in which Christian men are 
 to serve God. *' Pure religion [Oprjo-Kela] and undefiled 
 before God and the Father is this : to visit the father- 
 less and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself 
 unspotted from the world." "Morality itself" — to 
 quote the comment of Coleridge — " is the service and 
 ceremonial {cultus externus. OprjcrKeia) of the Christian 
 religion. The scheme of grace and truth . . . has 
 Might for its garment;' its \Qvy robe is righteousness."^ 
 Whatever force there may be in these considerations 
 as illustrating the untenableness of the theory that 
 the Apostles spoke of the Death of Christ as a Pro- 
 pitiation for sin, and of His Blood as the condition 
 or means of securing the remission of sins, merely 
 because they were Jews, and could not prevent their 
 religious thought from running in the old channels, the 
 epistle throws the strongest light on the position of 
 St. James and the early Church in relation to the 
 question underlying the whole of the Atonement con- 
 troversy. 
 
 I Aids to Reflection. Second Edition, page 18. 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St, James. 179 
 
 The ultimate question at issue is whether the sole 
 purpose of the life and Death of Christ was to effect a 
 change in the moral and spiritual character of men, 
 and so to restore them to God, or whether there is 
 a direct relation between His Death and the remission 
 of sins. It is clear from this Epistle that though 
 St. James and the early Church may have held the 
 second of these theories, which is the theory main- 
 tained in these Lectures, it is impossible that they 
 could have held the first. 
 
 The most important doctrinal passage in the epistle 
 is that which occupies the second half of the second 
 chapter, the passage which has occasioned so much 
 perplexity to Protestant theologians on account of its 
 superficial and formal inconsistency with St. Paul's 
 doctrine on Justification. It appears that when St. 
 James wrote there were persons bearing the Christian 
 name who supposed that they were certain of salvation 
 although they lived a very unchristian life. Their case 
 was much worse than that of the converts from heath- 
 enism in such Churches as those at Thessalonica and 
 Ephesus, to whom St. Paul had to write grave warn- 
 ings against coarse and flagrant vices. Converts from 
 heathenism sinned through carelessness, through de- 
 fective moral discernment, through the strength of old 
 habit, and the influence of the corrupt heathen society 
 with which they were still in necessary contact. St. 
 James was writing to Jews who had been trained in 
 the law of Moses. When they sinned they knew it. 
 But they had come to think that their sin exposed 
 
 13 * 
 
i8o The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 them to no danger, that because they had *' faith " they 
 were safe, although faith was not perfected in righteous- 
 ness. This was the heresy with which St. James had 
 to deal so sharply, a practical heresy of the worst and 
 most fatal kind. 
 
 But such a heresy could never have arisen if the 
 Church had been taught to believe that the sole pur- 
 pose for which Christ came into the world was to re- 
 deem us from eternal ruin by making us better men, 
 — creating in us reverence for God's authority, and 
 trust in His love, penitence for sin, and thirst for 
 righteousness. This conception of the work of Christ 
 has many great defects, but it has one great merit ; it is 
 a conception in which the Antinomian heresy can never 
 take root. The weeds as well as the healthy crops 
 show the quality and nature of the soil, and if any 
 theory of the work of Christ renders impossible a heresy 
 which actually arose in the Churches which Apostles 
 founded, this is decisive evidence that the theory is not 
 apostolic. 
 
 Had the early Church been taught that the Chris- 
 tian salvation is only a salvation from sin, or that 
 whatever else it may be is the result of salvation from 
 sin, it is inconceivable that any persons bearing the 
 Christian name could have supposed that they might 
 be saved by faith without works. The solitary function 
 of Christ would then have been to discipline men to 
 righteousness. Salvation and the recovery of holiness 
 would have been not only inseparable, but identical 
 blessings. For men to speak of being justified, while 
 
v.] the Testimony of St, John and St, James, i8i 
 
 their temper and character remained unchanged, would 
 have been as impossible as for men to speak of being 
 free while the fetters are on their limbs and the prison 
 doors bolted, or to speak of being in health while suffer- 
 ing the tortures of a painful disease. Some great objec- 
 tive blessing, a blessing altogether distinct from their 
 personal sanctification, and conferred in direct response 
 to faith, must have filled their thoughts, to have made it 
 possible for them to suppose that they could be justified 
 by faith without obedience. Salvation must have been 
 represented to them as something else than a change 
 in their personal life and character effected by the reve- 
 lation of God in Christ, and something else than the 
 natural and necessary result of such a change. 
 
 I may be reminded that the error of these Christian 
 Jews was precisely analogous to that which was 
 committed by Jews who had not acknowledged the 
 authority of Christ. Judaism, it may be alleged, was 
 in its very essence a law requiring righteousness, yet 
 there were some who regarded the bare possession of a 
 law, which they did not keep, as the guarantee of the 
 Divine favour ; and so Christianity, as taught by the 
 Apostles, might have made the whole value of the 
 mission of Christ consist in His power to renew and 
 transform the life and character, and yet their doctrine 
 might have been so perverted as to invest a barren and 
 unspiritual faith with the prerogative of justifying. 
 No illustration could add greater strength to the argu- 
 ment on which I am insisting. For it was not the 
 law in itself that gave occasion to the practical heresy 
 
1 82 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 of the Jews. There was a Divine promise given to 
 Abraham, and " the law, which was four hundred and 
 thirty years after," could not "disannul" it, so as to 
 " make the promise of none effect." The promise was 
 theirs antecedently to any obedience which they could 
 render to the Divine commandments. The command- 
 ments were given, because the promise had been given 
 before ; but they forgot that by disobedience they might 
 disqualify themselves for receiving the fulfilment of the 
 promise. The Christians whom St. James rebukes 
 committed a precisely similar mistake. There were 
 great hopes assured to faith, free gifts conferred by 
 God on all who believed in Christ; but they forgot that 
 without personal righteousness they might be incapable 
 of continuing in the Divine love and inheriting eternal 
 glory. The practical heresy bears witness to the truth. 
 The heresy would have been impossible had the Church 
 been taught that the sole purpose of the mission of 
 Christ was to inspire men with the disposition and the 
 power to keep God's commandments. 
 
 The manner in which St. James deals with the heresy 
 is equally instructive. He does not deny that it is 
 faith which justifies ; he only insists that faith with- 
 out works is dead ; in other words, is no faith at all. 
 Abraham was justified by works — but why ? Because 
 faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith 
 made perfect. Curiously enough, Rahab seems to have 
 been regarded by the Jews of those times as a con- 
 spicuous example of faith. The writer of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews gives her a place in the glorious succession 
 
v.] the Testimony of St, John and St, jf antes, 183 
 
 of saints, heroes, and martyrs, who "through faith 
 subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained 
 promises," and endured with unshaken fortitude all 
 that the hatred and power of wicked men could inflict 
 upon them. St. James also appeals to Rahab, and 
 there is no real conflict between his account of her and 
 what is said of her in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The 
 anonymous writer says : '* By faith the harlot Rahab 
 perished not with them that believed not, when she had 
 received the spies with peace." ^ St. James says : " Was 
 not Rahab the harlot justified by works when she had 
 received the messengers, and had sent them out another 
 way?"* Which was it that justified her — faith or 
 works ? St. James, had he been asked, would have 
 replied — Both. " Faith wrought with [her] works, and 
 by works was faith made perfect." 
 
 Had St. James believed that there are no great 
 objective blessings promised to faith, and that Christ 
 saves us only because He accomplishes a subjective 
 change in those who receive Him, the whole argument 
 would have taken a different form. The " moral 
 theory " of the Atonement would have placed in his 
 hands weapons for the destruction of Antinomianism 
 very different from those which he actually employs. 
 He would have insisted that Christ came for no other 
 purpose than to incline and to enable us to fulfil ** the 
 perfect law of liberty ; " that this was the only end of 
 His Life, His Death, and His Resurrection ; that 
 whatever may be the blessedness and whatever the 
 ' Heb. xi. 31. 2 Jas. ii. 25. 
 
184 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 glory to which Christian men are destined, these are 
 the results of the personal holiness which Christ came 
 to produce by revealing the perfect righteousness and 
 infinite love of God, and by conferring the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. In illustrating the necessity of good 
 works, he would not have limited himself to instances 
 in which the "works" were such immediate effects 
 of faith as to be hardly distinguishable from it — to 
 " works '* which were plainly its necessary expression. 
 He would have insisted that sin of every kind is itself 
 the very evil from which Christ came to redeem us, 
 and that restoration to God is identical with restora- 
 tion to holiness. Instead of satisfying himself with 
 maintaining that faith is dead where works are absent, 
 he would have argued that the power of Christ is 
 unrevealed — the power of His example, the power 
 of His love, the power of His sufferings, the power of 
 His resurrection — where evil habits are not dissolved 
 and evil passions not destroyed. 
 
 Ask any theologian who believes in the " moral 
 theory " of the Atonement to refute the heresy that 
 holy living is unnecessary to present justification and 
 to future happiness; tell him to steep his mind in Old 
 Testament thought, and to write as the most Jewish 
 of the Apostles would have written to Jewish Chris- 
 tians ; and his argument will bear no resemblance to 
 that of St. James. The existence of the heresy is a 
 proof that the early Church did not believe that the 
 whole value of the work of Christ consists in the 
 power which He had gained by His Incarnation and 
 
v.] the Testimony of St, John and St, James. 185 
 
 Death over the human heart; and the proof is com- 
 pleted by the manner in which St. James combats 
 the heresy. 
 
 That in the heat of the great conflict for the doctrine 
 of Justification by Faith, Luther should have regarded 
 this epistle v^ith distrust, and even with antagonism, 
 is not wonderful; but there is no epistle in the New 
 Testament which should be read more constantly by 
 evangelical theologians and by all evangelical Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 Between St. Paul and St. James there is no real 
 want of harmony. We understand neither of them 
 aright, if we shrink from taking the words of both in 
 their broad and obvious meaning, and if we attempt to 
 " reconcile " them by ingenious and subtle and recon- 
 dite processes of interpretation. St. Paul speaks as a 
 theologian, and contends that by faith, and by faith 
 alone, are men to be justified ; and in this contention he 
 is but affirming the truth to which the Christian revela- 
 tion in all its parts bears testimony. We are saved by 
 God's infinite grace. We love Him because He first 
 loved us. In God's presence we can urge no claim to 
 deliverance from sin and eternal perdition, except the 
 mercy He has revealed through Christ. The preroga- 
 tives and hopes of the least in the kingdom of heaven 
 transcend the merits of the greatest of saints. Saint- 
 liness itself is the effect of the sanctifying power of 
 the Holy Ghost. The holiest of men, instead of having 
 most to claim by way of reward, have already received 
 
i86 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 most as the result of grace. To God we can give 
 nothing : we must receive everything from Him. We 
 are justified by faith, for faith is the recognition and 
 acceptance of our true relation to God, which is a re- 
 lation of dependence from first to last. 
 
 St. James speaks, not as a theologian, but as one 
 who has to deal with the concrete Christian life. He 
 maintains that works are as necessary to justification 
 as faith; and in the sphere in which his thought is 
 moving this is true, let theologians say what they 
 will. He speaks the language of common life and of 
 common men. He is not dealing with ideas but with 
 facts. It is quite true that a man is justified as soon 
 as he believes in Christ — justified by faith before he 
 has any chance of doing good works ; it is quite true 
 that faith is the solitary condition of remission of sins 
 and entrance into the kingdom of God, but wherever 
 there is faith there will be works ; and since a man 
 cannot be justified without faith, he cannot as a matter 
 of fact be justified without works, which always go 
 with it. 
 
 So long as the question is kept within the limits of 
 theological science, we must maintain that a man is 
 justified by faith, and by faith alone, without good 
 works : as soon as it passes into the province of the 
 practical Christian life, we must maintain with equal 
 earnestness that apart from good works justification is 
 impossible. Evangelical preachers have never hesi- 
 tated to maintain the absolute necessity of repentance 
 as an antecedent of faith ; they should not hesitate to 
 
v.] the Testimony of St, John and St, James, 187 
 
 maintain the absolute necessity of good works as a 
 consequent of faith. 
 
 No doubt St. James puts the case very strongly. 
 The works which were present to his mind, and by 
 which he illustrates his argument, were of a kind 
 to enable him to travel to the utmost limit of per- 
 missible language ; they were, as I have already said, 
 works so immediately resulting from faith as to be 
 hardly distinguishable from it. He makes no dis- 
 tinction between the inward principle and the act 
 which was its necessary effect and expression. " By 
 works a man is justified, and not by faith only." This 
 is something more than saying that where there are no 
 good works there can be no justification ; but prac- 
 tically, and in all such cases as those to which he 
 appeals, the one statement is as true as the other, for 
 the works were literally works of faith. 
 
 The remembrance of great controversies which have 
 shaken Christendom to its foundations may restrain us 
 even in our strongest and most popular speech within 
 limits which St. James, in the intensity of his hatred 
 and scorn for unrighteousness which sheltered itself 
 under the immunities of faith, was impelled to pass. 
 But his example should remind us that when we are ^ 
 speaking to the hearts and consciences of men we may 
 sometimes have to forget the definitions of the schools. 
 We must sometimes sacrifice the scientific accuracy of 
 our language in order to make truth intelligible to men 
 who are not scientific theologians, or who have made 
 
1 88 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 their scientific theology a defence against the re- 
 proaches of their own consciences and the Divine 
 denunciations of sin. When spiritual truth has to 
 appear on the common paths of human life, it has 
 to become incarnate, and must accept the infirmities of 
 the human medium through which alone it can reveal 
 itself to mankind. 
 
 Especially we should learn from St. James that 
 one of our chief duties is to insist that obedience to 
 the law of God is inseparable from real faith in His 
 love. In our own times, indeed, and in this coun- 
 try, the practical heresies which, from the days 
 of the Apostles, have always arisen wherever the 
 apostolic theology has been vigorously and earnestly 
 preached, have no considerable strength. They may 
 be found in obscure places, but they shun the light. 
 They often, I fear, exist in a vague form in the 
 minds of persons who have received, without much 
 active reflection, the traditional evangelical creed, but 
 they are rarely expressed. Wherever they exist, and 
 in however indefinite a shape, they poison the air, they 
 corrupt Christian morality, they enfeeble the fibre and 
 muscle of the Christian life. They must receive no 
 toleration, but must be driven away and smitten down 
 with a relentless hand. 
 
 It may be that some Christian people are only 
 giving an unfortunate and unscriptural expression to 
 a very noble truth when they speak of being ** clothed 
 in the imputed righteousness of Christ ; " but if " im- 
 puted righteousness '* is made a cloak for actual sin, 
 
v.] the Testimony of St. John and St, James, 189 
 
 they must be made to feel that they are the modern 
 successors of those of whom St. Paul said that their 
 " damnation is just." If the doctrine of the Atone- 
 ment is so perverted as to lead to the conclusion that 
 because a man believes in Christ as the Propitiation 
 for the sins of the world, he will not have to be made 
 manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that he 
 ** may receive the things done in his body, according 
 to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad," ^ the 
 awful reality of judgment to come must be reasserted 
 with the energy and sternness of apostolic times ; and 
 men must be reminded that to St. Paul himself — the 
 great teacher of Justification by Faith — the final judg- 
 ment was *' the terror of the Lord," and was one of 
 the motives which constrained him to fidelity in his 
 apostolic labours. 
 
 We should not, however, transform the gospel of 
 the grace of God into a mere system of ethics, because 
 in our times, as in the days of the Apostles, men may 
 turn the very *' grace of God into lasciviousness." We 
 should rather recognise in the analogy between the 
 heresies which sometimes claim to be the legitimate 
 results of the evangelical creed, and the heresies which 
 claim to be the legitimate results of apostolic teach- 
 ing, a fresh testimony and proof that we are the re- 
 presentatives and heirs of " the faith once delivered 
 unto the saints." If there is any form of Christian 
 doctrine which renders it impossible for men to suppose 
 that they can be saved by faith without works — that 
 » 2 Cor. V. 10. 
 
IQO The Fact of the Atonement, [leci. v. 
 
 the Death of Christ secures no objective blessing, and 
 has for its solitary purpose the creation of a new nioral 
 and spiritual life — the Epistle of St. James is a 
 conclusive demonstration that this is not the doctrine 
 v^hich was taught by the founders of the Christian 
 Church. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT : THE TESTI- 
 MONY OF ST. PAUL. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE FACT OF THE ATONEMENT: THE TESTIMONY OF 
 ST. PAUL. 
 
 IN examining the testimony of St. Peter, St. John, 
 and St. James, to the fact of the Atonement, it 
 was unnecessary to consider whether they had any 
 supernatural illumination different in kind or degree 
 from that which is common to all who have received 
 the life and light of God. One of them was " the 
 brother of our Lord ;" the others were His personal 
 friends, and had lived with Him for two, or perhaps 
 for nearly three, years. After His resurrection He 
 had appeared to them all, again and again, and had 
 spoken to them of " the things pertaining to the 
 kingdom of heaven."^ St. Peter and St. John He 
 had elected and appointed to tell the story of His 
 life. His sufferings, and His resurrection from the 
 dead, and to preach repentance and remission of sins 
 in His name among all nations."^ It was impossible 
 that any of the three should have mistaken His mind 
 on a question of such capital importance as that of 
 the ground on which God forgives sin. To establish 
 their authority on other questions relating to the new 
 I Acts i. 3. 2 Luke xxiv. 46-48. 
 
 14 
 
194 ^^^^ ^^^^ of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 faith, it may be necessary to show that they received 
 special inspiration ; but, apart from special inspiration, 
 their authority on this question is decisive. 
 
 The authority of St. Paul rests on other grounds. He 
 had not known Christ during Christ's earthly ministry, 
 but he had seen — so he said — a " heavenly vision ; " 
 Christ had appeared to him in a glory brighter than 
 that of the sun which shines on Damascus at midday; 
 he had heard the voice of Christ, and had received 
 from Him a commission to be " a minister and wit- 
 ness " of supernatural revelations. He was sent es- 
 pecially to the Gentiles, "to open their eyes, and to 
 turn them from darkness to light, and from the power 
 of Satan unto God," that they might " receive for- 
 giveness of sins and inheritance among them that are 
 sanctified by faith " in Christ.^ That the miraculous 
 vision was not the creation of a fevered brain was 
 proved to the men of his own time by his miraculous 
 works ; and the truth of what he taught was confirmed 
 by the Divine power which wrought on the hearts of 
 those to whom he preached. 
 
 He must have been acquainted with the general 
 outlines of our Lord's earthly history long before he 
 became an Apostle. He must have known that Jesus 
 of Nazareth had been crucified, and that His disciples 
 alleged that He had risen from the dead, and had 
 ascended to heaven. Within six or seven years after 
 these things happened, we have evidence that St. Paul 
 was in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was ringing with the 
 I Acts xxvi. 13-18. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 195 
 
 controversy between the disciples of the Nazarene 
 Messiah and their unbeheving countrymen. The new- 
 sect was rapidly gaining adherents ; " a great com- 
 pany of the priests were obedient to the faith." ^ He 
 consented to the death of Stephen, and the false 
 witnesses that charged the first Christian martyr 
 with blasphemy " laid down their clothes " at his 
 feet.^ It was impossible that he should be ignorant 
 of the story which the friends of the Lord Jesus 
 were perpetually repeating. After his conversion he 
 stayed for a short time with the disciples at Damascus, 
 and must have been present at their meetings for 
 worship, must have heard their preaching, and must 
 have talked with them in private about the miracles 
 of Christ, which some of them had probably witnessed, 
 and the discourses of Christ, to which some of them 
 had probably listened. 
 
 But he declared that he had not received from man 
 the gospel which he preached, neither was he taught 
 it but ** by the revelation of Jesus Christ." I suppose 
 he meant that the full significance of our Lord's 
 earthly history, the nature and laws of His eternal 
 kingdom, were not made known to him by human 
 teachers, but by the immediate illumination of the 
 Holy Ghost. These lofty claims, as I have said, were 
 sustained by miracles. To a Church which he had 
 not visited he wrote of the '* mighty signs and won- 
 ders " wrought by the Spirit of God in connection with 
 his apostolic labours.^ To a Church which he had 
 I Acts vi. 8. 2 Ibid. vii. 58. 3 Rom. xv. 19. 
 
 14* 
 
196 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 founded, but which was disturbed by factious men 
 who questioned his right to rank himself with " the 
 brethren of the Lord " and with St. Peter, he declared 
 that *'in nothing" was he inferior to "the very 
 chiefest apostles," and he appealed with confidence to 
 " the signs of an apostle " which had been wrought 
 among them " in signs and wonders and mighty 
 deeds." ^ 
 
 Admitting on such evidence as this the reality of St. 
 Paul's supernatural commission, we need not, for our 
 immediate purpose, discuss the limits of his inspiration. 
 Whether the arguments with which he sustains Chris- 
 tian doctrine are always logical, whether his use of 
 the Old Testament is always legitimate, whether in 
 illustrating the work of Christ he ever mistakes Jewish 
 myths or legends for facts — these are questions to 
 which different replies may be given by those who are 
 agreed in acknowledging that the Lord Jesus Christ 
 really appeared to him on the road to Damascus, and 
 called him to the apostleship of the Gentiles. But 
 that the Gentiles might " receive the forgiveness of 
 sins " was one of the special ends of his apostolic 
 ministry.^ Whatever other parts of his religious teach- 
 ing may be erroneous, when he declares the conditions 
 and grounds on which sin is forgiven, his teaching is 
 stamped with the authority of heaven.^ 
 
 There is another line of proof by which this position 
 may be established. St. Paul's claims were violently 
 and persistently opposed. A faction in the Church, 
 I 2 Cor. xii. 12. 2 Acts xxvi. 18. 3 Note L. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 197 
 
 and a very powerful faction, resented his refusal to im- 
 pose the Jewish law on converts from heathenism. 
 
 In the Church at Antioch, which was largely com- 
 posed of Gentiles, the permanent and universal obHga- 
 tion of circumcision was debated with great vehemence; 
 and as the Judaising party refused to acknowledge the 
 authority of St. Paul and his friends, it was resolved to 
 refer the question to the original Apostles who were 
 still in Jerusalem, and to the elders of the Jerusalem 
 Church. With the exception of one brief visit five 
 years before,^ at a time when the Church was disturbed 
 by persecution, and when the Apostles had probably fled 
 for their lives, he had not been in the sacred city for at 
 least twelve years. At his earlier visit he had seen St. 
 Peter and St. James, " the Lord's brother, " but since 
 then, he seems never to have met any of the Apostles. 
 It is clear that he anticipated the results of this appeal 
 to their judgment, with anxiety. Before the Church 
 was called together he had private conferences with its 
 leaders. He explained to them the gospel that he had 
 been preaching during the previous ten or eleven years 
 to the Gentile Churches which he had founded. A 
 schism, a misunderstanding, would be infinitely mis- 
 chievous. When at last the Church met, the conten- 
 tion seems to have been as sharp as it had been at 
 Antioch. If there had been any divergence between 
 St. Paul's teaching and that of the original twelve on 
 such a subject as the relation of the Death of Christ 
 
 I The visit recorded in Acts xi. and xii. I follow the chronology 
 of CONYBEARE and HowsoN. 
 
198 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 to the forgiveness of sins, it is certain that this diver- 
 gence would have been alleged to embitter and aggra- 
 vate the controversy. But there is no trace that any 
 doctrinal innovations, either on this point or on any 
 other, were charged against him. His solitary offence 
 consisted in his firm and immovable determination 
 that the Christian Church should not be bound and 
 fettered by the rites of Judaism. When the discussion 
 was over, St. James, St. Peter, and St. John gave St. 
 Paul the right hand of fellowship, recognised in him 
 4.iie same mighty power that wrought in themselves, 
 and acknowledged that he was divinely commissioned 
 to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. His faith, there- 
 fore, was theirs. The original Apostles declared that 
 the gospel of St. Paul was a true representation of the 
 doctrine of Christ. 
 
 A complete investigation of St. Paul's testimony to 
 the Atonement is not possible within the narrow limits 
 of these Lectures. I propose to consider, very briefly, 
 the accounts of St. Paul's preaching, given by himself 
 and by St. Luke, and shall then endeavour to deter- 
 mine his conception of the intention and effect of the 
 Death of Christ, by considering the relation of that 
 conception to the most important lines of thought in 
 three or four of his epistles. 
 
 Although he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, he 
 began his apostolic work among the Jews. According 
 to Jewish custom, it was not only the official ministers 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 199 
 
 who were permitted to speak in the synagogue : liberty 
 to address the congregation was allowed to every one 
 who had anything to say ; and to the very last, not- 
 withstanding the hostility with which the Jews re- 
 garded him, it was St. Paul's habit to avail himself of 
 this liberty. In the synagogues of Damascus, imme- 
 diately after his conversion, he discussed the claims of 
 Jesus of Nazareth to be received as the Son of God, 
 and the Messiah of Jewish prophecy.^ Whether in 
 those early times he was accustomed to speak of the 
 relation of our Lord's Death to human redemption, 
 does not appear ; St. Luke gives us no report of the 
 substance of his teaching. And of all the discourses 
 which he delivered subsequently in the synagogues of 
 Asia Minor and of Greece, St. Luke has recorded only 
 one."* This was delivered at Antioch in Pisidia, and 
 it may be regarded as illustrating the kind of argument 
 which he used with his fellow-countrymen, in vindi- 
 cating the claims of Christ to their obedience and faith. 
 He begins by recognizing God's election of the 
 Jewish race ; he recalls the manifestations of God's 
 goodness to them in the earlier periods of their history, 
 and especially in the establishment of the Jewish 
 monarchy, which was the symbol and prophecy of a 
 diviner kingdom. He reminds them of God's promise 
 to David, and then declares that ** of this man's seed 
 hath God .... raised unto Israel a Saviour." He 
 quotes John the Baptist's testimony to our Lord. He 
 tells them of the rejection of the Lord Jesus by the 
 I Acts ix. 20, 22. 2 Ibid, xiii 14-41. 
 
200 The Fact of the Atonement: {lect. 
 
 rulers and people of Jerusalem, and of His Death and 
 burial. He quotes ancient prophecies, which he main- 
 tains were fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from 
 the dead. And then his very first words are these : 
 ** Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, 
 that through this Man is preached unto you forgiveness 
 of sins; and by Him all that beHeve are justified from 
 all things, from which ye could not be justified by the 
 law of Moses." ^ Nothing is said about the relation 
 of our Lord's Death to the forgiveness of sins and 
 justification; but it seems to be St Paul's intention 
 to declare that perfect release from the guilt of all 
 offences against the Divine law is the immediate re- 
 sult of believing in Christ. Christ is the Saviour 
 whom God had promised to their fathers — the King for 
 whose advent they had been waiting and longing — and 
 " by Him all that believe are justified from all things," 
 from which the law of Moses provided no means of 
 justification. It looks as if the salvation of which St. 
 Paul speaks were purely objective, and as if it were 
 immediate : there is nothing to imply that it is to be 
 the natural result of a subjective change. 
 
 Of his discourses to the Gentiles, passing over his 
 protest against the attempt of the people at Lystra to 
 offer to himself and Barnabas divine honours, the only 
 one recorded is the address on Mars' Hill, which is 
 principally an argument against idolatry, though it 
 closes with the startling declaration that the day has 
 been appointed when God " will judge the world in 
 I Acts xiii. 38, 39. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 20i 
 
 righteousness," by Jesus Christ ; and that of this God 
 has "given assurance to all men" in raising^Him from 
 the dead.^ Repentance is commanded, but nothing is 
 said about forgiveness. Christ is represented only as 
 a Judge. This discourse was probably very unlike 
 those w^hich St. Paul ordinarily delivered to Gentile 
 audiences. All the circumstances were exceptional, 
 and these determined both its substance and its form. 
 
 The other discourses of St. Paul contained in the 
 Acts of the Apostles are also of an exceptional charac- 
 ter. Three of them are narratives of his conversion : 
 the first, delivered on the stairs of the fortress of An- 
 tonia, * to the enraged and tumultuous crowd by which 
 a few minutes before he had been nearly killed ; the 
 second delivered before Felix at Csesarea, in reply to 
 Tertullus ; and the third before Agrippa and Festus. 
 There is also his address to the elders of the Ephesian 
 Church, who met him at Miletus : this is a charge 
 exhorting them to fidelity to the flock over which the 
 Holy Ghost had made them overseers, and he gives 
 awful solemnity to his appeal by reminding them that 
 the Church to which they were called to minister, " the 
 Lord .... had purchased — made His own — with His 
 own blood." ^ it is from himself that we must learn 
 the general character of his preaching. 
 
 ^ Acts xvii. 22-31. 
 
 2 Or of the barracks within the fortress. CONYBEARE and How- 
 SON : SL Paul, vol. ii. 262. 
 
 3 Acts XX. 28. In the Atonement controversy, it is of no prac- 
 tical importance whether the received reading, tov Beow, is adopted, 
 or the more probable reading, tov Kvpiov, which has the support 
 of nearly all the modern editors of the text. 
 
202 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 Writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul says : '* Christ 
 sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel;" and 
 what he meant by preaching the gospel is implied in the 
 words which immediately follow : " not with wisdom 
 of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of 
 none effect."^ The principal subject of his preaching 
 was the crucifixion of Christ, and it was his duty not 
 to divert the thoughts of men from that great and 
 mysterious event by learned speculation or glittering 
 eloquence. In the next sentence he describes his 
 preaching as " the preaching of the cross," =" which " is 
 to them that perish foolishness." A few sentences 
 fartheron he repeats the description: ''The Jews re- 
 quire a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom ; but 
 we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling- 
 block, and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them 
 which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the 
 power of God and the wisdom of God." ^ In the next 
 chapter he reminds the Corinthians of the time when 
 He was with them, and when through his ministry 
 they abandoned their heathenism and became Chris- 
 tians. '* I brethren, when I came to you, came not 
 with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring 
 unto you the testimony of God. For I determined 
 not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ 
 and Him crucified." ^ How are we to account for the 
 prominence which is given to the cross ? 
 
 The Apostle of the Gentiles knew mankind. He was 
 as far as possible from being an irrational fanatic. On 
 
 I I Cor. i. 17. 2 Ver. 18. 3 Ver. 22-24. * i Cor. ii. 1-3. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St, Paul. 203 
 
 some conspicuous occasions he showed that he could 
 practise the most courteous and dexterous conciliation 
 — complimenting Agrippa on his knowledge of Jewish 
 customs and controversies ; quoting a Greek poet, to 
 sustain his own doctrine, when addressing Greeks at 
 Athens ; appealing to the very party spirit of the 
 Pharisees when he was standing before the Sanhedrim, 
 protesting that he was ** a Pharisee and the son of a 
 Pharisee," and that it was concerning " the hope and 
 resurrection of the dead " that he was " called in 
 question." ' How was it that he deliberately and per- 
 sistently spoke of the crucifixion, which, according to 
 Dean Stanley, '* was and is a scandal to the Jewish 
 nation, as a dishonour to the Messiah," and which was 
 regarded " by the educated classes of Greek and 
 Roman society as a degradation of the [Christian] re- 
 ligion itself." "* St. Paul wanted both Jews and Gentiles 
 to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of 
 God and Saviour of mankind: why did he dwell on 
 precisely those facts which provoked the disgust both 
 of Gentiles and of Jews, and confirmed them in their 
 unbelief? 
 
 That the Jews of Jerusalem had rejected the claims 
 of Jesus of Nazareth and put Him to death was no 
 reason why Jews in other parts of the world should 
 acknowledge Him as the Messiah. His rejection at 
 Jerusalem, where He was known. His condemnation 
 by the highest authorities of the nation, was prima 
 
 ^ Acts xxiii. 6. 
 
 2 The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. A. P. Stanley. 
 Second Edition, page 51. 
 
204 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect 
 
 facie evidence that He was an impostor. His Death 
 must surely have had some very intimate and peculiar 
 relation to His mission, for St. Paul to have insisted 
 on it so strenuously. 
 
 Nor could His Death have been represented by St. 
 Paul as having the same character as the death of 
 any other great teacher or reformer who had been de- 
 stroyed by the jealousy of governments or by popular 
 fury. Plato's philosophy was not *' foolishness " to 
 " the educated classes of Greek and Roman society " 
 because he told them how Socrates had been put to 
 death by the Athenians; and the preaching of St. Paul 
 would not have been " foolishness" to the same classes 
 had he spoken of Christ's Death simply as a martyr- 
 dom. In that case their hatred and contempt of the 
 Jews would have made them regard the crucifixion of 
 Jesus, notwithstanding the intolerable humiliation of 
 that particular form of death, as creating some slight 
 argument in His favour. 
 
 Why then, I ask again, did St. Paul give the 
 cross such prominence in his preaching ? Dean 
 Stanley, in his brief essay on the " Cross of Christ," 
 from which I have already quoted, says : " Its out- 
 ward form was familiar [to the Greeks] wherever 
 the Roman law had been carried out against the 
 slaves and insurgents of the East. It was for 
 them now to discover its application to themselves." ^ 
 " To discover its application to themselves 1 " If we 
 
 ^ The Epistles of St. Paul to the Cormthians. A. P. Stanley. 
 Second Edition, page 50. 
 
yi.] the Testimony of St, Paul, 205 
 
 had had nothing more than these brief references to 
 the supreme place which the cross of Christ held in 
 St. Paul's preaching, it would no doubt have been 
 necessary for us in this age to "discover " for ourselves 
 "its application" to human necessities and human 
 redemption. But even if St. Paul had been disposed 
 to announce the bare fact of the crucifixion, without 
 saying anything about its " application," it is incon- 
 ceivable that his hearers would have permitted him 
 to leave it unexplained. 
 
 For a year and six months he was " teaching the 
 word of God " in Corinth,^ and the people whom he 
 addressed were very unlike the decorous and silent 
 congregations addressed every Sunday by Christian 
 preachers in our own times. He was interrupted by 
 questions ; there was free debate ; he was challenged 
 by opponents ; he had to solve the difficulties of 
 friends. This crucifixion of the Son of God, which was 
 a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, 
 would be certain to provoke discussion. He might 
 say that it was a mystery, but he would be pressed 
 again and again to explain why it was permitted to 
 happen, and why he said so little about the teaching 
 and miracles of Christ, and so much about His Death. 
 It was impossible that he should be silent, and leave 
 his hearers " to discover its application to themselves." 
 
 We have no reason to suppose that he was un- 
 willing to speak. In the early part of his Epistle to 
 the Corinthians he describes his preaching as *' the 
 ^ Acts xviii. II. 
 
2o6 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 preaching of the cross." and tells them that when he 
 came to them, his whole preaching was about ** Jesus 
 Christ and Him crucified." Towards the end of the 
 epistle he recalls to their memory the gospel they had 
 heard from him, and which they had received ; and, 
 reciting the chief points on which he had spoken to 
 them, he says: ''I delivered unto you, first of all (iv 
 7r/3ft)To/?), that which I also received, how that Christ 
 died for our sins according to the scriptures." ' This 
 was among the elementary truths that he preached. 
 He began with this. 
 
 The words are remarkable, but they are very in- 
 telligible. Similar expressions occur often enough in 
 literature, and in ordinary conversation, and their 
 meaning is too plain to be misunderstood. We speak 
 of men being fined for drunkenness, transported for 
 felony, burnt for heresy, hung for murder, and no one 
 complains that our language is ambiguous. Sometimes 
 men have suffered for offences which they did not 
 commit, have been condemned on false evidence, and 
 punished by mistake. One man committed the theft, 
 and another man has been imprisoned for it ; one man 
 was guilty of the murder, and another man has been 
 hung for it. From the prison and the scaffold there 
 have come protestations of innocence. But in the case 
 of Christ there was no mistake, nor was there any 
 protest. He died voluntarily ; " died," not because He 
 had committed any crimes for which He deserved 
 death, but *'for our sins." We may wonder how it 
 ' I Cor. XV. 3. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 207 
 
 should be possible for Him to have died for our sins ; 
 we may contend that it was unjust ; but that St. Paul 
 declared that this was one of the fundamental truths 
 which he had " received" from heaven, to make known 
 to mankind, is incontestable. 
 
 As he believed that Christ " died for our sins," we 
 cannot be astonished that this was one of the first 
 truths that he made known to men who were unac- 
 quainted with the gospel ; nor can we be astonished 
 that he should have recurred to it so frequently that 
 his preaching might be described as ** the preaching 
 of the cross.'* That Christ died for the sins of men, 
 establishes a personal relationship between every man 
 and Christ of the most intimate character, a rela- 
 tionship absolutely unique, and affecting in a very 
 vital and fundamental manner the whole range of 
 human hopes and fears and the history and destiny of 
 the race. It was so strange and so startling a fact, it 
 was a fact of such infinite practical interest, that it 
 was inevitable that St. Paul should give it a foremost 
 place in his preaching. 
 
 There was another reason why he made it so promi- 
 nent. It was one of the great ends of his apostolic 
 commission that the Gentiles should " receive forgive- 
 ness of sins; " and if " Christ died for our sins," His 
 Death must have been intimately connected with our 
 forgiveness, and to "preach Christ crucified" was 
 therefore one of his chief apostolic duties. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that St. Paul did not simply 
 announce the fact of the crucifixion, and leave men **to 
 
2o8 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 discover its inward application to themselves." His 
 explanation of the fact was likely to provoke greater 
 antagonism and repugnance than the fact itself. The 
 Jews resented religious teaching which denied that their 
 descent from Abraham was sufficient to avert the 
 righteous judgment of God. St. Paul maintained that 
 they were sinners, and that Christ died for the sins of 
 Jews as well as for the sins of Gentiles, and that 
 circumcision was no sure guarantee of the Divine 
 favour. This was his great crime, and this was the 
 principal reason why to them " Christ crucified " was 
 " a stumbling-block : " for he asks, '* If I yet preach 
 circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution ? then 
 is the offence of the cross ceased."^ 
 
 " The educated classes of Greek and Roman society,'* 
 of whom Dean Stanley speaks, resented his teaching 
 — not merely because the crucifixion was felt to be a 
 '' degradation " of the new religion, encumbering it 
 ** with associations so low, and addressed, as they would 
 say, to classes so contemptible as the beggars and 
 slaves of the Roman empire,"^ — but also because St. 
 Paul's explanation of the crucifixion degraded them- 
 selves, ascribed to them a guilt of which they were 
 unconscious, offered them a forgiveness of which they 
 felt no need, and on terms which must have seemed in- 
 tolerable. That a Jewish religious teacher — a young 
 Galilean peasant — whatever His wisdom and whatever 
 
 1 Gal. V. II. 
 
 2 The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. A. P. Stanley. 
 Second Edition, page 51. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 209 
 
 His virtues, whose claims had been rejected by His own 
 countrymen, and who had suffered the most ignomi- 
 nious death, had really died for their sins, and that they 
 were to receive forgiveness of sins through Him, must 
 have seemed to *' the educated classes of Greek and 
 Roman society" the most preposterous and insane 
 propositions that Eastern fanatics had ever proclaimed 
 as messages from heaven. " Christ crucified " was 
 ** unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks 
 foolishness." 
 
 In St. Paul's preaching, then, he maintained that 
 ** Christ died for our sins." This was not a phrase 
 which he used now and then, accidentally, and without 
 any very definite meaning. It describes a truth which 
 gave complexion and character to all his teaching. 
 Can we find the same truth in his epistles ? Was this 
 conception of the Death of Christ merely elementary, 
 necessary in order to convey to uncultivated and igno- 
 rant minds some rude idea of the new faith, but in- 
 adequate as a representation of the inner truth of the 
 gospel ? or does it reappear in letters addressed to 
 those who were already in the Church, and who had 
 received the illumination of the Spirit of God? Do 
 the epistles of St. Paul assert or imply that there is 
 a great objective element in the work of Christ ? Do 
 they connect this with His Death ? Do they confirm 
 the impression that the Death of Christ is directly 
 related to the forgiveness of sins ? These are the 
 questions which I now propose to investigate. 
 
 ^5 
 
210 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 By general consent, the First Epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians is the earliest epistle that St. Paul wrote, or 
 rather the earliest that the Church has preserved. It 
 was written not many months after he had left the 
 newly-converted Christians at Thessalonica to them- 
 selves, and may have been suggested by what he heard 
 from Timothy about the moral perils which threatened 
 their Christian integrity, and the speculative questions 
 which disturbed their Christian faith. The enthu- 
 siasm with which they had abandoned heathenism, and 
 ** turned to God from idols to serve the living and true 
 God," appears to have been so remarkable, that the 
 report of their conversion travelled through the whole 
 of the country, and the first excitement had not yet 
 passed away. But their conscience was uninstructed, 
 and the sobriety and regularity which ought to charac- 
 terise the Christian life were endangered by the uncon- 
 trolled fervour of their religious emotion. Most oi 
 them had been heathens, and St. Paul had to warn 
 them against continuing to practise the sensual vices 
 of ''the Gentiles that know not God." ^ He had also 
 to tell them that while they were waiting for the 
 glorious coming of Christ they were not to live an idle, 
 turbulent, and fanatical life, but were to live quietly 
 and rationally, attending to their secular business 
 and working at their ordinary trades.^ 
 
 We can imagine the kind of letter which would have 
 been written to such a Church by any one who be- 
 lieved that the redemptive work of Christ is purely 
 I I Thess. ii. 3-8. 2 ibid. iv. 11. 
 
VI .J the Testimony of St. Paul. 211 
 
 subjective. These excited enthusiasts, whose faith 
 was strong and whose charity was fervent/ but whose 
 morahty was very defective,^ would have been told 
 that they were altogether mistaken as to the nature 
 of the Christian salvation. They would have been 
 sharply rebuked for permitting their imaginations to 
 be filled with the second advent of Christ, as though 
 redemption were in any sense a future and external 
 blessing. Very much would have been said about sin 
 as being the only evil from which men need deliver- 
 ance, and it would have been shown that glory, 
 honour, and immortality, are simply the natural and 
 necessary fruit of personal holiness. 
 
 But this is not the line that St. Paul follows. He 
 speaks of " the wrath that is coming," ^ " the sudden 
 destruction " ^ which is to overtake impenitent and 
 unbelieving men. From this, the Lord Jesus Christ 
 delivers all who receive the gospel.^ He enforces the 
 exhortation that Christian people should live as " the 
 children of the light and the children of the day," by 
 adding, " For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but 
 to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died 
 for us, that whether we wake or sleep we should live 
 together with Him."^ There are three conclusions to 
 be drawn from this epistle. 
 
 I. It is clear that St. Paul's own mind was filled 
 
 I I Thess. iii. 6, 9, 10. 2 ibid. iv. 3-7. 3 Ibid. i. 10. 
 
 4 Ibid. V. 3. 
 
 5 Ibid. i. 10. "Jesus which delivered us [our Deliverer, tv 
 pvoixivov] from the wrath to come." — See Ellicott, i?i he. 
 
 6 I Thcss. V. 9, 10. 
 
 IS* 
 
212 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 with the conception of the final revelation of the 
 " wrath " of God against human sin, and that he had 
 said very much about it to the Thessalonians when 
 he was with them. 
 
 2. It is also clear that he and they were relying 
 on Christ for deliverance from that ** wrath ; " and 
 however true it may be that those who are to be 
 delivered from the coming wrath are first delivered 
 from present sin, he does not conceive of the future 
 deliverance as being nothing more than the necessary 
 result of a present moral and spiritual change. 
 As yet, the Thessalonian Christians were very far 
 from having obtained perfect sanctification ; but since 
 they were in Christ, they were no longer in peril of 
 that '* sudden destruction," which might come any 
 day on those that knew not God, and obeyed not the 
 gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because they were 
 in Christ, it might be certain that they would be de- 
 livered from sin as well as from wrath, but the two 
 deliverances are conceived of as being co-ordinate. 
 There is an objective salvation as well as a salvation 
 from moral corruption. 
 
 3. This objective salvation is connected by St. Paul 
 with the Death of Christ. *' God hath not appointed 
 us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep 
 we should live together with Him." ^ Because Christ 
 died for us, our destiny is separated from the destiny 
 of those who will be swept away by the wrath of God, 
 
 I I Thess. V. 9, 10. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 213 
 
 and whether we die before " the day of the Lord " 
 comes, or whether it finds us still alive, we are to 
 live together with Christ. 
 
 But why should Christ's Death render it possible 
 for those who believe in Him to escape eternal destruc- 
 tion, and to share His own eternal life and blessedness? 
 What relation exists between these two truths, (i) that 
 Christ died, and (2) that we are to be saved from wrath 
 by Him ? Some third truth is necessary to mediate 
 between them. It was too familiar to the Thessa- 
 ionians to require explicit statement. To them St. 
 Paul had preached the same gospel that he was 
 preaching at Corinth when he wrote this epistle : he 
 had "delivered [to them] first of all that which [he] 
 also received, how that Christ died for our sins.'* This, 
 therefore, is what he meant, and what the Thessalo- 
 nians would know that he meant when he wrote that 
 Christ " died for us." It is because He died for our 
 sins, that at His coming, whether we are living or dead, 
 He will deliver us from the wrath of God, and exalt 
 us into eternal fellowship with His own blessedness 
 and glory. 
 
 The characteristic of the First Epistle to the Thes- 
 salonians is the prominence which it assigns to " the 
 day of the Lord," when the supreme penalty is to be 
 inflicted upon the impenitent, and when those who 
 believe are to receive complete and eternal blessedness. 
 Their deliverance from the penalty, and their inheri- 
 tance of the blessedness, are associated by St. Paul 
 with the Death of Christ. 
 
214 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The Death of Christ is not mentioned accidentally, 
 or in relation to some subordinate and incidental line 
 of thought. It stands in immediate connection with 
 the chief topic of the epistle, and in such a connection 
 with it, as to show that by dying for us Christ delivered 
 us from a great objective danger. 
 
 The Epistle to the Galatians, which I propose to 
 examine next, is generally regarded as belonging to a 
 group of epistles, which also includes the two Epistles 
 to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Romans. 
 All four were probably written about the same time, 
 and they have certain common characteristics. " They 
 exhibit," says Professor Lightfoot, ** an unwonted ten- 
 sion of feeling, a fiery energy of expression, which we 
 do not find in anything like the same degree in either 
 the earlier or the later epistles. They are marked by 
 a vast profusion of quotations from the Old Testament, 
 by, a frequent use of interrogation, by great variety and 
 abruptness of expression, by words and images not 
 found elsewhere, or found very rarely in St. Paul. 
 They have also their own doctrinal features, . . . due 
 for the most part to the phase which the antagohism 
 to the gospel assumed at this time.^ 
 
 Professor Lightfoot accurately describes the Epistle 
 to the Galatians as " the typical epistle of the group."* 
 Indeed, it contains in so intense a form all the agon- 
 istic elements which appear in the other three, that 
 
 1 St. PauVs Epistle to the Galatians. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. 
 Second Edition, page 43. 2 ibid. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 215 
 
 it stands almost alone. The conflict between St. Paul 
 and the Judaizers had now become a struggle for life or 
 death. The attempt at conciliation which had been 
 made at the Council of Jerusalem' had not succeeded. 
 The compromise, if it had been accepted for a time, and 
 if it still satisfied the more moderate of those who re- 
 verenced the ancient customs of the Jewish race, was 
 now utterly rejected by extreme men. Wherever St. 
 Paul went these men followed him. They had acknow- 
 ledged Jesus as the Christ; they claimed to be the 
 representatives of the faith and practice of the Church 
 at Jerusalem, and to speak with the authority of the 
 original Apostles ; and they insisted that it was the 
 duty of Christian Gentiles to submit to circumcision 
 and to keep the law of Moses. It was the old heresy 
 which had troubled the Church at Antioch many years 
 before, and which had occasioned the appeal to the 
 Apostles and Elders a. T^usalem. '* Except ye be 
 circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be 
 saved." ^ 
 
 Among the Celtic tribes, which after overrunning the 
 greater part of Asia Minor had been confined at last to 
 a strip of high table-land in the centre of the peninsula, 
 St. Paul had preached the gospel with great success. 
 The excitable, impetuous people abandoned their idol- 
 atry, confessed Christ, and received the Apostle '*as an 
 angel of God." Into these Churches just rescued from 
 heathenism, the Judaizers flung the fire of controversy, 
 insisting that so long as men remained uncircumcised 
 ^ Acts XV. i. 
 
2i6 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 they could have no part in the kingdom of God. They 
 also impugned the apostolic authority of St. Paul, and 
 succeeded in persuading very many that the man to 
 whose preaching they owed all their knowledge of 
 Christ was a person of very secondary importance, and 
 had no claims to be regarded as an authoritative teacher 
 of the new faith. ^ 
 
 Where St. Paul was when the news reached him 
 that the Judaizers were breaking up the peace of the 
 Churches of Galatia, and corrupting the simplicity of 
 their earlier faith, is doubtful. He could hardly have 
 been still at Antioch f he may have been at Ephesus ;3 
 or perhaps he was on his way through Macedonia to 
 Achaia \^ he may even have been at Corinth.^ Wherever 
 he was, the news greatly astonished him, and provoked 
 his indignation and scorn. It was a mean and dastardly 
 act to take advantage of the ignorance and impressi- 
 bility of these recent converts from heathenism,^ and to 
 endeavour to make them parties to a controversy con- 
 cerning the real character and issues of \vhich they had 
 no means of ascertaining the truth. Why could not these 
 zealous Judaizers fight out the question at Jerusalem 
 or at Antioch ? Why did they not meet St. Paul face 
 
 1 " Ces Galates ^taient gens faciles k seduire ; le dernier qui 
 venait leur parler au nom de Jesus etait presque sur d'avoir raison." 
 — E. Renan: St. Paul, 311. 
 
 2 This, however, is M. Kenan's theory. Si. Patd, p. 313, note. 
 
 3 This is the common hypothesis. 
 
 4 For which Professor Lightfoot argues. 
 
 5 The theory of Conybeare and Howson. 
 
 6 " L'espece de lachetd qu' il y avait a s'attaquer i. des gens faibles, 
 dociles, sans defense, et qui ne vivaient que de confiance en leur 
 mkitre, le rdvolta."— E. Renan : St. Paul, 314. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 217 
 
 to face? What manliness, what generosity — to say 
 nothing of Christian charity — was there in traducing 
 his character^ and denying his authority behind his 
 back, and among the very people who had learnt through 
 him to forsake the temples of heathenism and to serve 
 the true God ? St. Paul's whole nature was ablaze. 
 Nor did he wait till the fire went down. At once he 
 dictated a letter to the Galatian Churches, hot with 
 indignation against his opponents, and after eighteen 
 centuries the heat has not gone out of it: it burns still. 
 He speaks of the Galatians themselves with mingled 
 feelings ; there is the old affection for them ; there is 
 pity, passing at times almost into contempt, for their 
 weakness and inconstancy. 
 
 The first two chapters are occupied with the vindica- 
 tion of the independence and authority of his apos- 
 tolic commission. At the beginning of the third 
 he suddenly opens the great controversy as to the per- 
 manent obligation of the Jewish law, by a rapid succes- 
 sion of vehement questions. What malignant spells 
 had been cast upon them that they should have been 
 perverted from the truth — they of whom it might be 
 said that they had seen the crucified Christ with their 
 own eyes, ^ so vividly had He been set before them? 
 
 ^ " And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet 
 sufifer persecution ?" (Chap. v. 11.) "At this point the mahcious 
 charge of his enemies rises up before the Apostle : * Why, you do 
 the same thing yourself ; you caused Timothy to be circumcised.' 
 To this he replies : ' What do /, who have incurred the deadly 
 hatred of the Judaizers, who am exposed to continual persecution 
 from them, do / preach circumcision ? ' " — LiGHTFOOT, m loc. 
 
 2 Professor Jowett paraphrases chap. iii. i : " O senseless Gala- 
 
2i8 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The full and clear teaching which they had received on 
 the Death of Christ ought to have rendered it im- 
 possible for them to have been misled by the Judaizers. 
 Did they receive the Holy Ghost through keeping the 
 law of Moses ? or through believing in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ? Were the}' so utterly senseless as 
 to suppose that, having begun by receiving the Spirit 
 of God, they were to pass on to a higher perfection 
 through observing mere outward rites ? All that 
 they had suffered when they had broken with their 
 heathen fellow-countrymen — the mockery,- the con- 
 tempt, the annoyance, the positive persecution which 
 they endured when they first confessed Christ — were 
 these all in vain ? would they have been endured for 
 nothing had they not received these new apostles and 
 submitted to circumcision ? ^ The present manifesta- 
 tions of the Spirit of God among them — were these asso- 
 ciated with the mere legal observances which their new 
 
 tians ! who hath bewitched you who had such hvely experience of 
 the truth which now with such levity ye throw, aside ? Of whom 
 it might be said that ye saw Christ with your own eyes." The 
 Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, &c. Second 
 Edition, in loc. It is curious that though laTavpojusvog occupies the 
 emphatic position in the sentence, Professor Jowett omits all re- 
 cognition of it in his paraphrase. 
 
 1 1 have given in the text what I suppose is generally regarded as 
 St. Paul's meaning in chap. iii. 4, but it almost seems as though 
 he meant that they might have escaped all the sufferings incident 
 to their change of religious faith had they at the very first submitted 
 to circumcision. In that case their heathen fellow-countrymen 
 would have regarded them simply as Jewish proselytes, and the Jews 
 were so numerous in that part of Asia Minor, and had received such 
 special favour from the Roman Government, that for them to have 
 become Jews would have brought them into little or "o trouble. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 2ig 
 
 teachers maintained were essential to their salvation, or 
 with that faith in Christ on which St. Paul himself had 
 insisted with such earnestness and emphasis ? 
 
 These questions alone might have been sufficient to 
 show the Galatians the folly of their new position. 
 But the Apostle was bent on the utter destruction of 
 the heresy of the Judaizers. He knew the strength of 
 their case, knew it better than they knew it themselves, 
 and could have defended it with keener logic and 
 ampler learning than theirs. It was not for nothing 
 that he had been debating for years in Jewish syna- 
 gogues, nor had he forgotten his own intellectual con- 
 flicts when he first submitted to the authority of Christ. 
 With the keen instinct of a practised controversialist 
 he perceived that the theory of his opponents must be 
 exploded from within, and he therefore meets them on 
 their own ground, and appeals to the history and prin- 
 ciples of Judaism. 
 
 He does not deny — he asserts — the Divine authority 
 of the law. About that, there is no dispute between 
 himself and his enemies. But he maintains that the 
 great distinctions and prerogatives of the Jewish race, 
 of which the Judaizers had made so much, and which 
 they represented as indissolubly associated with cir- 
 cumcision and obedience to the law of Moses, were 
 not conferred upon the Jews because they circumcised 
 themselves and kept the law. Four hundred and 
 thirty years before the law was given, Abraham had 
 received the great promise that in him all nations 
 should be blessed. That promise was the real foun- 
 
220 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 dation of all the glory of the Jewish people. The 
 promise could not be disannulled by any subsequent 
 revelations, nor could any new terms be imposed as 
 the condition of its fulfilment. It had been given to 
 Abraham once for all. It had been given to him, not 
 because he kept the Jewish law, for in his days there 
 was no Jewish law to keep. He " believed God, and 
 it was accounted to him for righteousness." Those 
 who have Abraham's faith — not those who put the 
 Divine law in the place of the Divine promise, and who 
 insist that faith such as Abraham had is of no'avail apart 
 from obedience to external precepts which Abraham never 
 obeyed — those who have Abraham's faith are Abraham's 
 true descendants,^ and they will be blessed with him. 
 
 The blessing was conferred by promise before the 
 law, and the Apostle instances several respects in which 
 the law was inferior to the promise. But his great 
 point is that the very purpose for which the law was 
 given made it the very extreme of folly to look to the 
 law for justification. It was added to the promise " for 
 the sake of transgressions " {twv irapapda-eoav %a/9fz/ 
 irpoo-eriOr], ver. 19), or as Meyer puts it: "The emer- 
 gence of sins — namely, in the penal, wrath-deserving,^ 
 moral form of transgressions — which the law brought 
 about, was designed by God (who must indeed have 
 foreseen this effect) when He gave the law. . . . The 
 result which the law, according to experience has on 
 the whole effected, . . . could not be otherwise than 
 
 I ovToi vioi daiv 'A(3padfi. iii. 7. The ovrot is emphatic. 
 2 Rom. iv. 15. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 221 
 
 the aim of God." ^ Abraham had been justified by 
 faith ; the law came, not to justify, but to make it clear 
 to men that they were far more sinful than they had 
 supposed before the law was given.^ 
 
 This is the very crisis of the Apostle's argument. He 
 has brought it to an issue which forces the question — 
 " Is the law then in opposition to the promises of 
 God ? " The two seem in irreconcilable antagonism. 
 The promise had given the assurance that in Abraham 
 all nations should be blessed : the law had subjected 
 the very descendants of Abraham to a curse, " For it 
 is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in 
 all things that are written in the book of the law to do 
 them." 3 Precisely at this point St. Paul appeals to 
 the Death of Christ, and in a manner which renders it 
 impossible to mistake his conception of its character 
 and purpose. The promise is to stand. And why ? 
 Why? Because the "curse" — the objective curse which 
 comes on men for breaking the law — is cancelled by 
 Christ. Christ redeemed us Jews who were in so evil 
 a case in consequence of the very law to which the 
 Judaizers wish to bring you into bondage. He '* re- 
 deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a 
 curse for us; for it is written. Cursed is every one that 
 hangeth on a tree."'^ For you Gentiles, therefore, to be 
 trying to obtain justification by our law, is utterly 
 
 1 Meyer : Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to 
 the Galatiajis. In loc. 
 
 2 " To give men that consciousness of sin which makes sin to be 
 what it is."— JowETT, in loc. 
 
 3 Gal. iii. 10-12. 4 Ibid. 13. 
 
222 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 irrational. The law, while it lasted, subjected us Jews 
 to a curse from which we were not redeemed till Christ 
 ** became a curse for us; " and till then, the law was as 
 much a hindrance to your salvation as to ours, iov you 
 could not inherit the blessing of Abraham while we, 
 his descendants, were under the curse, and the Death 
 of Christ, by which we were redeemed, rendered it pos- 
 sible for "the blessing of Abraham [to] come on the 
 Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we" — Jews and 
 Gentiles alike — "might receive the pr-omise of the 
 Spirit through faith." ^ 
 
 Try, if you can, to remove from that passage the idea 
 that Christ endured the penalty of the law — -the curse — 
 in order that those who had transgressed the law might 
 be redeemed from the curse and inherit the promise. 
 Make the Death of Christ an appeal to the hearts and 
 consciences of men, and let there be nothing in it 
 which can be described as a vicarious endurance of 
 penalty, and what becomes of the whole structure of 
 the Apostle's argument ? He is discussing with Jews, 
 or with Judaizers, and the idea of Christ's work is 
 translated into terms derived from the Jewish law ; but 
 unless the idea is not only lost, but absolutely mis- 
 represented in the translation, the Death of Christ is 
 the ground on which sins are remitted, and it effected 
 an objective Atonement for sin.* 
 
 The success of the Judaizers in perverting the faith 
 of his Galatian converts revealed to St. Paul the 
 I Note M. 2 Gal. iii. 15. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 223 
 
 magnitude of the peril which menaced his apostolic 
 work. That Christians who were Jews by birth should 
 still believe in the sacredness of the customs of their 
 fathers, was not wonderful. Reverence for the institu- 
 tions of Moses ran in their blood ; it had been con- 
 firmed and deepened by the personal habits to which 
 they had been trained from their childhood ; it was 
 more like a natural instinct than an acquired con- 
 viction or sentiment, and could hardly be uprooted. 
 It was strengthened by their familiarity with their 
 wonderful history. To a Jew, the abandonment of 
 Jewish customs must have seemed a dissolution of 
 the external and visible ties which united him to 
 prophets and saints, and a renunciation of the sacred 
 prerogatives which had been the noblest inheritance 
 and chief glory of the Jewish people in the most 
 prosperous periods of their history, and now consti- 
 tuted their solitary title to national distinction. It 
 was hard for a Jew to believe that the advent of the 
 Jewish Messiah had stripped the Jewish race of its 
 ancient supremacy. 
 
 But the Galatian Churches consisted almost ex- 
 clusively of converts from heathenism, and even they 
 had been half persuaded that unless they submitted 
 to circumcision, and kept the law of Moses, they still 
 belonged to the profane and evil world from which 
 Christ had come to deliver them,^ and were excluded 
 from the kingdom of God. 
 
 I " Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from 
 this present evil world." — Gal. i. 4. 
 
224 ^^^^ ^'^^^ ^f ^^^^ Atonement: [lect. 
 
 St. Paul's indignation passed into grave anxiety. 
 None of the Churches he had founded were safe. 
 Everywhere his apostoHc authority was certain to be 
 challenged ; and if it could be challenged successfully 
 in the Churches of Galatia, it was impossible to rely 
 on the constancy of any of his converts. He saw that 
 his opponents were equally zealous and unscrupulous, 
 and that their hatred of him was bitter and unrelenting. 
 Their energy was almost equal to his own. They 
 were numerous, and they had allies in every synagogue 
 all over the world. They had tracked his steps through 
 Asia Minor : they had followed him to Greece. He 
 was intending to visit Rome, but they might be there 
 before him. He resolved, therefore, to prepare a 
 comprehensive and complete statement of those great 
 truths which he believed had been specially committed 
 to his trust, and to send it forward to Rome at once. 
 He had many friends there; most of them, probably, 
 Jews who had been driven from Rome some years 
 before by a decree of Claudius Caesar, which had now 
 been repealed or forgotten. He had met them at 
 Corinth, when he was there a few years before, and at 
 Ephesus, and at other cities in which he had preached 
 the gospel, and many of them, perhaps, were his own 
 converts. To them he resolved to give a full exposi- 
 tion of the great truths concerning Justification, which 
 formed the substance of his characteristic gospel, and 
 also to explain the true relations between the Jewish 
 race and the Christian Church. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans is not, as some critics 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 225 
 
 have supposed, a treatise on Justification, with a kind 
 of supplement on the future destiny of the Jewish 
 people ; nor is it, as others have contended, a de- 
 fence of St. Paul's mission to the Gentiles, with an 
 introduction intended to illustrate his general con- 
 ception of Christian doctrine. It is equally a misap- 
 prehension to regard the epistle as a defence of his 
 teaching and a vindication of his apostolic work. The 
 Epistle to the Romans was suggested by the success 
 of the Judaizers in Galatia. St. Paul knew that he 
 stood almost alone, that his life was uncertain, and 
 that the knowledge of the Churches he had founded 
 was very immature : he therefore determined to state, 
 once for all, the truths on which the security, freedom, 
 and future extension of the Christian Church depended. 
 He stated them — not polemically, nor in the way of 
 self-defence, for there is no reason to suppose that 
 the controversy had as yet commenced in Rome — but 
 as systematically as it was possible to state them in 
 the form of a letter. There are some indications that 
 while the epistle as it stands was intended to be sent 
 to Rome, the body of it was intended to be copied and 
 sent to Churches in other cities. I shall attempt to 
 ascertain the precise place which St. Paul assigns 
 to the Death of Christ in the development of doctrine 
 contained in the first half of the epistle. 
 
 The thesis of the whole epistle is contained in the 
 words, " I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ; 
 for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one 
 
 16 
 
226 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 
 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from 
 faith to faith, as it is written, The just shall live by 
 faith." ' The precise meaning of these words has been 
 obscured by controversy, and they had better be left 
 as they stand, to receive their explanation from St. 
 Paul's own exposition of them. 
 
 There is another revelation, he says, besides the re- 
 velation of "the righteousness of God." *' The wrath 
 of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness 
 and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in 
 unrighteousness." * He means, that to those who 
 have eyes to see, it is clear that God is not at peace 
 with sin, and can never be at peace with it. The 
 world would not be what it is if God were at peace 
 with it. A few sentences later, he speaks of the con- 
 dition of heathen nations as proving the reality and 
 severity of the Divine hostility. As St. Paul tra- 
 velled from city to city, and from country to country, 
 it seemed to him that he was living in a world which 
 God had forsaken. Men had " changed the glory of 
 the uncorruptible God into an image made like to 
 corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, 
 and creeping things;" they had "changed the truth 
 of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the 
 creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for 
 ever; "3 and therefore God in His anger had left them 
 
 1 Rom. i. i6, 17. 
 
 2 " Who keep down the truth through immorality, do not let it 
 develop itself into power and influence on their religious knowledge 
 and moral condition." — Meyer, ifi loc. 3 Rom. i. 23. 
 
VI. J the Testimony of St. Paul, 227 
 
 to drift from sin to sin, from shame to shame, from 
 misery to misery, from darkness to deeper darkness 
 still. They had made their choice, and He let them 
 run their course. He " gave them up to uncleanness, 
 .... to vile affections, .... to a reprobate mind." ^ 
 Even the restraints of natural instinct v^ere relaxed, 
 and men committed abominations which cannot be 
 uttered. There was universal disorder ; all laws were 
 violated ; the most sacred relations were dissolved. 
 Men did not keep faith with each other; they were 
 disobedient to parents ; they were envious, insolent, 
 heartless, malignant, cruel, implacable; they were 
 liars, slanderers, murderers. They knew the righteous 
 judgment of God, that they who commit such things 
 are worthy of death, and yet they not only com- 
 mitted them, but were so utterly depraved that they 
 encouraged each other in sin, and provoked each other 
 to the worst immoralities.^ 
 
 But there were some who condemned the gross vices 
 of which the vast masses of the heathen were guilty. 
 St. Paul lays hold of this very condemnation, and uses 
 it with terrible force to establish his position. He 
 turns suddenly round upon all who agreed with 
 what he had said about the corruption of heathen 
 society, and charges them with participation in the 
 general guilt. He attempts no proof of the. charge, 
 but appeals directly to their consciences — *' Thou art 
 inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest : 
 for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest 
 
 ' Rom. i. 24-28. 2 Ibid. i. 29-32. 
 
 16 * 
 
228 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things." ^ 
 Not by condemning the crimes of others are men to 
 escape the judgment of God. Those who commit the 
 very crimes which they condemn, pronounce against 
 themselves a sentence which cannot be challenged ; 
 they are treasuring up unto themselves wrath against 
 the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judg- 
 ment of God, "who will render 4:o every man according 
 to his deeds;" — yes, "to every man," whether he 
 be Jew or Gentile, "for there is no respect of persons 
 with God." ^ For the Jew to suppose that because he 
 had received the Divine law he was certain to escape 
 the Divine wrath, was presumption and folly. Men 
 are not justified by listening to the law, but by keeping 
 it. But if thou art a Jew, and proud of the name, 
 and reliest on the law as the sign and guarantee of 
 the Divine favour,^ and art glorying in God as the 
 God of thy race, and knowest whose will it is that 
 men should obey,'^ and approvest those things that are 
 morally excellent, being instructed out of the law, and 
 hast faith in thyself as being the teacher and the 
 guide of the rest of mankind, the very light of a world 
 in darkness — well — hast thou nothing to do with the 
 law except to teach it ? Thou that preachest against 
 stealing, is preaching enough ? dost thou steal ? Thou 
 that sayest a man must not commit adultery, dost thou 
 
 ' Rom. ii. I. 2 Ibid. ii. 5-1 1. 
 
 3 " In the law the Jew saw the Magna Charta of his assurance 
 of salvation." — MEYER, in loc. 
 
 4 TO GtXrjua — kut t^ox^v. " Whose vf\\\ it was that was to be obeyed 
 on the part of man, was obvious of itself." — Meyer, in loc. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St, Paul. 229 
 
 commit adultery ? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost 
 thou plunder their temples ? Thou that gloriest in the 
 law, through breaking the law, dost thou dishonour the 
 God who gave it ? ' 
 
 As for circumcision, it is the honourable sign of 
 belonging to a race which stands in a very near rela- 
 tion to God, and which, because it stands in that 
 relation to Him, has received the law ; but if the law 
 is not kept, circumcision is of no avail. If a Gentile 
 keeps the law, he is justified ; if a Jew breaks it, he is 
 condemned.^ 
 
 But what advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, 
 if a man who is not a Jew may be justified by keeping 
 the law, and if a Jew cannot be justified without 
 keeping it ? Advantage ? The advantage is great, 
 and great on many accounts. First of all, because to 
 the Jews were committed the oracles of God. For what 
 if some were unfaithful to the covenant; shall their 
 unfaithfulness destroy the fidelity of God to His pro- 
 mises? God forbid. Let every man be false, but God's 
 truth must stand fast, and the very unfaithfulness of 
 men does but illustrate more gloriously the faithful- 
 ness of God. Shall the Jews, then, venture to say 
 that because the sins of their race had completed the 
 demonstration of the Divine righteousness, it would be 
 unjust in God to punish them ? That would render 
 it impossible for God to judge the world, for His final 
 judgment of human sin will also illustrate His own 
 righteousness, and it would even be a reason for saying, 
 I Rom. ii. 2-24. 2 Ibid. ii. 25-29. 
 
230 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 *' Let us do evil, that good may come;" but whoever 
 says that, his damnation is just.^ Jews and Gentiles 
 are alike sinners. The Jewish Scriptures themselves 
 condemned the sins of which Jews were guilty. For 
 "there is none righteous, no, not one; . . , they are all 
 gone out of the way; . . . there is none that doeth 
 good, no, not one ; . . . their throat is an open sepul- 
 chre ; . . . their feet are swift to shed blood; . . . there 
 is no fear of God before their eyes."* It was of Jews 
 that these terrible words were written. It is not enough, 
 therefore, for a man to be a Jew in order to escape con- 
 demnation as a sinner. Every mouth is stopped — the 
 mouth of the Jew as well as the mouth of the Gentile 
 — and the whole world must stand guilty before God. 
 The Jews are in no better case than the Gentiles ; 
 they have been surrounded by the restraints of the 
 Divine law, but the law itself condemns them; "for 
 by the law is the knowledge of sin." ^ 
 
 This is the line of thought by which St. Paul ap- 
 proaches the statement which immediately follows, of 
 the Divine method of redemption through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and it determines, by anticipation, the 
 Apostle's conception of the character of that redemp- 
 tion. The point from which he started was very 
 definite : " The wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness," and he 
 has been establishing the reality and the justice of that 
 wrath through the whole course of his argument. His 
 clear intention is to confirm the necessity of some 
 
 I Rom. iii. i-8. 2 \\^\^, iii. 9-18. 3 Ibid. iii. 19,20. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St, Paul. 231 
 
 means of escape from the peril by which " every soul 
 of man that doeth evil " is menaced. 
 
 Yes, it may be replied, and all that he has said 
 about the crimes of the heathen, and the powerlessness 
 of the Jewish law to inspire men with the disposition 
 and the ability to keep it, is a demonstration of the 
 necessity of a great moral and spiritual change in 
 human nature. St. Paul believed that this change is 
 effected by the visible presentation to the enfeebled 
 conscience and the corrupt heart, of the possible purity 
 and grace and nobleness of humanity in the faultless 
 perfection of the character of Christ, and by the irre- 
 sistible manifestation of the Divine love in His suffer- 
 ings and Death. By this transformation of character 
 we are to be delivered from the Divine displeasure, and 
 from whatever that displeasure involves, -y 
 
 That St. Paul believed in the necessity of a new 
 revelation of God, to produce a moral and spiritual 
 change in man, is of course admitted. That the facts 
 on which he insists in the first three chapters of this 
 epistle prove the necessity of such a revelation, is also 
 beyond dispute. But that he was intending to prove 
 this necessity, is an untenable hypothesis. Had this 
 been his purpose, though he might have used the same 
 materials, the whole structure of his argument would 
 have been different. Review the movement of his 
 thought, and you will discover that at point after point 
 such a purpose would have given it another direction. 
 He would not merely have contended with such earnest- 
 ness that " the invisible things of [God], from the time 
 
232 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 of the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being 
 understood by the things that are made, even His 
 eternal power and Godhead, so that [idolaters] are 
 without excuse ;" but while alleging that enough had 
 been revealed of the living and eternal God to render 
 idolatry inexcusable, he would have emphasised, not 
 the guilt, but the moral helplessness of the heathen. 
 He would not have been satisfied with showing that the 
 law, on which the Jews relied as a proof of the favour 
 with which God regarded their race, revealed and con- 
 demned their sins ; he would have spoken of those 
 ineffectual struggles of men to keep the law which he 
 describes so vividly and so pathetically later in the 
 epistle, and would thus have demonstrated the neces- 
 sity of a new revelation, containing new motives and 
 new powers, to enable men to break with sin, and to 
 live a holy life. ^ 
 
 No ; St. Paul's intention was to demonstrate that 
 the whole world is exposed to the Divine wrath, and 
 that if men are to be saved, that wrath must be some- 
 how averted. That this was his intention, becomes 
 clearer the more rigorous the examination to which the 
 whole argument is subjected. 
 
 This may be granted, and it may still be alleged 
 that the Divine anger is provoked by sin, and that to 
 escape it, a subjective redemption is necessary. Let 
 men cease to sin, and all the evils and perils in which 
 sin involves them will cease too ; and the Apostle's 
 argument may culminate in the declaration that men 
 are to be delivered from perdition — not by any objec- 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 233 
 
 tive atonement — but by being transformed into the 
 image of God through the power and grace of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Is it true that the argument culminates in any such 
 declaration ? If this is St. Paul's theory of the Chris- 
 tian redemption, he has reached the precise point at 
 which he is required to state it. He ought now to 
 speak of those new spiritual forces which will recover 
 from idolatry and vice those who had failed to recog- 
 nize the majesty and greatness of God in the shining 
 heavens, and in the grandeur and loveliness of earth 
 and sea ; and who, as the result of their idolatry, have 
 descended into dark depths of shameful and abominable 
 sin. The time has come for him to speak of the power 
 over the human heart of the righteousness and love of 
 God as revealed through Christ — a power equal to the 
 achievement of the moral and spiritual regeneration 
 which the law and the prophets had failed to accom- 
 plish. 
 
 But in those passages of the epistle which imme- 
 diately follow the declaration of the universal guilt of 
 mankind, is there anything to suggest that the Apostle's 
 mind was occupied with the spiritual influences which 
 now act on the heart and conscience of the race — any- 
 thing to suggest that Christ delivers men from the 
 Divine wrath solely because He changes their disposi- 
 tion and character ; and that by the normal action of 
 *' spiritual laws" men gradually escape from the con- 
 sequences of sin, as through Christ they are gradually 
 attracted and disciplined to holiness ? The first few 
 
234 ^^^ P^^^ ^f ^^^ ^ tonement : [lect. 
 
 sentences may seem ambiguous. When St. Paul speaks 
 of " the righteousness of God which is by faith in 
 Jesus Christ,"^ it is possible to suppose that he is 
 thinking of that subjective change which is the result 
 of faith in Christ — a change by which man recovers 
 the image of the Divine holiness. The ambiguity may 
 not disappear when he speaks of our *' being justified 
 freely by His grace through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus ;" ^ but the words which immediately 
 follow, and the contents of the next few pages of the 
 epistle, are an irresistible proof that as yet St. Paul 
 had no thought of the moral and spiritual regeneration 
 which Christ effects in those who believe in Him. He 
 closes his statement of the method by which we are to 
 escape the Divine condemnation before he illustrates 
 either the necessity of ceasing to sin, or the spiritual 
 powers by which our escape from sin is effected. 
 
 At present he is wholly absorbed in the question. 
 How are we to be delivered — not from sin — but from 
 guilt, and from the wrath of God, to which our guilt 
 exposes us ? 
 
 His reply to these questions is very explicit. We 
 are "justified freely by His grace through the redemp- 
 tion that is in Christ Jesus ;"3 and the justification of 
 which the Apostle is speaking is the precise antithesis 
 of condemnation. As condemnation is not the cause, 
 but the effect of sin, so justification is not the cause, 
 but the effect of righteousness.^ The attempt to include 
 
 I Rom. iii. 22. 2 ibid. iii. 24. 3 Ibid. iii. 24. 
 
 4 Condemnation may, no doubt, confirm the moral and spiritual 
 condition of a man, and render him more desperate in sin than 
 
vi.] * the Testimony of St. Paul. 235 
 
 in the conception of justification any other element, and 
 to make it cover the Divine work by which the disposi- 
 tion, character, and conduct of men are changed from 
 sin to hoHness, dislocates the whole organization of the 
 Apostle's thought in this part of the epistle. What he 
 meant by our being "justified freely by His grace" 
 appears in the next chapter. Abraham's justification 
 was not the effect produced by Abraham's faith on 
 Abraham's character, but the Divine response to Abra- 
 ham's faith. ^ '* David also describeth the blessedness 
 of the man " whom God justifies, *'the man unto whom 
 God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, 
 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose 
 si7is are covered.'"^ And as Abraham's faith justified him 
 — not because it made him a better man, but — because 
 **it was imputed to him for righteousness," 3 our faith 
 in Christ justifies us in the same way. To us also 
 faith '' shall be imputed " for righteousness, *' if we 
 believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the 
 dead." 4 
 
 It is an objective justification that St. Paul is de- 
 scribing, a justification by virtue of which we are no 
 longer "guilty before God," and in peril of His wrath.^ 
 
 But how is this transition from guilt to justification 
 
 ever ; and the justification of a sinful man may constitute the turn- 
 ing-point in his history, giving him hope instead of despair, and 
 restoring to him those spiritual influences and that access to God 
 which render it possible for him to overcome sin. But, formally 
 and strictly, condemnation and justification are related to each 
 other in the manner described in the text. 
 
 I Rom. iv. 1-5. 2 Ibid. iv. 6, 7. 3 Ibid. iv. 22. 
 
 4 Ibid. iv. 24. 5 Note N. 
 
236 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect 
 
 accomplished? We are "justified freely through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus." ^ The redemp- 
 tion may include much else, but for the moment the 
 Apostle is representing it as having for its direct re- 
 sult the justification in which we are delivered from 
 guilt and wrath. If we further ask — How is it that this 
 objective redemption is rendered possible by Christ ? 
 the answer is given in the words which immediately 
 follow — ** Whom God hath openly set forth, for Him- 
 self, as a propitiatory offering (through faith) in His 
 blood. "^ It is from the Divine condemnation and the 
 Divine wrath that men need to be delivered. Neither 
 Jew nor Gentile can urge any ground why the condem- 
 nation should be revoked and the wrath turned aside, 
 for ''every mouth [is] stopped, and the whole world [is] 
 guilty before God." From this just condemnation, 
 from this righteous wrath, there is redemption in 
 Christ ; for Christ, " in His blood " — not in His 
 personal holiness merely — has been placed by God 
 before the eye and. heart of all mankind as a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice. Sacrifices are not offered to men, 
 but to God, and the direct intention of this Sacrifice is 
 to avert that supreme peril which, according to the 
 preceding argument, menaces the whole race. The 
 Death of Christ is represented— not as the method by 
 which God touches the human heart — but as the 
 ground on which God cancels human guilt, and delivers 
 the guilty from " the wrath " which threatened them. 
 
 1 Rom. iii. 24. 
 
 2 Ibid. iii. 25. Meyer's exposition of Rom. iii. 20-25 is singularly- 
 valuable. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St, Paul. 237 
 
 St. Paul's statement is not yet exhausted. " Propi- 
 tiation " suggests the idea of an appeal to the infinite 
 mercy of God to lay aside His wrath ; but the Apostle 
 proceeds to say that the Sacrifice of Christ is also a 
 revelation of the righteousness of God ; and the form 
 in which this statement is made precludes all mis- 
 apprehension. " God hath openly set forth Christ, for 
 Himself, as a propitiatory sacrifice, ... in His blood, 
 . . . for the sake of manifesting His righteousness on 
 account of the pretermission or [overlooking] in the for- 
 bearance of God of sins which had passed." ' 
 
 In the times which preceded the coming of Christ, 
 God, in His longsuffering, had not revealed His right- 
 eousness in the adequate punishment of sin. But 
 this manifestation was made in the Death of Christ 
 as a Sacrifice for the sins of men. 
 
 Christ did not die, therefore, merely to save men of 
 future ages from sinning ; His Death was something 
 more than an appeal to the human heart and the 
 human conscience ; it had been rendered necessary by 
 the pretermission of sin in ages gone by. He revealed 
 " the righteousness of God," which had been obscured 
 by God's forbearance. 
 
 But the revelation of righteousness was related to 
 the future as well as to the past ; for Christ was openly 
 set forth as a Propitiatory Sacrifice '* for the revelation 
 of [God's] righteousness in the present time, in order 
 that He may be just, and the justifier of him that 
 believeth in Jesus." * The righteousness of God, which 
 I Rom. iii. 25. * Rom. iii. 26. 
 
2^8 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 might otherwise have been revealed in His punishment 
 of the sins of former ages, sins w^hich in His forbear- 
 ance He had passed over, and which would also have 
 been revealed in His punishment of sinful men whom 
 He now justifies and saves, is revealed in the Sacrifice 
 of Christ. 
 
 It would be difficult to find words in which the ob- 
 jective character of the Death of Christ could be more 
 explicitly asserted. It is from ''wrath" that we need 
 to be saved, and Christ has been openly set forth as 
 a Propitiation. The wrath is the antagonism of God's 
 Righteousness to sin — sin which, in His forbearance, 
 He had passed over in the times preceding the advent 
 of Christ — sin which He is now ready to remit in the 
 case of every man that believes in Christ ; the Right- 
 eousness which in both cases is withheld from its direct 
 expression is yet revealed, and it is for the sake of re- 
 vealing it that Christ dies. 
 
 The fourth chapter is a parenthetical vindication of 
 the doctrine of Justification by Faith against the 
 possible objection that the doctrine is inconsistent 
 with the revelation of God to the Jewish race. In- 
 consistent with that revelation ! St. Paul appeals to 
 Abraham, from whom the Jews inherited all their 
 prerogatives. He believed in God, and it was *' counted 
 unto him for righteousness ; " and descending the line 
 of Jewish history more than a thousand years, he 
 invokes the authority of David to sustain the position 
 that '* God imputeth righteousness without works." 
 
 In the fifth chapter he resumes the main line of his 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St, Paul. 239 
 
 thought, and develops the results of this Justification. 
 Even nov^^ he says nothing of any subjective results. 
 He is still absorbed in those objective blessings which 
 the Death of Christ, and the Justification w^hich is 
 effected through it, secure for those v^ho believe. 
 
 " Being justified by faith v^e have peace with God." ^ 
 To suppose that the Apostle means that our own 
 hostility to God's authority and righteous law is 
 subdued, or that the conflict and confusion of our own 
 inner life pass into harmony, is to import into his 
 words ideas which, however true, are foreign to the 
 province of truth over which his thought has been 
 travelling, and to destroy the organic relation of this 
 chapter to all that has preceded it. God is hostile 
 to sin ; as sinful men, we were in danger of being 
 swept away by His wrath ; but the danger has passed 
 by ; He is at peace with us through the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Through Christ, too, " we have had access by faith 
 into this grace wherein we stand." ^ That which 
 prevented us from approaching God, and made us 
 exiles from the light and honour of the Divine 
 presence, has been removed. God's wrath against sin 
 repelled us, but Christ is our Propitiation. God's 
 righteousness, which would have been suppressed had 
 He invested with privilege and prerogative those who 
 deserved punishment, has been revealed in Christ's 
 Death : we have therefore " access into this grace '* 
 through Him. St. Paul does not intend to say that 
 I Rom. V. I. 2 Ibid. v. 2. 
 
240 The Fact of the A tonement : ^lect. 
 
 we are inclined to approach God, but that what 
 hindered our approaching Him has disappeared, 
 through Christ. Nor is this all. " We rejoice in 
 hope of the glory of God : " ^ we who were looking 
 forward with dread to " the revelation of the righteous 
 judgment of God," are now exulting in the confident 
 expectation of receiving from God eternal glory. 
 
 And " we glory in [our present] tribulations also," 
 for these do but make the hope stronger and firmer ; 
 and ''the hope maketh not ashamed."* Why? Does 
 he say, ** Because the power of the Death of Christ 
 is already delivering us from sin, and, therefore, we 
 are sure that we must at last emerge from all the evils 
 incident to sin, so that ultimately consummate moral 
 perfection will necessarily be crowned with consum- 
 mate blessedness " ? No. *' The hope maketh not 
 ashamed; because the love of God" — His love for 
 us — " is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 
 which is given to us."^ We have no reason to fear 
 that the fire and hail of God's anger will descend 
 upon us ; the storm has moved away, or we have 
 risen above it ; and as the light and heat of the sun 
 are shed abroad through the heavens at noonday, so 
 the love of God for us is already shed abroad in our 
 hearts. This manifestation of the love of God, which 
 makes the hope of escaping His wrath so confident, is 
 accomplished by the power of the Holy Ghost, who 
 illuminates for us the transcendent expression of Divine 
 mercy in the Death of Christ. 
 
 * Rom. V. 2. 2 Ibid. iii. 2. 3 Ibid. v. 5. 
 
n.] the Testimony of St. Paul. - 241 
 
 " For when we were yet without strength, in due 
 time Christ died for the ungodly." ' This is the first 
 recognition that the epistle contains of the moral 
 weakness of men, although that moral weakness ought 
 to have been the dominant theme of the whole argu- 
 ment had St. Paul believed that the solitary object of 
 the revelation of God in Christ was to give new energy 
 to our moral and spiritual life, and to redeem us from 
 the penalties of sin by restoring us to holiness. While 
 he is intent upon establishing his original thesis that 
 through sin men are exposed to the Divine wrath, and 
 that by sin they incur the hostility of the Divine right- 
 eousness, while he is moving towards the great state- 
 ment of the gospel contained towards the close of the 
 third chapter, that the Death of Christ is at once the 
 propitiation for the sins of man, and the revelation of 
 the righteousness of God, he emphasises human guilt, 
 and appears oblivious of human weakness. As soon 
 as he speaks of the Death of Christ as a demonstration 
 of the Divine love, he represents the moral condition of 
 the race under a new aspect. "When we were yet 
 without strength, Christ died : " our weakness ap- 
 pealed to God's pity, though our sin provoked His 
 anger. The change, however, is only momentary; 
 the primary reason that Christ died was not that we 
 were " weak," but that we were guilty, and the Apostle 
 recurs at once to his old position — "Christ died for 
 the ungodly" The mention of the Divine love sug- 
 gested our helplessness : as soon as he speaks of the 
 
 I Rom. V. 6. 
 17 
 
242 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 Death of Christ the idea of our guilt returns, and the 
 idea of helplessness disappears. 
 
 Further, the Death of Christ is a complete and final 
 proof of God's love for us. Men will hardly die for the 
 just — to say nothing of the unjust — though, perhaps, 
 for a good man some would even dare to die ; but, 
 "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." ' In 
 what sense Christ died for us he has already defined : 
 we were sinners, and therefore exposed to the Divine 
 wrath, and in danger of suffering whatever evils the 
 righteousness of God might inflict upon us. Christ's 
 Death was a propitiation for our sins and a revelation 
 of God's righteousness. *' Much more then, being now 
 justified by His blood, we shall be saved." From what ? 
 From sin ? No ; even now St. Paul has not escaped 
 from the thought of that tremendous doom which threat- 
 ened us — the doom which is to descend at the last da.y 
 upon the unsaved. " We shall be saved from [the] 
 wrath through Him." ^ He repeats the thought in 
 another form — *' For if, when we were enemies, we were 
 reconciled to God by the Death of His Son, much more, 
 being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." ^ This 
 incessant reappearance of one unvarying conception of 
 the effect of the Death of Christ is profoundly signifi- 
 cant. " We were enemies " — God was hostile to us, 
 and He ceased to be hostile because Christ died as a 
 Propitiation for our sins. Now that reconciliation has 
 been effected by the Death of Christ, the living Christ 
 will not leave us at last unsheltered from the wrath 
 I Rom. V. 7, 8. 2 Ibid. v. 9. 3 Ibid. v. 10. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 243 
 
 which He died to avert. This account of what Christ 
 has accomplished for us, and accomphshed for us by 
 His Death, is closed with a triumphant sentence, in 
 which it is declared that now *' we joy in God " — in the 
 very God whose laws we had broken and whose anger 
 we had provoked. But the Apostle cannot even now 
 repress another reference to that supreme event, on the 
 ground of which God has ceased to be a terror to us — 
 " we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom we have now received the reconciliation." ^ 
 
 Is the proof complete ? — the proof that St. Paul 
 represented the Death of Christ as being in such a 
 sense a revelation of the Divine righteousness and a 
 Propitiation for human sin, that all who believe in Him 
 are liberated from those dreadful judgments which, had 
 Christ not died, the righteousness of God would have 
 inflicted on them as the expression and effect of its 
 eternal hostility to sin, and from that "wrath of God" 
 which, had Christ not died, would have consumed 
 them ? 
 
 It is not easy to imagine how the proof can be 
 strengthened ; but all lingering doubt of St. Paul's 
 true intention must disappear after reading the next 
 chapter of the epistle. 
 
 The fifth chapter closes with a parallel or contrast 
 between Adam and the Lord Jesus Christ, and with a 
 brief reference to the true function of the Mosaic law, 
 which came in, side by side, with sin, ** that the offence 
 might abound ;" but St. Paul alleges that the clearer 
 
 I Rom. V. II. 
 17 * 
 
^44 ^^^ P^^^ ^f ^^^ ^ tonement : [lect. 
 
 discovery of the greatness of human sin has only illus- 
 trated the transcendent greatness of the Divine grace. 
 This suggests the form of the question with which the 
 sixth chapter opens — a question which might take the 
 place of volumes of controversial theology on the 
 Pauline doctrine of justification, and is a decisive 
 proof that the Pauline conception of the relation be- 
 tween the Death of Christ and the remission of sins is 
 irreconcilable with the " Moral Theory " of the Atone- 
 ment, whatever form that theory may assume. 
 
 " What shall we say, then ? " asks the Apostle. 
 ** Shall we continue in sin?" — we who are "justified 
 by faith," we who " have peace with God," we who 
 once were " enemies," but who are now " reconciled to 
 God by the death of His Son " — ** shall we continue in 
 sin, that grace may abound ? " ' Such a question would 
 have been irrelevant and impossible if St. Paul had 
 believed that Justification is a change of character, 
 and that the reconciliation effected by the Death of 
 Christ is primarily a removal of man's antagonism to 
 God and righteousness. 
 
 Theologians who maintain that the only purpose for 
 which Christ died was to appeal to the moral and 
 spiritual nature of man, and to inspire the human heart 
 with sorrow for sin and the love of God, do not find it 
 necessary, after elaborating their theory of Justification, 
 to discuss any such question as this. For them, the 
 direct and only intention of the Death of Christ is to 
 rescue men from sin and to restore them to holiness. 
 ' Rom. vi. I. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 245 
 
 Even their most bitter and unscrupulous opponents can 
 never object that the gospel, as they preach it, may 
 perhaps encourage evil men to continue in their evil 
 practices; nor can their most ignorant and unintelli- 
 gent adherents so misapprehend their meaning as to 
 imagine that they may be ** saved from wrath" through 
 Christ, and yet continue in sin. 
 
 But the theory of St. Paul v/as open to this objec- 
 tion, and he thought it necessary to avert this mis- 
 apprehension. He was represented as releasing men 
 from all obligations to righteousness, as preaching a 
 salvation which permitted, and even provoked, men to 
 multiply their crimes, in order that the grace of God 
 might be glorified : *' We be slanderously reported, and 
 . . . some affirm that we say. Let us do evil, that good 
 may come." ^ The report was a slander, but had he 
 represented the Death of Christ as saving us from 
 future destruction only because of its moral effect in 
 saving us from present sin, the slander would have 
 been impossible. The misrepresentations of a theory 
 have always some relation to its characteristic spirit 
 and principles. If a theologian, whose writings are 
 lost, is denounced by hostile controversialists for ob- 
 scuring the grace and sovereignty of God, and ascribing 
 to man all the merit of his own salvation, we may be 
 certain that he did not insist very strongly on the 
 Divine decrees; if he is denounced for teaching 
 fatalism, we may be certain that he did not emphasise 
 human responsibility, and make the freedom of the 
 ' Rom. iii. 8. 
 
246 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 human will the centre of his theological system. It 
 was *' slanderously reported" that St. Paul preached a 
 gospel which did not require men to cease to sin. The 
 slander throws an intense light on his teaching. He 
 could not have taught the " Moral Theory " of the 
 Atonement. 
 
 When he first refers to this slander, he does not stay 
 to discuss it : he repels it with a vehement disclaimer : 
 If men say, ** Let us do evil, that good may come," their 
 *' damnation is just." ^ But after closing his statement 
 of the doctrine of Justification, he returns to the per- 
 verse inference which his enemies had drawn from his 
 preaching, and he returns to it for the sake of remov- 
 ing all mistake from the minds of his friends. The 
 manner in which he deals with it is extremely in- 
 structive. 
 
 " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? " 
 It is impossible, as I have said already, that any such 
 question could be raised, either in the course of develop- 
 ing the " Moral Theory " of the Atonement, or after the 
 doctrine of Justification associated with that theory 
 had been defined and illustrated. But if it were raised, 
 nothing is easier than to imagine the kind of reply that 
 the question would receive. It would be said that the 
 righteousness which comes to us through Christ is real, 
 and not fictitious ; that for men to be justified through 
 Christ, means that through Him they are actually 
 made just ; that if in any sense He died to avert the 
 Divine wrath and the penalties of sin, He averts them 
 ' Rom. ill. 8. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 247 
 
 by redeeming us from sin itself, and in no other way ; 
 that the peace with God into which we enter through 
 faith in Christ is the result of the cessation of our hos- 
 tility to God's authority and the disappearance of our 
 distrust of His love ; that the reconciliation which 
 Christ has effected does not remove any antagonism 
 on God's part towards us, but resolves our will into 
 harmony with the Divine will ; that the hypothesis of 
 continuing in sin after Justification involves a contra- 
 diction in terms, since Justification means nothing 
 else than deliverance from sin, or the result of that 
 deliverance. 
 
 This, however, is not the reply which is given by St. 
 Paul. It is not a reply which it was possible for him 
 to give. He could not have given it without breaking 
 up his previous argument and reconstructing it on a new 
 basis. Instead of showing that his idea of Justification 
 involves the idea of actual holiness in the person who 
 is justified, or that Christ justifies us in no other way 
 than by making us holy — which would have been the 
 most obvious, most direct, and most conclusive answer 
 to the question, " Shall we continue in sin, that grace 
 may abound ? " — he moves into a region of truth alto- 
 gether new. What he has said about Justification he 
 leaves exactly as it stands, without any explanation, 
 and his thought takes a new departure. " Continue in 
 sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid ! " ^ By the 
 faith in response to which for Christ's sake we are 
 justified, we are also brought into a mysterious and 
 
 ^ Rom. vi. 2. 
 
248 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 transcendental union with Christ. We were baptized 
 into His death ; we were buried with Him ; with Him 
 we rise to a new life in God. Henceforth we are in a 
 new world, because our life is new. The evil self, the 
 root of all our sin, was crucified with Christ : for us to 
 continue in sin is therefore impossible. ^ The argu- 
 ment extends through the whole of the sixth and 
 seventh chapters, and I need not summarise it. 
 
 The point to be noticed is this : St. Paul does not 
 return upon his previous line of thought, and show that 
 Justification is in itself inconsistent with the idea of 
 personal sinfulness : he places redemption from sin side 
 by side with Justification, as another result of the Death 
 of Christ, a second element of the redemption which 
 Christ has accomplished for us. In the first five chap- 
 ters of his epistle he has shown how through Christ we 
 are delivered from *' the wrath of God [which] is re- 
 vealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unright- 
 eousness of men ; " and how we are able, through Christ, 
 to look forward without terror to " the day of wrath 
 and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." The 
 infinite evils to which we were exposed have passed 
 away because the Death of Christ is an adequate revela- 
 tion of the righteousness of God, and an adequate Pro- 
 pitiation for the sins of men. But of our restoration 
 to holiness he has said nothing. The effect of the 
 Death of Christ in atoning for human sin is so imme- 
 diate, so independent of any change in human character, 
 that he has now to enter on a new line of argument, in 
 ^ Rom. vi. 3-7. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 249 
 
 order to show that those who are justified cannot con- 
 tinue in sin. 
 
 Reject the idea of an objective Atonement and of an 
 objective Justification founded upon it, and you must 
 not only strain to unnatural and impossible meanings, 
 words, phrases, and whole sentences in which these 
 ideas are conspicuously present ; you must do violence 
 to the plan and structure of nearly the whole of the 
 first half of the epistle. The statement in the first two 
 chapters of the grounds on which the intervention of 
 Christ was necessary is inappropriate ; the critical 
 declaration in the third chapter, that Christ has been 
 set forth as ** a Propitiation ... in His blood," is mis- 
 leading; the conclusion of the argument in the early 
 verses of the fifth chapter, that '* being justified by faith 
 we have peace with God," is premature ; the necessity 
 for discussing the question at the opening of the sixth 
 chapter, " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may 
 abound?" is unintelligible; and the discussion which 
 extends through the sixth and seventh chapters lies far 
 remote from the most direct and decisive reply with 
 which the question might have been met. These seven 
 chapters, if every other passage in his epistles were 
 doubtful, would constitute a sufficient and impregnable 
 demonstration that St. Paul believed in an objective 
 Atonement. 
 
 But the Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans 
 were suggested by the transient exigencies of a sharp 
 and bitter controversy. Is it not possible that the con- 
 
250 The Fact of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 ception of the Death of Christ which these epistles 
 contain was a merely transient phase of the Apostle's 
 thought ? The suggestion is, on many grounds, ex- 
 tremely improbable ; but let us test it by an appeal to 
 the epistles of the imprisonment. 
 
 Three or four years passed by, and the Apostle was 
 in Rome, a prisoner — charged by his countrymen with 
 exciting the Jews in every part of the empire to 
 sedition, and with the crime of profaning the temple. 
 He had appealed from the tribunal of a provincial 
 governor to the Emperor, and, after a long imprison- 
 ment at Csesarea, had been sent to Rome, to be 
 acquitted or condemned. The ardent, restless nature 
 of St. Paul must have chafed at first under the re- 
 straints of his imprisonment, but perhaps it was well 
 for him, and well for us, that the exciting and ex- 
 hausting labours of his apostolic ministry should have 
 been interrupted by enforced seclusion and rest. 
 
 When he reached Rome, more than two years 
 passed before his case was heard, and these were 
 among the happiest and most fruitful years of his 
 life. He had considerable freedom. Some of the 
 friends to whom he had sent kindly messages in his 
 Epistle to the Romans were still in the city. He 
 had a house of his own, and appears to have been 
 visited by large numbers of persons who were curious 
 to learn the faith of the new sect from one of its 
 most eminent teachers. His fierce controversies with 
 the Judaizers were practically over. There were some 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paid, 251 
 
 indeed, even in Rome, who preached Christ of " envy 
 and strife," and " of contention, not sincerely," think- 
 ing to add affliction to his bonds ;^ but he does not 
 seem to have been greatly agitated by their oppo- 
 sition to him. 
 
 His mind vi^as occupied with new thoughts. In the 
 Churches of Phrygia there began to appear premo- 
 nitions of a fresh danger to the simplicity of the Chris- 
 tian faith. A singular blending of the great facts of 
 the gospel with Jewish asceticism and the wildest 
 Oriental speculations on the origin and order of the 
 universe, fascinated the imagination of the Christian 
 Churches which had been founded in that part of Asia, 
 and excited in the mind of St. Paul grave appre- 
 hensions. In the Epistle to the Colossians he op- 
 posed the true Christian Gnosis to the false philosophy 
 which was usurping its place ; and the idea of the 
 Death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin emerges pre- 
 cisely at those points where, on our theory, we should 
 expect it to emerge, and the epistle contains some 
 very important contributions to that conception of the 
 relation of Christ to the universe which appears in- 
 dispensable to a true theory of expiation. 
 
 Both in the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the 
 epistle written at the same time and despatched by the 
 same messengers, and known to us as the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians, St. Paul passes into a sphere of thought 
 which he hardly touches in any of his earlier writings. 
 He was in Rome, the centre and heart of an empire 
 
 >Phil. i. 15, 16. 
 
252 Tke Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 whose boundaries seemed destined to include the 
 human race. Already the authority of the imperial 
 city extended westwards over Spain and Gaul to the 
 Atlantic ; northwards to the mountains of Caledonia, 
 to the Rhine, and the Danube; eastwards to the 
 Euphrates ; southwards to the borders of the African 
 desert. The various nations inhabiting these vast 
 territories — nations differing in their origin, their lan- 
 guage, their laws, and their customs, separated by 
 mountains and by seas — had been gradually subdued 
 by the power of Rome, and were now included in one 
 mighty and majestic political organization. If for 
 sixty years the empire had received no considerable ac- 
 cessions of territory, the influence of Roman manners 
 and of Roman law had been silently effacing national 
 distinctions and assimilating heterogeneous and hos- 
 tile races ; the subject provinces had been gradually 
 losing the spirit and traditions of independence, and 
 had been learning to identify their own honour and 
 prosperity with the renown of the Roman name. 
 Policy, not the consciousness of weakness, had ar- 
 rested the extension of the empire ; and it must have 
 appeared to St. Paul and his contemporaries, that if 
 occasion arose for attempting new conquests, the tur- 
 bulent barbarians that inhabited the forests of northern 
 Europe and the shores of the Euxine, and even the 
 shadowy monarchies of the remote East, must yield to 
 the irresistible shock of the legions of Rome. 
 
 Is it a mere fancy to suppose that it was the im- 
 pression produced on the imagination of the Apostle 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul, 253 
 
 by the vastness and grandeur of the Roman power, 
 the symbols of which were perpetually before his eyes, 
 as well as the boldness of the speculations which 
 were corrupting the faith of the Church at Colosse, 
 and, perhaps, of the Church at Ephesus, that led his 
 thoughts into glorious regions of truth, which he had 
 before seen afar off, but which now became completely 
 his own ? 
 
 God has " made known to us the mystery of His 
 will," it being His eternal purpose, a purpose He 
 resolved to accomplish " in the dispensation of the 
 fulness of times, to gather together in one all things 
 in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are 
 on earth ; even in Him " ^ — in Him who is seated at 
 the right hand of God, " far above all principality, and 
 power, and might, and dominion, and every name 
 that is named, not only in this world, but also in that 
 which is to come."* 
 
 This restoration of the whole universe to perfect 
 unity in Christ — where was it so likely to take pos- 
 session of the mind of St. Paul as in the city of Rome, 
 which through eight hundred years had been gradually 
 subduing nation after nation, giving them laws, giving 
 them peace, and organising them into one great 
 political system, until now it seemed to have within 
 its grasp the government of the human race ? May 
 we not imagine that to the Apostle, the empire appeared 
 a rude and earthly but not ignoble symbol of the final 
 comprehension of heaven and earth in one august and 
 » Eph. i. 9, 10. 2 Ibid. i. 20, 21. 
 
254 ^^^ ^^^^ of tlve Atonement: [lect. 
 
 blessed and glorious kingdom under the authority of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ ? 
 
 In that Divine and eternal polity all who believe in 
 Christ — Jews, who belonged to a race which for ages 
 had been hoping for His coming, Gentiles, who heard 
 of Him for the first time when the gospel was preached 
 to them — are alike comprehended ; and St. Paul prays 
 that the Christians at Ephesus may receive the illu- 
 mination of the Holy Ghost, that they may know the 
 future glory of the kingdom into which they have been 
 received. This glory he associates 'with the " exceed- 
 ing greatness " of the Divine power, which raised 
 Christ from the weakness and shame and humiliation 
 of death to the throne of God, and which is already 
 working in all that believe, and accomplishing for 
 them a similar glorification. A great civilising state 
 changes the face of every country it annexes; drains 
 the marshes, clears the forests, works the mines, opens 
 new roads, establishes new forms of industry, builds 
 stately cities; provinces which were worthless when 
 it conquered them, it covers with fertility and wealth. 
 So, according to St. Paul, God, who has made us His 
 possession and inheritance, will make us worth having. 
 What His power wrought in the resurrection of Christ, 
 and the enthronement of Christ at His own right hand, 
 is the illustration and prophecy of what His power 
 will ultimately accomplish in us; and only the Spirit 
 of God can reveal to us what will be " the riches of 
 the glory of [God's] inheritance in the saints." * 
 I Eph. i. 1 8. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 255 
 
 But there was a time when both Christian Jews and 
 Christian Gentiles, who are now looking forward to this 
 great future, and who already share the life and sonship 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, were " children of wrath even 
 as others." ^ The case of the Gentiles seemed, indeed, 
 more desperate than that of the Jews. For the Jews 
 had been separated from the rest of mankind by a 
 symbolic rite, which constituted them, in some sense, 
 an elect nation. They had received their national polity 
 from God; their national existence rested on Divine 
 promises of immeasurable meaning, promises which it 
 was difficult to believe had been wholly lost, even by the 
 sins which had provoked the Divine anger. They were 
 "the children of wrath," and yet they were "nigh" 
 unto God ; for through all the shameful crimes of their 
 national history God had never recalled the promises 
 which He had given to the head and founder of their 
 race ; and even in the worst times their inspired 
 prophets and psalmists had consoled them in their 
 sufferings, and rebuked their sins, by appealing to the 
 future glory of the Christ who was to be the heir of 
 the throne of David, and in whom the hopes of the 
 descendants of Abraham were to be fulfilled. But the 
 Gentiles were " without Christ." No sure vision of 
 the Divine Deliverer and King had been the solace and 
 strength of any Gentile nation ; they were " aliens " 
 from that " commonwealth " in which the kingdom of 
 God on earth had already taken a rudimentary form ; 
 they were " strangers " to those " covenants of pro- 
 ' Eph. ii. 3, 
 
256 The Fact of the Atonement: (lect, 
 
 mise *' in which the Jews found assurance of a Divine 
 interference for their redemption ; the great ** hope '* 
 was not theirs ; their golden age was in the past, not in 
 the future ; and while they had vague traditions of days 
 when heaven was near to earth and the gods dwelt 
 with men, they were not anticipating a time when the 
 old glory would return; and they were "without God " 
 in the world. ^ 
 
 How had they been recovered from this utter desola- 
 tion ? " Children of wrath," and excluded even from 
 that earthly polity which was the transient shadow of 
 the Divine kingdom, — how had they been restored to 
 God ? The Apostle replies that by assuming that 
 nature which is common to Jew and Gentile, and by 
 bringing to an end the temporary and separate pri- 
 vileges of the Jewish people, Christ slew the "enmity" 
 by which Jew and Gentile were divided ; they stood 
 apart no longer ; and He reconciled both unto God " in 
 one body by the cross." ^ But was not this a moral re- 
 demption ? Was it not accomplished by changing the 
 spirit and character of men; by revealing to the Gentiles 
 the true and living God, whom they had forsaken to 
 worship idols; and by revealing to the Jews a wealth of 
 Divine love which broke their hearts with penitence 
 for sin, and constrained them to confess that the law 
 which " came by Moses " was infinitely surpassed by 
 the " grace and truth " which came by Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Read the development of the Apostle's thought, and 
 you will discover that this is not the form under which 
 I Eph. ii. 12. 2 Ibid. iii. 16. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 257 
 
 he presents the Christian redemption. The " peace " 
 which Christ brought about between Jew and Gentile 
 was the result of the removal of the objective cause of 
 separation, the breaking down of " the middle wall of 
 partition " between them. The " peace " between man 
 and God which Christ secured, the reconciliation of Jew 
 and Gentile to God by the cross, was — not the remova. 
 of human antagonism to God — but of Divine antagonism 
 to man. We were ** children of wrath," and Christ 
 came and "preached the glad tidings of peace^ to you 
 who were afar oif and to them that were nigh."^ He 
 proclaimed peace to those who were in peril of the 
 Divine anger, made known the good news that God was 
 no longer hostile to them. The image present to the 
 Apostle's mind is that of an imperial power sending 
 messengers to provinces with which it had been at war 
 — messengers whose first business was to make known 
 that the war was over. And this reconciliation 
 between God and the human race had been accom- 
 pHshed " by the blood " and " by the cross " of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Through Him, and as the result of 
 this, reconciliation, both Jew and Gentile have access 
 by one Spirit to the Father. The restoration of the 
 universe to an eternal unity in Christ has begun ; the 
 old division between the descendants of Abraham and 
 the heathen world has disappeared ; in their religious 
 life, all Christians of all nations, whatever their tem- 
 porary and external distinctions, are already one in 
 Christ ; and in Him they are already parts of that great 
 
 I iXOujv ivr]yyi\iaaTO iiprivr]v. 2 Eph. ii. 1 7. 
 
 18 
 
258 The Fact of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 temple of which Christ is the corner-stone, and in which 
 God will dwell. ' 
 
 What is remarkable in this epistle is that not only 
 before he enters into these large and wide disclosures 
 of the eternal purpose of God in relation to the uni- 
 verse, does St. Paul speak of our having " redemption 
 through the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, 
 according to the riches of His grace ; "^ that not only 
 after he has ended them, and passed into practical 
 exhortations to Christian morality, does he charge the 
 Ephesian Christians to " walk in love, as Christ also 
 loved us, and gave Himself for us ; *' ^ but that in the 
 very heart of the lofty and fervent statement of his 
 conception of the Divine thought in relation to the 
 universe, he recognises the unique and supreme 
 function of the Death of Christ. For him, the cross 
 of Christ is the very centre of that Divine movement 
 which extends as far as his vision can reach, and to 
 the remotest limits of the created universe, including 
 alike the obscurest of the sons of men and the regal 
 powers of the heavenly world. God had resolved to 
 " gather together in one all things in Christ," and 
 for the fulfilment of this vast purpose Christ proclaims 
 that God is at peace with those who had once been 
 ''children of wrath," and the peace is the result of 
 His own Death on the cross. 
 
 We began the investigation of St. Paul's teaching 
 on the Death of Christ by examining the account he 
 I Eph. ii. 19, 22. 2 Ibid. i. 7. 3 Ibid. v. 2. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 259 
 
 gives of his own preaching : the investigation may be 
 closed by an examination of a very remarkable passage 
 in which he gives an account of some of the motives 
 and forces by which he was sustained in the sufferings 
 and labours of his apostleship. It would be easy to 
 construct from his epistles a very complete representa- 
 tion of the complex and varied elements of his personal 
 life. Blended with his most strenuous argument, 
 with his sharpest rebukes, and with all his ethical 
 teaching, there are constantly-recurring disclosures of 
 his inward spiritual history. His epistles are veritable 
 " confessions." 
 
 These disclosures cover several successive pages 
 of his second epistle to the Church at Corinth. He 
 speaks of the troubles, perplexities, persecutions, 
 which came upon him in Christ's service, but de- 
 scribes his great and constant sufferings as "this light 
 affliction," lasting " but for a moment," and as working 
 out for him " a far more exceeding and eternal weight 
 of glory ;"^ he acknowledges that he earnestly longed 
 for the perfect blessedness of the life to come ; and 
 that instead of fearing death he was willing, and more 
 than willing, to die, that he might be at home with 
 Christ.^ And yet when he anticipated the second 
 advent of the Lord, which will perfect the glory of 
 the Church, he was conscious of a certain awe and 
 fear. He so laboured in his apostolic ministry that 
 at last he might be accepted of Christ. For he says, 
 ''We must all" — we whose sins God has forgiven 
 
 I 2 Cor. iv. 17. 2 Ibid. V. 1-3. 
 
 18* 
 
26o The Fact of the Atonement: [lect- 
 
 for Christ's sake, as well as the rest of mankind — 
 we apostles, who have preached the unsearchable 
 riches of God's grace, as well as those who have 
 listened to our preaching and rejected it — " we must 
 all be made manifest before the judgment - seat of 
 Christ, that every one may receive the things done 
 in his body according to that he hath done, whether 
 it be good or bad." ^ That he would have to give an 
 account of the manner in which he had discharged 
 his trust, that he would receive reward or suffer loss 
 according to the measure of his zeal, industry, and 
 courage, was a motive to fidelity. But it was not only 
 of the judgment-seat of Christ that he thought. 
 
 *' The love of Christ constraineth us." ^ The word 
 he uses {avve'xei) is singularly expressive. Christ's 
 love left him no choice as to what he should live for, 
 brought him under the control of an irresistible yet 
 most gracious necessity, hedged him in on the right 
 hand and on the left, controlled him with a con- 
 stancy like that with which the great forces of the 
 utiiverse rule the planets and determine the orbit in 
 which every one of them must move. And it is im- 
 possible to read his epistles without discovering that 
 Christ's love had been so revealed to him that it had 
 taken possession of his thought and of every active 
 energy of his nature, and stirred the profoundest 
 depths of his emotion. Sometimes in a long passage 
 the name of Christ occurs in almost every alternate 
 line; sometimes he breaks away from an argument 
 
 I 2 Cor. V. 10. 2 Ibid. V. 14. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St. Paul. 261 
 
 at the bare mention of Christ's name, unable to govern 
 the vehement impulse to dv^ell upon Christ's glory and 
 grace; at other times, just as a ship is gradually 
 sv^ept out of her direct course by a strong and silent 
 current in the sea, St. Paul is gradually carried away 
 from the point for which he seemed to be making, 
 by the habitual drift of all his deepest affections to- 
 wards Christ. 
 
 And how had the love of Christ been manifested ? 
 In His incarnation ? In His parables, so bright with 
 hope to those who have been guilty of the darkest sin ? 
 In His gracious promises ? In His miracles of kind- 
 ness? In His merciful words to harlots and publicans? 
 In the tears He shed when He thought of the calamities 
 which were coming on the city of Jerusalem ? All 
 these St. Paul passes over. " The love of Christ con- 
 straineth us, for we thus judged that if One died for all 
 then all died." ' 
 
 According to St. Paul, therefore, the Death of 
 Christ was something more than the ultimate proof 
 of the sincerity of His claims and an example of 
 invincible fidelity to God ; it was something more than 
 an appeal to the heart and conscience of men. It was 
 a representative deathc He so " died for all " that the 
 race died in Him. His Death was the true crisis in 
 the history of every man. And in His resurrection — 
 for He both *'died .... and rose again" for us— the 
 race entered into a new world. This was the Divine 
 idea. Those who live through Christ have not merely 
 
 ^ 2 Cor. V. 14. 
 
262 The Fact of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 been brought under the power of new motives to live a 
 righteous life, they have ascended into a new creation ; 
 old things have vanished away, behold all things have 
 become new. New heavens stretch over them; they 
 walk on a new earth ; they " know .... no man after 
 the flesh ;" yea, even if they once knew Christ after 
 the flesh, if they were His personal friends during His 
 life in the old world, if they were among His kindred, 
 those transient ties are dissolved ; they have entered 
 into other relations with Him, determined by the con- 
 ditions of life in that new creation into which both He 
 and they have now entered.^ 
 
 Further, this new creation is " of God," " who 
 reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and gave 
 to us the ministry of reconciliation," and the sub- 
 stance of that ministry was this : " God in Christ 
 reconciled the world unto Himself." If we ask in 
 what sense He effected this reconciliation, the reply 
 is contained in the words which follow — ^^ Not imputing ^ 
 
 their trespasses unto them " ^ If we further ask 
 
 what relation there is between Christ and the non- 
 imputation to mankind of those trespasses by which 
 God's righteous condemnation had been merited, the 
 reply to this further question is given in the boldest 
 representation of Christ's redemptive work to be found 
 in the New Testament: God "made Him to be Sin 
 for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
 righteousness of God in Him."^ This was the ultimate 
 foundation of the Apostle's ministry, and the ground on 
 
 I 2 Cor. V. 15, 17. 2 Note O. 3 2 Cor. v. 18-21. Note P. 
 
VI.] the Testimony of St, Paul, 263 
 
 which in Christ's stead, and as Christ's ambassador, 
 he could entreat men to be reconciled to God. God 
 reconciles us to Himself, according to St. Paul, not in 
 the first instance by delivering us from sin, but by not 
 imputing our sins to us : the reconciliation is primarily, 
 not the removal of our hostility to God, but the ces- 
 sation of God's hostility to us. The ground of this 
 reconciliation lies in the fact that God made Christ to 
 be Sin for us, and its ultimate result is that we are 
 made the righteousness of God in Him. 
 
 I ask again is the proof complete ? St. Paul was a 
 great preacher, and whatever wealth and variety of 
 spiritual knowledge appeared in his preaching, the 
 cross of Christ was the centre of it all, and he taught 
 that *' Christ died for our sins." He had to maintain 
 an incessant controversy for many years with those 
 who were endeavouring to cramp the freedom of the 
 new and larger faith by imposing on Christian Gentiles 
 the obligations of the Jewish law ; and he maintained 
 that the law could never give eternal life, but could 
 only bring a curse upon all who were under its 
 authority, but that Christ has redeemed us from the 
 curse of the law by being made a curse for us. He 
 was the most illustrious of missionaries, and that he 
 was " the apostle of the Gentiles " was his proudest 
 distinction next to that of being the servant, the slave, 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and to the heathen he 
 declared that God was at peace with them, because 
 
 » Titus ii. 1 1-14. 2 I Tim. ii. 5, 6. 
 
264 The Fact of the Atonement. [lect. vt. 
 
 Christ had died. He warned men of the wrath to 
 come, and told them that they were to obtain salva- 
 tion by " our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, . . . 
 that we should live together with Him." The peril 
 to which the world is exposed is created by its 
 guilt, and for release from guilt he maintained that 
 there is no hope except in Him whose Death is 
 at once the revelation of the righteousness of God 
 and the Propitiation for the sins of men. He saw 
 that it was the Divine purpose to gather the whole 
 universe into one great spiritual polity, and this pur- 
 pose he affirmed was to be accomplished by Christ, 
 through whose Death God in His infinite mercy had 
 made peace between Himself and the human race. 
 Already those who believed in Christ had been trans- 
 lated into a Divine kingdom, a new creation, and this 
 great deliverance was effected by Christ, in whose Death 
 all died to this present evil world, and in whose resur- 
 rection all that believe in Him rose to a life in God — 
 He being made Sin for us, that we might be made the 
 righteousness of God in Him. 
 
 The Death of Christ, as the objective ground of the 
 Divine forgiveness of human sin, was the substance of 
 St. Paul's preaching; it was the central idea of his 
 theology ; it was the spring of the mightiest motives 
 by which he was animated in his apostolic work. 
 
LECTURE VJI. 
 
 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS CONFIRMATORY OF 
 THE PRECEDING ARGUMENT. 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS CONFIRMATORY OF THE 
 PRECEDING ARGUMENT. 
 
 T N the preceding Lectures I have endeavoured to 
 -*- prove that to the Apostles the Death of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ was the objective ground of the remission 
 of sins ; that this conception of His Death is contained 
 in the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and 
 that the mysterious sufferings of His last hours, and 
 the dread with which He anticipated them, are inexplic- 
 able unless we believe that " He bare our sins in His 
 own body on the cross," and died as a Sacrifice and 
 " Propitiation for the sins of the world." 
 
 Assuming that the argument is conclusive, we who 
 confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in 
 the flesh, and who receive the Apostles as trustworthy 
 representatives of His teaching, must accept the fact 
 that by His Death He atoned for the sins of men, 
 although we may be unable to construct a theory of the 
 Atonement. There are, however, some general con- 
 siderations by which, perhaps, the impression of the 
 argument may be strengthened. 
 
 There are very many persons who believe that the 
 
268 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 idea of an objective Atonement was invented in order 
 to satisfy the exigencies of rigid theories concerning the 
 Divine justice. In these days the great theologians of 
 the Church have an evil name. It is imagined that in 
 their speculations on the character of God, and on His 
 relations to mankind, they forgot that He has revealed 
 Himself as our Father, and that Love is the life and 
 glory of all His moral perfections. Theology — this 
 seems to be a common opinion — was merciless in its 
 judgment of human nature, exaggerated the evil of sin, 
 and refused to recognize its palliations. It ascribed to 
 God its own gloomy and uncompassionate spirit, and 
 conceived of Him as filled with fierce anger against 
 the human race. Then it became necessary to discover 
 some means of allaying His wrath, and therefore the 
 Death of Christ was represented as the ground on which 
 the sins of the world are forgiven. Or, the formalities 
 and harsh severities of human law were attributed to 
 the Divine government of the universe, and the transfer 
 of the sins of the world to Christ was a clumsy inven- 
 tion, in order to make it appear that the penalties of the 
 law are inflicted, although the sins of the guilty are 
 remitted. Arguments in support of the idea of an 
 objective Atonement, drawn from the teaching of Christ 
 and of His Apostles, are regarded as mere special 
 pleading, intended to sustain a dogma which has been 
 constructed to satisfy the artificial necessities of cum- 
 brous and unspiritual theological systems. 
 
 All this is precisely the reverse of the truth. Theo- 
 logians did not invent the Idea of an objective Atone- 
 
vn.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 269 
 
 ment in order to complete the symmetry of their 
 theological theories. They have invented theory after 
 theory, in order to find a place for the Idea. That the "> 
 Death of Christ is the ground on which sin is remitted 
 has been one of their chief difficulties. To explain it, 
 they have been driven to the most manstrous and ' 
 incredible speculations. Had they been able to deny 
 it, their work would have been infinitely simphfied. , 
 
 The Idea is not the creation of dogmatic theology, 
 nor does it depend upon dogmatic theology for its hold 
 on the heart and faith of the Church. 
 
 In the age immediately succeeding that of the Apos- 
 tles, the Christian Church appears to have felt no 
 curiosity about the manner in which the Death of 
 Christ accompHshes human redemption ; or, rather, 
 the forms in which the great truth had been repre- 
 sented by the Apostles themselves were still sufficiently 
 fresh and unworn to satisfy the practical necessities 
 of the Christian life. 
 
 Converts from heathenism as well as converts from 
 Judaism were familiar with the ceremonial of sacrifice, 
 and it was sufficient for them to know that the Death 
 of Christ was a sacrifice for their sins. Slaves were 
 constantly bought and sold and ransomed ; and when 
 they were told that Christ gave His life a ransom for 
 them, they had a very vivid apprehension of the great- 
 ness of the deliverance they owed to Him. The Fact 
 that Christ died for us, and died for our sins, was 
 an article of faith, but they had no Theory about it. 
 
270 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 Clement exhorts the Corinthians to " reverence the 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us ; " ^ he 
 
 reminds them that — 
 
 "On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord 
 gave His blood for us by the will of God ; His flesh for our flesh, 
 and His soul for our souls." ^ 
 
 Rahab, who for some inexplicable reason is selected, 
 
 both by the writer of the Epistle to the Heorews 
 
 and oy St. James, as an illustrious example of faith, 
 
 reappears, and the scarlet cord which she was to 
 
 hang in her window is made the symbol and prophecy 
 
 of our deliverance from destruction by the blood of 
 
 Christ:— , 
 
 " Thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through 
 the blood of the Lord, to all them that believe and hope in God." 3 
 
 That Rahab's scarlet cord should have been used 
 as a type of the blood of Christ, is a very striking 
 proof of the powerful hold which the idea of redemp- 
 tion through Christ's Death must have had upon the 
 mind of Clement ; if indeed this fanciful and even gro- 
 tesque allusion originated with him, and was not one 
 of the "commonplaces" of Christian thought in his 
 time. 
 
 Polycarp greatly rejoiced that the faith of the Philip- 
 pians was still strong, and was bringing forth fruit to 
 " our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even 
 unto death." ^ He reminds them that their " hope " 
 and "the earnest of [their] righteousness" is "Jesus 
 Christ,— 
 
 I I Epistle^ c. xxi. 2 j^id. c. xlix. 3 Ibid. c. xii. 
 
 4 Epistle to Philippiatis^ c. i. 
 
vii.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 271 
 
 " WTio bore our sins in His own body on the tree, who did not 
 sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but endured all things 
 for us, that we might live in Him." ^ 
 
 He charges them also to imitate the fidelity and 
 
 patience of Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, and 
 
 of others among themselves who had been martyred 
 
 for the faith ; and of St. Paul, and of the rest of the 
 
 Apostles, for they " have not run in vain ;" and they 
 
 "Are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with 
 whom also they suffered. For they loved npt this present world, 
 but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God 
 from the dead." 2 
 
 In the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, but which could 
 
 hardly have been written by him, there is language of 
 
 the same kind. Once, indeed, he advances a step in 
 
 the speculative direction, for he says : — 
 
 " If therefore the Son of God, who is Lord [of all things], and who 
 will judge the living and the dead, suffered, that His stroke might 
 give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could 7tot have 
 suffered except for our sakes." 3 
 
 What life and force remained in the apostolic con- 
 ception of the Death of Christ, after the Apostles 
 had passed away but before the age of speculation 
 began, may be seen in the noble passage often quoted 
 from the Epistle to Diognetus : — 
 
 " When our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been 
 clearly shown that its reward, punishment anddeath, was impending 
 over us ; and when the time had come which God had before ap- 
 pointed for manifesting His own kindness and love — how the one 
 love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard 
 us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity 
 
 I Epistle to Philippians^ c. viii. 2 Ibid. c. ix. 
 
 3 Epistle of Barnabas^ c. vii. 
 
272 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us— He 
 himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His 
 own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the 
 Blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, 
 the Incorruptible One for the corruptible, the Immortal One for them 
 that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering 
 our sins than His righteousness ? By what other One was it possible 
 that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the 
 only Son of God ? O sweet exchange ! O unsearchable operation ! 
 O benefits surpassing all expectation ! that the wickedness of many 
 should be hid in a single Righteous One, and that the righteousness 
 of One should justify many transgressors." ^ 
 
 But it was impossible for the simplicity of the apos- 
 tolic tradition to continue unaffected much longer by 
 the rising intellectual activity of the Church. At the 
 close of the second century, and the beginning of the 
 third, the attempt was made by Irenasus in the West, 
 and by Origen in the East, to give some reply to the 
 questions which were necessarily raised by the language 
 in which the Church had been taught to speak of the 
 Death of Christ, and by the faith which that language 
 expressed. It is no part of my intention to sketch, 
 even in outline, the wayward and perplexed movements 
 of speculative thought which then began, and which, at 
 the end of sixteen hundred years, have not yet arrived 
 at any satisfactory conclusion. What I am anxious to 
 illustrate is the fact which is often forgotten, but which 
 is equally certain and obvious, that the Church did not 
 come to believe in the objective value of the Death of 
 
 I Epistle to Diog7ietus, chap. ix. The translation of this passage, 
 and of the preceding passages from the Apostolic Fathers, is that 
 given in vol. i. of the Ante-Nicene Library^ published by Messrs. 
 Clark, of Edinburgh, and edited by Dr. ALEXANDER ROBERTS 
 and Dr. James Donaldson. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory cf the Preceding Argument. 273 
 
 Christ because the doctrine had been developed in 
 theological systems, but that theological systems were 
 constructed in order to explain and justify the doctrine 
 which the Church already believed. 
 
 The theologians soon discovered that the task which 
 they had undertaken was one of extraordinary difficulty, 
 and that some of the explanations which first occurred 
 to them involved conclusions which it was impossible 
 to accept. Gregory Nazianzen, who was born a few 
 years after the victory of orthodoxy at the Council of 
 Nicaea, and who died towards the close of the fourth 
 century, states, in a well-known passage, with consider- 
 able force and vivacity, the perplexities into which the 
 mind of the Church had been plunged, and proposes 
 his own solution of them. 
 
 "To whom," he asks, "and on what account, was the blood 
 which was shed on our behalf poured out, that precious and illus- 
 trious blood of Him who was God, and both High Priest and 
 Sacrifice ? We were held fast by the devil since we were sold as 
 slaves under sin, and had purchased pleasure by vice. If, now, the 
 price of redemption is given only to him who has possession of the 
 captives, then I ask, To whom was this ransom given, and on what 
 ground ? To the evil one? Oh, what a monstrous outrage ! Then 
 the robber received not merely a ransom from God, but received 
 God Himself as the price of our redemption ! Magnificent wages 
 for his tyranny, on the payment of which justice required him to 
 spare us ! If, however, the ransom was paid to the Father, how, in 
 the first place, can this be? for it was not God who had possession 
 of us. And, in the second place, for what reason should the blood 
 of His only begotten Son give any satisfaction to the Father, who 
 did not even accept Isaac when his father [Abraham] offered him, 
 but changed the sacrifice of a rational being into that of a ram ? 
 Is it not clear that the Father received the sacrifice, not because 
 He Himself demanded or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine 
 
 19 
 
274 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 government of the universe (Si oiKovofiiav) , and because man must be 
 sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God." ^ 
 
 John of Damascus, in the eighth century, expressed 
 
 himself with equal vehemence against the theory that 
 
 the "ransom" for the deliverance of the human race 
 
 had been paid to the devil. 
 
 " He who assumed death for us, died and offered Himself to the 
 Father ; for we had committed wrong towards Him, and it was 
 necessary for Him to receive our ransom, and we thus be dehvered 
 from condemnation. For God forbid that the blood of the Lord 
 should be offered to the tyrant." ^ 
 
 But notwithstanding protests of this kind, it is clear 
 
 that this extraordinary hypothesis exerted a powerful 
 
 influence over the thought of the Church down to the 
 
 eleventh century, and even later. In the East, Gregory 
 
 of Nyssa, early in the fourth century, had stated the 
 
 theory in a form which implies that we were saved by a 
 
 Divine fraud. He argued that through sin the human 
 
 race had come under the dominion of the devil; that 
 
 Jesus offered Himself to the devil as a ransom for us ; 
 
 that the devil, although ignorant of the real greatness 
 
 of Christ, cared more for Him than for all mankind 
 
 besides, and accepted the offer. The human race was 
 
 therefore released, but the devil discovered that he had 
 
 been outwitted, for he could not retain Christ in his 
 
 power. Gregory maintains that this was a perfectly 
 
 fair proceeding on God's part ; for since the devil had 
 
 deceived men for the purpose of seducing them, God 
 
 had a right to deceive the devil for the purpose of 
 
 I Gregorius Nazi an. : Opera. Cologne, 1680. Vol. i. pp. 691,692. 
 2 Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine^ vol. ii. 252. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 275 
 
 redeeming them.^ In the Western Church, a century 
 
 later, Augustine states the theory in a less dramatic 
 
 and less offensive way. 
 
 "What then," he asks, " is the righteousness by which the devil 
 was conquered ? What, except the righteousness of Jesus Christ ? 
 And how was he conquered ? Because when he found in Him 
 nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And certainly it is 
 just that we whom he held as debtors should be dismissed free by 
 believing in Him, whom He slew without any debt. In this way it 
 is that we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ." ^ 
 
 A very curious piece of logic ! Had the devil never 
 done a wrong thing before, never committed any other 
 great act of injustice, on the ground of which we might 
 have been released from his power, if his crime in killing 
 Christ was really the moral reason for our redemption ? 
 
 It is clear that when this theory of the Atonement 
 prevailed, it was not because the Church felt that the 
 justice of God required Christ to die that the Church 
 believed that the Death of Christ delivered us from 
 the penal consequences of sin. Perhaps, indeed, there 
 was some obscure idea of justice underlying even this 
 strange conception of a transaction with the devil ; but 
 the broad fact is that the Church beheved that the 
 Death of Christ was somehow the reason why we are 
 delivered from hell, and, for want of a better explana- 
 tion, supposed that He gave His Hfe to the Evil One 
 as a ransom for us. 
 
 That the theory was still powerful even in the 
 twelfth century, appears from one of St. Bernard's 
 
 I Gregorius Nyss. : Opera. Paris, 1615. Vol. i. 516. 
 ^ On the Trinity,^. -3,-3,0. Works of Augustine. Edited by MAR- 
 CUS DODS. Edinburgh : Messrs. Clark. Vol. vii. 
 
 19 * 
 
276 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 vehement attacks on Abelard. Abelard is represented 
 as saying that all the teachers of the Church since 
 the Apostles agreed (omnes doctores nostri post apos- 
 tolos conveniunt) in the opinion that the Death of 
 Christ had redeemed us from the power of the devil. ^ 
 St. Bernard does not condemn Abelard's statement 
 as untrue, but he is confounded by the presumption 
 which permitted him to say : '* All the doctors of the 
 Church are of this judgment — I think differently." 
 *' Which," he demands, "is the more intolerable, the 
 blasphemy or the arrogance of these words ? Which 
 more damnable, the audacity or the impiety ? " St. 
 Bernard himself, with great rhetorical fire, maintains 
 the traditional view. 
 
 " The Lord said, * I will save thee and deliver thee ; fear not.' 
 Thou askest, ' From what power ? ' Thou art not willing that the 
 devil should have or should have had power over man — nor I, 
 I confess ; but neither thy will nor mine can hinder it. If thou 
 wilt not confess nor say it, those who have been redeemed by the 
 Lord, those whom He has redeemed from the hand of the enemy, 
 know it and say it. TAou wouldst not deny it, if thou wert not 
 still in the enemy's hand ; thou canst not render thanks with the 
 
 1 M. Remusat {Abelard, vol. ii. p. 435) says that he has dis- 
 covered no passage in Abelard's writings in which he makes so 
 sweeping an assertion as this ; but that there are, on the other 
 hand, passages in which he refers to the theory of our being 
 redeemed from the power of the devil as an opinion of not much 
 importance. He thinks it possible that St. Bernard had found the 
 statement in a part of the introduction to Abelard's "Book of 
 Sentences," which has been lost. It is not, however, Abelard's 
 alleged statement which is so important, as the manner in which 
 St. Bernard deals with it. 
 
 2 S. Bernard : De Erroribus Abaelardi, cap. v. Opera. Lug- 
 duni, Parissiis, 1845. Vol. ii. p. 57. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 277 
 
 St. Bernard afterwards states the theory a little 
 more calmly. It amounts to this : — The devil had a 
 certain authority over man, not acquired lawfully, but 
 criminally usurped, and yet justly permitted. Man 
 was, therefore, justly held in captivity — the justice 
 being neither in man nor the devil, but in God. The 
 devil, though He had no claim on Christ, laid his 
 hand upon Him, and so we, who were justly in the 
 devil's hands, are liberated.' 
 
 This rude and coarse hypothesis maintained its place 
 in the Church for nearly a thousand years. Early in 
 the third century it had been sanctioned by the great 
 authority of Origen ; in the twelfth century, when 
 St. Bernard wrote, it must still have been the popular 
 theory. Is the hypothesis intolerable, monstrous, and 
 profane ? Granted. But the more intolerable, the 
 more monstrous, the more profane it is, the more 
 conclusively it proves the depth and strength of the 
 faith of the Church in the reality of the objective 
 element in the Atonement. In the earHest ages 
 Christian men were quite sure that Christ died to 
 deliver them from some great objective evil, and that 
 deliverance from this evil was the immediate effect 
 of His Death. They were willing to accept even this 
 preposterous explanation of the manner in which His 
 Death delivered us, if no better could be found. But 
 nothing can be more certain than that the idea of an 
 objective Atonement was not invented to satisfy such 
 
 I S. Bernard : De Error ibus Abaelardl, cap. v. Opera. Lug- 
 duni, Parissiis, 1845. Vol. ii. p. 57. 
 
278 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 a theory as this : the theory was a most irreligious 
 method of illustrating the idea. 
 
 It also deserves notice that the idea was so plainly 
 and incontestably a fundamental part of the Christian 
 faith, that those who rejected the theory of a transaction 
 with the devil did not exclude from their conception 
 of the Death of Christ the objective aspect which that 
 theory was intended to represent. Gregory Nazianzen, 
 as we have seen, suggested his own solution of the 
 mystery. Athanasius speaks of Christ as paying the 
 debt in our stead which we had incurred by sin.^ And 
 throughout the whole period during which the theory 
 that the Death of Christ ransomed us from the power 
 of the devil retained its ascendency, a far nobler con- 
 ception of the nature and effect of His sufferings was 
 continually appearing in the devotional and practical 
 writings of the Church.^ 
 
 I See passages in Shedd, vol. ii. p. 243. Athanasius, however, 
 had far larger and deeper conception of the nature of Christ's 
 redemptive work than this metaphor would suggest. Some of the 
 profoundest hints of the true direction in which to look for a theory 
 of the Atonement occur in his Four Discourses against the Arians, 
 especially in chapter xxi. He has been most inadequately repre- 
 sented by the few writers on the history of dogma with whose 
 works I happen to be acquainted ; and the common impression of 
 him in England among those who are not adherents of the " Catho- 
 lic" party — Roman or AngHcan — is extremely unjust. It is un- 
 fortunate for him that his name should have been given to the 
 " Athanasian " Creed. 
 
 =* See, for instance, the closing paragraphs of the Tenth Book of 
 Augustine's Confessions, 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 279 
 
 Towards the end of the eleventh century the ap- 
 pearance of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo indicated, if it 
 did not create, a complete change in the movement 
 of theological speculation. The theory is developed in 
 a discussion between Anselm himself and one who 
 professes to hold so firmly the faith of our redemption, 
 that even if he were unable to comprehend by any 
 reasoning what he believes, his faith would not be 
 torn from him. He wishes to learn, however, what 
 necessity or reason there was that God, since He is 
 omnipotent, should have taken upon Him the lowliness 
 and infirmity of human nature in order to its restora- 
 tion.' Anselm showed considerable controversial art 
 in throwing his treatise into the conversational form. 
 It relieved him from the necessity of urging, in his own 
 name, the objections which appeared to him to be 
 fatal to the traditional theory that Christ died to re- 
 deem us from the power of Satan. These objections, 
 naturally enough, are alleged by Boso, who plays the 
 part of the inquirer. Boso tells Anselm why it is 
 that " the reason we are accustomed to give " for the 
 Incarnation and Death of Christ failed to satisfy him. 
 He says that both man and the devil belonged to God ; 
 the devil had persuaded man to forsake their common 
 Master and go over to him ; the devil, as a traitor, had 
 received the runaway; as a thief, the devil had re- 
 ceived his fellow-thief, together with what he had stolen 
 from his Lord. Instead of being under any kind of 
 obligation to give Satan a ransom as the price of 
 
 ' Cur Deus J/omo, cap. ii. 
 
28o General Considerations [lect. 
 
 man's deliverance, God had nothing to do but to 
 
 punish Satan for getting man into his power, ''for 
 
 each of them was a thief, since the one at the other's 
 
 persuasion had stolen himself from the Lord." 
 
 " If," he says, " God, the Judge of all, were to take man, who is, 
 as we see. His own possession, out of the power of one who so 
 unjustly takes possession of him, whether for the purpose of punish- 
 ing him in some other way than by the instrumentality of the devil, 
 or for the purpose of sparing him, what injustice would there be in 
 this ? since although it be just for man to be tormented by the devil, 
 yet the devil would be unjust in tormenting him ? Man, indeed, 
 deserved to be punished, and by none more fitly than by him at 
 whose persuasion he had consented to sin. But the devil never 
 merited any right to punish him." ^ 
 
 Boso pursues the argument through two chapters, 
 without any remonstrance from Anselm. His objec- 
 tions are left unanswered, and it is clear that Anselm 
 thought them unanswerable. 
 
 The foundation of Anselm's own theory of the 
 
 Atonement lies in his conception of the nature of sin. 
 
 He argues that — 
 
 " Sm is nothing else than not to render to God His due. . . . 
 The entire will of a rational creature ought to be subject to the will 
 of God. . . . He who does not render to God this honour which is 
 due to Him, robs God of what is His own, and dishonours God ; 
 and this is what it is to sin. . . . Every one who sins [is] bound to 
 pay back the honour of which he has robbed God ; and this is the 
 satisfaction which every sinner is bound to pay to God." 2 
 
 Further : — 
 
 " Nothing is less tolerable in the order of things than that a 
 creature should rob his Creator of the honour due to Him and not 
 
 I Cur Deus Homo, cap. vii. The translation is by " A Clergy- 
 man," and was published by Messrs. Parker, in 1858. 
 2 ii^i(j, c. xi. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 281 
 
 repay Him that of which He robs Him. ... If nothing be more 
 great or good than God, nothing can be more just than that which 
 preserves His honour in the disposing of events, even the Supreme 
 Justice, which is nothing else than God Himself." ^ " That God 
 should lose His own honour is impossible ; for either the sinner of his 
 own will pays what he owes, or God takes it from him against his 
 will. For either man of his own free will exhibits that subjection 
 to God which is due from him, whether by not sinning, or by 
 making amends for his sin, or else God subjects him to Himself 
 by tormenting him against his will, and by this means shows Him- 
 self to be his Lord, which the same refuses of his own will to 
 acknowledge." ^ 
 
 Anselm shows afterwards that, from the nature of the 
 case, it was not in man's power to make amends for 
 his sin. If, he argues, it were necessary either that the 
 whole world, and whatever is not God, should perish and 
 be reduced to nothing, or that a creature should do 
 the very smallest action contrary to the Divine will, 
 the creature would have no right to sin, even for the 
 preservation of the whole creation. The satisfaction, 
 therefore, which is necessary for the slightest sin, 
 must outweigh in value the whole universe. 
 
 No one, however, ought to make satisfaction for the 
 sin of man except man ; and no one can make this 
 satisfaction except God Himself.^ He who makes satis- 
 faction for human sin must therefore be God-man. 
 
 The conditions under which Christ, the Son of God 
 and the Son of man, by whom Anselm has thus 
 argued that the work of Atonement must be accom- 
 plished, can make the necessary satisfaction for the 
 sins of the race, are thus defined : — 
 
 ' Cur Deus Homo, c. xiii. 2 ibid. c. xiv. 3 Book ii. c. 6. 
 
282 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 " Reason has taught us that it is necessary for Him to have some- 
 thing greater than all things short of God, which He may wilUngly 
 
 and not of debt give to God But this cannot be found either 
 
 beneath Him or outside Him It must be found, then, in 
 
 Himself. .... He is to give, therefore, either Himself or 
 something out of Himself.^ But He himself and all that he has 
 belongs to God. This gift then must be understood thus : 
 that He shall in some way devote to the honour of God, either 
 Himself, or something coming from Himself, in a way in which He 
 
 is not in debt bound to do If we were to say that He shall 
 
 give Himself to obey God, so as, by perseveringly keeping His 
 righteousness, to submit Himself to His will, to give this would not 
 be to give what God did not require from Him as a debt ; for every 
 
 rational creature owes this to God He must, therefore, give 
 
 Himself or something out of Himself to God in some other way. 
 .... But to give His life, or to lay down His life, or to deliver 
 Himself to death for the honour of God is what — " as a debt — God 
 would not require of Him ; for since there will be no sin in Him, 
 He will be under no obligation of dying, as we said before." 
 
 Anselm then explains why the Mediator should render 
 honour to Gcd by dying, and the reason he gives is 
 consistent with his whole theory, and wholly different 
 from that which rests the necessity of the Atonement 
 on the necessity of recognizing and maintaining the 
 justice of the penalty which is due to sin. He asks : — 
 
 " If man sinned by pleasure, is it not consistent that he should 
 make satisfaction by pain ? And if he were so overcome by the 
 devil as to dishonour God by sinning with such ease as that he 
 could not have been more easily overcorne, is it not just that man, 
 in making satisfaction to God for sin, should overcome the devil 
 with such difficulty as that greater there could not he? Is it not 
 
 ^ "Ratio quoquenos docuit, quia oportet eum majus aliquid habere 
 quam quidquid sub Deo est quod sponte det et non ex debito Deo. 
 .... Hoc autem nee sub illb nee extra ilium inveniri potest. . . . 
 
 In ipso igitur inveniendum est Aut igitur seipsum aut aliquid 
 
 de se dabit." — Cur Deus Homo. Schlawitz, Berlin, 1857, pp. 65, 66. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 283 
 
 meet that whereas he so stole himself from God by sinning, that 
 he could not have stolen himself more completely than he did, in 
 making satisfaction he should so give himself to God as that he 
 could not possibly give himself more completely?" 
 
 Boso acknowledges that nothing can be more reason- 
 able. Anselm continues : — 
 
 " Now, then, man can suffer nothing more painful or with greater 
 difficulty for the honour of God, willingly and not of debt, than 
 death ; and in no way can more completely give himself to God than 
 when he delivers himself to death for His honour.^ But when 
 Christ bore with calm patience the injuries and insults and the 
 death of the cross, with the thieves, brought on Him on account of 
 His righteousness which he obediently kept, He gave an example 
 to men that they should swerve from the righteousness which they 
 owe to God for no inconveniences which they may experience. . . . 
 No man besides Him ever gave to God by dying what he would not 
 at some time be compelled to lose, or ever paid what he did not 
 owe. But He of His own accord offered to the Father what He 
 would not have been compelled to lose, and He paid for sinners 
 what He did not owe for Himself/' 
 
 For this transcendent act of homage to the Father, 
 
 Christ must not go without a recompense. 
 
 " He who recompenses any one, either gives what that one has not 
 got, or forgives what may be required of him. Now before that the 
 Son did so great an action, all things which the Father had were 
 His ; neither did He ever owe what might be forgiven Him." 
 
 To recompense Christ was therefore impossible. But 
 if the Son wished to give what is due to Him to 
 another, the Father could not justly prevent Him. 
 
 "It is both lawful for the Son to give what is His own, and the 
 Father cannot pay what He owes Him except to some one else. On 
 whom," then asks Anselm, concluding the argument, " should He 
 more consistently bestow the fruit and recompense of His own 
 death than on those for the sake of saving whom .... He became 
 
 I Cur Deus Homo^ c. xi. 
 
284 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 Man, and to whom (as we have said) by dying He set an example 
 of dying for righteousness' sake ; for in vain will they be followers 
 of Him if they are not partakers of His merits ? Or whom may 
 He more justly make inheritors of what is due to Him (of which 
 He is not in want Himself), and of the superabundance of His 
 fulness, than His own .... brethren, whom He sees encumbered 
 with so many and such heavy debts, pining away with want in the 
 depth of misery ; so that what they owe for their sins may be for- 
 given them, and that of which (by reason of their sins) they stand 
 in need may be given them." ^ 
 
 This long account of Anselm's theory in Anselm's 
 own words was necessary in order to give a sufficiently 
 clear and strong impression of the idea on which 
 the theory rests. His mind was filled with the august 
 greatness of God. " Sin is nothing else than not to 
 render to God His due." It is an affront to His Infinite 
 Majesty. It is not regarded as a crime — a revolt 
 against those moral laws which God is morally bound 
 to maintain — it is of the nature of a personal offence 
 against Himself. The Atonement is therefore an act 
 of homage to God in which His supremacy is recog- 
 nized — an act of homage having such transcendent 
 value that it outweighs the sins of mankind, and 
 creates an adequate reason for remitting them. 
 
 The great schoolmen who followed him did not 
 simply accept and vindicate the theory of Anselm : 
 they modified it, developed it, and even introduced 
 into it some foreign elements. Abelard, indeed, went 
 very far towards the absolute exclusion of all objective 
 significance from the work of Christ, and maintained 
 that by His blood 
 
 I Cur Deiis Homo^ c. xix. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 285 
 
 "We are justified and reconciled to God, because by the singular 
 grace which God has manifested to us in giving us His Son, who 
 assumed our nature, and, having become man, persevered even 
 unto death in instructing us by His teaching and example, God has 
 more closely attached us to Himself by the bonds of love, and 
 because true charity, fired by such a gift of God's grace, cannot 
 shrink from any suffering for His sake." ^ 
 
 Abelard, however, exerted only a transient and dis- 
 turbing influence on the development of the theory of 
 the Atonement in the Middle Ages, and he did nothing 
 to affect the fundamental principle on which all 
 Anselm's speculations are built. Throughout the 
 period of Scholasticism, the Atonement continued to 
 be regarded as a satisfaction offered to God for the 
 personal wrong committed against Him by our sin. 
 
 In Anselm and in some of his successors the theory 
 was redeemed from its offensive character by the prac- 
 tical identification of the eternal law of righteousness 
 with the Divine will. With God, according to Anselm, 
 " there is no freedom but to do what is expedient or 
 what is fitting. ... In that it is said that what He 
 wills is just, and what He wills not is not just, this is 
 not to be understood as though if God were to will 
 anything inconsistent [si Deus vult quodlibet incon- 
 veniens], it would be just because He willed it. For if 
 God were to will to lie, it does not follow that it is just 
 to lie, but rather that he who so wills is not God."^ 
 
 But the prevalent tendency to conceive of God as the 
 
 1 Abaelard : Comment, super Epistol. ad Rom. Opera. Edit 
 J. P. Migne. Paris, 1855. Page 836. Abelard, however, recog- 
 nized the objective value of Christ's intercession. 
 
 2 Cur Deus Homo^ lib. i. cap. 12. 
 
286 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 supreme Personality, on whose will all things depend 
 carried some later writers to most pernicious conclu- 
 sions. Duns Scotus, in harmony with the fundamental 
 position of his philosophy, that the will is superior 
 to the reason, both in God and man, makes the 
 moral law the expression of God's arbitrary will.^ All 
 existing moral distinctions are purely contingent : they 
 might, if God so pleased, be absolutely reversed.* This 
 conception of God's relation to the moral law necessarily 
 involved the degradation of the idea of the Atonement. 
 With the intenser religious earnestness, and espe- 
 cially the deeper sense of sin which originated the 
 Reformation of the sixteenth century, came a third 
 great movement in theological speculation on the real 
 nature and purpose of the Death of Christ. Ritschl, 
 to whom '* the scientifically rounded doctrine of Duns 
 Scotus" appears a truer expression of the attitude 
 assumed by Catholic Christendom in the Middle Ages 
 towards this problem than the doctrine of Thomas 
 Aquinas,^ has defined very sharply the distinction be- 
 
 1 See Ueberweg's History of Philosophy. Translated by 
 Morris. Hodder & Stoughton. Vol. i. pp. 452-457. 
 
 2 Ideo, potest aliam legem statuere rectam, quas si statueretur a 
 Deo, recta asset quia nulla lex est recta nisi quatenus a Dei volun- 
 tate acceptatur." Quoted in Julius Muller, On the Christian 
 Doctrine of Sin (Clark's Translation). Vol. i. p. 97. Miiller adds 
 that " Scotus recognizes an unconditional necessity in the funda- 
 mental law of love towards God, and in all which this logically 
 includes. Divine arbitrariness refers only to the sphere of finite 
 beings and their relations." 
 
 3 A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 
 and Reconciliation. By Albert Ritschl. Translated by J. S. 
 Black. Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1872. P. 60. 
 
vri.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 287 
 
 tween the doctrine of the schoolmen and the doctrine 
 of the reformers. He says that " the satisfaction of 
 Christ was regarded by the schoolme-n as a necessity 
 arising from the arbitrary will of a mighty possessor of 
 private rights, while the reformers sought its explana- 
 tion in the public law of the law-ordered community 
 in which God and man are constituent parts : in the 
 one case it is regarded as the arbitrary compensation 
 for a personal injury, and in the other as the necessary 
 punishment of a violation of law."^ It is doubtful, I 
 think, whether the perfect historical truth of this sharp 
 contrast can be maintained. To Anselm, at least, God 
 was something more than " a mighty possessor of 
 private rights ; " nor did Anselm believe that the 
 Atonement was '* a compensation for personal injury " 
 exacted by God's " arbitrary will." Anselm himself 
 would have contended that the only principle and 
 guarantee of the moral order of the universe are found 
 in that personal supremacy of God which sin refuses 
 to acknowledge, and to which the Death of Christ has 
 rendered awful homage. But Ritschl appears to have 
 described with singular accuracy the real spirit and 
 tendency of the mediaeval speculations on this great 
 mystery. His account of the theories of the reformers 
 is equally felicitous. At first, indeed, they were not 
 distinctly conscious that their conception of the Atone- 
 ment differed from that which had been generally 
 accepted by the Church, and even some modern writers 
 
 * A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 
 and Reconciliation. By Albert Ritschl. 
 
288 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 on the history of doctrine have represented the Protes- 
 tant doctrine as being substantially identical with that 
 of Anselm. The reformers were immediately occupied 
 with the question of the conditions on which the bene- 
 fits of Christ's Death become ours, rather than with 
 the question of the real nature and grounds of the 
 Atonement which Christ's Death had effected. But 
 the one question was soon seen to involve the other, 
 and Protestant theologians gradually came to use 
 language about the Death of Christ and its relations 
 to the forgiveness of sins, which, if it was not perfectly 
 new, had rarely been heard before, and had never been 
 uttered with the same energy and vehemence. The 
 rudiments of their theory may be found in earlier 
 writers, and there had been a special preparation for 
 it, both in the deeper moral life which began to appear 
 in some parts of Christendom in the fifteenth century, 
 and the fresh theological thought which that life 
 awakened.^ 
 
 ^ Wycliffe taught that " it is a light word to say that God might of 
 His power forgive this sin [Adam's] without the aseeth [satisfaction] 
 which was made for it, for God might do so if He would ; but 
 His justice would not suffer it, but requires that each trespass be 
 punished, either on earth or in hell. And God may not accept a 
 person to forgive his sin without satisfaction." {Tracts and 
 Treatises of WYCLIFFE, page 84.) Wessel says, " The Lord Jesus 
 is not only Mediator between God and man, but is rather Mediator 
 for man between the God of justice and the God of mercy ; for 
 // behoves that the whole law of God^s justice should be fulfilled, 
 without failure of one jot or tittle, and as this has been achieved by 
 Jesus," &c. (Ullman's Reformers before the Reformatio7i, vol. 
 ii. p. 450. See also Ritschl : Critical History of the Christian 
 Doctrine oj Justification^ &^c. Page 158.) 
 
vii.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 289 
 
 But it is scarcely possible to imagine anything more 
 startling, even to those who had retained the principles 
 of the Cur Deus Homo in their integrity, than such a 
 passage as that which occurs in Luther's commentary 
 on Gal. iii. 13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
 the law, being made a curse for us, 
 
 " The doctrine of the gospel (which of all others is most sweet 
 and full of singular consolation) speaketh nothing of our works or 
 of the works of the law, but of the inestimable mercy and love of 
 God towards most wretched and miserable sinners : to wit, that 
 our most merciful Father, seeing us to be oppressed and over- 
 whelmed by the curse of the law, and so to be holden under the 
 same, that we could never be delivered from it by our own power, 
 sent His only Son into the world, and laid upon Him the sins of all 
 men, saying, ' Be Thou Peter, that denier ; Paul, that persecutor, 
 blasphemer, and cruel oppressor ; David, that adulterer ; that 
 sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise ; that thief which hanged 
 upon the cross ; and, briefly, be Thou the person which hath com- 
 mitted the sins of all men. See therefore that Thou pay and satisfy 
 lor them.' Here now cometh the law, and saith, I find Him a 
 sinner, and that such a one as hath taken upon Him the sins of all 
 men, and I see no sins else but in Him, therefore let Him die upon 
 the cross ; and so he setteth upon Him, and killeth Him. By this 
 means the whole world is purged and cleansed from all sins, and so 
 delivered from death and all evils." 
 
 No doubt this is popular rhetoric, and popular rhe- 
 toric of a very intense and fervent kind. But Luther's 
 rhetoric is only Luther's creed set on fire by imagina- 
 tion and passion. To take words like these as though 
 they were a literal and scientific statement of what 
 Luther believed about the Death of Christ, would be to 
 violate the most ordinary principles which must govern 
 the interpretation of language. But he meant what he 
 said, and the substance of the passage is this — Christ 
 
 20 
 
290 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 so assumed the penal responsibilities of mankind, that 
 all who believe in Him are delivered from the penalties 
 of sin. The law has inflicted on Him the sufferings 
 which but for His mercy would have been inflicted 
 on us. 
 
 The conception of the Atonement which suggested 
 this description of it is the precise antithesis of the 
 conception in the Ctir Deus Homo, Anselm — though 
 not with unvarying consistency — represents the volun- 
 tary submission of Christ to death as a transcendent 
 act of righteousness and of devotion to the honour of 
 God, and maintains that God rewarded Christ by for- 
 giving the sins of men. Luther represents the Death 
 of Christ as the endurance of the suffering due to the 
 sins of our race. On Anselm's theory, Christ has 
 secured our salvation because in His Death He clothed 
 Himself with the glory of a unique righteousness, for 
 which God rewards Him. On Luther's theory, Christ 
 has secured our salvation because in His Death He 
 clothed Himself with the sins of the human race, so 
 that God inflicted on Him the sufferings which the sins 
 of the race had deserved. The theological distance 
 between the two theories can hardly be measured. 
 They are alike only in this, that they both affirm that 
 the Death of Christ is the ground on which our sins 
 are forgiven.^ 
 
 The six chapters of Calvin's Institutes, in which he 
 discusses the doctrine of Redemption,^ deserve very 
 careful consideration. They show the extent to which, 
 I Note Q. 2 Book ii. chaps. 12-17. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 291 
 
 in the early days of the Reformation, the Protestant 
 leaders included in their conception of the Atonement 
 very much that has been imperfectly recognized or 
 altogether suppressed in the popular theology of Pro- 
 testantism ; and they also show that Calvin, as well as 
 Luther, held that forensic idea of the Death of Christ 
 which is expressed with such fervour in Luther's com- 
 mentary on the Galatians. 
 
 But the truth of Ritschl's representation of the 
 essential principle of the Protestant theory is best 
 illustrated by the manner in which the subject is 
 treated by those theologians who represent the com- 
 plete and systematic development of the characteristic 
 theology of the Reformation. Of these, Francis Turre- 
 tin is perhaps the most distinguished. In his Institutio 
 Theologice Elencticce he has a chapter in which he dis- 
 cusses the question — Whether it was necessary that Christ 
 should satisfy the Divine justice for us ? ^ The reasons 
 which he alleges, in maintaining the affirmative 
 against the Socinians, indicate the completeness of the 
 change which had passed over theological thought 
 since the time of Anselm. He urges : — 
 
 1. That the retributive justice of God is one of His 
 natural and essential perfections ; that God cannot 
 divest Himself of it ; and that He cannot refrain from 
 exercising it. 
 
 2, That sin is moral evil, and differs intrinsically 
 and necessarily from holiness ; and that there is a ne- 
 
 » Institutio Theologies Elencticce. Geneva, 1682. Vol. ii. pp. 
 453-463. 
 
 20 * 
 
2g2 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 cessary and natural connection between moral evil and 
 physical evil : that the v^^isdom, the goodness, and the 
 justice of God all require that sin should be punished. 
 
 3. That death is the sanction of the law, and that 
 what the law threatens must be executed, if the truth of 
 God is to be maintained. 
 
 4. That the gospel declares, as a matter of fact, 
 that Christ endured a bloody and terrible death for us. 
 
 5. That to deny that it was necessary that Christ 
 should die in order to satisfy the Divine justice, appears 
 to diminish the greatness of God's love for us in not 
 sparing His own Son, but freely giving Him up for us 
 all. If, indeed, justice had created no obstacle to the 
 free forgiveness of our sin, the grace of God in freely 
 forgiving us would have been very great ; but it is seen 
 to be far greater, now that we know that although 
 justice inexorably demanded that our sin should be 
 punished, God's desire for our salvation resulted in the 
 wonderful reconciliation of justice and mercy which 
 has been illustrated in the Death of Christ. 
 
 Turretin then replies to the old objection that to 
 maintain the necessity of a satisfaction for sin is to 
 deny the absolute power of God, to limit His freedom, 
 and to dishonour the infinitude of His mercy. He 
 closes the argument by contending that while God has 
 the right to remit sin, the exercise of that right is ne- 
 cessarily limited by justice ; and that if He remitted 
 sin without a satisfaction, the majesty of the law would 
 be violated. The relation in which God stands to the 
 sinner is not a mere private relation, like that of 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 293 
 
 a creditor to a debtor, or a master to a slave ; it is not 
 an arbitrary relation arising out of positive institutions ; 
 it is not a relation originating in private utility ; it 
 involves public morality ; it is the relation of a Ruler 
 and a Judge ; it is founded in the nature of things. 
 Private rights may be waived at the w^ill and pleasure 
 of the individual in whom they are vested, but public 
 rights can be waived only on public grounds. 
 
 Mastricht, another of the great Protestant theolo- 
 gians of the seventeenth century, maintains the neces- 
 sity of a satisfaction for sin on similar grounds. It 
 was required (i) by the unchangeable purpose and 
 decree of God that He will not remit sin without 
 inflicting its just penalty ; (2) by His veracity, which 
 has pledged Him to punish sin with death ; (3) by 
 His original and necessary holiness and justice, which 
 render it impossible for Him not to hate sin ; and in 
 Holy Scripture the hatred of God for sin does not 
 denote the mere sentiment of hatred, but its effect — 
 the determination to punish it. The necessity of a 
 satisfaction for sin arises also (4) from the intrinsic 
 demerit of sin ; those who sin deserve death, and the 
 Judge of all the earth must be just ; (5) from the 
 nature of law, which is mere advice unless sustained 
 by penalties, and these penalties must be not only 
 threatened, but executed. Again, (6) the wisdom of 
 God as Moral Ruler would not allow Him to permit 
 the interests of the universe to be injured by suffering 
 the law to be violated with impunity. Finally, (7) 
 the fact that God has permitted His only-begotten and 
 
294 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 well-beloved Son to endure the penalties of sin for us, 
 is a conclusive proof that, apart from the Death of 
 Christ as a satisfaction for sin, our salvation was 
 impossible.^ 
 
 In the same sense in which the true character of 
 the scholastic theory of the Atonement may be said 
 to be most perfectly expressed in the exaggerated 
 and degraded form which it received from Duns 
 Scotus, the true character of the Reformation theory 
 may be said to be most perfectly expressed in the 
 exaggerated and degraded form which it received from 
 Grotius. 
 
 The Atonement, as all Protestants acknowledged, 
 was not a mere vindication of God's personal claims, 
 a compensation offered to Him for personal wrongs : it 
 was demanded by Justice, by the majesty of public 
 law, which must be maintained by God's authority, 
 and which sin has transgressed. Grotius grasped 
 with firmness and tenacity precisely that element in 
 the theory of the reformers by which it was most 
 sharply distinguished from the theory of the schoolmen. 
 He was a jurist, an ambassador, and a statesman; and 
 to him the Divine administration of the universe was 
 but a higher form of that political life with which he 
 was so well acquainted. His theory is developed with 
 great clearness and fulness in his Defence of the Catholic 
 Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ,^ written in 
 
 1 Peter Van Mastricht : Theoretico - Practica Theologia, 
 Amsterdam. Page 6i6. 
 
 2 Defensio Fidei Catholicce de Satisfactione Christi. HUGONIS 
 Grotii Opera. Vol. iv. Basle, 1732. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 295 
 
 reply to Socinus. The ultimate principles on which 
 the Grotian doctrine rests are laid down in chaps, ii. 
 and iii., in which the old Socinian conception of punish- 
 ment is discussed with great acuteness, and completely- 
 destroyed : unfortunately, the theory by which it is 
 replaced is almost equally untenable. He argues 
 (chap, ii.) that God is not to be considered as being 
 the mere Judge of the moral universe : if He were 
 nothing more than a Judge, He would have simply to 
 administer the law, and would have no power to remit 
 the punishment of the guilty, even if the punishment 
 were borne by the innocent. Nor, in inflicting punish- 
 ment, is God to be regarded as the party that has 
 been injured by sin ; He is not even to be regarded 
 as the mere representative of the moral universe, 
 which may be supposed to have been injured by sin. 
 For, in the first place, the right to punish does not 
 belong to the party that has received injury from an 
 offence. No man is a proper judge in his own cause. ^ 
 Nor, secondly, has an injured person — as such — a right 
 to insist on punishnent; all that he can claim is com- 
 pensation. Grotius might have said that the law gives 
 him his remedy in a civil action for damages, not in a 
 criminal prosecution. Nor, again, when God punishes 
 sin, is He to be considered as though He were acting 
 merely as the absolute Owner of the universe, whose 
 claims on the love and service of His creatures have 
 not been satisfied. If this were His only relation to us, 
 
 I " Est quidem recepta regula neminem esse idoneum in sua 
 causa judicem." — Page 306. 
 
296 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 these claims might be freely remitted. All punishment 
 has for its end the common good.^ 
 
 But Grotius argues (chap, iii.) that the penal law may- 
 be relaxed. While there are some laws which are 
 eternal and unchangeable, as that God cannot lie, or 
 deny Himself, or perform evil actions, positive laws 
 nave not this inflexible character. To the objection 
 that, in the very nature of things, it is just that the 
 guilty should be punished according to their deserts, 
 he replies, that while from the relation of the sinner 
 to God as the supreme Ruler, his sin naturally and 
 necessarily makes him liable to punishment, it is not 
 absolutely and universally necessary that the adequate 
 punishment should be inflicted. It belongs to the very 
 nature of things that every sinner deserves punish- 
 ment, but not that every sinner should be actually 
 punished.^ 
 
 There was nothing in the nature of God to prevent 
 Him from forgiving sin without exacting any atone- 
 ment for it. But He had to consider the moral effect 
 which such an exercise of His prerogatives would have 
 produced on the universe. 
 
 The sufferings which are threatened against those 
 
 1 " Poena enim omnis propositum habet bonum commune ; ordi- 
 nis nimirum conservationem et exemplum." — Page 308. 
 
 2 " Quod ergo is qui deliquit poenam meretur, eoque punibilis est 
 hoc ex ipsa peccati et peccatoris ad superiorem relatione necessario 
 sequitur, et proprie naturale est. Ut vero puniatur quivis peccator, 
 poena tali quse culpae respondeat, non est necessarium simpliciter et 
 universaliter : neque proprie naturale, sed naturae satis conveniens." 
 —Page 310. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 297 
 
 who transgress the Divine commandments are a ter- 
 rible warning against sin : if these sufferings are not 
 inflicted, the moral interests of the universe require 
 that the authority of the law should be maintained 
 in some other way. Grotius contended that this end 
 is secured by making forgiveness conditional on the suf- 
 ferings of Christ. He gave up, as Ritschl has said, 
 ** the idea of penal satisfaction for past sins," and 
 substituted for it the idea of a ** penal example for the 
 prevention of future sins."' The Grotian theory of the 
 Atonement has had great influence on the modern 
 theology of English Nonconformity. 
 
 From this brief review of the history of the doctrine, 
 it appears that for nearly a thousand years many of the 
 most eminent teachers of the Church were accustomed 
 to represent the Death of Christ as a ransom by which we 
 are delivered from captivity to the devil; that for nearly 
 five centuries the most eminent teachers of the Church 
 were accustomed to represent the Death of Christ as an 
 act of homage to the personal greatness and majesty of 
 God; that during the last three centuries the great Pro- 
 testant Churches have represented the Death of Christ 
 as having a relation neither to the devil nor to the 
 personal claims of God, but to the moral order of the 
 universe. While the fundamental conception of the 
 Atonement has been passing through these remarkable 
 changes, the doctrine has been involved in other con- 
 troversies of hardly inferior magnitude. There have been 
 ^ RiTSCHL, 313. 
 
298 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 controversies as to whether Christ died for all men, or 
 whether He died for the elect only; or whether, as was 
 suggested as early as the third century by Origen, the 
 effects of His Death extend to the whole universe. There 
 have been controversies as to whether the Death of Christ 
 was in itself an adequate Atonement for human sin, or 
 whether its adequacy depends upon God's acceptance 
 of it as adequate. When the Death of Christ was re- 
 garded as a kind of concession to the devil, there were 
 controversies as to whether the concession was neces- 
 sary in the nature of things, in order to effect our 
 redemption ; the same controversy was renewed under 
 other forms when the Death of Christ was regarded as 
 an act of homage to the Divine Majesty; and it has re- 
 appeared among Protestants, to whom the Atonement 
 is neither a concession to the claims of Satan, nor even 
 an acknowledgment of the personal claims of God. 
 Whether, if men were to be saved, the Atonement of 
 Christ was necessary or not ; whether its effects extend 
 to all mankind or only to the elect; whether it consisted 
 in His righteousness, which was tested by His sufferings, 
 or whether the sufferings themselves constituted its 
 very essence ; whether it was intended to redeem us 
 from the power of Satan, or to propitiate the injured 
 majesty of God, or to assert the eternal principles of 
 the Divine government — all these questions have 
 divided the Church. The Fathers attempted to explain 
 why it is that through the Death of Christ we escape 
 from the penalties of sin, and their explanations were 
 rejected by the schoolmen. The schoolmen attempted 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 299 
 
 to explain it, and their explanations were rejected or 
 modified by the reformers. The reformers attempted 
 to explain it, and within a century after the Reforma- 
 tion, Grotius and his successors were attempting to 
 explain it again. But the faith of the great body of 
 the Church in the fact that Christ's sufferings came 
 upon Him because of our sin, and that on the ground 
 of His sufferings we are delivered from the penalties of 
 sin, has survived the theories which were intended to 
 illustrate it. 
 
 The Idea of an objective Atonement invented by 
 theologians to satisfy the exigencies of theological 
 systems ! It would be almost as reasonable to main- 
 tain that the apparent motion of the sun was invented 
 by astronomers in order to satisfy the exigencies created 
 by astronomical theories. The Idea has perplexed, and 
 troubled, and broken up successive systems of theo- 
 logy. It was precisely because they failed to account 
 for it that theological systems which were once famous 
 and powerful, and from which their authors hoped 
 for an immortal name, have perished. If it had been 
 possible to expel the Idea from the faith of Christ- 
 endom, the task of theology would have been made 
 wonderfully easier. The history of the doctrine is a proof 
 that the idea of an objective A tenement was not invented by 
 theologians. 
 
 But perhaps this Idea was forced upon theologians 
 by the superstitious dread with which, in all ages, 
 vast masses of men have regarded the awful powers of 
 
300 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 the invisible world. The Jews had their sacrifices, 
 the heathen had theirs. Is it not possible that the 
 Death of Christ came to be regarded as having expia- 
 tory power because the Church itself was slow in 
 apprehending the infinite love of God, and therefore 
 insisted that only by suffering could the Divine wrath 
 be propitiated ? 
 
 It is true, and the truth has great significance, that 
 the craving for a sacrifice for sin is one of the deepest 
 instincts of the religious life of the race. It is also 
 true that this craving is satisfied by the Christian 
 Atonement. But that, apart from the clearest and 
 most emphatic declarations of Christ Himself and His 
 Apostles, the Church should ever have supposed that 
 His Death could be the ground on which God forgives 
 the sins of mankind, is incredible. 
 
 How could such an extraordinary supposition have 
 originated ? 
 
 From the very first, the general outlines of the 
 history of our Lord Jesus Christ were made known 
 to all who received the Christian faith; His life and 
 His Death constituted the very substance of the 
 gospel, the foundation on which the Apostles rested 
 all their teaching. The Church knew that the cruci- 
 fixion was a great crime. The considerations which 
 might be urged to alleviate the guilt of a barbarous 
 people in putting to death the teacher of a pure reli- 
 gious faith, which was hostile to all their habits and 
 all their traditions, cannot be pleaded in palliation 
 of this supreme offence. It is true that Jesus of 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 301 
 
 Nazareth was not the kind of Messiah that the Jewish 
 nation was expecting and longing for. There was 
 nothing in His teaching to gratify their hopes of 
 secular glory, or their passionate desire to avenge the 
 wrongs and sufferings of many centuries upon their 
 heathen oppressors. 
 
 But He acknowledged the authority of Moses and 
 the prophets ; He worshipped in the temple ; He kept 
 the national festivals ; and if sometimes He disregarded 
 the obligations which were imposed upon the Jewish 
 people by their rabbinical teachers, He vindicated His 
 violation of the rules of an artificial and technical 
 sanctity by appealing to the fundamental principles of 
 the Divine law. His discourses were rooted in the 
 national faith, and enriched with illustrations from the 
 national literature. Those parts of His teaching by 
 which the people were most offended and perplexed were 
 placed under the sanction of institutions and events 
 which were most sacred to the heart of every Jew. It 
 was precisely when He was asserting what was most 
 incredible and most irritating to His hearers that He 
 showed Himself to be in most perfect sympathy with 
 them in relation to their national history. He spoke to 
 Nicodemus, for instance, of the redemptive power of 
 His Death, but He sheltered the truth under an allu- 
 sion to one of the greatest miracles in the wilderness. 
 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, 
 even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whoso- 
 ever believeth in Him should not perish, but have 
 everlasting life.'* He made the manna which kept the 
 
jo2 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 nation alive for forty years the symbol of Himself, 
 when He taught the people of Galilee that they could 
 have eternal life only in Him. It was at the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, which commemorated the history of the 
 wanderings of their fathers in the desert, that He 
 cried, "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and 
 drink," in obvious allusion to the water which God 
 gave to the people from the rock when they were 
 ready to perish. It was at the same feast that He 
 made the lofty claim to be " the Light of the world," 
 declaring that whoever followed Him should not walk 
 in darkness, but should have *'the light of life;" 
 recalling to the crowds that listened to Him the pillar 
 of fire which shone on the camp of the Israelites during 
 the night. ^ From first to last our Lord tried to make 
 it clear to the Jewish nation that He had not come 
 to rob them of their ancient glories, or to ask them 
 to renounce the faith or the hopes of their fathers — 
 that His mission was not to destroy the law or the 
 prophets, but to fulfil. 
 
 His whole policy — if we may venture to use in con- 
 nection with Him a word which has an evil stain, 
 from its application to the indirect and selfish courses 
 of ambitious men — was a policy of conciliation until 
 conciliation became useless. He endeavoured to make 
 it easy for the religious authorities of the nation to 
 receive Him as the Christ. Before He created any en- 
 thusiasm arnong the people, or provoked among them 
 
 I See Cantinentaire sur lEvangile de S, Jean. By F. GODET. 
 Vol. ii. 1 86, 207. 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 303 
 
 any distrust of their ecclesiastical rulers, He appealed 
 to the ecclesiastical rulers themselves, and His appeal 
 was made in a form to which it ought not to have been 
 difficult for them to respond. When He drove out the 
 sheep and the oxen and the traders from the courts of 
 the temple, He appeared in the character of a Jewish 
 reformer, and was moving on lines marked out for 
 Him by the common faith and common sentiments 
 of the Jewish people. The act implied no revolution 
 in religious belief or religious ceremonial : it was a 
 vindication of the sanctity of the temple, and a protest 
 against those who, in violation of their own avowed 
 convictions, and for the sake of their own advantage, 
 consented to its profanation. Any " ruler of the 
 Jews " with an honest reverence for what he professed 
 to regard as the very Home of God, would have 
 recognized in this bold act of the young Galilean 
 peasant the expression of a devout zeal, would have 
 accepted with humility the just rebuke which it im- 
 plied, and would have sympathized with the courage 
 and piety which prompted it. 
 
 Our Lord gave ample time to the ecclesiastical 
 authorities to consider in what spirit they would re- 
 spond to this appeal. For nearly a year he seems to 
 have remained in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. 
 He did nothing to make it hard for the " rulers " 
 to recognize His claims. He avoided as much as 
 possible everything that was likely to create popular 
 excitement. He does not appear to have spoken often 
 to great crowds of people until the leaders of the reli- 
 
304 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 gious life of the nation had fully resolved to oppose 
 Him. When their antagonism had been clearly mani- 
 fested, He did not irritate and intensify it by attempting 
 to create a hostile "party" for Himself among the people 
 living in Jerusalem, but went to a remote district, as 
 if He wished to give the ecclesiastical authorities a fair 
 opportunity for reconsidering their antagonistic position 
 and retreating from it. But He came up to the great 
 festivals, and His presence there was a proof that He 
 had no desire to create a religious or national schism. 
 
 Nor did He wound the hereditary pride and pre- 
 judice of the rulers of the Jewish people by an imme- 
 diate appeal to the Gentiles against their jealousy 
 and injustice. We hear of Him once in the neigh- 
 borhood of T3Te and Sidon, and once in the neighbour- 
 hood of Banias, but He made no attempt to secure 
 Gentile adherents. It is very curious and significant 
 that although a great part of His time was spent in 
 the towns and villages on the banks of the Lake of 
 Galilee, the Gospels never speak of Him as entering 
 the city of Tiberias, which was chiefly inhabited by 
 pagans. He told the Syrophenician woman, who 
 entreated Him to have mercy on her daughter, that 
 He was " not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house 
 of Israel ; ^ " and He restricted the mission of the twelve 
 Apostles to their own countrymen : *'' Go not into the 
 way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samari- 
 tans enter ye not : but go rather unto the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel." * 
 
 I Matt. XV. 24. « Ibid. x. 50. 
 
VII ] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 305 
 
 He was equally careful to avoid giving any just 
 alarm to the civil power. He did not attempt to excite 
 popular passion ; He never seems to have spoken of 
 the political greatness and splendour of the nation in 
 former times, nor of the achievements of the patriotic 
 heroes of the Jewish race. He never denounced the 
 Roman rule. When on one occasion the people were 
 in the mood to " take Him by force and make Him 
 King, He departed again into a mountain Himself 
 alone." ^ 
 
 He did not merely avoid giving unnecessary offence 
 either to the people, the priests, or the civil rulers; 
 His whole life was an appeal to every lofty and gene- 
 rous and kindly principle of human nature — an appeal 
 which only base selfishness, intense religious conceit, 
 and a deep hostility to moral goodness, could have 
 altogether resisted. 
 
 The history of the development of the hostility 
 against Him in Jerusalem is remarkable. The first 
 great outbreak was the immediate effect of His alleged 
 violation of the Sabbath, in healing the man at the 
 Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day. The next was 
 provoked by a similar transgression — if it was a trans- 
 gression — of the Sabbatic law, — the healing on the 
 Sabbath of a blind beggar who seems to have been 
 well known in the city. On each of these occasions 
 the original offence was aggravated by the personal 
 claims which He advanced when challenged to defend 
 it ; but as the supernatural character of the beneficent 
 I John vi. 15. 
 21 
 
3o6 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 works which He had wrought does not seem to have 
 been disputed, it is astonishing that, instead of con- 
 sidering these claims seriously and earnestly, the very 
 people who confessed the reality of His miracles were 
 eager to kill Him. The final determination of the 
 rulers to put Him to death, was the result of their 
 fear that a great popular reaction in His favour might 
 be produced by the resurrection of Lazarus. He did 
 good and suffered for it. Every one of the more violent 
 movements against Him originated in a miracle.^ 
 
 Mr. John Stuart Mill, in discussing the two great 
 historical instances of judicial iniquity, the condem- 
 nation of Socrates, and what he describes as " the 
 event which took place on Calvary rather more than 
 eighteen hundred years ago,'* expresses the opinion 
 that " the feelings with which mankind now regard 
 these lamentable transactions, especially the later of 
 the two, render them extremely unjust in their judg- 
 ment of the unhappy actors." " These," he says, 
 ** were to all appearance, not bad men, not worse than 
 men commonly are, but rather the contrary ; men who 
 possessed in a full, or somewhat more than a full 
 measure, the religious, moral, and patriotic feelings of 
 their time and people ; the very kind of men who, in 
 all times, our own included, have every chance of 
 passing through life blameless and respected." ^ 
 
 The apology cannot be admitted. They did not 
 
 1 GODET : Conunejitaire sur VEvangile de S. Jean, vol. ii. 
 
 p. 309. 
 
 2 On Liberty. Second edition, pp. 48, 49. 
 
vn.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument. 307 
 
 know the awful magnitude of their crime, and this 
 ignorance was alleged by the Divine Sufferer Himself 
 when He invoked the mercy of God upon His mur- 
 derers : *' Father, forgive them, for they know not what 
 they do ! '* But if they did not know that their offence 
 was the greatest of which mankind could be guilty, and 
 that all subsequent ages would look back upon it with 
 fear and dismay, as transcending in horror all other 
 atrocities, they knew that the crime was a great one. 
 The Apostles and friends of Christ were not in the habit 
 of using hard words even of those who murdered their 
 Master; but the accounts which they have given us of 
 the deeds of those whom Mr. Mill calls '* the unhappy 
 actors " in this ''lamentable transaction," condemn them 
 to eternal infamy. The Death of Christ was brought 
 about by a deliberate conspiracy, in which the con- 
 spirators were the official leaders of the religious life 
 of the nation. They purchased the treachery of one 
 of the most intimate friends of our Lord ; they pro- 
 duced false witnesses against Him on His trial ; they 
 paid other false witnesses to declare that the story of 
 His resurrection was a lie, and that His disciples had 
 taken away His body while the soldiers slept. Desiring 
 nothing more themselves than to drive the Romans 
 from the countr}% they charged Him before Pilate with 
 treasonable designs against Csesar, and they knew the 
 charge was false. Pilate, with all the power of Rome 
 at his back, while he acknowledged that he could find 
 no fault in the prisoner, gave Him up to the fear and 
 jealousy of the priesthood and the fury of the people. 
 
3o8 General Considerations [lect. 
 
 These are the men who, in Mr. Mill's judgment, were 
 *' to all appearance, not bad men, not worse than men 
 commonly are, but rather the contrary ! '* 
 
 Whatever they were — good men or bad men — men of 
 more than average virtue and moral respectability, 
 according to the judgment of Mr. Mill — or men actu- 
 ated by base, malignant, and cruel passions, according 
 to the common judgment of mankind — the history 
 told by His friends, and received by the Church in 
 every part of the world, attributes to those who com- 
 passed the Death of Christ a succession of atrocious 
 crimes, — crimes atrocious in themselves, apart from 
 the awful greatness of the Victim. And yet, through 
 eighteen centuries, with almost unbroken unanimity, 
 the Christian Church has maintained that the Death of 
 Christ is the ground on which God grants to mankind 
 the forgiveness of sin. 
 
 Again I ask, How could such an extraordinary idea 
 have originated ? 
 
 We are so familiar with the phrases in which this 
 idea is expressed, that the strangeness of the idea 
 itself is hardly apprehended by us. Suppose that, 
 after the children of Israel had been in the wilderness 
 for several years, a conspiracy had been formed against 
 Moses, and that he had been deliberately and: "treaeher- 
 cmsly tortured and slain, because he refused to renounce 
 his gfeftt claims as the divinely-commissioned lawgiver 
 and chief of the nation. Can we imagine that within 
 a few years after his death the Jewish people could 
 have come to imagine that on the ground of the death 
 
VII.] Confirmatory of the Preceding Argument, 309 
 
 of Moses God was willing to forgive all the sins they 
 had committed since leaving Egypt ? Can we imagine 
 that a long succession of religious teachers,; extending 
 from the time that the descendants of Abraham entered 
 into the Land of Promise to the final catastrophe in 
 which their national institutions perished^' would have 
 told them that whenever they repented of idolatry, or 
 of any other violation of the Divine law, the death of 
 Moses would be the Divine reason for pardoning their 
 offences ? Instead of this, would there not have been 
 an annual fast, at which, through generation after 
 generation, the crime would have been confessed and 
 the Divine mercy implored ? And whenever a prophet 
 threatened the men of his own times with the Divine 
 vengeance for their sins, would he not have told them 
 that they were the true descendants of those who had 
 hardened their heart against God in the wilderness, and 
 whose offences — this being the very chief — had pro- 
 voked God to swear in His wrath that they should not 
 enter into His rest ? 
 
 Had Moses perished at the hands of his inconstant 
 and ungrateful and rebellious fellow-countrymen, I 
 can imagine prophet after prophet insisting on his 
 sufferings and death, in order to inspire the people 
 with a fidelity to God like that which had been illus- 
 trated in the martyrdom of their great leader; and 
 the Church might have made a similar use of the 
 crucifixion of Christ. It has made a similar use of His 
 crucifixion. But what we have to account for is the 
 universal prevalence of the idea that, while those who 
 
310 Considerations of Preceding Argument, [lect. vii. 
 
 put Christ to death committed the greatest of human 
 crimes, His Death was the Propitiation for the sins of 
 the world. I can account for the prevalence of that 
 idea in one way, and only in one way. It was a great 
 and essential element in the original gospel which 
 the Apostles were charged to preach to all nations. 
 The Church received it from the Apostles. The Apostles 
 received it from Christ. 
 
LECTURE VIIL 
 
 THE REMISSION OF SINS. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE REMISSION OF SINS. 
 
 IN the preceding Lectures I have endeavoured to prove 
 that the sins of men were the cause of the Death of 
 Christ in a sense in which they were not the cause of 
 the death of those whose fideHty to truth and to con- 
 science, to the highest welfare of mankind and to the 
 authority of God, has provoked the intolerance and 
 the vengeance of wicked men, and won for them the 
 glories of martyrdom ; and that on the ground of His 
 Death the sins of men are forgiven. 
 
 The proof has been derived from the history and 
 teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and from 
 the testimony of His Apostles, who upon this point, if 
 upon no other, may be supposed to have known His 
 mind. 
 
 It being assumed that adequate evidence has been 
 alleged of the existence of a direct relation between the 
 Death of Christ and the Remission of sins, we have 
 now to investigate that relation, and to discover, if we 
 can, the principles and laws which it illustrates. The 
 Fact that Christ died to make Atonement for sin 
 having been established, is it possible to construct a 
 Theory of the Atonement ? 
 
 The inquiry upon which we are about to enter is 
 
314 ^/^^ Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 different in kind from that which is now closed, and 
 is of inferior importance. It is not the theory of the 
 Death of Christ that constitutes the ground on which 
 sins are forgiven, but the Death itself; and the faith, 
 which is the condition on our side of receiving "re- 
 demption through His blood," is trust in Christ Him- 
 self as the Son of God and Saviour of men, not the 
 acceptance of any doctrine which explains how it is 
 that salvation comes to us through Him. For this 
 Trust, it is not necessary that men should acknowledge 
 even the Fact that the Death of Christ is the propi- 
 tiation for the sin of the world ; much less is it neces- ' 
 sary that they should receive from others or elaborate 
 for themselves a Theory of propitiation. It is enough 
 that the authority and love of Christ have been so 
 revealed to them that they rely on Him for eternal 
 salvation. 
 
 But if it be true that there is a direct relation between 
 the Death of Christ and the Remission of sins, the in- 
 quiry into the grounds of that relation is an inquiry of 
 transcendent speculative importance, and may possibly 
 issue in discoveries concerning the character and ways 
 of God of transcendent practical interest. 
 
 On the very threshold of this investigation, we are 
 met by a grave and startling difficulty : — Is the Re- 
 mission of sins possible ? 
 
 The answer to this question has been anticipated. 
 Our Lord Himself declared that " the Son of man hath 
 power on earth to forgive sins." ^ To a man sick of 
 I Matt. ix. 6. 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 315 
 
 the palsy, whom He miraculously cured, He said, " Son, 
 be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee; "^ and to 
 a woman of evil character, who, in her sorrow and 
 shame, had crept to His feet and washed them with 
 her tears, He said, " Thy sins are forgiven : . . . . thy 
 faith hath saved thee : go in peace." ^ He told His 
 disciples before He suffered, that His blood was to be 
 ** shed for the Remission of sins ; " ^ and after His Re- 
 surrection, He ** opened their understanding, that they 
 might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them. 
 Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that re- 
 pentance and Remission of sins should be preached in 
 His name." "^ That the Apostles, wherever they went, 
 spoke to both Jews and heathen of the Remission of 
 sins, as one of the chief elements of the salvation to be 
 secured by believing in Christ ; that in their letters to 
 Christian Churches they spoke of the Remission of 
 sins as one of the chief elements of the salvation which 
 those who believed in Christ had already received, is a 
 fact too familiar to every reader of the New Testament 
 to require either proof or illustration. 
 
 But among those who do not acknowledge that the 
 Death of Christ is a Propitiation for the sins of the 
 world, there is a tendency either to deny that the 
 Remission of sins is possible, or to depreciate its im- 
 portance ; and this tendency has very much to do 
 with the rejection both of the Doctrine and of the 
 
 I Matt. ix. 2. 2 Luke vii. 48-50. 3 Matt. xxvi. 28. 
 
 4 Luke xxiv. 45-47. 
 
3i6 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 Fact of the Atonement. It arises from a theory of 
 the relation of God to the moral universe in which 
 the idea of Atonement can find no place. 
 
 To attempt a philosophical demonstration of the 
 possibility of the Remission of sins is not my purpose. 
 But I propose to examine a theory which, if it were 
 true, would require us to believe that in the nature of 
 things sin can never be remitted. In the statement of 
 this theory I shall freely avail myself of the language 
 of one of its most effective advocates. Dr. John Young. 
 
 Law is defined to be *' the expression of will," and 
 to have ''its ground in authority." "Authority, sup- 
 posing adequate power, ultimately rests on rectitude 
 and wisdom." The laws of the physical as well as of 
 the spiritual universe are the expression of the will of 
 God. " In the physical region no resistance is possible, 
 and law reigns serenely and supremely. But in the 
 spiritual sphere the created will has run counter to the 
 Divine will, and darkness and death have supplanted 
 light and life." *' Human sin, .... so far as it 
 extends, .... aims to defy established authority " — 
 the authority of God and of the laws of God — " and to 
 disown and cast off all subjection." But *' in spite of 
 what .... seems, but only seems, to trample them 
 down, .... spiritual laws are mighty, are almighty. 
 They cannot be violated, cannot even be resisted ; that 
 is, with impunity, and without exacting an incipient and 
 immediate satisfaction. The reign of law in all the 
 departments of the material creation is proclaimed 
 with extraordinary confidence by those who have devoted 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 317 
 
 themselves to the study of physics : equal and even 
 greater confidence should be felt in the universality and 
 supremacy of spiritual law^s." There is a legitimate 
 presumption that the " invariable sequence " in the 
 phenomena of the physical universe, which has been 
 discovered by observation and experiment, "v^^ill in- 
 definitely continue to be ; " but " no amount of expe- 
 rience in the past can render a divergence from the 
 hitherto observed order, however improbable, either 
 contradictory or impossible — impossible, that is to say, 
 in the nature of things." *' It is far otherwise, it is 
 diametrically the reverse with the great laws of the 
 spiritual universe. They are what they are, of them- 
 selves, of necessity. Moral good and moral evil are 
 immutable. . . * The laws of the spiritual universe 
 do not depend even on the highest will. The great 
 God did not make them, they are eternal as He is. 
 The great God could not repeal them, they are immut- 
 able as He is. In perfect harmony with the Divine 
 will, they are nevertheless independent even of it ; and 
 as they were not created, so they cannot be annulled 
 or altered, even by the Almighty." 
 
 ** Spiritual laws, widely distinguished from material 
 laws, are separated by a still vaster difference from 
 merely human ordinances and arrangements." Human 
 laws ** must be more or less unwise and unjust." 
 There is also ** an inevitable uncertainty in them, a 
 doubtfulness and a degree of untrustworthiness, which 
 tend to shake confidence, and materially to weaken the 
 foundations of authority." The innocent are punished, 
 
3i8 The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 the guilty escape. On account of these very elements 
 
 of imperfection by which the authority of human laws 
 
 is menaced, it is indispensable that their majesty should 
 
 be asserted, and that, when broken, they should be 
 
 vindicated and avenged : if not, the dearest interests 
 
 of society will be wantonly sacrificed. 
 
 "But on no such grounds as these, nor on any other grounds what- 
 ever, do spiritual ordinances need or admit of either vindication or 
 protection, or support from human or Divine hands. Defender or 
 avenger they have none, and they need none. Withoict aid from 
 any quarter they avejtge themselves, and exact, and continue with- 
 out fail to exact, so long as the evil remaijts, the aniouiit of penalty 
 — visible and invisible — to the veriest jot and tittle, ivhich the deed 
 of violation deserves. Essentially and perfectly wise and right, 
 they are irresistible, in the case of the obedient and the rebellious 
 ahke. Tliere is no formal trial of the criminal, there is no need 
 for investigating the question and determining the amount of guilt 
 or of innocence. Without inquiry and without effort, each case 
 discovers and exposes itself. No judicial verdict is pronounced, 
 and no officer of justice is appointed to carry out the sentence ; but 
 at once, punishment or reward, visible or invisible, or both, dis- 
 penses itself, and in the amount in which either is merited. Spi- 
 ritual laws are self-acting ; with all their penalties and sanctions 
 they are immediately self-acting, and without the remotest possi- 
 bility of failure or mistake. " ^ 
 
 Dr. Young has given definite and systematic expres- 
 sion to thoughts which, in a vaguer form, may be re- 
 cognized in very much of the religious literature of our 
 times. If this is a true conception of the order of the 
 moral and spiritual universe, the idea of Atonement 
 must be given up, and very much besides that most 
 Christian people would be reluctant to lose. 
 
 I John Young, LL.D. : The Life and Light of Men, pp. Zy, 88. 
 The preceding pages of the text are a summary — Dr. Young's own 
 words being freely used — of pp. 79-87 of the same work. 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins, 319 
 
 The idea of Atonement must be given up, for the pur- 
 pose of Atonement is to create an objective ground on 
 which Remission of sins may be granted to the penitent. 
 But on this theory — if I understand it — the Remission 
 of sins is impossible, unless, indeed, the familiar phrase 
 is to receive some new and alien meaning.^ 
 
 For it is alleged that whenever the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness is violated, the law inflicts " the amount 
 of penalty — visible and invisible — to the veriest jot and 
 tittle, which the deed of violation deserves." It is not 
 from the hand of God that the wicked receive the 
 punishment of their wickedness, nor is it from the hand 
 of God that the righteous receive the reward of their 
 righteousness. — " Punishment or reward, visible or in- 
 visible, or both, dispenses itself, and in the amount in 
 which either is merited." God simply looks on. The 
 vast machine of the moral universe is self-acting. In 
 no proper sense is He the Moral Ruler or Judge of men. 
 
 The old difficulty of the scribes, — " Why doth this 
 man thus speak blasphemies ? who can forgive sins 
 but God only?" — reappears in a new form. If God 
 Himself speaks of forgiving sins, this theory raises the 
 objection that " the justice of the universe .... is 
 
 ^ It is only fair to Dr. Young to say that in other parts of this 
 volume he speaks of God as forgiving sin, without any attempt to 
 impose any unusual sense on the words. It is no part of the design 
 of these Lectures, however, to criticise Dr. Young's able treatise ; 
 and I have quoted the passages which appear in the preceding 
 pages, only because they express very clearly a tendency of modern 
 religious thought which is very hostile to the doctrine I have to 
 illustrate. On Dr. Young's argument and apparent inconsistencies, 
 see Note R. 
 
320 The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 a tremendous fact, an eternal and necessary fact,'* 
 which God Himself cannot set aside ; ^ and that the 
 Divine authority, whatever its limits, is as powerless 
 to forgive sin as it is to reverse or even to modify the 
 eternal and necessary distinction between good and evil. 
 
 The functions of God in relation to the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness and the government of the moral universe 
 are, on this theory, precisely similar to our own. All 
 that He can do for the sinner is to make such appeals 
 to the sluggish conscience and the corrupt heart as shall 
 restore to the one its authority and vigour, and inspire 
 the other with a hatred of sin and a love of goodness. 
 God has resources for this great work which we cannot 
 command ; but His work is the same in kind as that 
 which is being done by all who are striving to make 
 men better. He is just as unable as we are to say, 
 *' Thy sins be forgiven thee." The penalty *' must come 
 down. It lies in the essential nature of things that 
 it must come down. Ever and ever, justice inflicts 
 an inevitable penalty, and exacts the completest satis- 
 faction." ^ 
 
 To prevent misapprehension, it may be well to state 
 most explicitly, at the very commencement of this dis- 
 cussion, that I do not regard the Remission of sins 
 as being absolutely identical with escape from the 
 penalties of sin. Sin is sometimes forgiven, although 
 some of the penalties of sin are not recalled. But the 
 Remission of sins must be understood to include the 
 cancelling of at least the severest penalties with which 
 
 ^ The Life and Light of Men, page 115. * Ibid, page 119. 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 321 
 
 unforgiven sin is justly visited ; and the theory of 
 Dr. Young, therefore, which asserts that the penalties 
 of sin, *' to the veriest jot and tittle," are uniformly 
 and necessarily inflicted, involves the conclusion that 
 the Remission of sins is impossible.^ 
 
 It is difficult, I think, to reconcile this theory with 
 the actual facts of human life. From the dawn of 
 speculation men have been perplexed by the apparent 
 confusion and irregularity in the affairs of the world 
 which obscure those august moral laws whose authority 
 is declared to be so steadfast, and whose penalties are 
 alleged to descend in the very moment of transgression, 
 and to be uniformly exacted " to the veriest jot and 
 tittle." The penalties of sin, both ''visible and invisible," 
 which are alleged to be universally and relentlessly 
 inflicted " to the veriest jot and tittle," are constantly 
 evaded, escaped, or alleviated. 
 
 Two men are equally guilty of drunkenness and 
 profligacy. But one of them is a man of robust con- 
 stitution : he has wealth and leisure. He sins, and 
 sins flagrantly ; but he shoots in the autumn, hunts 
 in the winter, and spends the summer in his yacht on 
 the coast of Scotland or of Norway. The other has 
 weak health, and is compelled by his circumstances 
 to live a sedentary life. The one, notwithstanding his 
 vices, lives till he is seventy, and is vigorous to the 
 last; the other is the victim of miserable diseases, 
 
 I The theory that the penal consequences of sin are justly and 
 necessarily remitted when sin is followed by adequate repentance, 
 is not touched in this Lecture. It rests upon a conception of 
 punishment to which a reply is attempted in Lecture ix. 
 
 22 
 
323 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 and dies an ignominious death long before he is fifty. 
 Where is the equality in the "visible" penalties of sin? 
 The eternal laws appear to receive the bribes of the 
 rich and to trample on the helplessness of poverty. 
 
 An Englishman is guilty of vicious excesses, and as 
 soon as the penal suffering comes upon him he receives 
 relief from the affluent and merciful resources of modern 
 medical science, and with care and temperance he may 
 escape from pain, and practically recover all his physical 
 health. An inhabitant of a barbarous island in remote 
 seas is guilty of precisely the same excesses, and the 
 moral blame which attaches to him is less, because 
 of his inferior moral advantages ; but his strength is 
 rapidly wasted by disease and suffering, and in a few 
 years, perhaps in a few months, a horrible death 
 avenges his crime. Where is the equality in the 
 " visible " penalties of sin? The eternal laws appear 
 to be strong to punish the ignorant, but in the struggle 
 with science they suffer defeat. 
 
 By fraud skilfully contrived, and as skilfully con- 
 cealed, one man creates a fortune. With wealth, the 
 temptationto dishonesty disappears; hespendshis money 
 generously, and wins universal honour and affection 
 for integrity and charity. The penalties " visible and 
 invisible " with which society would justly have visited 
 his offence, — penalties so terrible that to most men the 
 severest physical torture would bring less anguish, — 
 are altogether escaped. Another man is guilty of the 
 same fraud, contrived and concealed with equal skill. 
 But at a critical time the engines of an American 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 323 
 
 steamer break down in the middle of the Atlantic, and 
 his American remittances are a fortnight late ; or a 
 clerk on his way to the post-office is knocked down by 
 a cab, and his Australian letters miss the mail ; and 
 then comes the fatal discovery. He is ruined for life, 
 ruined in fortune and ruined in reputation. He is the 
 object of universal indignation and scorn. His friends 
 fall away from him. He cannot look his own children 
 in the face. After he has exhausted the sentence which 
 human laws have inflicted upon him, he spends the 
 wretched remainder of his days in some foreign city, 
 where his name and his evil deed are unknown, and 
 sinks at last broken-hearted into an obscure grave. 
 Where is the equality in either the " visible " or the 
 ** invisible" penalties of sin ? Where is the certainty 
 with which these penalties are exacted ? The eternal 
 laws appear to be thwarted and deceived by human 
 cunning, and to be indebted to accident for the vindi- 
 cation of their authority. 
 
 Among the outcasts of every great city, and sunk to 
 the very lowest depths of moral degradation, you may 
 find men whose evil fortune and evil character are the 
 natural and almost inevitable result of a solitary sin 
 committed so long ago that it has been forgotten by 
 nearly every one but themselves. They drank too 
 much, or they told a lie, or they used a few pounds 
 belonging to their employer. For that one offence 
 they were punished with the loss of an honourable 
 position and an adequate income, which would have 
 been theirs for life. They lost their character, and 
 
 22 * 
 
324 The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 though they tried hard to be trusted again, no man 
 would trust them. Their calamities made them des- 
 perate. They were betrayed into fresh vices. Gradu- 
 ally all their self-respect perished, and whatever moral 
 energy they possessed disappeared. They had slipped 
 into a dark river whose currents were too strong for 
 them, and they have been swept on to hopeless misery 
 and shame. 
 
 And among the most honourable and prosperous 
 people living in pleasant houses by which these 
 wretched outcasts creep in their filth and rags, you 
 may find men who were guilty of precisely the same 
 offences, and who for a time seemed to be descending 
 rapidly to the same ruin. But there was a love which 
 clung to them with an agony of earnestness for their 
 salvation ; a love which shrunk from no sacrifice to 
 give them a chance of recovering all that they had 
 lost; a love which, by the tenderness of its compassion 
 and by its patience and constancy, restored to the 
 despairing heart its vanished faith in the love of God. 
 At last the victory was won, and those who seemed 
 destined to wretchedness and disgrace were restored to 
 virtue and honour. Human love fought against their 
 evil fate, and conquered it. Where — I ask again — is 
 the equality in the penalties of sin ? Where is the 
 certainty with which they are alleged to be exacted ? 
 
 In the actual condition of the world, either some 
 men suffer too much for their sin, or some men suffer 
 too little. Nor is there any reason to believe that 
 those who escape from the visible and external penal- 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 325 
 
 ties of their crimes endure an exceptional agony 
 of self-reproach. The probabilities seem to point to 
 precisely the opposite conclusion. Physical disease, 
 loss of property, public dishonour — when these come 
 upon a man as the result of his vices — often reveal to 
 him for the first time the magnitude of his guilt, and 
 his inward humiliation and self-contempt increase with 
 the increase of his external calamities. Nor, again, 
 do those whose offences are most numerous and most 
 aggravated suffer most keenly from the stings of 
 conscience. Conscience becomes feebler and feebler 
 as men continue in sin, and those who ought to feel 
 the greatest shame for wrong doing, feel the least. 
 With augmented guilt there is almost uniformly dimi- 
 nished sensibility to the moral sufferings with which 
 the consciousness of guilt ought to be followed. 
 
 The vengeance of these eternal laws, which is said 
 to be so stern and unrelenting in inflicting the com- 
 plete penalty of every transgression, appears less 
 certain and less exacting than the retributive justice 
 by which the authority of human laws is vindi- 
 cated. It is soothed and bought off by wealth. It is 
 averted by science, as the lightning is turned aside 
 by a lightning-rod from the towers of a palace or the 
 spire of a church, and buried peacefully in the earth. 
 It penetrates only by accident through disguises which 
 conceal and protect the basest crimes. It surrenders 
 to the pleadings of compassionate love those who had 
 merited the worst terrors it could inflict. All generous 
 hearts are in a perpetual confederacy — a confederacy 
 
326 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 extending through all countries, and growing in 
 strength from one generation to another — to rescue 
 the guilty from the evils with which these laws justly 
 menace them, and to alleviate the evils which have 
 come upon the guilty already. And the most terrible 
 sufferings which these laws ever inflict — the sufferings 
 produced by the sharp and vehement reproaches of 
 conscience — are felt least by the greatest offenders. 
 The theory that " sin never for an instant fails to 
 receive its desert," ^ that the full penalty of sin, 
 *' visible and invisible, to the veriest jot and tittle," 
 is always exacted, is contrary to the uniform experience 
 of the human race. 
 
 It is equally contrary to the uniform teaching both 
 of the Old Testament and the New to represent God as 
 an otiose Spectator of the moral order of the universe, 
 having no other function in relation to moral govern- 
 ment than to watch and to approve the perfect manner 
 in which rewards and penalties are distributed by self- 
 acting spiritual laws. 
 
 The ancient historical Scriptures are crowded with 
 illustrations of the energy with which He punished 
 the wrong-doing both of individuals and nations. It 
 is impossible to read these books and to suppose that 
 they were meant to teach that " self-acting " spiritual 
 laws brought a flood upon the old world, rained fire 
 upon Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed the first-born 
 of Egypt, excluded from the Land of Promise Aaron 
 I The Life and Light of Men^ page 96. 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 327 
 
 and Moses, and nearly the whole generation that 
 crossed the Red Sea. The idea throughout — what- 
 ever value may be attached to the history — is too clear 
 to be misapprehended : it was the Jewish faith that 
 God is on the side of righteousness, and that posi- 
 tive punishments are inflicted by His own hand on 
 those that sin. This was the faith of psalmists and 
 prophets. Sometimes they appeal to God's compas- 
 sion to recall the terrible ministers of His righteous 
 indignation. Sometimes they acknowledge the for- 
 bearance which delayed the execution of punishment, 
 that the sinful people might have time to repent. 
 Sometimes they warn their own countrymen and 
 heathen nations that, at last, the anger of God will 
 only be the more terrible, and the calamities it will 
 inflict the more appalling, if His long-suffering does 
 not constrain them to forsake their sin and to keep 
 God's commandments. It is a Living Person, accord- 
 ing to these ancient books, who punishes the sins 
 and rewards the righteousness of men. 
 
 The New Testament produces the same impression 
 as the Old. The theory that sin is always punished, 
 adequately punished, and instantly punished, by " self- 
 acting " spiritual laws, is in violent antagonism to the 
 teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Apostles. 
 Christ Himself said, " The Father judgeth no man " — 
 He did not give as the reason of this that " self-acting" 
 spiritual laws render the judgment of God unneces- 
 sary; He claims the authority and responsibilities of 
 judgment for Himself — **but hath committed all 
 
328 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 judgment unto the Son." ^ Instead of telling men 
 that rewards and punishments are sufficiently dis- 
 pensed by '* self-acting" spiritual laws, He speaks of 
 a time when *' the Son of man shall come in the glory 
 of His Father, with His angels ; and then He shall 
 reward every man according to his works." * St. Peter 
 placed the future judgment of the world by Christ 
 among the most elementary truths which the Apostles 
 had been appointed to proclaim : *' He commanded us 
 to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is He 
 who was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and 
 dead."^ St. Paul warned the Athenians that God 
 " hath appointed a day in which He will judge the 
 world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath 
 ordained ;"'^ and he reasoned with Felix— not about 
 " self-acting" spiritual laws — but about "judgment to 
 come." 5 In the epistles, the future judgment is ap- 
 pealed to as adding fresh solemnity to many Christian 
 duties : " Why dost thou judge thy brother ? . . . . 
 we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ:"^ 
 this was the way in which St. Paul enforced the duty 
 of mutual forbearance and toleration among Christian 
 brethren. " We must all stand before the judgment- 
 seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the things 
 done in his body, according to that he hath done, 
 whether it be good or bad : "^ the anticipation of that 
 supreme hour was one of the motives which sustained 
 St. Paul himself in the faithful and zealous discharge 
 
 I John V. 22. 2 Matt. xvi. 27. 3 Acts x. 42. 4 Ibid. xvii. 31. 
 5 Ibid. xxiv. 25. ^ Rom. xiv. 10. 7 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 329 
 
 of his apostolic ministry. When he charged Timothy 
 to " preach the word," to " be instant in season, 
 out of season ; " to " reprove, rebuke, exhort with all 
 longsuffering and doctrine," St. Paul reminded him 
 that he would have to give account to Christ of his 
 ministerial fidelity : " I charge thee before God, and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and 
 the dead at His appearing and His kingdom." ^ 
 
 We are told by the advocates of this theory that 
 ** God has no unsettled accounts, no outstanding 
 claims."* What, then, is meant by "the riches of 
 His goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering " ? ^ 
 What is meant by treasuring up " wrath against the 
 day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment 
 of God"?* What is meant by the "indignation and 
 wrath, tribulation and anguish," which are to come at 
 last "upon every soul of man that doeth evil " ? 5 
 What is the terror of that manifestation of Christ when 
 He " shall be revealed from heaven ... in flaming 
 fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
 obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ " ? ^ If 
 " self-acting " spiritual laws have already inflicted or 
 are already inflicting the complete penalty of sin, what 
 place is there for the awful solemnities of the judg- 
 ment, and for the fresh woes inflicted on the impeni- 
 tent by the terrible sentence, " Depart from Me, ye 
 cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and 
 his angels" ?7 
 
 ^ 2 Tim. iv. I. 2 T/te Life and Light of Men, pa^e 96. 
 
 . 3 Rom. ii. 4. 4 Ibid. ii. 5. 5 Ibid. ii. 8, 9. 
 
 6 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. 7 Matt. xxv. 41 . 
 
330 The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 This plausible theory, which is held vaguely by very 
 many who have never elaborated it into a definite 
 philosophical form, and which is exerting a wide and 
 most mischievous influence on modern theological 
 thought, rests on the ambiguity of the word "Law." 
 
 There are ethical laws, and there are laws of nature : 
 laws which ask for the free and loyal obedience of the 
 will, and laws which are illustrated by the unvarying 
 sequence of antecedents and consequents in spheres 
 from which freedom is excluded. 
 
 What may be described as the structural laws of the 
 moral and spiritual life of man are of the second kind. 
 The alternative of obedience and transgression is never 
 submitted to our choice. Sin is invariably followed by 
 a deterioration of our moral and spiritual nature. By 
 repeated acts of transgression evil habits are invariably 
 strengthened. Evil passions acquire constant acces- 
 sions of energy if they are not controlled. By wrong- 
 doing we become less able to discriminate between 
 good and evil, and those forces of our nature which 
 refuse to listen to the voice of duty are strengthened 
 in their revolt ; the sensibility of conscience is di- 
 minished, and the authority of conscience is impaired. 
 In other words, the more we sin, the harder it becomes 
 to forsake sin. These laws are in a very true sense 
 *' self-acting." They are precisely analogous to the 
 laws of our physical organisation, and to the laws of 
 the material universe, and to the laws which belong to 
 the province of political economy and of sociology. "De- 
 fender or avenger they have none, and they need none." 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 331 
 
 The laws of hydrostatics are never violated. If the 
 w^alls of a great reservoir are built of sufficient strength 
 to resist the pressure of several hundred thousand tons 
 of water, those laws ensure the safety of the houses 
 which lie near. If the walls are not strong enough to 
 resist the pressure, the reservoir bursts, and the houses 
 are destroyed. In the second case, it is not the laws of 
 hydrostatics that are violated by the engineer whose 
 mistake is the occasion of the calamity ; it is not his 
 business either to obey or to transgress them ; from 
 him they can ask nothing, and can receive nothing. 
 The laws which he has violated are laws of a very dif- 
 ferent kind — laws which are in no sense " self-acting." 
 He ought to have carefully calculated the pressure of 
 the water; he ought to have estimated the compara- 
 tive strength of sloping and of perpendicular walls in 
 bearing the pressure; he ought to have determined 
 whether the strength of the reservoir was proportioned 
 to its depth ; he ought to have taken care that the 
 material of which the walls were constructed was of a 
 kind to resist the action of water and frost. These 
 laws are not ** self-acting." He was at liberty to violate 
 them, and his violation of them caused all the destruc- 
 tion of life and property which came from the cata- 
 strophe he might have averted. To confound the laws 
 which the engineer ought to obey, but which he some- 
 times transgresses, with the laws of nature, which are 
 absolutely uniform in their operation, is an error pre- 
 cisely similar to that into which Dr. Young has been 
 betrayed, and which is the foundation of his theory. 
 
332 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 The laws of hydrostatics ''execute themselves, without 
 the formalities of an inquiry — without the intervention 
 of a judge." But those other laws which the engineer 
 violated require vindication. The penalty which he 
 deserves, if he has been guilty of culpable negligence, 
 does not descend upon him at once : sometimes it does not 
 appear to descend upon him at all. The physical results 
 of his carelessness or ignorance come upon innocent vic- 
 tims. He may be in another country, beyond the reach of 
 public indignation. He may be dead. If the causes of 
 the accident are investigated, the verdict may be false, 
 or human laws may have no power to punish him. 
 
 Obvious and simple as is the distinction which I am 
 trying to make clear, some additional illustration may 
 be necessary. If a studious man works too long at his 
 books, or a statesman at his desk, and takes no exercise, 
 it is not the laws of nature which are violated. Those 
 laws retain an undisturbed authority and power. In 
 due time his heart becomes feeble and his brain 
 sluggish. His appetite fails, and he is unable to sleep. 
 The laws which make these consequences of his way of 
 living absolutely certain are "self-acting;" they are 
 laws which he can neither obey nor transgress. The 
 laws which are violated are of another kind. L he 
 desires to be in health, he ought to play as well as 
 work; he ought to take sufficient sleep, and take it 
 regularly ; he ought to walk, run, jump, or ride. These 
 laws are not " self-acting : " if they were, no student or 
 statesman would die of brain disease or heart disease 
 through violating them. A man may obey them or not 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins, 333 
 
 as he pleases. There are times when it is a clear duty not 
 to obey them, — when the exigencies of the public ser- 
 vice, or the interests of science, or the claims of children, 
 create an obligation to protracted and excessive labour, 
 even at the cost of incurring painful disease and at the 
 risk of sinking into a premature grave. 
 
 In the same way, the laws of political economy are 
 ** self-acting." If a government imposes protective 
 duties it fetters the development of industry and makes 
 the nation poorer. Whether the nation likes it or not, 
 this is the inevitable result. There may be reasons 
 which justify a government in saying that higher ends 
 than national wealth require these duties to be main- 
 tained. But the law which requires the government to 
 repeal these duties when they are imposed simply in 
 the interest of a powerful class is not *' self-acting: " it 
 needs very vigorous defenders. It may be resisted until 
 there is danger of revolution. 
 
 The sociological law that in states where political 
 power is vested in the great masses of the people, 
 popular ignorance is a perpetual menace to public se- 
 curity, and will certainly entail great public evils, is 
 another law which is " self-acting ; " but the law which 
 requires the government to institute an effective and 
 universal system of popular education is a law of 
 another kind. It needs the voluntary concurrence of 
 those who ought to obey it ; its authority may be 
 defied until the opportunity of saving the nation is lost 
 for ever ; the results of disobedience may descend on 
 the innocent instead of the guilty. 
 
334 ^^^^ Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 Dr. Young's theory ignores the difference between 
 the laws which ought to guide, but which often fail to 
 guide the conduct of persons, and the laws which deter- 
 mine the sequence of phenomena ; between ethical 
 laws and those laws which in every sphere of man's 
 individual and social life, from the lowest to the 
 highest, are the same in kind as the laws of the 
 physical universe. These latter laws — laws of nature 
 they may be called — require no ''defender;" for they 
 cannot be attacked ; no " avenger," for they can never 
 be insulted ; no " vindication," for they uniformly 
 assert their authority without the concurrence of the 
 will. But ethical laws are simply imperative, and they 
 may be defied and disobeyed. It is a law that men 
 should be truthful, just, kindly, and devout ; but large 
 numbers of men are untruthful, unjust, cruel, and pro- 
 fane. 
 
 If it be said that ethical laws are " self-acting " 
 because disobedience is always followed by an adequate 
 penalty, this is no reason for classifying them with 
 natural laws, disobedience to which is impossible. 
 Nor can the penalty — supposing it to be invariably 
 exacted — which follows the transgression of an ethical 
 law be alleged as a proof that the law is " self-acting." 
 The law requires a man to tell the truth : it cannot be 
 said that this law is obeyed because if a man lies he 
 suffers for it. In the very act of suffering, his revolt 
 against the authority of the law may become more 
 violent. 
 
 The precepts of ethical law are not *' self-acting ; " 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 335 
 
 they require the free concurrence of the human will, 
 and the human will may determine to resist them. 
 Nor has it been proved that the penalties of ethical 
 law are " self-acting; " they may require the free con- 
 currence of the Divine will: and it seems possible at 
 least that the Divine will may determine to remit them. 
 It is admitted that when ethical laws are violated 
 the violation should be avenged by adequate penalties. 
 These penalties, as I have already endeavoured to 
 show, are not instantaneous. Nor in this life do they 
 appear to be either certain or sufficient. There are 
 indications of a vast confederacy of most varied 
 forces on the side of righteousness. But either the 
 organisation of these friendly powers is incomplete, 
 or their resources are inadequate, or their action is 
 restrained by the control of a supreme authority; 
 or else it was never meant that they should inva- 
 riably exact the complete penalty due to the violation 
 of ethical laws. Whatever the explanation may be, 
 the complete penalty '* to the veriest jot and tittle " is 
 not immediately inflicted. The theory which affirms 
 that it is, breaks down. Some more coherent argu- 
 ment is necessary before we surrender the hope to 
 which the hearts of men have clung in all ages, that it 
 is possible to escape from the penalties of wrong-doing. 
 Nothing that this theory contains can cause us to 
 hesitate in receiving the declaration of Christ's infinite 
 love, that He came into the world and died on the cross 
 in order that the Remission of sins might be actually 
 conferred upon us. 
 
33^ The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 The exigencies of what is called the " moral theory " 
 of the Atonement have led some of its advocates to 
 impose upon the phrase "the Remission of sins "a sense 
 foreign to all the usages of language. The true idea of 
 Remission, though not suppressed, is relegated to a 
 position of insignificance, and the Remission of sins is 
 made to include as its chief element another blessing 
 of a different order. Forgiveness may include some- 
 thing more than the cancelling of guilt, if guilt is 
 defined to be "liability to punishment on account of 
 sin," ^ and orthodox theologians may have given an in- 
 complete and unsatisfactory account of this wonderful 
 and transcendent blessing; but when Dr. Bushnell 
 says that " in discussing the great question how it is 
 that God forgives," we are discussing how it is that 
 He "accomplishes the restoration of fallen character," 
 and when he says that these two questions are the 
 " same," ^ he confounds two inquiries which have been 
 always recognized as distinct, not only by theologians, 
 but by the indestructible instincts of human nature; 
 and he imposes oii the language of Christ and His 
 Apostles concerning the Remission of sins a sense which 
 the language was never intended to convey. 
 
 That the Remission of sins, if it stood alone, would 
 
 leave us unsaved, is one of the commonplaces of 
 
 Christian theology; but it does not follow that the 
 
 Remission of sins includes the blessings which are 
 
 necessary to complete our salvation, or is to be 
 
 I " Obligatio ad poenam ex peccato." — Turretin : Institutio 
 TheologicE Elencticce, vol. i. 654, note. 
 2 The Vicarious Sacrifice. First (London) edition, page 245, 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 337 
 
 confounded with them. So long as the human heart 
 is conscious of a twofold misery — the misery of being 
 under the Divine condemnation, and the misei;^y of 
 being under the tyranny of evil habits which it 
 cannot throw off, and of evil passions which it can- 
 not subdue — it will passionately cry for a twofold 
 deliverance. It is one thing to receive the Divine 
 pardon, it is another to recover the Divine image. The 
 first is the initial grace granted to the penitent sinner, 
 the second is the glory of the perfected saint. That in 
 the Divine order the forgiveness of sin, when sin is first 
 confessed and forsaken, is always associated with the 
 new birth in which the life of God is given to man, the 
 ,life which is ultimately revealed in the consummate 
 energy and beauty of moral and spiritual character, is 
 not only true ; it is so true that their inseparable asso- 
 ciation as the two great elements of the Christian re- 
 demption has been asserted, in varying forms indeed, 
 but with unbroken unanimity and with strenuous 
 earnestness, by the theologians and preachers of every 
 Church, of every country, and of every age. They 
 always go together ; but they go together, and they are 
 not the same. 
 
 Dr. Bushnell identifies or confounds them because he 
 regards the Remission of sins, in the strict sense, as a 
 blessing of no considerable value. Remission, he says, 
 " both in Greek and English, is a popular word, which 
 signifies in common speech Siletting go; that is, a letting 
 go of blame, a consenting to raise no impeachment 
 farther, and to have all wounded feeling dismissed. . . . 
 
 23 
 
33^ The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 It is only a kind of formality, or verbal discharge, that 
 carries practically no discharge at all. It says * go,' 
 but leaves the prison doors shut." ^ It is true that when 
 a man has a vivid apprehension of what sin really is, 
 he desires the Divine forgiveness, not only for its own 
 sake, but because until he receives it the power of the 
 Divine life cannot be revealed in him and he cannot be 
 redeemed from moral and spiritual evil. It is not true, 
 however, that the whole misery of a sinful man's con- 
 dition lies within the sphere of his own moral and 
 spiritual nature, and that the Remission of sins in the 
 proper sense of the words is " only a kind of formality." 
 Only ** a kind of formality ! " It is no wonder that 
 the awful reality of the propitiation for the sins of the 
 world is denied, when the Remission of sins is declared 
 to be nothing more than this. For a mere " formality " 
 it would not have been worth while for Christ to die. 
 
 The Remission of sins is regarded as *' a kind of 
 formality " only because it is believed that in no sense 
 is God hostile to those whose sins are unforgiven, and 
 because the Divine " wrath " is supposed to be a mere 
 figure of speech. Perhaps the principal origin of the 
 modern tendency to reject the idea of an objective 
 Atonement is to be found in that temper of mind which 
 indisposes us to believe that there is any anger against 
 sinful men in the heart of God to be allayed, and in 
 that conception of His character which excludes the 
 possibility of His being hostile even to those who are 
 guilty of the worst offences. It is partly because sin 
 ' T^ Vicarious Sacrifice^ pp. 359, 360. 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins, 339 
 
 does not provoke our own wrath that we do not believe 
 that sin provokes the wrath of God. It appears to be 
 one of the results of modern civilisation that men are 
 very rarely kindled to fiery passion of any kind. This 
 is perhaps especially true of modern Englishmen. 
 Neither in love nor in hatred, neither in admiration nor 
 in anger, are we so intense and vehement as some other 
 races. We take fire slowly, and though we are capable, 
 in time and under favourable circumstances, of great 
 heat, the heat is mostly without much flame. The cold- 
 ness which perhaps belongs to our blood is increased 
 by ooir education and by national sentiment. To our 
 great injury all strong emotion is discouraged. We are 
 rather ashamed to let it be seen that we feel strongly 
 about anything. One of the great things to be desired 
 for ourselves as a nation — one of the great things to be 
 desired just now for all the nations of Christendom — is 
 that we should love more fervently all that is lovable, 
 hate with an intenser hatred all that deserves to be 
 hated, admire with a franker and less critical admira- 
 tion whatever is admirable, and despise and scorn more 
 heartily what is mean, despicable, and base.'' 
 
 But apart from the general sluggishness of our pas- 
 sions, there are other and deeper reasons v^^hy we are 
 not often indignant at sin. Sin does not seem to us a 
 very evil thing. We have become accustomed to it. 
 We have learnt to tolerate it. When our personal 
 interests or the interests of those we love are injured, 
 when our pride and vanity are wounded, we occasionally 
 become hot ; but we are rarely filled with wrath against 
 
 23* 
 
340 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 men simply because they have done wrong. Unless we 
 are in some way made to suffer by their sin, or unless 
 there is something flagrant and tragic in its circum- 
 stances, our pulses are not stirred. 
 
 We cannot help remembering our own sinfulness, 
 and this checks our indignation. Who are we, that 
 we should be angry with our brother because he has 
 broken God's law ? In condemning him, we con- 
 demn ourselves. 
 
 Perhaps, too, the man who has sinned struggled long 
 against temptation, and was at last surprised into 
 wrong-doing when he was weary of struggling, and 
 when his watchfulness was relaxed. Already he may 
 be suffering shame and remorse, and the good that is 
 in him, and which was suppressed for a moment, may 
 be recovering its ascendency. It is not for us to let 
 our anger burn against him, but to strengthen him with 
 our sympathy and love.^ 
 
 Such thoughts as these almost always come to us 
 when we meet with particular cases of wrong-doing. 
 They form us to the habit of regarding those who are 
 guilty of sin with a feeling very different from indigna- 
 tion. We think of whatever palliates the crime and 
 lessens the responsibility of the criminal. We hope 
 that in the worst man the love of goodness has not 
 altogether perished, and we instinctively take sides 
 with his better nature against all that is evil and 
 hateful in him. 
 
 ^ See Paley's charming passage on the Sedatives of Anger. 
 Moral Philosophy J book iii. chap. 6. 
 
viTi.] The Remission of Sins, 341 
 
 But sometimes this habit of hopefulness and charity 
 gives way. The fire breaks out, and is not to be 
 quenched. When a man who knows better, lies to our 
 face, lies deliberately, and lies persistently ; when a man 
 in a position of great trust, and who ought never even 
 to have felt a temptation to dishonesty, is proved to 
 have been guilty of elaborate fraud, of fraud extending 
 through many years, during which he was affecting to 
 be chivalrously honourable ; when cruel suffering is 
 inflicted in our presence on the weak and the defence- 
 less — then the fury long suppressed blazes out. No 
 words are fierce enough to express our passionate 
 indignation, and for a moment, or for an hour, we 
 know something of what it is for wrath to be kindled 
 against sin. The feeling is a right one. We are angry, 
 and sin not. We should sin if we were not angry. 
 We sin because we are not angry in this way oftener. 
 
 Anger provoked by moral evil is a just and noble 
 emotion. It is the attribute of the strongest and most 
 generous natures. Both in the Old Testament and the 
 New it is very frequently ascribed to God, and the re- 
 velation of God in Christ would have been incomplete 
 if the indignation of Christ had never been provoked by 
 the sins of men. He came, indeed, to reveal the Divine 
 love and compassion for our race ; but on one occasion 
 the malignant spirit of the Scribes and Pharisees pro- 
 voked His anger, though the Evangelist who tells the 
 story adds immediately that He was ''grieved for the 
 hardness of their hearts;'" and after He had wept 
 ^ Mark iii. 5. 
 
342 The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 over Jerusalem, as He looked upon it across the valley 
 of the Kedron from the Mount of Olives, He went into 
 the city, and in vehement words denounced its crimes 
 and predicted its destruction. Grief and anger, tears 
 and indignant threatenings — we must include them all 
 in a complete conception of what Christ revealed con- 
 cerning God's thoughts of human sin. 
 
 That God is incapable of the groundless irritation 
 and unreasonable passion of which we are sometimes 
 guilty, needs no proof. He is equally incapable of 
 looking upon sin without displeasure; and sin unre- 
 pented of and unforsaken provokes not mere displea- 
 sure, but wrath — wrath which will some day be revealed 
 in all its terrible and fiery energy. From this wrath 
 Christ came to save us. We are exposed to it no 
 longer when we receive Remission of sins. To speak 
 of the Remission of sins as '* a kind of formality " is to 
 disparage ** the exceeding riches " of that grace through 
 which those who are " children of wrath " escape their 
 doom, and become the heirs of immortal blessedness 
 and glory. 
 
 Although the temper of our times makes it difficult 
 for us to believe that the anger of God against sin, 
 and against those that are guilty of sin, can ever 
 become " a consuming fire," it is perhaps easier for 
 us to believe that He is angry with the sinful and 
 the impenitent than to believe that, in any real sense, 
 He is hostile to them. Anger within certain limits is 
 not inconsistent with love. Indeed, the measure of 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins, 343 
 
 our love for others is often the measure of our anger 
 against them when they do w^rong. A comparative 
 stranger may tell us a lie, and we may feel nothing 
 but contempt and disgust ; but if our own child, or a 
 friend for whom we have strong affection, tells us 
 a lie, there is often intense anger as well as intense 
 grief. That God should be angry with us though He 
 loves us, is perfectly intelligible ; and we may even find 
 it possible to believe that His anger may at last become 
 so great, that if it were revealed, the revelation would 
 utterly consume and destroy us. That He should be 
 hostile to men on account of sin, is not so easy to 
 believe ; but unless we believe it we must suppress 
 and reject a large part of the teaching of the New 
 Testament. God has a great love for mankind. This 
 is the central truth which has given light and glory 
 to the long succession of His supernatural revelations 
 to our race. It has received its highest proof and 
 illustration in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the blessings which 
 God has conferred upon mankind in Him. . For 
 eighteen centuries the Church has proclaimed this 
 truth, with unequal earnestness, but with a firm 
 and invincible faith. The gloomiest theological sys- 
 tems have never been able altogether to obscure its 
 brightness. In the coldest ages it has kindled the 
 most fervent passion in the hearts of saints ; in ages 
 of general intellectual depression it has given in- 
 spiration to poets, and has lighted up the fires of a 
 glorious eloquence. But to deny that He can be 
 
344 ^^^ Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 hostile to men on account of sin, is to emasculate 
 and degrade our conception of Him. He is not a 
 mere " good-natured " God. His righteousness as well 
 as His love is infinite. 
 
 Take a case: — You have a child who is the light 
 and joy of your home ; her voice is sweeter to you 
 than any music, and her face is fairer and brighter 
 than a summer's morning. Her thoughts are as pure 
 as mountain air ; her life is as stainless as mountain 
 snow. She is on the threshold of womanhood, and 
 the very flower and perfection of her loveliness and 
 beauty have come. And a wretch, whose crime 
 human language has no terms black enough to de- 
 scribe, and human laws no punishment terrible 
 enough to avenge — deliberately, by hypocrisy, by lying, 
 by a deep - laid scheme, worked out with elaborate 
 cruelty — betrays her trust, ruins her virtue, and then 
 flings her from him on to the streets of a strange city. 
 He has no compunction for his crime. If the op- 
 portunity comes to him again he will repeat it. Tell 
 me now — What ought to be God's relation to such a 
 man as that ? Ought God to be at peace with him ? 
 God forbid ! If He were, there would be no justice 
 in the universe. My hope and strength and consola- 
 tion in the presence of such a crime as this, come from 
 the certainty that wherever that man goes, under what- 
 ever disguises he may live, whatever his wealth may 
 be, whatever his rank, he is pursued by One who is 
 the relentless enemy of his sin — and who will be his 
 relentless enemy if he will not renounce his sin — an 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins, 345 
 
 enemy from whose grasp he cannot escape, whose 
 strength he cannot resist, and whose justice and wrath, 
 if he does not repent, will inflict upon him an awful 
 penalty. Even to the worst of men indeed God 
 manifests patience and longsuffering. The Divine 
 mercy clings to them while there is any hope, and 
 endeavours to redeem them. It is better, infinitely 
 better, that they should repent than that they should 
 suffer. But the Divine hostility becomes more intense 
 as the Divine grace is resisted, and if they refuse 
 to repent they are treasuring up unto themselves 
 "wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the 
 righteous judgment of God." 
 
 An extreme case does but illustrate the real nature 
 of the sin that is in all of us, and of God's antagonism 
 to it. The sin may not be developed in a gross form ; 
 it may not be of a kind to startle our own conscience ; 
 it may not bring upon us the strong condemnation of 
 other men ; but God cannot endure sin in any form. 
 In the vast and awful conflict between righteousness 
 and sin, which gives tragic interest to the history of 
 the universe, God is irrevocably on the side of righteous- 
 ness, and on the side of those who are striving to be 
 righteous. But for the transcendent work of mercy 
 consummated by Christ on Calvary, God would be not 
 only hostile to sin, but hostile to those who take sides 
 with sin, from the first moment of their revolt against 
 the eternal law of righteousness. For sin is a personal 
 act; it has no existence apart from the sinner. < 
 
 But it was one of the chief elements of the apostolic 
 
34^ The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 gospel that in and through Christ God is ready to he 
 at peace with us. In a very true sense He is at peace 
 with us already. His hostility to our sins has received 
 adequate expression in the Death of Christ, and now 
 He is ready to confer on us the Remission of sins for 
 Christ's sake. The Remission of sins is something 
 more than "a kind of formality." It brings to the 
 man who has received it a sure and permanent 
 escape from the hostility and the wrath of God. 
 
 To reassert the austere truths on which I have felt 
 it my duty to insist in this Lecture, and in speaking 
 of which I have, perhaps, lost the calmness of the 
 lecturer in the vehemence of the preacher, is one of 
 the most urgent duties of these times. Until they are 
 restored to their original place in the thought and faith 
 of the Church, the Death of Christ, as an Atonement 
 for the sins of the world, will never awaken in our 
 hearts the wonder and awe and passionate gratitude 
 with which it filled the hearts of saints in former 
 centuries ; our theory of the Atonement will be im- 
 poverished, and what remains of it will rest on no 
 sure and firm foundation. While these truths are 
 relegated to obscurity and silence, even if they are not 
 consciously and avowedly rejected, we shall not be 
 likely to have much success in preaching the gospel. 
 
 It is of no avail for us to plead that we have an in- 
 vincible reluctance to speak of them, and that they are 
 too awful for contemplation, even in our silent and 
 solitary thought. We are under the most solemn 
 
viii.] The Remission of Sins. 347 
 
 obligation to receive ourselves, and to make known to 
 others, whatever God has revealed concerning the con- 
 dition and destiny of our race. To refuse to consider 
 the terrible penalties which menace those who have not 
 received the remission of sins, will lessen the urgency 
 of our solicitude for their eternal redemption ; and if 
 we fail to warn them that while they persist in their 
 impenitence and unbelief they are exposed to "indigna- 
 tion and wrath, tribulation and anguish," we cannot 
 clear ourselves of responsibility for their eternal per- 
 dition. 
 
 Nor is it of any avail to plead that to tell men they 
 have provoked the Divine hostility and the Divine 
 wrath, is likely to repel them from Christ, rather 
 than to attract them to Him. We are bound to 
 tell them the real facts — concealing nothing, alle- 
 viating nothing. Christ Himself is responsible for 
 the revelation He has made to our race. To im- 
 prove upon it, to suppress what we think is likely 
 to provoke resentment ; to insist incessantly on what 
 we think is likely to conciliate, is no part of our duty. 
 It is for us to " use great plainness of speech," " not 
 walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God 
 deceitfully." 
 
 I, too, believe that the great function of the Church 
 is to make known the infinite love of God as revealed 
 through Christ, and the greatness and glory of the 
 Christian salvation. But Christ did not come to tell 
 men that they had incurred no guilt by their revolt 
 against God's authority, or that their guilt exposed 
 
34^ The Remission of Sins, [lect. 
 
 them to no penal sufferings in the world to come, or 
 that in this world God regarded them with no anger. 
 If the guilt had not been great, the Remission of sins 
 which He died to obtain for us would have been an 
 inconsiderable blessing ; if the penalties which He 
 professed to avert were unreal, there would be no 
 reason for being grateful to Him for deliverance from 
 them ; if there had been no righteous anger in the heart 
 of God, the propitiation which He made for the sins of 
 the world would have had no significance or value. One 
 of the chief reasons why men do not trust in Christ to 
 save them, is that they do not believe that there is 
 anything from which they need to be saved. 
 
 Nor is it of any avail to plead that if men can be 
 made conscious of sin, and of their need of redemption 
 from sin, it is unnecessary to provoke their antagonism 
 by speaking of the terrors which threaten the im- 
 penitent. Antagonism ! Is it true that impenitence 
 justly deserves God's anger and hostility, and will be 
 justly punished with the pains of the second death ? If 
 it is, then this antagonism involves guilt; it arises 
 from an inadequate apprehension of the evil of sin ; so 
 long as it continues there is revolt against the eternal 
 Law of Righteousness; latent revolt — if through sup- 
 pression of the truth concerning the Divine hostility and 
 wrath, and the future penalties of sin, the antagonism 
 is not provoked ; active revolt — if the truth produces 
 resentment, and is rejected as inconsistent with the 
 character of God. 
 
 If it is true that a sinful man needs the Remission of 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins. 349 
 
 sins, as well as strength to sin no more, and if the Re- 
 mission of sins is no mere " formality," but a wonderful 
 manifestation of the Divine mercy, to be received with 
 devout joy and immeasurable gratitude; then, while 
 guilt is implicitly denied, though moral and spiritual 
 weakness is acknowledged, there is an unsettled contro- 
 versy between man and God, and until this controversy 
 is terminated, there can be no real reconciliation. 
 
 Perhaps we have not sufficiently considered that it is 
 possible for men to " hunger and thirst after righteous- 
 ness," and yet to ignore the authority of God ; possible 
 for them to confess that He is supreme, and yet never 
 to identify Him with that ideal Law which they know 
 they have violated, and which they now want to fulfil. 
 They desire moral and spiritual excellence very much 
 as they might desire physical vigour and beauty, or 
 large and varied intellectual accomplishments. They 
 do not recognize the Divine authority, they care only 
 for the perfection of their own nature. If they appeal 
 to God, they do not think of Him as One who has a 
 right to require them to do His will ; they only rely 
 upon His mighty and merciful aid to enable them to 
 be loyal to their own conscience, and to achieve the 
 ideal sanctity which haunts their imagination and has 
 won their hearts. They think of Him as having a 
 fulness of moral and spiritual life from which they may 
 receive inspiration and strength, but they do no homage 
 to His awful sovereignty. It is not His law they have 
 transgressed ; it is not His law they want to obey. It 
 is His only as it is theirs — His, only because He acknow- 
 
350 The Remission of Sins. [lect. 
 
 ledges, as they acknowledge, that it is holy, just, and 
 good. His most august prerogative — the character- 
 istic prerogative of Deity — has never been revealed to 
 them. The awe with which they would regard Him, if 
 they had discovered that to violate the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness is to sin against Him, and that therefore 
 it belongs to God, as it can belong to none besides, to 
 grant Remission of sins, they have never felt. They 
 yield Him reverence, but they withhold worship. There 
 is a homage due to God, different in kind as well as in 
 degree from that which can be given to any of His 
 creatures. It is the homage, transferred to a living 
 Person, which the conscience offers to the authority of 
 the eternal Law of Righteousness. The refusal to offer 
 it is often the last expression of man's revolt against 
 God ; it is encouraged and confirmed by a theology 
 which maintains that salvation consists exclusively in 
 deliverance from sinfulness, and which fails to assert 
 with equal earnestness and energy the necessity of 
 the Remission of sins. 
 
 Will it be urged that to excite the fears of men by 
 dwelling on the wrath of God and on the terrors of per- 
 dition, is to condescend to appeal to their coarser pas- 
 sions, and to do dishonour to the spiritual dignity of 
 the Christian faith ? I am conscious of no '* condescen- 
 sion " when I appeal to the same elements of human 
 nature to which Christ appealed when He warned men 
 of " the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not 
 quenched ; " and when He said that " the Son of man 
 shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of 
 
VIII.] The Remission of Sins, 351 
 
 His kingdom all things that offend and them which do 
 iniquity, and shall cast them in a furnace of fire : there 
 shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." I am conscious 
 of doing no dishonour to the spiritual dignity of the 
 Christian faith when, with St. Paul, I give God thanks 
 for the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, who delivers us 
 from the wrath to come. 
 
 To proclaim the Remission of sins, as well as to make 
 known the power and grace by which sinful men may 
 recover the image of God, was one of the chief duties of 
 the Apostles, and it is one of the chief duties of the 
 Church in every age. To deny the possibility of Remis- 
 sion, to depreciate its value, is to " pervert the gospel 
 of Christ." 
 
 In the remaining Lectures I have to attempt to illus- 
 trate the relation between the Death of Christ and this 
 great act of the Divine mercy. Whether the attempt 
 fails or succeeds, I trust that the argument of the pre- 
 ceding Lectures may enable some to repeat with a 
 more earnest faith the article of the ancient creed, *' I 
 believe in . . . the forgiveness of sins," and to look 
 back with more devout wonder and more fervent grati- 
 tude upon that mysterious Sacrifice by which the for- 
 giveness of sins was secured for us. 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 THE THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT: 
 ILLUSTRATED BY THE RELATION OF OUR LORD 
 JESUS CHRIST TO THE ETERNAL LAW OF 
 RIGHTE US NESS . 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 THE THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT : ILLUSTRATED BY 
 THE RELATION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST TO THE 
 ETERNAL LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 
 
 WE are now free to resume the investigation which 
 was arrested by the theory discussed in the 
 last Lecture. The Remission of sins is possible. Can 
 we discover why it is that the Remission of sins is 
 granted to men on the ground of the Death of Christ ? 
 
 It may be thought that a simple and direct reply to 
 this question is given by the representations of the 
 Death of Christ contained in the New Testament. 
 Christ gave His life as a " ransom " for us ; and there- 
 fore we are emancipated from all the evils which we 
 had incurred by sin. Christ *'bare our sins," "died for 
 our sins," " died for us," as an innocent man, if this 
 were possible, might take upon himself the guilt of a 
 criminal, and die in his place ; and, therefore, the 
 penalties of our sin are remitted. Christ is the 
 " Propitiation for our sins ; " and, therefore. He has 
 allayed the Divine anger, so that God, for His sake, 
 is willing to forgive us. 
 
 But these representations of the Death of Christ as 
 a Ransom, as a Vicarious Death, as a Propitiation, 
 though they illustrate the cause of His sufferings and 
 
 24 * 
 
35^ The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 their effect, and contain all that is necessary for faith 
 do not constitute a theory. As they stand, they are 
 not consistent with each other. For a good citizen 
 to bear the punishment of a convicted criminal, is one 
 thing ; for a generous philanthropist to pay the ransom 
 of a slave, is a different thing ; for a friend or a relative 
 of a man who has done wrong to propitiate the anger 
 of a powerful superior, is a different thing again. In 
 the first case the intervention is intended to meet the 
 claims of criminal law; m the second, to purchase 
 what can be estimated at a definite money value ; in 
 the third, to soothe wounded feeling. The fundamental 
 principles on which we should have to construct our 
 whole theory of the value and efficacy of the Death 
 of Christ wOuld vary, as we adopted the first or the 
 second or the third of these illustrations as containing 
 adequate account of the Atonement. 
 
 Nor is it possible by any rough process of combina- 
 tion to work these heterogeneous illustrations of the 
 great fact into a coherent conception of it. A slave- 
 holder who receives a ransom as the condition of 
 liberating his slave is not propitiated ; he ma}^ have 
 no resentment that needs propitiation ; he is paid the 
 commercial value of his property. When there is 
 righteous anger against a base and ungrateful action, 
 it cannot be soothed by anything that has the nature 
 of the money payment which purchases the freedom 
 of a slave ; nor could righteous anger be propitiated 
 by the infliction of pain on the innocent instead of the 
 wrong-doer. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 357 
 
 There are difficulties of another kind in trying to 
 construct a theory on the lines of any of these illus- 
 trations. If the Death of Christ is sttfposed^o receive 
 its-fuM interpretation- wfe^flh-deseribed as a Ransom, to 
 whom was the Ransom paid ? Was it paid, as some 
 of the Fathers supposed, to the devil ? That hypothe- 
 sis is revolting. Was it paid to God Himself ? That 
 hypothesis is incoherent ; God Himself provided the 
 Ransom, He could not pay it to Himself; and when 
 we are redeemed, we do not cease to be under the 
 power of God, for we become His in a deeper sense 
 than we were before. Was it paid by Christ to rescue 
 us from the power of the Father ? That hypothesis is 
 intolerable ; there is no schism in the Godhead; " God , 
 commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were 
 yet sinners Christ died for us." Was the Ransom paid 
 by the Divine mercy to the Divine justice ? That 
 hypothesis is mere rhetoric. Was it paid by God to 
 the ideal Law of Righteousness which we had of- 
 fended? Criminal law knows nothing of ransoms, and 
 a ransom cannot be paid to an idea. 
 
 If, again, the nature of the Death of Christ is sup- 
 posed to be completely expressed when it is represented 
 as a Propitiation, new difficulties emerge, and some of 
 the same difficulties reappear in a new form. How 
 can the incidents of propitiation, as known among our- 
 selves, assist us to understand a propitiation which 
 originates with the injured person ? Or are we to con- 
 ceive of God as working down His resentment by 
 suffering for us, and so propitiating Himself? ^ Or are 
 
 I See Dr. Bushnell : Forgiveness and Law^ page 41, seq. 
 
358 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 we to think of Christ as being filled with compas- 
 sion, and subduing the wrath of the Father by the 
 perfection of His obedience and the urgency of His 
 intercession ? 
 
 If we adopt the remaining illustration, and attempt 
 to construct a theory of the Death of Christ on the 
 hypothesis that it corresponded to what would occur in 
 the administration of human justice if some illustrious 
 man, as conspicuous for his virtue and public services 
 as for his rank, died as a substitute for a number of 
 obscure persons who had been guilty of treason, we are 
 confronted at once by an objection which admits of no 
 reply. Such a substitution could not be admitted. It 
 would be contrary to the principle of justice, and in 
 the highest degree injurious to the state. 
 
 These illustrations of the nature and effect of the 
 Death of Christ are illustrations, and nothing more. 
 They are analogous to the transcendent fact only at 
 single points. The fact is absolutely unique. The 
 problem before us is to form some conception of the 
 Death of Christ which shall naturally account for all 
 these various representations of it ; and no solution of 
 the problem is to be found by attempting to translate 
 these representations^ derived from transient human 
 institutions and from the mutual relations of men, into 
 the Divine and eternal sphere to which this great Mys- 
 tery belongs. The administration of human justice is at 
 the best imperfect, and can never closely correspond to 
 the Divine government of the moral universe ; and the 
 mutual relations of men can never be accepted as ade- 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 359 
 
 quately illustrating the relations between God and our- 
 selves.'^ 
 
 The descriptions of the Death of Christ in the New 
 Testament, as a Sacrifice, a Propitiation, a Ransom, are 
 of infinite practical value; but we misapprehend the 
 true principles and methods and aims of theological 
 science if we make these descriptions the basis of a 
 theory of the Atonement. They constitute the autho- 
 ritative tests of the accuracy of a theory. A theory 
 is false if it does not account for and explain these de- 
 scriptions. But to construct a theory we must put 
 these descriptions aside, and consider the Death of 
 Christ itself, in its real relations to God and to man. A 
 theory — worth calling a theory — must rest immediately 
 on the foundation of fact. For the facts we may have 
 to rely, partly or altogether, on testimony. Even the 
 most distinguished scientific inquirers are constantly 
 obliged to build their theories on observations and ex- 
 periments which they have not made or verified for 
 themselves, but which they receive on the testimony of 
 others. But though facts may be ascertained by testi- 
 mony, the relation between facts and theories must be 
 direct. We must endeavour to arrive at our theory of 
 the Atonement by an investigation of the Death by 
 which it is alleged that Atonement has been effected. 
 If our theory contains a true account of the Death of 
 Christ, all the forms under which it is represented in 
 the New Testament will be illustrated and explained. 
 
 Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself declared that His 
 
360 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 blood was to be " shed for the remission of sins." Can 
 we discover anything in His Death which promises to 
 throw Hght on its expiatory power ? 
 
 There are three considerations which invest the 
 Death of Christ with unique and tragic interest. 
 
 1. It was the Death of the Son of God, of God 
 manifest in the flesh. 
 
 2. It was a voluntary Death. He came into the 
 world to die. He declared that He laid down His life 
 by His own free will, and that no man could take it 
 from Him. 
 
 3. Immediately before His Death He was forsaken 
 of God. When we remember the original glory in 
 which He dwelt with the Father, His faultless perfec- 
 tion, and His unbroken communion with the Father 
 during His life on earth, this is a great and awful 
 mystery. That sinful men, even though they have 
 been transformed into saints, should sometimes lose 
 the sense of the Divine presence and the Divine love, 
 is explicable ; but how was it that He, the Son of God, 
 was forsaken by the Father in the very crisis of His 
 sufferings ? He Himself had anticipated this desertion 
 with a fear which sometimes became terror. It seems 
 not only possible, but probable, and even more than 
 probable, that the intense and immeasurable suffering 
 which wrung from him the cry, " My God, My God, 
 why hast Thou forsaken Me?'* was the immediate 
 cause of His Death. On any hypothesis it accelerated 
 His Death. 
 
 In investigating the connection between this mys- 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 361 
 
 terious Death and the remission of the sins of men, 
 I propose to inquire : — 
 
 1. Whether this connection can be explained by the 
 existence of any original relation existing between the Lord 
 Jesus Christ and the penalties of sin, or — to state the 
 question more generally — between the Lord Jesus Christ 
 and the eternal Law of Righteousness, of which sin is the 
 transgression ? 
 
 2. Whether this connection can be explained by any 
 original relation existing between the Lord Jesus Christ 
 and the race whose sins needed remission? 
 
 The first inquiry will occupy the present Lecture, 
 the second inquiry will occupy the next. 
 
 What, then, is the relation between the Lord Jesus 
 Christ and the penalties of sin ? What is the relation 
 between the Lord Jesus Christ and the eternal law of 
 righteousness, of which sin is the transgression ? 
 
 To these questions we have authoritative replies, 
 both from Himself and His Apostles. In several of 
 His discourses He declares that it belongs to Him 
 to " reward every man according to his works." ^ He 
 will " send forth His angels, and they shall gather 
 out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them 
 which do iniquity ; and shall cast them into a furnace 
 of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." ^ 
 His lips are to pronounce the sentence by which the 
 final and irrevocable destiny of every man will be 
 determined. He will say to the righteous, " Come, 
 I Matt. xvi. 27. 2 Ibid, xiii, 41, 42. 
 
362 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared 
 for you from the foundation of the world ; " ^ and to the 
 wicked, " Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
 fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."^ " The 
 Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- 
 ment unto the Son." 3 f^g Apostles, in various forms, 
 reassert this truth. St. Peter told Cornelius that 
 Christ " was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick 
 and dead."'^ St. Paul warned the Athenians that God 
 had " appointed a day in the which He will judge the 
 world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath 
 ordained;" 2 and the great Apostle looked forward 
 himself to the solemn hour when *' we must all be 
 manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ ; that 
 every one may receive the things done in his bod}^ 
 according to that he hath done, whether it be good 
 or bad."^ The penalties of sin are to he inflicted by 
 Christ, 
 
 The final judgment of the world is, however, only 
 part of a larger function. After our Lord's resurrec- 
 tion He said to Plis disciples, " All power (i^ova-ia) is 
 given unto Me in heaven and in earth ;"7 and on this 
 claim he rested the apostolic commission to " disciple 
 all nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; " 
 teaching them to observe all things that He had 
 commanded them. St. Peter declared that Jesus 
 had been exalted to be " Prince " as well as " Sa- 
 
 I Matt. XXV. 34. 2 Ibid. xxv. 41. 3 John v. 22. 4 Acts x. 42. 
 5 Ibid. xvii. 31. ^2 Cor. v. 10. 7 Matt, xxviii. 18. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 363 
 
 viour;"' and that He is "both Lord and Christ."^ 
 St. Paul describes Him as " the Lord both of the dead 
 and the living ;"3 says that He has received " a name 
 which is above every name : that at the name of 
 Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth ;"^ and 
 that " He must reign till He hath put all enemies 
 under His feet."^ The Lord Jesus Christ is the Moral 
 Ruler of the human race ; moral responsibility is responsi- 
 bility to Him. 
 
 In the argument for the Divinity of Christ these 
 claims have a great place. It is inconceivable that 
 God should invest a creature with his function of 
 judging the world, and that He should transfer to a 
 creature the moral allegiance due to Himself. The 
 " kingdom " was received by Christ from the Father, 
 because Christ had voluntarily laid aside His Divine 
 glory, and had become man. He was capable of re- 
 ceiving it, because in His humiliation He had not 
 ceased to be Divine. 
 
 But we may approach the whole subject in another 
 way. In these Lectures it is assumed that Christ was 
 the Eternal Word, who **was in the beginning with 
 God," and that " all things were made by Him, and 
 without Him nothing was made that was made."^ 
 The question we have to determine is the relation 
 between God Himself and the eternal Law of Right- 
 eousness. 
 
 I Acts V. 31. 2 Ibid. ii. 36. 3 Rom. xiv. 9. 
 
 4 Phil. ii. 9, 10. 5 I Cor. xv. 25. ^ John i. 2, 3. 
 
364 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 All Christians, all theists, acknowledge that God is 
 the Moral Ruler of mankind and of the whole moral 
 universe. What does this acknowledgment imply ? 
 
 Does it imply that the will of God — using the word 
 will in the same sense in which we use it when speak- 
 ing of the will of man — is the origin of the antithesis 
 between right and wrong, and the ultimate ground of 
 moral obligation — that goodness is good only because 
 God commands it, and evil evil only because God 
 forbids it ? There are many reasons which make this 
 hypothesis incredible and intolerable. 
 
 If it were true, it would be difficult to account for 
 the recognition of moral obligation where the existence 
 of God is denied or doubted. A man who is uncertain 
 whether there is a God or not, may know that he ought 
 to tell the truth, to act justly, to be kindly and tem- 
 perate ; and he may recognize the moral evil of false- 
 hood, injustice, cruelty, and intemperance. It is not 
 necessary to convince him that there is a God, and that 
 God has commanded men to be virtuous, before he 
 can see the distinction between virtue and vice, or 
 before he can recognize the moral obligation that rests 
 upon him to be virtuous. 
 
 Dean Mansel argues that — 
 
 " The fiction of an absolute law, binding on all rational beings, 
 has only an apparent universality ; because we can only conceive 
 other rational beings by identifying their constitution with our own, 
 and making human reason the measure and representative of reason 
 in general." ^ 
 
 If the " absolute law binding on all rational beings '* 
 
 J Bampton Lecture. Third edition, page iii. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 365 
 
 is a *' fiction," and if it has only an *' apparent univer- 
 sality," because we can only conceive other rational 
 beings by identifying their constitution v^ith our own, 
 and making human reason the measure and representa- 
 tive of reason in general," then even in mathematics 
 there are no truths which we can affirm to be absolutely 
 and universally true. On this hypothesis there may 
 be some rational beings whose " constitution " is so 
 different from ours, and the laws of whose " reason " 
 are so unlike the laws by which " human reason " is 
 governed, that they may legitimately believe that the 
 three angles of a triangle are equal to three right angles, 
 though we are compelled to believe that they are equal 
 to two. 
 
 This sceptical philosophy rests on a radical disbelief 
 in the trustworthiness of the human faculties, a disbelief 
 which, if its consequences were clearly apprehended 
 and frankly accepted, would make every exercise of the 
 human intellect an irrational waste of time, and all 
 endeavours after righteousness an irrational waste of 
 strength. We can trust none of our intellectual facul- 
 ties unless we can trust those which enable us to appre- 
 hend the truths of pure mathematics as universal and 
 necessary, and which affirm the distinction between 
 truths of this order and those which are merely con- 
 tingent. Nor can we trust any of our faculties — not 
 even those by which we come to believe in the Divine 
 existence — unless we can trust those by which we ap- 
 prehend the universal and necessary obligation of justice 
 and truth, and which affirm the eternal distinction 
 
366 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 between good and evil. In impeaching the authority 
 of our moral intuitions, Dean Mansel undermines the 
 foundations of religious faith. 
 
 In answer to Dean Mansel's question, " Why . . . 
 has one part of our constitution, merely as such, an im- 
 perative authority over the remainder ? What right has 
 one portion of the human consciousness to represent 
 itself as duty^ and another merely as inclination ? " ^ I 
 reply in the noble words of Butler : — 
 
 " There is' a superior principle of reflection or conscience in every 
 man, which distinguishes between the internal principles of the 
 heart as well as his external actions ; which passes judgment upon 
 himself and them ; pronounces determinately some actions to be 
 in themselves just, right, good ; others to be in themselves evil, 
 wrong, unjust : which, without being consulted, without being ad- 
 vised with, magisterially exerts itself, and approves or condemns 
 him the doer of them accordingly." 2 
 
 Butler adds that if " not forcibly stopped," this judi- 
 cial and imperial faculty "naturally and always of course 
 goes on to anticipate a higher and more effectual sen- 
 tence which shall hereafter second and affirm its own." 
 Perhaps so ; but in the case of vast numbers of men 
 there is no real recognition of the authority of God, 
 although there is a very real recognition of the authority 
 of conscience and of the necessary and immutable 
 distinction between right and wrong. To very many 
 who confess that He exists, God is little more than an 
 hypothesis to account for the origin of the universe, 
 and their moral life is altogether removed from His 
 control. If what they suppose to be their faith in God 
 
 ^Bampton Lecture^ page iii. 
 2 Sermons on Human Nature, Sermon 2. Works. Vol. i. page 23. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 367 
 
 were to disappear, their intuition of the eternal anta- 
 gonism between good and evil would not be at all 
 obscured ; their abhorrence of vice would not be less 
 vigorous ; their love of virtue would not be less fervent. 
 But it is unnecessary to pursue this discussion. Butler's 
 account of the manner in which conscience exercises 
 its functions, before there is any anticipation of the 
 corroborative sentence of God, is a complete answer 
 to Dean Mansel's inquiry as to the right "of one portion 
 of the human consciousness to represent itself as duty," 
 while another is to be regarded as " merely an incli- 
 nation." 
 
 Dean Mansel might as well have asked what right 
 has one sense to claim authority to reveal to us the 
 phenomena of vision, while another can reveal only the 
 phenomena of sound ? There is no schism among the 
 senses. Every one of them performs its own functions. 
 The authority of the eye to reveal to us the phenomena 
 of vision is indisputable ; it actually reveals those phe- 
 nomena; it alone reveals them. This ends the con- 
 troversy. And conscience alone lays claim to be the 
 representative and minister of the law of duty. Incli- 
 nation endeavours to control the will by force : it is 
 unable to speak, as conscience actually speaks, in the 
 name of the eternal Law of Righteousness. The su- 
 premacy of conscience is, as Butler says in another 
 passage, *' a constituent part of the idea, that is, of 
 the faculty itself ; and to preside and govern, from the 
 very economy and constitution of man, belongs to it. 
 Had it strength as it had right, had it power as it 
 
368 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 had manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the 
 world." ' 
 
 Butler's argument is a vindication of the authority 
 of conscience ; it is also a vindication of the eternal 
 and necessary distinction between right and wrong. 
 For conscience does not invoke the authority of God 
 before it condemns vice and approves virtue, or before 
 it affirms that man is bound to obey the Law of Right- 
 eousness. We know that falsehood, cruelty, and in- 
 justice are evil things in themselves, and that they 
 would be evil though no Divine authority had forbid- 
 den them ; and we know that the opposite virtues are 
 good in themselves, and that they would be good 
 though no Divine authority had commanded them. 
 Righteousness gains an infinite support when it is 
 known that God requires us to be righteous ; but even 
 in the absence of that knowledge, conscience confesses 
 that the Law of Righteousness has an eternal and 
 necessary authority. 
 
 If the will of God is the original fountain of all 
 moral distinctions ; if righteousness is right only be- 
 cause He commands it, and if sin is evil only because 
 He forbids it ; if, therefore, had He so willed, all the 
 virtues would have merited our moral condemnation, 
 and all the vices our moral approval ; how is it possible 
 for us to love and reverence God because of His moral 
 excellence ? When we do homage to Him because of 
 His justice, goodness, and truth, we imply that if He 
 were not just and good and true, He would have no 
 ' Sermons on Hiunan Nature. Sermon 2. Works, i. 27. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 369 
 
 claim to our homage. But there can be no reason for 
 celebrating the glory of His justice if, had He so 
 pleased, injustice would have been equally glorious; 
 and if goodness and truth are not in themselves more 
 beautiful and noble and right than cruelty and false- 
 hood, we do Him no honour by confessing that *' His 
 compassions fail not," and that " His truth endureth 
 for ever." God can have no moral perfections if the 
 distinction between good and evil is the creation of the 
 Divine will. 
 
 There is another and insuperable objection to this 
 theory. Righteousness is the fulfilment of moral 
 obligations ; but moral obligations can nevej.' be origi- 
 nated by mere will, even if that will be the will of God. 
 A mere command can never create a duty unless there 
 is an antecedent obligation to obey the authority from 
 which the command proceeds. All the virtues are en- 
 forced by the authority of God ; but unless before God 
 has commanded anything all His creatures are bound 
 to obey Him, His commandments can create nq obli- 
 gation to be virtuous. His power may make it our 
 interest to obey Him, but our interest is not our duty. 
 "Why am I bound to obey ? Am I bound to do God's 
 will because God has been infinitely kind to me ? 
 That involves the concession of an eternal moral obliga- 
 tion to be obedient to One who has shown me infinite 
 kindness. Because if I am disobedient, I shall incur 
 punishment ? That involves the concession of an 
 eternal obligation to avoid suffering. Because, as a 
 creature, I am naturally subject to God ? That in- 
 
 25 
 
370 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 volves the concession of an eternal obligation resting 
 on the creature to obey the Creator. Duty is incon- 
 ceivable if moral obligation does not exist antecedently 
 to the Divine commands.* 
 
 The objections which have been urged against the 
 theory that derives all moral distinctions from the will 
 of God, may be urged in another form against the 
 theory that finds the origin of these distinctions in the 
 nature of God. Conscience does not rest the moral 
 obligation of justice on the fact that God is just, but 
 affirms that justice is of universal and necessary 
 obligation. We do not reverence righteousness merely 
 because by righteousness men become like God : v^e 
 reverence God Himself because He is righteous, thus 
 affirming that righteousness in itself, and not simply 
 because it is a Divine attribute, is deserving of rever- 
 ence. 
 
 What then is the relation betv^een God and the 
 eternal Law of Righteousness ? Are we to conceive 
 of that Law as independent and supreme, claiming 
 allegiance from the Creator as well as from His 
 creatures ? Is God Himself subject to its authority, 
 even as we are ? Is there a throne, even an ideal 
 throne, loftier and more august than His ? a sceptre, 
 even an ideal sceptre, by which even He is governed, 
 and which from eternity to eternity He obeys ? 
 
 This hypothesis is as untenable as either of those 
 which have been already discussed. We instinctively 
 
 ^ See British Qtiarterly Review, October, 1867. Page 486, and 
 especially the reference in the note to -Mr. J. S. Mill. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 371 
 
 reject it : even in idea nothing can be higher than 
 God. There appears to be a conflict for supremacy 
 between God and the eternal Law of Righteousness. 
 But such a conflict is impossible. The solution of the 
 difficulty may perhaps be found in a statement of the ac- 
 tual history of our ideas of Righteousness and of God. 
 
 Conscience in the earliest and most rudimentary 
 stages of its development recognizes in particular actions 
 the distinction between good and evil, and affirms that 
 the idea of goodness involves the obligation to be good. 
 As conscience acquires clearness and strength of vision, 
 it discovers what was implicitly contained in its earliest 
 judgments, that the distinction between good and evil 
 is not arbitrary, contingent, and mutable, but is the ex- 
 pression of an eternal and necessary law. 
 
 The possession of the moral faculty, however, is not 
 the only regal prerogative of human nature. We are 
 capable of knowing God, and when God is revealed we 
 discover in a living Person the same august and supreme 
 authority which conscience confessed in the eternal Law 
 of Righteousness. It is the recognition of this which 
 appears to be the very root and essential principle of 
 worship, and which creates the distinction, in kind 
 and not merely in degree, between the homage we offer 
 to God, and the love, the reverence, the trust with 
 which we may regard created perfection. The wonder 
 with which we witness the manifestations of wisdom 
 and power greater than our own, does not gradually 
 approach worship, as the wisdom and the power are 
 manifested in grander and grander forms. Nor does 
 
 25* 
 
ZT^ The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 the love inspired by moral purity and goodness gra- 
 dually approach worship, as the purity and goodness 
 rise nearer and nearer to our loftiest ideal of moral 
 excellence. 
 
 Wonder, however profound, and love, however fervent, 
 never become worship until they are blended with 
 another element — with a homage to the authority — 
 not merely the perfections — of God, corresponding to 
 the homage which conscience offers to the authority 
 of the moral law. The supremacy of the law is 
 absolute and irreversible. But when God is truly 
 known, conscience, without revoking or qualifying the 
 acknowledgment of this supremacy, confesses that the 
 authority which it had recognized in an ideal law is 
 the awful and glorious prerogative of a living Person. 
 
 The relation between God and the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness is, therefore, unique. He is not, as we 
 are, bound by its authority ; in Him its authority is 
 actively asserted. To describe Him as doing homage 
 to it — although a phrase which it may sometimes be 
 almost necessary to employ — is by implication to strip 
 Him of His moral sovereignty : the homage which is 
 due to the law is due to Him. The law does not 
 claim Him as the most illustrious and glorious of its 
 subjects ; it is supreme in His supremacy. His rela- 
 tion to the law is not a relation of subjection but of 
 identity. Hence *' He cannot be tempted of evil." In 
 God the law is alive; it reigns on His throne, sways 
 His sceptre, is crowned with His glory. 
 
 It is possible to conceive of the authority of the 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 373 
 
 eternal Law of Righteousness apart from God. An 
 Atheist knows the meaning of the word ought, and 
 may confess that the obligations of duty are absolute. 
 But apart from the authority of the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness as expressed in the Divine will, it is not 
 possible to conceive of God. My conception of God 
 is not only incomplete, but fatally defective, while I 
 acknowledge nothing more than that He created all 
 things; that He sustains all things; that His power is 
 almighty, and His knowledge without limit; that He 
 is perfectly just and infinitely good; that He is "glorious 
 in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders." If I am 
 to worship Him and to obey Him, — if, in other words, 
 He is to be my God, — I must recognize His absolute 
 sovereignty over my moral and spiritual life; and God, 
 as a living Person, must have the same authority over 
 my will that conscience acknowledges in the eternal 
 Law of Righteousness. 
 
 We may now consider the relation between God and 
 the penalties of sin. To discover this relation, we have 
 to investigate the idea of punishment, and to determine 
 what is meant by saying that sin is justly punished. 
 
 Is punishment to be regarded as a reformatory pro- 
 cess, a process intended to promote the moral benefit of 
 the sufferer ? If it were that and nothing more, and if 
 the justice of punishment consisted in its fitness to 
 produce a favourable moral impression on the sinner, 
 God would be free to inflict or to remit the penalties 
 
374 ^^^^ Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 of the Law without regard to any other consideration 
 than the moral disposition of the person by whom the 
 precepts of the Law had been violated. The severity of 
 punishment would have to be measured, not by the 
 magnitude of the sin for which it is inflicted, but by 
 the difficulty of inducing the sinner to amend. If even 
 the greatest sin were immediately succeeded by hearty 
 repentance, there would be no mercy in withholding 
 punishment ; for since, on this theory, the justice of 
 punishment consists in its reformatory power, it could 
 not be justly inflicted where reformation had been 
 already produced by other and gentler influences. It 
 also follows that if there are cases — and such cases 
 are easily conceivable — in which repentance is less 
 likely to be awakened by inflicting pain and disgrace 
 than by conferring new joy and honour, in these cases 
 the lightest penalty would be unjust, and justice would 
 require that the life of the sinner should be made 
 brighter and happier on account of his sin. By a very 
 slight exercise of ingenuity it might be shown that the 
 theory which rests the justice of punishment on its 
 reformatory power, involves the most grotesque con- 
 sequences, and consequences which are repugnant to 
 our most elementary moral convictions. 
 
 And yet the influence of this conception of punish- 
 ment may be very distinctly recognized in some modern 
 speculations on the Atonement. The conception may 
 be traced far back in the history of theological thought, 
 but it was made popular by those wise and generous 
 reformers of our criminal code to whom we owe the 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 375 
 
 abandonment of the brutal and brutalising punishments 
 by which, till very recent times, all European states 
 endeavoured to secure the protection of life and pro- 
 perty. 
 
 In avenging a solitary crime which might never have 
 been repeated, the law created a hardened and des- 
 perate criminal. A change of system was demanded 
 not only by the merciful instincts of humane hearts, 
 but by the principles of social expediency ; for the 
 criminal law was increasing the number of criminals, 
 and making criminal offences more formidable. But 
 the popular theory which was alleged in justification of 
 the change was both false and pernicious. From the 
 principle that in punishing crime it is both the duty 
 and the interest of the State to attempt to reform the 
 criminal, it was inferred that the object of punishment 
 is the criminal's reformation. This inference, although 
 no man was irrational enough to carry it out to its 
 ultimate results, seriously affected the spirit and 
 temper with which a considerable number of persons 
 regarded the administration of criminal law. It made 
 the gaol a philanthropic institution, and the treadmill 
 an instrument of national education, invented for the 
 benefit of an exceptionally unfortunate and backward 
 class of scholars. 
 
 The theory was utterly rotten. Society has no right to 
 send a man to gaol, to feed him on bread and water, 
 and to make him pick hemp or work the treadmill, 
 merely because society thinks that a discipline of this 
 kind would do him good. He must deserve to be 
 
37^ The Theory of the Atonement: [iect. 
 
 punished, or the law h?s no right to punish him. 
 If in punishing him the law can make him a better 
 man, well and good; but it is the fact that the criminal 
 deserves to suffer which constitutes the ultimate 
 foundation of criminal law, and apart from this the 
 infliction of suffering is a monstrous tyranny and in- 
 justice. 
 
 Between human legislation and Divine, between the 
 imperfect processes by which the State punishes the 
 violation of its imperfect laws and the processes of 
 eternal justice, the analogy is very incomplete. But 
 when we consider sin as a transgression of the eternal 
 Law of Righteousness, this principle that the transgres- 
 sion deserves punishment reappears. The conscience 
 affirms it vehemently. The fear of punishment is often 
 the earliest form in which a sinful man acknowledges 
 the authority of the Law which he has broken. Nor is 
 the punishment regarded either by the conscience or by 
 the terror-stricken heart as a painful process to effect 
 future reformation ; it is the suffering which has been 
 deserved by past sin. To make it anything else than 
 this, is to destroy its essential character. 
 
 Another conception of punishment represents it as 
 an expedient for strengthening the authority of the Law 
 by creating a new motive to obedience. The distinc- 
 tion between this second conception and the first is 
 very simple and obvious. According to the first con- 
 ception, punishment is a painful discipline, intended 
 to bring a man who has broken the Law to a better state 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, ^77 
 
 of mind and heart. It rests upon the principle that 
 the criminal must be reformed. According to the 
 second conception, it is an appeal to the fears of those 
 who have not yet broken the Law, and is intended to 
 prevent them from breaking it. Punishment may, 
 perhaps, make the bad man worse than he was before, 
 but his sufferings are meant to deter other men from 
 doing wrong. The pain suffered by the criminal is 
 inflicted for the sake of confirming the virtue of those 
 who are as yet free from crime. The theory originated 
 with jurists and statesmen. When transferred to the 
 sphere of the Divine government, it requires us to regard 
 the penalties of sin, not as the righteous retribution of 
 past offences, but as a severe expedient for preventing 
 future offences. If, therefore, any more merciful and 
 equally effective method can be devised for maintaining 
 the authority of the eternal Law of Righteousness, 
 punishment may be dispensed with. 
 
 But even in relation to human law this theory is 
 fatally defective. " The suffering of a criminal," it has 
 been well said, " benefits the public because it is de- 
 served; it is not deserved because it benefits the 
 public.'* That human governments are bound to con- 
 sider whether the specific penalties attached to specific 
 violations of the law are likely to diminish crime, is no 
 doubt true ; but the question whether the penalties 
 are just, is a preliminary question, which cannot be 
 righteously or safely ignored. The suffering may be 
 actually inflicted for the sake of protecting the State, 
 but the State commits a crime unless the criminal has 
 
37^ The Theory of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 deserved to suffer; and if to the conscience of the nation 
 the severity of the suffering appears to exceed the 
 magnitude of the crime, the authority of the law is 
 enfeebled rather than strengthened. On the other 
 hand, if, when a great crime has been committed, the 
 criminal is acquitted through some technical defect in 
 the evidence, or receives a light and inadequate sen- 
 tence, public indignation is provoked; not because the 
 opportunity has been lost of giving to citizens who are 
 tempted to crime an impressive and edifying moral 
 lesson which would be likely to restrain them from 
 similar offences, but because justice has been baffled, 
 and the criminal has not received his deserts. 
 
 The idea of retribution, which underlies ordinary 
 criminal justice, cannot be excluded from our concep- 
 tion of the penalties which God inflicts upon those who 
 have sinned. It belongs to the very essence of that 
 conception. He does not punish some of His creatures 
 merely because their sufferings will do good to the rest, 
 but because they deserve to suffer. The penalties which 
 He inflicts are not affected by the same limitations 
 which affect the penalties inflicted by human govern- 
 ments. To punish all moral offences, and in exact 
 proportion to their varying magnitude, requires other 
 resources than human legislators possess, and other 
 powers than human tribunals can command. These 
 resources and powers belong to God.' Nor is it the 
 function of human governments to assert throughout 
 every province of human life all the obligations of the 
 eternal Law of Righteousness, and to vindicate the 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 379 
 
 justice of all its penalties. But this function is in- 
 volved in the very idea of God. When we are con- 
 sidering the relation of God to the penalties of sin, 
 and investigating the question whether, and on what 
 conditions, they can be remitted, it is unsafe to regard 
 these penalties as nothing more than an expedient for 
 preventing sin — an expedient which may, therefore, be 
 immediately exchanged for any other method which 
 would secure the same moral result. It is necessary 
 to remember that the penalties of sin are primarily an 
 expression of the principle that the sinner deserves to 
 suffer, and if the penalties are remitted, we have to 
 inquire whether it is possible for this principle to be 
 suppressed, or whether it must be asserted in some 
 other form, 
 
 A third conception of punishment represents it as an 
 effect of God's personal resentment against those who 
 have offered an insult to His personal dignity, or as the 
 assertion of His personal claims against those who 
 have withheld from Him His personal rights. If a ser- 
 vant who has been treated considerately and generously 
 is guilty of an habitual and contemptuous disregard of 
 his master's authority, and malignantly slanders his 
 master's character, he cannot wonder if his master is 
 offended and indignant, nor can he complain at being 
 dismissed from his master's service, though the dis- 
 missal may involve him in ruin. If a man refuses to 
 pay his just debts, the creditor may vindicate his claim 
 by whatever processes of law are open to him, even 
 
380 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 at the cost of the utter destruction of the debtor's pro- 
 perty. 
 
 And it is alleged that sin is of the nature of a per- 
 sonal offence against the majesty of God, and that 
 punishment is the expression of God's just resentment. 
 Or the absolute obedience which God's creatures owe 
 to Him is alleged to be of the nature of a personal 
 debt, and when their obedience is withheld, punishment 
 is a vindication of His personal claims against them. 
 But the master whose anger has been provoked by 
 the carelessness or the insolence of a servant may 
 magnanimously overlook the offence and retain the 
 offender in his service. The creditor may cancel the 
 debt. Resentment against those by whom we have 
 been personally wronged may be just, but there are 
 innumerable cases in which generosity and compas- 
 sion are stronger than resentment, and incline us to 
 forgive. Personal claims — if they are exclusively per- 
 sonal — may be waived. If this theory of sin and its 
 punishment were complete, God would be free to inflict 
 or to remit punishment at His own good pleasure. 
 
 But even in such cases as those which I have 
 selected to illustrate the theory, it sometimes happens 
 that the inclination to be magnanimous and generous 
 has to be restrained. A master who has been treated 
 very badly by his servant may sometimes be morally 
 obliged to express his resentment in the severest form. 
 He is the accidental representative of that social au- 
 thority, the assertion and maintenance of which are 
 essential to the strength and tranquillity of the organisa- 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 381 
 
 tion of society. As an individual, he might be merciful. 
 As a master, he cannot. A creditor whose claims are 
 dishonestly resisted may be morally obliged to insist 
 on the payment of his debt. As an individual, he might 
 be ready and even anxious to remit the payment ; but 
 he is the accidental representative of justice, and 
 though by prosecuting the debtor he may incur a great 
 loss both of time and money, he cannot decline the 
 duty which has accidentally fallen to him. There are 
 other cases in which the obligation to make an offender 
 suffer for his offence is still more obvious and stringent. 
 An officer in the army who never inflicted punishment 
 for disobedience to his orders, a sovereign who never 
 inflicted punishment for conspiracy and treason against 
 his authority, would add a second crime to the crime 
 whose penalties he remitted. It is part of their very 
 function and duty to punish these offences. 
 
 This theory of punishment rests upon a false theory 
 of the moral authority of God. In a sense it is true 
 that God has " personal claims " on our reverence and 
 obedience, but the phrase is an ambiguous one. A 
 father has personal claims on the love, respect, and 
 obedience of all his children; he has also personal 
 claims on those of his children to whom he may have 
 lent money when they commenced business. These 
 two sets of claims, however, are not the same in kind. 
 He can release them from the obligation to repay the 
 money debt ; he cannot release them from the obliga- 
 tions of filial respect and obedience. Nor can God 
 release His creatures from the obligation to reverence 
 
382 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 and obey Him. If He were only the accidental 
 Representative of the idea of moral authority, or the 
 official Defender and Minister of the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness, He would have claims upon us which 
 He could not waive. But we have seen that He is 
 very much more than this. The ideal supremacy of 
 the eternal Law of Righteousness — as Law — and with 
 all its immutable authority — is revealed to us under 
 a concrete and personal form, in His personal sove- 
 reignty over all His moral creatures. 
 
 If, therefore, the punishment of sin is to be defined 
 as a vindication and assertion of the personal rights 
 and claims of God against those who have sinned, it 
 must be remembered that the Divine claims which sin 
 resists, and the Divine rights which sin refuses to 
 acknowledge, are essentially different from the claims 
 and rights which are in such a sense personal that 
 they can be remitted at pleasure. They are claims 
 and rights which it is morally necessary that God 
 should maintain. The penalties in which these claims 
 and rights are vindicated may, perhaps, have something 
 of the same necessary character ; and it may be just 
 as impossible for God to decline the assertion of the 
 principle that those who sin against Him deserve to 
 be punished, as it is for Him to decline the assertion 
 of the principle that all His moral creatures are bound 
 to worship Him and to keep His commandments. 
 The penalties of sin may be, in a very true sense, a 
 vindication of the personal claims and rights of God; 
 but whether these penalties must be relentlessly in- 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 383 
 
 flicted, or whether, and on what conditions, they may 
 be remitted, are questions involving principles which do 
 not at all affect the vindication of personal claims and 
 rights of a different order. 
 
 The easy solution of all difficulties about the Remis- 
 sion of sins, suggested by the obligation resting on 
 ourselves to forgive those who have sinned against 
 us, ignores the fundamental distinction between the 
 relations of individual men to each other and their 
 common relation to God. As individuals, we have 
 no right to punish other men for their sins against us, 
 because we have no authority over them. The right 
 to punish is inseparable from the obligations of au- 
 thority, and the obligations inseparable from authority 
 may sometimes make the infliction of punishment a 
 duty. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that the only conception 
 of punishment which satisfies our strongest and most 
 definite moral convictions, and which corresponds to 
 the place it occupies both in the organisation of 
 society and in the moral order of the universe, is that 
 which represents it as pain and loss inflicted for the 
 violation of a law. If the law is a righteous law, if 
 the severity of the penalty is not out of proportion to 
 the magnitude of the offence, the punishment is just; 
 the offender has deserved whatever he suffers. Suffering 
 inflicted upon a man to make him better in the future 
 is not punishment, but discipline : to be punishment, 
 it must be inflicted for evil deeds done in the past. 
 
384 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 Suffering endured for the sake of benefiting society is 
 not punishment : if accepted voluntarily, it is the 
 heroism of self-sacrifice; if inflicted by arbitrary au- 
 thority, it is injustice on the one side and martyrdom 
 on the other. What a man suffers from the resent- 
 ment of another is not punishment, but mere persecu- 
 tion and annoyance, unless the suffering is the effect 
 of moral indignation provoked by real or imaginary 
 wrongs committed against the person by whom the 
 suffering is inflicted : according as the wrongs are 
 imaginary or real, the punishment is unjust or just. 
 
 That the suffering inflicted is deserved is a necessary 
 element in the conception of punishment. We have 
 now to determine God's relation to the ill-desert of a 
 man who has transgressed the eternal Law of Right- 
 eousness, and to the sufl'ering which may justly come 
 upon him for his transgression. God cannot be sepa- 
 rated, even in idea, from the Law which has been 
 violated, and which affirms the principle that sin 
 deserves to be punished. Is it necessary, or is it not, 
 that this principle should be asserted, and asserted by 
 God Himself? 
 
 If it is not asserted, if it is ignored and suppressed, 
 then the eternal Law of Righteousness can be no longer 
 perfectly identified with the will of God ; and if the 
 Law is separated from the will of God, conscience will 
 vehemently maintain that the Law is supreme ; and in 
 the case supposed will protest that while on the one 
 hand the creature has dishonoured the Law by sin, the 
 Creator has completed the dishonour by refusing to 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 385 
 
 acknowledge the ill-desert of sin. Such a separation, 
 however, between the ideal Law and the Divine Will is 
 impossible. God would cease to be God if His Will 
 were not a complete expression of all the contents of 
 the eternal Law of Righteousness. 
 
 Is it then inevitable that God should inflict the pe- 
 nalties which sin has deserved ? Has he no choice ? 
 Is it impossible that He should be merciful ? Does 
 He act as a blind, unconscious force ? Is the moral go- 
 vernment of the universe a vast and awful mechanism, 
 dispensing rewards and punishments from eternity to 
 eternity in exact proportion to righteousness and sin ? 
 Is there no difference between being under the iron rule 
 of a Law and being under the rule, gracious as well as 
 just, of a living God ? To these questions the Christian 
 revelation and the irrepressible instincts of our moral 
 and spiritual nature give the same replies. 
 
 It is necessary to look a little more closely into the 
 nature of punishment if we are to discover the solu- 
 tion of the difficulty in which questions like these 
 originate. 
 
 In common, popular speech, we say that " the sinner 
 ought to suffer ; '* but this is a very loose expression, 
 loose even to inaccuracy. When so used, the word 
 "ought" has a very different force from that which 
 belongs to it when we say that " a man ought to be 
 honest and to tell the truth.'* By being honest and 
 truthful, a man fulfils a duty. But a man who has 
 committed a sin fulfils no duty by merely suffering for 
 his sin. His mere suffering is not obedience: while he 
 
 26 
 
386 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 suffers, his whole nature may be in fiercer revolt than 
 ever against the Law which he has transgressed, and 
 the penalty of which he is enduring. There may be 
 no more righteousness in him when his suffering is 
 keenest than there was before his suffering com- 
 menced : his mere suffering has no virtue in it. 
 
 When we use the phrase that a man who has com- 
 mitted a crime " ought to suffer for it," we generally 
 mean nothing more than that he deserves to suffer ; 
 or if anything more than this is meant, we mean that 
 some one who has the authority and power is under a 
 moral obligation to make him suffer. 
 
 Punishment gives to the sufferer occasion for mani- 
 festing humility, patience, and a spirit of penitent sub- 
 mission to the pain which he has deserved by his 
 offences ; and if he does not manifest these virtues he 
 incurs fresh guilt. But the duty of manifesting them 
 arises from the fact that by some external force or 
 authority he is being made to suffer the just conse- 
 quences of his past offences. Whatever moral element 
 there is in punishment itself — as punishment — is derived 
 from the person or power that inflicts it. 
 
 What is meant by the law being more honoured 
 when a man of high rank suffers imprisonment or 
 death for his crimes, than when one of the common 
 people suffers precisely the same penalty ? Something, 
 perhaps, is to be ascribed to the impression produced 
 by the contrast between his splendid position and his 
 miserable fate, and something to the fact that his rank 
 awakens universal interest both in his offence and in its 
 
TX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 387 
 
 punishment. But what is specially significant in his 
 suffering is this — that justice is felt to overbear all the 
 common iniluences by which men are sv/ayed. If the 
 judicial authority or the executive power had been ac- 
 cessible to fear or to corruption, his illustrious name, 
 his social influence, his wealth, would have perverted 
 the course of law, and secured his immunity. When, 
 therefore, such a man is put on his trial, the fidelity 
 and courage of the public ministers of justice are 
 tested; and if they do not swerve from the line of 
 judicial duty, the law receives unusual homage — 
 homage derived not from the rank of the criminal who 
 suffers — but from the steadfast and resolute integrity 
 which does not permit his rank to shelter him. That 
 in exceptional cases like this it is the moral effort neces- 
 sary to inflict the penalties of violated law which con- 
 stitutes the highest moral element of punishment, is 
 acknowledged by the common instincts of mankind 
 and, in all cases, punishment receives its moral sig- 
 nificance from the fact that the infliction of it is the 
 active assertion of the principle — either by a person or 
 a law — that those who have violated a law deserve to 
 suffer. 
 
 Whatever moral significance might attach to the 
 punishment of sin if punishment were inflicted by 
 ** self-acting " spiritual laws, its moral significance is 
 immeasurably heightened if, in every case, it is the 
 immediate or remote effect of a Divine volition. Ac- 
 cording to the Christian theory of the universe, all the 
 forces which are in league with the eternal Law of 
 
 26* 
 
388 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 Righteousness have received their commission and their 
 power from God Himself. 
 
 It is by the Will of God that man has been so 
 constituted that his physical health and vigour are 
 promoted by industry, temperance, and the exercise of 
 firm restraint on all the violent passions. The same 
 Will is revealed in the laws which, under every form 
 of social organisation, and in the rudest as well as in 
 the most complex conditions of human society, are 
 more or less obviously on the side of justice, truth- 
 fulness, purity, and an unselfish devotion to the public 
 interests. And if, on the whole, the relations of physical 
 nature to mankind are friendly to virtue; if the very 
 severities and uncertainties of man's external condition 
 train him to fortitude, to courage, to the mastery of 
 his inferior appetites, and to a prudence which is akin 
 to morality ; if even after the long ages of preparation 
 which preceded what we have been accustomed to call 
 the creation of man, and which if it is called by any 
 other name will retain all its former mystery — if, I say, 
 even then there remained very much to be done before 
 many parts of the world could be a safe or pleasant home 
 for our race ; if pestilential marshes had still to be 
 drained ; if there were still savage beasts in the forests 
 and venomous creatures in the grass ; if it was an im- 
 perative necessity that in order to " replenish the 
 earth " man must also " subdue it," so that when God 
 *' rested " from His work man's work began ; and if in 
 this struggle with the evil and malignant elements of 
 his position some of the best elements of man's moral 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 389 
 
 nature were to receive their most vigorous discipline ; — 
 in all these provisions for the development of our moral 
 life we recognize the manifestations of the wisdom, the 
 goodness, and the righteousness of God. Even the 
 miseries which are inflicted by causes in the presence 
 of which human skill and industry and courage are 
 powerless — the irresistible calamities which come upon 
 men from protracted drought, from hurricanes, from 
 volcanic eruptions, from earthquakes — test and in- 
 vigorate many heroic virtues, and give occasion for 
 the exercise of those forms of compassion which are 
 called forth by misfortunes and sufferings in which 
 there is no trace of guilt. These terrible destructive 
 forces have also a place in that Divine order which has 
 for its highest end, not the material comfort, but the 
 moral perfection of mankind. 
 
 The infinitely various evils which by the very con- 
 stitution of human nature and the irreversible laws of 
 human society avenge wrong-doing, are also the effect 
 of the Divine Will. Gross vices are grossly punished. 
 Those who are guilty of secret and undiscovered sins 
 are tormented even in this world, and their strength 
 consumed by a " worm that dieth not " and *' a fire '* 
 that cannot be " quenched." Falsehood and treachery 
 bring upon men shame and contempt. The sins of 
 parents are sharply punished by the sins of their chil- 
 dren. The wealth and glory of the proudest states are 
 destroyed by the private vices of the people and the 
 public crimes of their rulers. And if, on this side of 
 death, innumerable offences against the eternal Law of 
 
390 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 Righteousness appear to escape detection and penalty, 
 that revelation which has brought *' life and immor- 
 tality " to light, is dark with threatenings of the " in- 
 dignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish," which 
 will confront the impenitent in the world to come. 
 From the final judgment of God there can be no escape, 
 and upon those who have resisted His authority and 
 rejected His grace He will inflict the just penalties of 
 their sins. 
 
 The sufferings which punish sin in this world, and 
 the sufferings which will punish it in the next, are the 
 expression of the irreconcilable antagonism of God to 
 sin, and to those who persist in sinning. They are an 
 assertion by God Himself of the principle that those 
 who sin deserve to suffer. It is this which gives them 
 their transcendent significance. 
 
 There are times when the calamities with which sin 
 is punished even in this world seem to us so severe 
 that we are driven to exclaim, " Hath God forgotten 
 to be gracious ? '* The punishments which menace it 
 beyond death are so appalling, that though we see them 
 dimly and afar off, they paralyse us with terror. Yet 
 the Divine compassion is infinitely more tender than 
 our own. If God were indifferent to the sufferings of 
 His creatures, if it cost Him nothing to inflict upon 
 them now the temporal miseries which are the penalties 
 of transgression, and to expel them at last, by an irre- 
 vocable sentence, from the hght and blessedness of 
 His presence, the profoundest moral element of His 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 391 
 
 acts of retributive justice would disappear. The Divine 
 compassion immeasurably augments the significance 
 of the punishments v^hich by the Divine volition are 
 inflicted on sin. 
 
 But if the punishment of sin is a Divine act — an act 
 in which the identity between the Will of God and the 
 eternal Law of Righteousness is asserted and expressed 
 — it would appear that, if in any case the penalties of 
 sin are remitted, some other Divine act of at least equal 
 intensity, and in which the ill desert of sin is expressed 
 with at least equal energy, must take its place. ^ 
 
 The heart of the whole problem lies here. The eternal 
 
 Law of Righteousness declares that sin deserves to be 
 
 punished. The Will of God is identified both by the 
 
 conscience and the religious intuitions of man with the 
 
 eternal Law of Righteousness. To separate the ideal 
 
 law — or any part of it — from the Living and Divine 
 
 Person, is to bring darkness and chaos on the moral 
 
 and spiritual universe. The whole Law — the authority 
 
 of its precepts, the justice of its penalties — must be 
 
 asserted in the Divine acts, or else the Divine Will 
 
 cannot be perfectly identified with the eternal Law of 
 
 Righteousness. If God does not assert the principle 
 
 that sin deserves punishment by punishing it, He must 
 
 assert that principle in some other way. Some Divine 
 
 act is required which shall have all the moral worth 
 
 I As much as i/iz's might be concluded a priori. The form in 
 which the necessity has actually been met could never have entered 
 into the mind of man, nor could we have determined whether it was 
 possible for the necessity to have been met in any other form. 
 
393 The Theory of the Atonement: . [lect. 
 
 and significance of the act by which the penalties of 
 sin would have been inflicted on the sinner. 
 
 The Christian Atonement is the fulfilment of that 
 necessity. The principle that suffering — suffering of the 
 most terrible kind — is the just desert of sin is not sup- 
 pressed. It would have been adequately asserted had 
 God inflicted on man the penalties of transgression. It 
 is asserted in a still grander form, and by a Divine act, 
 which in its awful sublimity and unique glory infinitely 
 transcends the mere infliction of suffering on those who 
 have sinned. The penalties are not simply held back 
 by the strong hand of infinite love. He onjwho m the 
 sins of men had brought the dread necessity of asserting 
 the principle that they deserved to suffer, and who, as 
 it seems to us, could not decline to assert it — He 
 through whose lips the sentence of the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness must have come, condemning those who 
 had sinned to exile from the light and life of God — He 
 by whose power the sentence must have been executed 
 — He_Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, laid aside His 
 eternal glory, assumed our nature, was forsaken of God, 
 died on the cross, that the sins of men might be re- 
 mitted. It belonged to Him to assert, by His own act, 
 that suffering is the just result of sT^. He asserts i t, 
 not by inflicting suffering on the sinner, but by endu ring 
 suffering^ Himse lf. 
 
 Nor is this all. To affirm that, on the cross, the 
 Moral Ruler of our race endured what He might have 
 inflicted, is an inadequate representation of the truth. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law. 393 
 
 If God's love for His creatures invests the Divine act 
 which punishes them with its highest moral value, the 
 love of the Eternal Father for the Son invests with 
 infinite moral sublimity the Divine act which sur- 
 rendered Him to desertion and to death, that the 
 justice of the penalties of sin might be affirmed before 
 the penalties were remitted. The mysterious unity o f 
 t he Father and the Son rendered it possible for God 
 at once to endur e and to inflict penal suffering, and to 
 do both under conditions which constitute the infliction 
 and the endurance the grandest moment in the moral 
 history of God. 
 
 The question of the grounds on which the Moral 
 Ruler of mankind could so identify Himself with our 
 race as to assume our nature, and endure suffering 
 instead of inflicting it on us, is the question to be dis- 
 cussed in the next Lecture : for the present I must 
 assume that in this endurance of suffering the Lord 
 Jesus Christ was acting in harmony with His original 
 and Ideal relations to mankind. The point we have 
 reached is this : the moral significance of the suffering 
 by which sin is punished is derived from the fact that the 
 suft^ering is inflicted by the Will of God. In the Death 
 of Christ, He to whom it belongs to inflict suffering 
 endures suffering instead of inflicting it. In stating the 
 problem which arises on the hypothesis that God has 
 resolved to remit the penalties of sin, I said that *' if 
 God does not assert the principle that sin deserves 
 punishment, by punishing it, He must assert that 
 principle in some other way. Some Divine act is re- 
 
394 ^^^^ Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 quired which shall have all the moral worth and sig- 
 nificance of the act by which the penalties of sin 
 would have been inflicted on the sinner ; " and I repeat 
 that " the Christian Atonement is the fulfilment of that 
 necessity." It was a greater act to submit to such 
 suffering as Christ endured than to inflict it. 
 
 As yet our theory is incomplete. But when the heart 
 is shaken by fears of future judgment and " the wrath 
 to come," a vivid apprehension of the Death of Christ, 
 as the voluntary death of the Moral Ruler and Judge 
 of the human race, will at once inspire perfect peace. 
 Without further explanation, the conscience will grasp 
 the assurance that since He has suffered, to whom it 
 belonged to inflict suffering, it must be possible for 
 Him to grant Remission of sins. 
 
 This conception of the Atonement contains a com- 
 plete reply to the question which Mr. Martineau says 
 has never been answered. He asks — 
 
 , " How is the alleged immorality of letting off the sinner mended 
 by the added crime of penally crushing the sinless ? Of what man 
 — of what angel — could such a thing be reported, without raising 
 a cry of indignant shame from the universal human heart ? What 
 should we think of a judge who should discharge the. felailS fcoflj 
 th^e prisons of a city because some noble '"ajjd generous citizen 
 ofiered himself to the executioner instead ? " ^ 
 
 Mr. Martineau must accept all our facts before he has 
 a right to bring a moral charge against our doctrine. 
 He must not discuss the Evangelical theory of the 
 
 ' Stitdies of Christianity, page i88. 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 395 
 
 Atonement on the Unitarian theory of the Person of 
 Christ. But his analogy is doubly false ; false to his 
 own conception of God, false to our conception of 
 Christ. On his theory, God can pardon the sins of men 
 without an atonement, but a judge can only acquit or 
 condemn — the prerogative of pardon does not belong to 
 him. On our theory, Christ is infinitely more than the 
 most ** noble and generous of citizens " who could offer 
 himself to the executioner instead of the guilty. He is 
 Hi m self the re^resentativeT-and more_Jhan th e repre - 
 sentatiye-^qfjthe law . which has been violated. The 
 question which Mr. Martineau has asked is irrelevant. 
 The true question is — Whether the act of Christ, in 
 enduring the suffering which He must otherwise have 
 inflicted, is an "immorality," "a crime," which 
 should raise " a cry of indignant shame from the uni- 
 versal human heart " ? 
 
 For an answer to that question I can trust "the 
 universal human heart " to which Mr. Martineau 
 appeals. Wherever the real facts have been known, 
 instead of ** a cry of indignant shame," there has been 
 a cry of thanksgiving and of worship. Had God insisted 
 that before He would forgive sinful men, some illustri- 
 ous saint or some holy angel should endure the agonies 
 of Gethsemane and the awful sorrow of the cross ; had 
 He refused to listen to the prayer of the penitent until 
 His anger had been allayed, or His retributive justice 
 received what would have been an unreal satisfaction, 
 through the sufferings of one of His creatures who had 
 kept all His commandments, then Mr. Martineau's 
 
39^ The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 question could have received no answer. However 
 voluntary, however eager might have been the sacrifice 
 on the part of saint or angel, God could not have 
 accepted it without perplexing and confounding all our 
 conceptions of His moral character. But is there any 
 *•' immorality,'* any " crime," anything to provoke ** a 
 cry of indignant shame," in the resolve of God Himseljf, 
 in the person of Christ, to endure suffering instead of 
 inflicting it ? Will any man who confesses that Jesus 
 Christ is God manifest in the flesh cry " shame " when 
 He, the Moral Ruler of men, to avoid the terrible 
 necessity of condemning us to eternal death, assumes 
 our nature, is tempted in the wilderness, endures the 
 ingratitude, malignity, and scorn of those whom He 
 has come to save, submits to be charged with blas- 
 phemy, spat upon, scourged, nailed to the cross, passes 
 into that " outer darkness," into which He must 
 otherwise have driven the human race for its crimes, 
 and dies of a broken heart through the greatness of His 
 sorrow ? ** Immorality ! " It is the most wonderful 
 proof of the infinite love of God. " Crime ! " It is the 
 supreme manifestation of God's moral perfection. But 
 for this, we might have thought that self-sacrifi ce, 
 which is the flower and crown of all human-excellence, 
 was impossible to God. We see now that every form 
 of heroic love and mercy by which our hearts are 
 thrilled in the story of the noblest of men, is but the 
 shadow of the transcendent and eternal perfection of 
 the Most High. " An indignant cry of shame ! " It 
 is this expression of the righteousness and grace of 
 
IX.] Relation of Christ to Law, 397 
 
 the Moral Ruler of mankind which has kindled the 
 most passionate love that has ever glowed in the hearts 
 of men on earth, and it is this which is celebrated in 
 the most rapturous anthems which are ever heard in 
 heaven. 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 THE THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT : 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY THE RELATION OF OUR LORD 
 
 JESUS CHRIST TO THE HUMAN RACE, 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 THE THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT : ILLUSTRATED BV' 
 THE RELATION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST TO 
 THE HUMAN RACE. 
 
 T N the preceding Lecture I endeavoured to illustrate 
 ^ the transcendent significance and value which the 
 Death of Christ derives from His original relation to 
 the eternal Law of Righteousness, and especially to the 
 penalties which menace the transgression of its com- 
 mandments. 
 
 But this account of the Sacrifice of Christ, though 
 true as far as it goes, appears to be inadequate. It 
 leaves unexplained some of the most frequent and 
 familiar forms under which the Death of Christ is 
 represented in the New Testament, For although the 
 redemption of mankind is spoken of both by Christ 
 Himself and by His Apostles as originating in the love 
 and righteousness of God, the language of the New 
 Testament seems to imply that in some sense Christ 
 died in the name of the human race. It is not God 
 alone who has part in the great Mystery. Christ was 
 a Sacrifice and Propitiation for «s, though not by our 
 own choice and appointment. His Death is described 
 
 27 
 
402 Tlu Theory of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 as an appeal to God's infinite mercy coming from the 
 human race itself, or from One who has a right to 
 speak and act and suffer as its Representative. This 
 aspect of the Death of Christ has no place in the 
 partial conception of it which we have reached by 
 considering the relation of Christ to the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness. 
 
 Again ; this partial conception of it leaves the im- 
 pression on the mind that the Death of Christ had 
 something of a dramatic character, and that its value 
 lies in its dramatic effect. The theory — if I may so speak 
 —seems to be " in the air." If it can be shown that 
 the original and ideal relation of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 to the human race constitutes a reason why He should 
 become a Sacrifice and Propitiation for our sins, the 
 conception of His Death illustrated in the preceding 
 Lecture will rest on more solid and secure founda- 
 tions. I have now, therefore, to attempt to illustrate 
 the theory of the Atonement from the original relation 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ to the human race. 
 
 I can hardly hope that the attempt will be very suc- 
 cessful. For this relation has never yet been clearly 
 apprehended either by the Christian Church as a 
 whole, or by any considerable section of it. The Atha- 
 nasian conception of the Trinity has been incorporated 
 into the very life of Christendom. The conception 
 has been differently defined in the East and in the 
 West ; it has been greatly modified — in Europe at least 
 — by the philosophical systems which have succes- 
 sively controlled the speculation of the Church during 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 403 
 
 the last thirteen or - fourteen hundred years ; but 
 it was the genuine development and expression of 
 the Christian consciousness of the early centuries, 
 and it has become an essential element of the Faith 
 of the universal Church. That man is justified by 
 Faith alone, has secured the same kind of consent 
 among all the great Protestant communities. The doc- 
 trine is not the exclusive property of theologians, nor 
 is it merely a dogma imposed by theologians on the un- 
 learned. It has an intense, and, in the truest meaning 
 of the words, a vital interest, wherever there is genuine 
 religious earnestness. It gives to the religious life of 
 Protestantism its characteristic type. For that con- 
 ception of the Trinity which the unknown author of 
 the Athanasian Creed has endeavoured to express in 
 terms which had been created for him by the fierce 
 and subtle controversies of many generations, terms 
 which to us may seem cumbrous, and even profane, 
 but every one of which is a significant historical 
 monument, — for that conception of Justification which 
 is common to all the great Protestant confessions, 
 hundreds of thousands of men would be ready to suffer 
 imprisonment and death. As much might be said of 
 any other doctrine, true or false, that has become a 
 real power in the religious life of mankind. Men, 
 women, and children would be hung or burnt in crowds 
 rather than deny that Christ created the world, and 
 that He died for it. 
 
 But this cannot be said of any doctrine concerning 
 that relation of Christ to the human race which illus- 
 
 27 * 
 
404 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 trates the theory of the Atonement. That in some 
 sense Christ is the Head and Representative of mankind 
 is a truth ** which has not been derived from philosophy, 
 but has lived eternally in the faith of Christendom." ^ 
 This conception of Him is wrought into the very 
 structure of apostolic doctrine. It has been insisted 
 upon with great energy in recent years by Mr. Maurice 
 and his disciples in this country. In Germany it has 
 held a great place in theological speculation from the 
 time of Schelling. That Christ is the Head and 
 Representative of, at least, the elect and regenerate 
 portion of mankind, is what is meant by orthodox theo- 
 logians when they say that Christ is the Second Adam ; 
 and this is the truth which underlies the doctrine of 
 " imputed righteousness.'* Christian Mysticism has 
 always earnestly maintained that Christ is the very 
 life of regenerate souls, and that complete union with 
 Him is the condition of consummate holiness and 
 blessedness. This truth has been made the ultimate 
 ground of theories which assert the mysterious and 
 supernatural efBcacy of the sacraments. 
 
 But no clear and articulate conception of that relation 
 of Christ to mankind which renders it possible for 
 Him to sustain a representative character, appears to 
 have rooted itself in the popular theology, or in the 
 moral and spiritual life of Christendom. The sense 
 in which Christ in His redemptive sufferings and work 
 is the representative of the race, has been illustrated 
 
 ^ Dr. DoRNER : History of the Development of the Doctrine of 
 the Person of Christ, Vol. iii. div. 2, p. 232. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 405 
 
 or obscured by an appeal to imperfect human analogies. 
 It seems to have been forgotten that His representa- 
 tive character is absolutely unique. The general and 
 growing dissatisfaction with the theory of expiation has 
 probably arisen partly from this cause, and it will be 
 impossible for that theory to retain its place in the 
 theological thought of the Church, unless it can be 
 shown that the Death of Christ as a Propitiation and 
 Sacrifice for the sins of men is the highest expression 
 of an eternal relation between Christ and the human 
 race, — a relation which, though it might never have 
 been discovered in the absence of specific revelation, 
 has nothing in it to offend the higher reason or to 
 provoke moral antagonism, and is capable of verifica- 
 tion by the Christian consciousness. 
 
 The relation of Christ to mankind is, however, only 
 part of a larger question — the relation of Christ to the 
 created universe. 
 
 The Church has been content to acknowledge that 
 Christ created all things, and that in some sense He 
 upholds all things. It has never felt any keen and 
 practical interest in the nature of His permanent re- 
 lation to the universe. In its dread of Pantheism, 
 and in its eagerness to maintain the freedom and per- 
 sonality of the living God, it has rather shrunk from 
 conceiving any other kind of relation between the 
 Creator and the creation than that which exists between 
 the builder of a house and the house he has built. 
 But there are many passages in the New Testament 
 
4o6 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 which are inconsistent with such a conception as this. 
 In the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel — which con- 
 tains the Christian idea of creation, as the first chapter 
 of the book of Genesis contains the Jewish idea — Christ 
 is identified with the Word, who was in the beginning 
 with God, and was God, and through whom all things 
 came into existence. In the opening verses of the 
 anonymous epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is represented 
 as the Son of God and heir of all things, the brightness 
 of Xjod's glory, in whom the eternal splendours of the 
 Divine nature are revealed, the express image of God's 
 person, by whom God made the worlds, and the word 
 of whose power is their perpetual support. St. Paul, 
 in the Epistle to the Colossians,^ describes our Lord 
 Jesus Christ as ** the image of the invisible God " — 
 "the first-born of every creature."^ The antithesis 
 seems to suggest that Christ is allied — if not in the 
 same way, yet by relations equally vital — at once with 
 God and the created universe. In Him ** the image of 
 the invisible God," the actual perfections of God, are 
 revealed to the thought of the universe, and in Him 
 **the first-born of all creation," the ideal perfections 
 of the universe, are present to the thought of God. 
 
 This conception of Christ's relation to the universe 
 the Apostle proceeds to develop. " For in Him were 
 all things created that are in heaven, and that are in 
 earth, visible or invisible, whether they be thrones, or 
 dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were 
 created by [or through] Him and for [or unto] Him. 
 I Col. i. 15-17. 2 Or, " of all creation." 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 407 
 
 And He is before all things, and in Him all things 
 consist." 
 
 This remarkable passage contains St. Paul's theory 
 of the relations between Christ and the universe, 
 (i) Christ, " the First-born," was — if I may venture to 
 say it — the eternal prophecy of creation. In Him the 
 perfection and glory dwelt from eternity which in the 
 creation have been manifested in time. What the 
 creation, in its ideal perfection, was to be to the 
 Father, had from eternity found a transcendent expres- 
 sion in Christ.^ (2) When, at last, the universe was 
 created, Christ was the very ground and root of its 
 existence ; it was the revelation of His thought ; its 
 life was "in Him." (3) Nor was the creative act 
 the immediate act of the Father; the Divine power — 
 if we may use words which only remotely suggest the 
 truth — travelled through Christ : all things were 
 created "through Him." (4) Nor, again, was the 
 universe created for itself: its final cause, its ultimate 
 end, and its consummate perfection, are to be found 
 in Christ : all things were created ** for Him " or 
 " unto Him." (5) And, apart from Him, the universe, 
 as a universe, could not continue in existence ; it would 
 fall into disorder and sink back into chaos ; for " in 
 Him all things consist." 
 
 It is probable that the Apostles were led up to this 
 
 conception of the relation between Christ and the 
 
 universe by their consciousness of the relation between 
 
 Christ and themselves, in which they believed that the 
 
 ' Note S. 
 
4o8 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 ideal relation between Christ and the human race was 
 receiving its fulfilment. From the relation between 
 Christ and the human race, the transition to the relation 
 between Christ and the universe was not difficult. The 
 whole conception had an ethical and spiritual — not a 
 merely metaphysical — origin. They reached it, not by 
 a priori speculation, but by an orderly development of 
 spiritual thought, controlled and directed by the Holy 
 Ghost. Their thought took its departure from what they 
 knew for themselves about their own relation to Christ, 
 and was enriched at point after point by the constant 
 remembrance of the great fact that Christ was God 
 manifest in the flesh. To attempt to illustrate this 
 conception' of Christ's relation to the universe, would 
 lead us too far away from the subject of this Lecture. 
 It will be sufficient for our immediate purpose if we 
 consider the specific relation of Christ to the human 
 race. 
 
 As I have already suggested, the original and ideal 
 relation of Christ to all men was probably revealed to 
 the Apostles through His relation to themselves and 
 the Church ; and in illustrating the apostolic con- 
 ception of the original and ideal relation between 
 Christ and the human race, as that conception was 
 determined by the actual relation between Christ and 
 all who believe in Him, it may be well to follow the 
 order of St. Paul's thought in his account of the re- 
 lation between Christ and the whole creation. 
 
 Christ was " the First-born " among many brethren. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 409 
 
 His eternal holiness and wisdom and power and joy 
 were the ideal forms of that perfection which all who 
 are born of God are destined to inherit through Him. 
 Into His " image " all who had been received into 
 His kingdom were being transformed. And, according 
 to God's idea of the human race, all men were to 
 participate in His glory. In a true and deep sense, 
 Christ is "the First-born of all creation;" all ranks 
 and orders of created beings, and even the material 
 works of the Divine power — through whatever is fair 
 and noble in them — have a relationship to Christ more 
 or less intimate or remote. Between man and Christ, 
 according to God's thought, the relationship was meant 
 to be near and vital. 
 
 As the Apostles knew that their Christian life and 
 all its prerogatives and hopes had come to them 
 through Christ, and were not the immediate effect of 
 the Father's power and love, so they believed that all 
 men were created " through Him.'* 
 
 Further, the Apostles knew that Christ was the very 
 end of their existence. This was their joy and their 
 glory. They called themselves His slaves, and said 
 that He had "bought" them— " bought " them, not to 
 make them free, but to make Himself their Master ; 
 an'd the only freedom they knew, or desired to know, 
 was the freedom which they found in His service. 
 ** None of us," they exclaimed, " liveth to himself, and 
 no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live 
 unto -the Lord ; and whether we die, we die unto the 
 Lord : whether we live therefore, or die, we are the 
 
410 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and 
 revived, that He might be the Lord both of the dead 
 and the living." ^ The Apostles laboured that they 
 might " be accepted of Him." * They exhorted their 
 fellow-Christians to live a good and upright life, that 
 they might ** adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in 
 all things." ^ They were " delivered unto death for 
 Jesus' sake."* And neither in their evangelistic activity, 
 nor in their personal righteousness, nor in their suffer- 
 ings, did they suppose that they were proving the vigour 
 of their own virtue and winning credit for themselves. 
 Only their weakness, their folly, and their sins were 
 their own : their strength came from Christ, and to Him 
 belonged all the glory of their fidelity, their courage, 
 their holiness, and their zeal. 
 
 That they might in this sense become Christ's, it 
 had been necessary that He should " purchase " them 
 " with His own blood," and ** give His life " a ran- 
 som for them. They appeal to the Death of Christ, as 
 investing His claims upon them with an infinite and 
 most pathetic urgency. But had the race never sinned 
 the race would have been His. By His Death He 
 did but recover what He had lost. The kingdom over 
 which He reigns had revolted from Him ; but it was 
 originally His own. Not the Church merely, but the 
 human race was created " for Him." 
 
 But the most important element in their conception 
 of the original and ideal relation of mankind to Christ 
 
 I Rom. xiv. 7-9. 2 2 Cor. v. 9. 
 
 3 Titus ii. 10. 4 2 Cor. iv. 11. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 411 
 
 — or at least the most important in connection with 
 the theory of the Atonement — is that which probably 
 constituted the root of the declaration that " in Him 
 were all things created," especially when taken in con- 
 nection with the declaration that " in Him all things 
 consist." The passages in the apostolic epistles which 
 describe Christians as being " in Christ " are almost 
 innumerable. The truth which these passages affirm 
 had been taught by Christ Himself; it was verified by 
 the consciousness of the Church. 
 
 The forms in which this truth is expressed are ex- 
 tremely varied. It is said that we were ** created in 
 Christ Jesus unto good works ; " ^ that God " chose us 
 in Him before the foundation of the world ; " ^ that we 
 were "circumcised" in Christ ; ^ that "if One died for 
 all, then all died " — died in Him ;'* that we are " buried 
 with Him ;"5 that we are " risen with Him ;"Hhat God 
 " raised us up together [with Christ] and made us sit 
 together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus," 7 and 
 " blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly 
 places" in Him.^ Conduct that becomes Christians is 
 described as "good conversation in Christ." ^ Children 
 are charged to obey their parents "in the Lord."^° 
 Christian people who have been estranged from each 
 other are exhorted to " be of the same mind in the 
 Lord."" Christian Churches are told that their "labour 
 is not in vain in the Lord." " The grace that is given 
 
 I Eph. ii. 10. 2 Ibid. i. 4. 3 Col. ii. 11. 4 2 Cor. v. 14. 
 5 Rom. vi. 4. ^Col. iii. I. 7Eph. ii. 6. 8 ibid. i. 4. 
 
 9 I Pet. iii. 16. 10 Eph. vi. i. " Phil. iv. 2. 12 j Cor. xv. 58. 
 
4ia The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 to us is "given us in Christ Jesus."' St. Paul longs 
 after his converts at Philippi "in the bov^els of Jesus 
 Christ ; " ^ and he says to the Galatians, " I have been 
 crucified with Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not I, 
 but Christ liveth in me." ^ Christians who have died 
 are described as "the dead in Christ." ^ The whole 
 Church is " the body of Christ," and " as we have 
 many members in one body, and all members have not 
 the same office, so we, being many, are one body in 
 Christ." 5 The Church is "the fulness of Him that 
 filleth all in all."^ 
 
 Passages like these, and they might be indefinitely 
 multiplied, are too numerous and too varied, and they 
 belong too obviously to the very substance of apostolic 
 thought, to be dismissed as merely metaphorical. No 
 doubt they are metaphorical, but metaphors stand for 
 something ; and metaphors like these affirm the ex- 
 istence of a very wonderful relation between all the 
 regenerate and Christ. 
 
 The existence of that relation is reaffirmed by the 
 consciousness of the Christian Church. The extrava- 
 gances of Mysticism are but the exaggeration of a 
 truth which is known more or less perfectly to all in 
 whom the power and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 have been revealed. Christian holiness is nothing else 
 than a revelation of the inexhaustible energy of the 
 holiness of Christ. Self-culture, the great law of na- 
 tural ethics, is unknown in the supernatural life ; or, 
 
 I 2 Tim. i. 9. 2 Phil. i. 8. 3 Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 4 I Thess. iv. 16. 5 Rom. xii. 4, 5. ^ Eph. i. 23. 
 
X.J Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 413 
 
 if known, the law assumes altogether a different form. 
 The Christian man does not simply develop and 
 perfect his own life ; he is constantly receiving and 
 appropriating the life and power of the Son of God. 
 Christ does not merely exhort us to repent, and reveal 
 new motives by which we should be constrained to 
 repent : He gives repentance,^ — inspiring us with His 
 own sense of the evil of sin. His own sorrow for it, 
 and His own desire that we should sin no more. We 
 escape from evil habits and evil passions, — not by the 
 force of any moral struggles which can be called our 
 own : sometimes the habits fall away from us at the 
 touch of Christ, as the chain? foil away from Peter at 
 the touch of the angel ; sometimes the passions are 
 expelled by the power of Christ, as evil spirits were 
 driven out of men by His word ; and if we struggle for 
 freedom, we are conscious that we are " strong " only 
 *'in the grace that is in Christ Jesus." ^ Even in the 
 presence of violent temptation there are some Christian 
 people to whom it seems that the victory is given them 
 by Christ rather than achieved by themselves through 
 Christ's help, and who say that they do but *' stand 
 still, and see the salvation of the Lord." And though 
 to others, and perhaps to most, there is real and pro- 
 longed conflict, their own part in it disappears when 
 they look back on their triumphs ; and they declare, in 
 no false humility, but in their desire to express the 
 exact truth, that if they have rescued their moral 
 nature from the power of sin, " they got not the land 
 » Acts V. 31. »2 Tim. ii. i. 
 
414 ^^^ Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 in possession by their own sword, neither did their own 
 arm save them ; but [God's] right hand and [God's] 
 arm, and the lig^ht of [God's] countenance, because 
 [God had] a favour unto them." 
 
 In the development of the virtues and perfections of 
 the Christian Hfe, as distinguished from conquest over 
 sin, it is, if possible, still more obvious that the life and 
 power of Christ are revealed in us. We lose our self- 
 ishness and hardness through receiving, direct from 
 Him, the spirit of compassion which moved Him to 
 relieve every form of human infirmity and suffering. 
 His fervour kindles our zeal. The spirit **of power 
 and of love " ^ is an inspiration received from Christ. 
 In none of our "works" can we boast; for **we are 
 God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
 works, which God before ordained [or prepared] that 
 we should walk in them." ^ Hence the possibilities of 
 the Christian life are not to be measured by our native 
 resources, but by the infinite perfection of Christ Him- 
 self. We dwell in Him ; He dwells in us ; and He is 
 the living prophecy of the height and glory of our 
 holiness — a prophecy never to be fulfilled on earth or 
 in heaven, but perpetually moving towards fulfilment, 
 through struggle and sorrow and frequent defeat in this 
 world, and through endless ages of joy and triumph 
 in the world to come. This, I suppose, is the ultimate 
 secret of Christian sanctification — an "open secret," 
 a secret of infinite simplicity, and yet hard to learn. 
 As we never find rest in the mercy of God until we 
 I 2 Tim. i. 7. 2 Eph. ii. 10. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Hitman Race, 415 
 
 discover that neither our penitence, nor our amend- 
 ment of life, nor our faith, can create any claim to 
 the Remission of sins, and are willing to receive it 
 as God's free gift " for Christ's sake ; " so we can 
 never receive perfect deliverance from sin until we 
 become so anxious for holiness itself as to care 
 nothing for winning any personal credit by becoming 
 holy, — until, renouncing the hope of achieving victory 
 over sin for ourselves, renouncing even the desire to 
 achieve it for ourselves, we are willing to accept 
 victory and freedom as part of that large inheritance 
 which God has given us in Christ. 
 
 Our relation to Christ is absolutely unique. And 
 yet, perhaps, some imperfect symbol of it may be found 
 in our relation to the material universe. Man is a 
 free personality, encompassed by a system of forces 
 which transcend all the measures of his science. To 
 these forces, which we now learn are perhaps but 
 various forms of one great Force which remains con- 
 stant from age to age, man is mysteriously related, 
 and from moment to moment he is dependent on them. 
 In every thought, however light and wayward, that 
 passes through his intellect; in every emotion, how- 
 ever transient, which ripples across the surface of his 
 moral life; in every volition; there is some expenditure 
 of that part of this universal energy which has been 
 accumulated in the nerves and tissues of his physical 
 organisation. Whatever power belongs to man comes 
 to him from the appropriation of force from without. 
 In the earHer ages of human history the savage made 
 
4i6 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 some of that force his own by taking food, in which 
 the force had been accumulated; by breathing free air; 
 by drinking the water which ran in streams at his feet 
 or which he procured by painful labour from the rock. 
 All the vigour of muscle and all the keenness of sense 
 which he possessed became his because he had re- 
 ceived into his physical nature, and had laid up there, 
 some fractional part of the force which surrounded 
 him. When he struck down his prey at night, he 
 expended in the blow some of the energy which he 
 had made part of himself in the morning. When he 
 began to dig the ground, he was using the energy which 
 had been given to him by the wild fruits and the wild 
 creatures on which he had previously lived. His work 
 was, in a very true sense, not his own ; it was the 
 revelation of the universal Force, which, in ways of 
 which he never dreamt, had become the servant of 
 his will. 
 
 The history of the material progress of the race is 
 the history of the growing power of man, arising from 
 the gradual extension of his alliances with the forces 
 which surround him. His proudest achievements are 
 their work rather than his. He arms himself with the 
 strength of the winds and the tides. He liberates the 
 latent energy which has been condensed and treasured 
 up in coal, transforms it into heat, generates steam, 
 ^nd sweeps across a continent without weariness, and 
 with the swiftness of a bird. He makes the electric 
 fluid his messenger, and it carries his words under the 
 ocean to remote shores. Moving freely among the 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 417 
 
 stupendous energies by which he is encompassed, he is 
 strong in their strength, and they give to his volitions 
 — powerless apart from them — a large and effective 
 expression. 
 
 The history of man's triumphs in the province of his 
 higher and spiritual life is also the history of the 
 gradual extension of his alliance with a Force which 
 is not his own. There is no proportion between the 
 native strength of his will and the perfection which he 
 achieves through Christ. Every good work is a mani- 
 festation of the Divine power, in which alone we can 
 be strong. Every form of Christian perfection — " love, 
 joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 
 meekness, temperance," — is a " fruit of the Spirit," an 
 expression in our personal life of the perfection of 
 the life of Christ. In the spiritual, as in the material 
 sphere, man is a free personality surrounded by a vast 
 and immeasurable Power which is not his own, but 
 through which his history may become bright with the 
 glory of the noblest achievements. In Christ we are 
 "made partakers of the divine nature."^ 
 
 The parallel is extremely imperfect. At one point 
 it breaks down altogether, for material forces are un- 
 conscious, and we make their energy ours without 
 their voluntary concurrence, while the spiritual Power 
 which becomes our own is the Power of a free Personal 
 Life. But though the parallel is imperfect, it may assist 
 us to grasp one of the fundamental truths of the 
 Christian faith, and it may suggest the perilous error 
 
 1 2 Pet. i. 4. 
 28 
 
4i8 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 into which we may be betrayed by our very zeal in 
 advocating that truth. Scientific men, having their 
 imagination filled with the vastness of that universal 
 and indestructible energy which they say assumes 
 varied forms in all material phenomena, have gone on 
 to affirm that the human will is but one of its Protean 
 manifestations. Devout mystics, overpowered with awe 
 and wonder by the energy of the life of God, in which, 
 and in which alone, they were conscious that they were 
 living, have gone on to affirm that the will of God is 
 the only active force in the universe. In ancient and 
 in modern times materialism has suppressed the per- 
 sonality and the will of man in the presence of the 
 awful forces of the physical universe. In ancient and in 
 modern times mysticism has suppressed the personality 
 and the will of man in the presence of the living God. 
 The Christian philosophy of human nature might per- 
 haps be roughly defined as a form of Pantheism in 
 which the moral freedom of man and the moral freedom 
 of God are resolutely and consistently vindicated. 
 
 Our Lord Jesus Christ has illustrated in the sim- 
 plest and most perfect manner the nature of the 
 relation between ourselves and Him. ** Abide in Me, 
 and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, 
 except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye 
 abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches : he 
 that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth 
 forth much fruit : for apart from Me ye can do 
 nothing."^ This is an exhaustive statement of the 
 J John XV. 4, 5. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 419 
 
 truth : to this neither saint nor Apostle can add any- 
 thing. We truly live only as we live in Christ. Our 
 highest life is life derived from Him. 
 
 Out of this relation to Christ arises our relation to the 
 Father. There is nothing technical, formal, or artificial 
 in the prerogative of Divine sonship which is conferred 
 on all that are in Christ. They are not merely ^^ called 
 the sons of God.'* The name represents a fact. They 
 share the life of the Son of God, and no other name 
 can express the relation to the Father which the 
 sharing of that life originates. 
 
 The Apostles speak of our having " access '* to the 
 Father *' in Him" and *' through Him." Christ 
 Himself said, " I am the Way : ... no man cometh 
 to the Father but by Me."^ This does not mean 
 merely that because of what Christ has done and 
 suffered for the salvation of mankind the sins are 
 remitted which excluded us from the Divine presence. 
 It is not the Atonement of Christ alone, or the reve- 
 lation which Christ has made to us of the Divine love, 
 through which we come to God. Christ Himself is 
 *'the Way: ... no man cometh to the Father but 
 by [Him]." That for us sinners Christ might be the 
 ** Way " to the Father, it was necessary — as I hope 
 to show presently — that He should die as a Sacrifice 
 for our sins. But He Himself is the " Way." Through 
 our union with Christ, His trust and joy in the 
 Father become ours, and the light of God, in which 
 ^ John xiv. 6. 
 28 * 
 
420 The Theory of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 He dwells, becomes our home. Through Christ's 
 original, eternal, and unique relationship to the Father 
 we are raised into a relationship to God whiclt renders 
 possible a freedom and blessedness of communion with 
 Him which is ** unspeakable and full of glory." 
 
 To bring this discussion to a close : there are two 
 great laws which are involved in that relation to 
 Christ which He Himself illustrated in the parable of 
 the Vine, and to the reality of which the Christian 
 consciousness bears testimony : — 
 
 1. The power and perfection of our moral and 
 spiritual life are a perpetual revelation of the power 
 and perfection of the life of Christ. There is no 
 element of holiness in us that is not derived from Him. 
 As the life of Christ is being perpetually revealed in us 
 in richer and nobler forms, the moral and spiritual 
 glory of Christ is the ultimate ideal to which we are 
 continually approaching, but which we shall never 
 reach. 
 
 2. Our own relation to the Father is determined by 
 the relation of Christ to the Father. By no fictitious 
 imputation or technical transfer, but by virtue of a real 
 union between the life of Christ and our own life, 
 His relation to the Father becomes ours. It is ours 
 with the same qualifications with which His life is 
 ours. In Him both the life and the relation exist in a 
 transcendent form. 
 
 But these two laws which are involved in the actual 
 relation to Christ, of all to whom He has given eternal 
 life and "power to become the sons of Cjd," were 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 421 
 
 involved in the original and ideal relation of the human 
 race to Himself. This appears to be implied in the 
 prologue of St. John's Gospel. " In Him was life " — • 
 the life of the human race — ** and the life was the light 
 of men." ^ According to the Divine idea of human 
 nature, man was to live by perpetual fellowship with 
 the life of the eternal Word, and in that life was to 
 inherit all the knowledge, purity, and blessedness of 
 which " light " is the beautiful symbol. As the life 
 of the Eternal Word or Son of God was to be the life 
 of the human race. His relation to the Father was 
 also to be ours. Had we never sinned, our history 
 would have been a perpetual ascent towards His 
 supreme holiness, and even the earliest movements of 
 our moral and spiritual life would have found their 
 ideal expression in Him. His relation to the Father 
 would, therefore, have been ours from the very first. 
 
 In the light of this original and ideal relation of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ to our race, can we discover any 
 relation between His Death and the Remission of our 
 sins ? I think we can. 
 
 I. On any theory of human redemption it is mo- 
 rally necessary that, on the part of those who have 
 sinned, there should be a real and frank consent to the 
 justice of the penalties from which redemption releases 
 them. While there is any resentment on our part 
 against the righteousness of the law by which we are 
 condemned, our antagonism to God, whose will is in- 
 I John i. 4, 
 
422 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 separable from that law, remains. In the endeavour to 
 subdue this resentment, some men have passed through 
 protracted and convulsive struggles, and have confessed 
 at last that the resentment was still unsubdued. It 
 was easy for them to acknowledge that they had 
 sinned,- but there was an invincible recoil from yield- 
 ing a perfect moral consent and submission to the 
 righteousness of the penalties of their sins. We are 
 conscious that this consent and submission ought to be 
 given, and that so long as we shrink from it the con- 
 troversy between God and us cannot be closed. It is an 
 offence to resent the penalties of the eternal Law of 
 Righteousness, as well as to transgress its precepts. 
 That the penalties should be remitted while we recoil 
 from submitting to the authority of the awful principle 
 which they vindicate, seems morally impossible. 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ, the Moral Ruler of the 
 human race, instead of inflicting the penalties, has 
 submitted to them ; He has " died, the Just for the 
 unjust,'* and has been *' made a curse for us." This 
 supreme act becomes ours — not by formal imputation 
 — but through the law which constitutes His life the 
 original spring of our own. His eternal trust in the 
 Father, His eternal joy in the Father, His eternal love 
 for the Father, are the root of the trust and joy and 
 love of which we are conscious in the Divine presence. 
 In the strength of His trust we have faith in God ; in 
 the fulness of His joy we rejoice in God ; and the fires 
 of our love for God are kindled by the fervour of His 
 love for the Father, And when we are troubled by the 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 423 
 
 bitter remembrance of sin, and are almost crushed by 
 a sense of the magnitude of the just penalties of sin ; 
 when we are striving to humble ourselves before the 
 infinite justice of God, and to confess that were these 
 penalties to be inflicted on us, the Judge of all the earth 
 would do right ; we find in the Death of Christ the 
 perfect expression and fulfilment of that submission 
 which we know ought to be manifested by ourselves. 
 He did not merely confess our sin ; He did not merely 
 acknowledge that we deserved to suffer. He endured 
 the penalties of sin, and so made an actual sub- 
 mission to the authority and righteousness of the 
 principle which those penalties express. What we 
 had no force to do. He has done ; and through our 
 union with Him, His submission renders our sub- 
 mission possible. This is but a particular illustra- 
 tion of the universal law that the moral and spiritual 
 perfection of Christ is the ultimate root of our own 
 perfection. The act in which He submitted to the 
 righteousness of the law by which we were con- 
 demned, is the very life and vigour of the moral act 
 in which we in our turn make' the same submission ; 
 and the moral element which constitutes the signi- 
 ficance of our own act has already received in His, its 
 highest possible expression. His submission is, there- 
 fore, a ground on which our sins may be forgiven. 
 
 2. Through His Death, the relation of Christ to 
 the Father is no longer of a kind to render it untrue 
 to our relation to God. Sin had introduced an ele- 
 
424 The Theory of the A tonement : [lect. 
 
 ment into our life which rendered it impossible, 
 except on the hypothesis of an amazing and in- 
 credible fiction, for the original relation of Christ 
 to the Father to continue to be the ideal of the 
 relation of the human race to God. In the presence of 
 God, and in the region to which the spiritual life of man 
 belongs, fictions can have no place. If, therefore, we 
 were still to be related to God through Christ, it would 
 seem to be necessary that there should be included in 
 His actual relation to the Father an expression of the 
 truth of that relation into which we had come through 
 sin. That expression is found in His Death. 
 
 He was forsaken of the Father, and He died. His 
 other sufferings were such as the innocent may endure 
 in serving the sinful and the wretched. On the cross 
 He submitted to the actual penalty of sin. I will not 
 say that it was necessary that He should submit to the 
 penalty of sin in order that our original and ideal re- 
 lation to God through Him should be preserved or 
 recovered, for I shrink from confident a priori specu- 
 lations on this great mystery ; and if I sometimes 
 speak of the impossibility of redemption apart from 
 the Death of Christ, I only mean that by His Death 
 He has accomplished what we are unable to imagine 
 could have been accomplished in any other way. 
 
 Had He simply made a confession of sin in our 
 name — the theory advocated by Dr. Macleod Camp- 
 bell in his very valuable treatise on the Atonement 
 — He would still have remained at a distance from the 
 actual relation to God in which we were involved by 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Hitman Race. 425 
 
 sin. He has done more than this. By submitting to 
 the awful experience which forced from Him the ciy, 
 " My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ? " and 
 by the Death which followed. He made our real relation 
 to God His own, while retaining — and, in the very act 
 of submitting to the penalty of sin, revealing in the 
 highest form — the absolute perfection of His moral life 
 and the steadfastness of His eternal union with the 
 Father. 
 
 By His Death, therefore, Christ has rendered it pos- 
 sible for us, notwithstanding our sins, to retain or to 
 recover our original and ideal relation to God through 
 Him ; and since the loss of that relation was one of 
 the greatest penalties of sin, what Christ suffered 
 in order that our relation to God through Him might 
 be maintained or restored, may be justly described as 
 the ground on which our sins are remitted. 
 
 3. There is another way in which the Death of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ is related to our redemption. 
 I approach it with great hesitation, because it is in- 
 volved in great obscurity. 
 
 St. Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 has these remarkable words, "We thus judge, that if 
 one died for all, then all died."^ These words, if 
 they stood alone, might perhaps be fairly regarded 
 as a strong rhetorical statement of the effect which 
 ought to be produced on our hearts by the infinite 
 love of Christ in dying for us. It might be said 
 ^ 2 Cor. V. 14. 
 
426 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 that since He died for us, the greatness of His 
 love ought to dissolve all our relations to ** this pre- 
 sent evil world," and bind us in perfect and eternal 
 loyalty to Himself; that we ought to live as though 
 death had already separated us from the common 
 excitements and sorrows and triumphs of mankind ; 
 for us old things should have passed away, and all 
 things become new. But in several other of his 
 epistles he speaks of Christ's Death as though it 
 were a real event in our own history. In the Epistle 
 to the Romans ^ he rests two elaborate arguments on 
 what he takes for granted as known to those to whom 
 he is writing — the fact that Christ's Death was in some 
 sense their own death. He argues first, that having 
 died to sin in the Death of Christ, it is impossible 
 that we should continue to live in sin. Christ "died 
 unto sin once," and now He liveth unto God.* We also 
 died with Him, and in His resurrection we have risen 
 to a new life. He argues, secondly, that according to 
 a recognized principle of Jewish theology the Law has 
 no power over those who have passed into the life 
 beyond the grave, and that we, having died in Christ, 
 are therefore under the law no longer.^ 
 
 The conception which is the foundation of these ar- 
 guments, and which he assumes to be a recognized 
 element of Christian faith and consciousness, reap- 
 pears constantly in St. Paul's writings : it reappears 
 so frequently, and in such forms, that it cannot be 
 treated as being nothing more than a rhetorical repre- 
 » Rom. vi. vii. 2 jbid. vi. 10. 3 Note T. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 427 
 
 sentation of the great moral effect which our belief in 
 the Death of Christ ought to have on our spirit and 
 character. It seems to have suggested the exhortation 
 of St. Peter, to which it is difficult to give a very exact 
 interpretation. " Forasmuch then as Christ hath suf- 
 fered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with 
 the same mind : for he that hath suffered in the flesh 
 hath ceased from sin ; that he no longer should live 
 the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, 
 but to the will of God."' 
 
 In his Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul affirms that 
 he himself had thus died in Christ. ** I am crucified with 
 Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth 
 in me."^ And many Christian persons have declared 
 that they are conscious that in the Death of Christ their 
 old and evil life perished. 
 
 It is far less difficult to apprehend the fact that we 
 
 live in the life of Christ, than the fact that we died 
 
 in His Death ; but the teaching of St. Paul seems 
 
 to be explicit. The destruction of evil within us is 
 
 the effect and fulfilment in ourselves of the mystery 
 
 of Christ's Death, as the development of our positive 
 
 holiness is the manifestation of the power of His life. 
 
 This is the Pauline doctrine, and I repeat that it has 
 
 been verified in the consciousness of large numbers of 
 
 Christian people. I accept this relation between the 
 
 Death of Christ and the death of our own evil self as a 
 
 fact, though I may be unable to offer any explanation 
 
 of it. 
 
 ' I Pet. iv. I, 2. a GaL ii. 2a 
 
428 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 The fact, however inexplicable, is of great significance. 
 The prayer of a devout Mahometan — "Give me first, O 
 Allah ! a death in which there is no life, and then a life 
 in which there is no death " — expresses a craving which 
 has been felt by all who have passed through the severer 
 moral and spiritual struggles which sometimes precede 
 the consciousness of restoration to God and victory 
 over sin. How many of us have cried, in the bitterness 
 of our despair, "There is no redemption possible to us. 
 We have waited for God, and He has not come to us." 
 We have meditated on His infinite glory and goodness, 
 and we have been unable to stir the stagnant affections 
 of our spiritual life. We have listened to fervent ap- 
 peals, to which the hearts of other men yielded, and we 
 remained unmoved. We have read what saints have 
 written of the blessedness of God's service, and have 
 not been constrained to serve Him. We have tried to 
 pray, and our prayers had no devotion in them. We 
 have thought of the agony of Gethsemane and the 
 desolation of the cross, but if we were touched for a 
 moment to penitence, and if for a moment it seemed as 
 though we were about to break away from our sins, and 
 to become the loyal servants of Christ, even the love of 
 Christ soon spent its strength, and we remained as cold 
 and undevout as before. " Would to God," we have 
 exclaimed, " that I could cease to be myself; that this 
 evil nature of mine could be destroyed, and leave nothing 
 of itself behind ; that I could die, if only I might have 
 a new life, with better instincts, diviner impulses — that 
 the passion, the sluggishness, the selfishness, the un- 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 429 
 
 belief, which seem to constitute my very self, could be 
 smitten with lightning from heaven, and perish, — 
 perish utterly, and perish for ever." Yes, the prayer of 
 the devout Mahometan expresses what has been the 
 innermost desire of innumerable hearts — " Give me a 
 death in which there is no life, and a life in which there 
 is no death." 
 
 The prayer receives its answer in Christ; in His Death 
 our sin dies, and in His life the very life of God is 
 made our own. How the Death of Christ effects the 
 destruction of our sin, we may be unable to tell. 
 Perhaps that great moral act by which Christ consented 
 to lose the consciousness of the Father's presence and 
 love — an act different in kind from any to which holy 
 beings, in their normal relation to God, can be called 
 — rendered it possible for us to sink to that complete 
 renunciation of self which is the condition of the perfect 
 Christian life ; for that renunciation is also unique, and 
 has no parallel in the normal development of a moral 
 creature. But it is enough that we know the fact that 
 in God's idea, and according to the law of the kingdom 
 of heaven, w^are crucified with Christ. Sometimes 
 through our union with Him sin may seem to perish 
 as by a sudden blow. More frequently it dies slowly — 
 dies as those died who were put to death by crucifixion. 
 The nails are driven through its hands ; it is tortured 
 with an unsatisfied thirst; there are convulsive struggles 
 which last long, and which show that vitality has not 
 gone out of it. It seems to perish at last by exhaustion. 
 But it is actually crucified, if only our union with 
 
430 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 Christ is complete, and though it may still live, its 
 power over us is gone. 
 
 No assertion on God's part of the ill desert of sin, 
 no submission on our part to the justice of the penal- 
 ties of sin, could have made it morally possible for the 
 penalties of sin to be remitted in the absence of a 
 complete security for the disappearance of sin. This 
 moral security has been created by the sufferings of 
 Christ on the cross. The Death of Christ is the death 
 of sin. It is, therefore, a ground on which sin may be 
 forgiven. 
 
 The general outlines of that conception of the re- 
 lation of the Death of Christ to the Remission of sins 
 at which we have arrived may be stated in four pro- 
 positions. The first three have been illustrated in the 
 present Lecture ; the fourth was illustrated in the 
 preceding Lecture. 
 
 I. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on 
 which the sins of men are remitted, because it was an 
 act of submission to the righteous authority of the Law 
 by which the human race was condemned — a submission 
 by One from whom on various grounds the act of sub- 
 mission derived transcendent moral significance, and 
 because in consequence of the relation between Him 
 and us — His life being our own — His submission is the 
 expression of ours, and carries ours with it. He was 
 not our Representative in a sense which would imply 
 that because He submitted to the just authority by 
 which the penalties of sin are inflicted we are released 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 431 
 
 from the obligations of submission. The_s ujferin gs, 
 indeed, wergJHLiv that they might noti^be ours ; He 
 endured them, that we might escape from them. But 
 the moral act of Christ in submitting to those sufferings, 
 while it remains for ever alone in its unique and awful 
 grandeur, involves a similar moral act on the part of all 
 who have *' access " to God through Him. 
 
 A real submission to the righteousness of God in con- 
 demning us was necessary before the penalties of sin 
 could be remitted. This submission was made by 
 Christ ; it was made for us, on our behalf, in our name. 
 But we have a part in it. In a real and not merely a 
 technical sense the act is ours. It is ours because 
 through our relation to Him it has made possible to us, 
 though in an inferior form, a similar consent to the 
 righteousness of the penalties which we have deserved. 
 It is ours, for it is the transcendent expression and act 
 of that eternal life in which we live, and which is per- 
 petually revealed in our own character and history. 
 
 2. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on 
 which the sins of men are remitted, because it ren- 
 dered possible the retention or the recovery of our 
 original and ideal relation to God through Christ 
 which sin had dissolved, and the loss of which was 
 the supreme penalty of transgression. 
 
 3. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on 
 which the sins of men are remitted, because it involved 
 the actual destruction of sin in all those who through 
 faith recover their union with Him. 
 
 4. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on 
 
432 The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 which the sins of men are remitted, because in His sub- 
 mission to the awful penalty of Sin, in order to preserve 
 or to restore our relations to the Father through Him, 
 there was a revelation of the righteousness of God, 
 which must otherwise have been revealed in the in- 
 fliction of the penalties of sin on the human race. He 
 endured the penalty instead of inflicting it. 
 
 That these four propositions include a complete 
 theory of the relation of the Death of Christ to the 
 remission of human sin, I am not so presumptuous as 
 to imagine. But if they can be sustained, they offer 
 some explanation of the great fact that the Death 
 of Christ did not merely manifest the infinite mercy 
 of God, but really effected reconciliation between God 
 and man. 
 
 I believe that the conception of the nature of the 
 Atonement which is contained in these propositions, 
 accounts, and accounts naturally, for all the various 
 expressions which are used by our Lord Himself and 
 His Apostles in describing the unique character and 
 the unique effects of His Death. Further, I believe that 
 this conception justifies those representations of the 
 Death of Christ, the substantial truth of which receives 
 strong confirmation from their general acceptance by 
 the Christian Church during eighteen centuries. V 
 
 The Death of Christ may be described as an Expia- 
 tion for sin, for it was a Divine act which renders the 
 punishment of sin unnecessary. 
 
 It was a Vicarious Death. He died " for us," *' for 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 433 
 
 our sins," ** in our stead." For the principle that we 
 deserved to suffer was asserted in His sufferings, that 
 it might not have to be asserted in ours. He was 
 forsaken of God, that we might not have to be 
 -> forsaken. He did not suffer that He might merely 
 share with us the penalties of our sin, but that the 
 penalties of our sin might be remitted. 
 
 It was a Representative Death, the Death of One 
 whom the elder theologians were accustomed to 
 describe as the new Federal Head of the human 
 race, or of the Church. The technical language of 
 theologians obscured and even concealed the truth 
 which it was intended to express. The Lord Jesus 
 Christ is in very truth, by the original law of the 
 universe, the Representative of mankind. 
 
 It may be described as a Ransom — an act of God 
 by^ whkh jve^ are delivered or redeemed from the 
 cj.lamities which threatened us so long as we were 
 exposed to the punishment of sin, and by which we 
 are also delivered or redeemed from those moral and 
 spiritual evils from which there was no escape except 
 through the restoration to us of the life of God. 
 
 It was a Satisfaction to the righteousness of God, in 
 whatever sense the punishment of the guilty can be 
 spoken of as a Satisfaction to the righteousness of God. 
 
 It was a Sacrifice for sin — an acknowledgment, such 
 as we could never have made for ourselves, of the great- 
 ness of our guilt ; an actual submission on our behalf to 
 the penalty of guilt, and a confession that our very life 
 had been justly forfeited by our sins. 
 
 29 
 
434 ^^^^ Theory of the Atonement : [lect. 
 
 It was a Propitiation for sin-^^a Propitiation origin- 
 ated and effected by God Himself, through which we 
 are brought into such relations to God, that all moral 
 reasons for withholding from us the remission of sins 
 disappear. As an act of submission to the righteous- 
 ness of the Law by which we were condemned, an 
 act done in our name, and ultimately carrying our 
 submission with it, it " has the property " — to quote 
 the formal definition of a Propitiation given by one 
 of our own theologians — *' of disposing, inclining, or 
 causing the judicial authority to admit the expiation ; 
 that is, to assent to it as a valid reason for pardoning 
 the offender."' 
 
 Or, to state what seems to me to be the complete 
 truth, the Death of Christ was a Propitiation for the 
 sins of men because it was a revelation of the righteous- 
 ness of God on the ground of which He can remit the 
 penalties of sin ; because it was an act of submission 
 to the justice of those penalties on behalf of mankind, 
 an act in which our own submission was really and 
 vitally included; and because it secured the destruction 
 of sin in all who through faith are restored to union 
 with Christ. It is, therefore, the supreme and irre- 
 sistible argument by which we can now sustain our 
 appeal to God's infinite mercy to grant us forgiveness 
 of sin and deliverance from the wrath to come. 
 
 '* God is great, and we know Him not." To this 
 confession we must come at last. We may know 
 ^ Dr. Pye Smith. 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 435 
 
 enough to inspire us with perfect faith in His right- 
 'eousness and love, and even in this life " the pure in 
 heart " may see His face and find in His presence 
 "fulness of joy;" but when we know most, we can 
 only exclaim, " O the depth of the riches both of the 
 wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are 
 His judgments, and His ways past finding out ! " Even 
 if we think that some mysteries have been partially 
 disclosed to us, we often find that we cannot make 
 clear to others what has become clear to ourselves. 
 In the history of all who consecrate their chief thought 
 and strength to meditation on the ways of God to man, 
 there are times when mist and clouds which have hung 
 for years over fair provinces of truth are suddenly 
 broken and scattered by light from the upper heavens. 
 The vision we have long waited for has come at last, 
 and we think that we shall be able to'-relieve the 
 doubts and resolve the perplexities of many hearts. 
 But we speak, and what we most wanted to say is 
 unsaid ; we write, and are conscious that there is only 
 a precarious relation between our real thought and 
 what we have written. As " the heart knoweth its own 
 bitterness, neither doth a stranger intermeddle with its 
 joy," so it seems that our most vivid apprehensions of 
 truth must remain our own ; they can receive no precise 
 and adequate expression. 
 
 When we are depressed and discouraged by such 
 thoughts as these — conscious that we ourselves know 
 very little of the great principles and laws which we 
 are sure must be illustrated in the Death of Christ, 
 
 29 * 
 
43^ The Theory of the Atonement: [lect. 
 
 and that what we know we are unable to make plain 
 to other men, it may be a relief to us to remember that 
 the triumphs of the Christian faith are won — not by the 
 symmetry and perfection of theological theories, but by 
 the great facts of the gospel. If it were otherwise — if 
 we could say nothing to any purpose of the infinite love 
 of Him who for us sinners and for our salvation ** was 
 made flesh and dwelt among us," because we cannot re- 
 solve the difficulties involved in the Incarnation; nothing 
 of that supernatural change without which no man can 
 ** see the kingdom of God," because we cannot penetrate 
 the mysteries of the new birth; nothing of the glory, 
 honour, and immortal blessedness which are the inheri- 
 tance of all that are in Christ, because there are in- 
 numerable questions concerning the life beyond death 
 to which we can give no reply ; — we should have to 
 leave undischarged the most sacred duties to which 
 God has called the Church. 
 
 The power of the great Sacrifice for the sins of the 
 world lies in itself, and not in our explanations of it. 
 Even when the doctrine of the Church has been most 
 corrupt, the Death of Christ has continued to appeal to 
 the hearts of men with unique and all but irresistible 
 force. 
 
 For nearly two centuries the nations of western and 
 southern Europe were inspired with a common enthu- 
 siasm and a common purpose. Princes mortgaged 
 their kingdoms, nobles sold their lands, scholars de- 
 serted their books, the common people left their homes, 
 to join the armies of the Cross, and to rescue the Holy 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race, 437 
 
 Land from the infidel. The hearts of little children 
 caught fire, and they gathered in thousands and tried 
 to make their way across unknown countries, through 
 dark forests and over great rivers, to share the sanctity 
 and the glory of the enterprise. And what was the 
 supreme object of that romantic and heroic struggle ? 
 It was not to recover the site of the ruined cities in 
 which Christ had revealed His beneficent and super- 
 natural power, healing the sick, giving sight to the 
 blind, hearing to the deaf, and speech to the dumb, — 
 nor the village on the eastern slope of Olivet, in which 
 He had raised Lazarus from the dead, — nor the 
 mountain on which He was transfigured, — nor the 
 little town among the limestone hills of Galilee which 
 was the home of His childhood and His youth. The 
 sepulchre of Christ was dearer and more sacred to the 
 hearts of the crusaders than all the scenes of His living 
 ministry; and while that was in the hands of the 
 unbelievers, it seemed to them that Christendom was 
 faithless to the memory of its Lord. They were guilty 
 of shameful crimes ; but the whole movement is a 
 singular proof of the strange and mighty power of the 
 Death of Christ over the imagination and passions of 
 mankind. Nor can I doubt that in those vast armies, 
 whose covetousness, and treachery, and cruelty, and 
 lust made the Christian name infamous throughout 
 the East, there were multitudes of men of pure life 
 and noble temper, whose hearts had been inspired by 
 the Death of Christ with penitence and hope and im- 
 measurable gratitude ; and who, because they knew of 
 
438 ^^^^ Theory of the Atonement: [leci. 
 
 no other way in which they could consecrate their 
 strength and valour to Christ's service, resolved to 
 rescue His sepulchre from dishonour. 
 
 In modern Jerusalem there isno more affecting sight 
 than that which is witnessed at every Easter festival in 
 the chapel erected over the spot on which, according to 
 the tradition both of the Eastern and of the Western 
 Church, the Saviour of mankind was crucified. Across 
 the marble floor, hour after hour, in endless succession, 
 pilgrims of many nations and of many tongues move 
 slowly on their knees, with streaming tears and every 
 manifestation of deep and reverential devotion ; and 
 when they reach the sacred rock in which they believe 
 that the cross was fixed, they cover it with passionate 
 kisses. The tradition is untrustworthy, the devotion 
 superstitious ; but who can tell what love and faith 
 and worship Christ may recognize in the hearts of 
 those who in this rude way are fulfilling His own 
 words, " I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me" ? 
 
 Those prostrations, those tears, those vehement 
 demonstrations of affection and gratitude, are but 
 pathetic symbols of the invisible and nobler effects 
 which the power of the cross has produced in every 
 age and in every land. Its power is still unspent. 
 The cross is the very symbol of the infinite righteous- 
 ness and of the infinite love of God. It confirms the 
 severest condemnation which our consciences can ever 
 pronounce on our crimes; it reveals a mercy which 
 transcends all our hopes. The awful yet glorious 
 fact that the Son of God, the Creator of the heavens 
 
X.] Relation of Christ to the Human Race. 439 
 
 and the earth, the Ruler and Judge of our race, 
 died a cruel death, that we might have the Remis- 
 sion of sins, will for ever thrill the hearts of men 
 with wonder and sorrow, with devout reverence and 
 great joy. The very first disciples that followed 
 Christ on earth, followed Him on the testimony 
 of the Baptist, ** Behold the Lamb of God, which 
 taketh away the sin of the world;'* and when 
 long afterwards, heaven was revealed to one of the 
 two who received this testimony, the " new song " 
 which he heard from the saints who see the glory of 
 their Lord was this: — "Thou wast slain, and hast 
 redeemed us to God by Thy blood, out of every 
 kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" and 
 he tells us that " ten thousand times ten thousand " 
 angels, and "thousands of thousands," prolonged the cry, 
 " Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, 
 and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and 
 glory, and blessing ; " and still the rapture spread, 
 " and every creature which is in heaven and on earth, 
 and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
 that are in them," caught up the exulting strain, " say- 
 ing, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power be 
 unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto 
 the Lamb for ever and ever." For us, too, we trust 
 that some day heaven will be opened; and we trust 
 that all its glory will be ours — not in transient vision — 
 but as an everlasting inheritance. 
 
 Meanwhile, as we listen to the music and the 
 triumph of those lofty songs in which some day we 
 hope to join, let us entreat God so to reveal to us 
 
440 The Theory of the Atonement, [lect. x. 
 
 the infinite love of Christ, through whose blood we 
 have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, that it 
 may kindle in our hearts on earth the same fervent 
 and grateful enthusiasm with which it will inspire us 
 in heaven ; and let those of us who are called to the 
 ministry of the gospel resolve that henceforth, with 
 stronger faith and intenser earnestness, we will preach 
 *' Christ and Him crucified.'* 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Note A. Page 3. 
 Cum suavissima de satisfactione Christi doctrina, prascipuum sit 
 salutis nostrae caput, fidei anchora, spei azylum, charitatis norma, 
 ut sancte monet Athanasius ; atque adeo vera Christianismi basis 
 pretiosissimumque Christianorum ksiixIj'Kiov ; qua salva et illius 
 structura constat, et istorum consolatio, et qua rursus vel eversa vel 
 corrupt^ totius religionis compagem luxatam et dissipatam ruere 
 necesse est : nihil antiquius divinae veritatis cultoribus esse debet, 
 quam ut accurato pensiretur examine, et in aperta luce coUocata, ab 
 omnibus agnosci, firmaque ex verbo dei fiducia constanter retineri 
 possit." I 
 
 Note B. Page 20. 
 
 Dr. Crawford, in his admirable volume on TAe Doctrine of 
 Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement (Blackwood and Sons, 
 Edinburgh and London, 1871), has given a complete account of the 
 Scripture passages in which the various elements of the doctrine of 
 the Death of Christ appear. As I have attempted no such exhaus- 
 tive presentation of the usual Scripture argument for the Atone- 
 ment, and indeed have endeavoured to exhibit the argument in 
 altogether another form, it may be of service to many readers to have 
 an outline of Dr. Crawford's classification. I therefore give it, 
 with some slight changes of form, in this note. 
 
 I. Passages which Speak of Christ 
 
 (i) As dying for sinners. 
 
 " The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minis- 
 ter, and to give His life a ransom for many." 2 
 
 ^ Francisci Turretini : De Satisfactions Christi Disputaiiones. Geneva, 
 1667, Opera, vol. iv. p. i. » Matt. xx. 28. 
 
444 Appendix, 
 
 " This is My body which is given for you." ^ 
 
 " This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you." 2 
 
 " The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the 
 life of the world." 3 
 
 " I am the good shepherd ; the good shepherd giveth his life 
 for the sheep .... I lay down My life for the sheep. ... No man 
 taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power 
 (authority) to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This 
 commandment have I received of My Father." 4 
 
 " This is My commandment, that ye love one another, as I have 
 loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay 
 down his life for his friends ." 5 
 
 " When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ 
 died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die : 
 yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But 
 God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet 
 sinners, Christ died for us." ^ 
 
 " He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us 
 all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things .? " 7 
 
 " If one died for all, then all died ; and He died for all, that 
 they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto 
 Him which died for them, and rose again." 8 
 
 " He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we 
 might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 9 
 
 " I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but 
 Christ liveth in me : and the hfe which I now live in the flesh I 
 live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Him- 
 self for me." ^^ 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made 
 a curse for us." " 
 
 " Christ hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering 
 and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." " Christ loved 
 the Church, and gave Himself for it." ^2 
 
 " God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us." ^3 
 
 * Luke xxii. 19. 2 Ibid xxii. 19, 20. 3 John vi. 51. 
 
 4 Ibid X. II, 15, 18. S Ibid xv. 12, 13. ^ Rom. v. 6-8. 
 
 7 Ibid, viii, 32. ^ 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 9 Ibid. v. 21. 
 
 ^° Gal. ii. 20. " Ibid. iii. 13. " Eph. v. 2, 25. ^3 i Thess. v. 9. 10. 
 
Note B. 445 
 
 "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, 
 he man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for us." ^ 
 
 " Our Saviour Jesus Christ gave Himself for us, that He might 
 redeem us from all iniquity." 2 
 
 " We see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, who was made a 
 little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that He by 
 the grace of God should taste death for every man." 3 
 
 " Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, 
 that He might bring us to God." 4 
 
 " Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His 
 life for us." 5 
 
 (2) As suffering for sins. 
 
 " He was delivered for our offences."^ 
 
 " God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and 
 for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." 7 
 
 " I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that 
 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." ^ 
 
 " Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from 
 this present evil world." 9 
 
 " This man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, 
 sat down on the right hand of God." ^° 
 
 " Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust." ^^ 
 
 "He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for 
 our iniquities." " For the transgression of My people was 
 He stricken." 12 
 
 (3) As bearing our sins. 
 
 " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." ^3 
 
 "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the 
 
 tree." ^4 
 
 " The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." " By His 
 
 knowledge shall My righteous servant justify many ; for He shall 
 
 bear their iniquities. He was numbered with the transgressors, 
 
 and He bare the sin of many." ^5 
 
 (4) As being " made sin " a7id " 7nade a curse for us." 
 
 ^ I Tim. ii. 5, 6. = xitus ii. 13, 14. 3 Heb. ii. 9 
 
 4 I Pet. ill. 18. s I John ill. 16. ^ Rom. iv. 25. 
 
 7 Ibid. viii. 3. * i Cor. xv. 3. 9 Gal. i. 4. 
 
 10 Heb. X. 12. " I Pet. iii. 18. " Isa. liii. 5, 8. 
 
 ^3 Heb. ix. 28. ^4 I Pet. ii. 24. ^s Isa. liii. 6, 11, 12. 
 
44^ Appendix. 
 
 " He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we 
 might be made the righteousness of God in Him," ^ 
 
 " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made 
 a curse for us."^ 
 
 n. Passages which ascribe to the Death of Christ 
 
 (i) The removal and remission of sinSy and deliverance from 
 their penal cottsequences. 
 
 " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the 
 world." 3 
 
 "Now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put 
 away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" 4 
 
 " This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
 many for the remission of sins." 5 
 
 " The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." ^ 
 
 " It behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third 
 day : and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
 in His name among all nations." 7 
 
 " Through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive 
 remission of sins." ^ 
 
 "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of 
 sins : and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from 
 which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 9 
 
 " He hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have 
 redemption through His blood, the forgiveness ot sins, according 
 to the riches of His grace." ^o 
 
 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath 
 translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son : in whom we 
 have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."i^ 
 
 "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His 
 own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His 
 Father ; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." ^^ 
 
 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
 the Son of man be hfted up : that whosoever believeth in Him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the 
 world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
 
 ^ 2 Cor. V. 21. = Gal. iii. 13. 3 John i. 29. 
 
 4 Heb, ix. 26. 5 Matt. xxvi. 28. ^ i John i. 7. 
 
 7 Luke xxiv. 46, 47. ^Acts x. 43, 9 Ibid. xiii. 38, 39. 
 
 ^° Eph. i. 6, 7. " Col. i, 13, 14. " Rev. i. 5, 6. 
 
Note B, 447 
 
 lieveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting liie. For 
 God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world ; but 
 that the world through Him might be saved." ^ 
 
 " God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us." ^ 
 
 (2) Justification. 
 
 " By His knowledge shall My righteous servant justify many ; for 
 He shall bear their iniquities." 3 
 
 " God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were 
 yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justi- 
 fied by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." 4 
 
 "Justified freely by the grace of God through the redemption 
 that is in Christ Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- 
 tion through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness, 
 . . . that He might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth 
 in Jesus." 5 
 
 (3) Redemption. 
 
 "The Son of man is come, not to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." ^ 
 
 " Feed the Church of God " (or of the Lord), " which He hath 
 purchased with His own blood." 7 
 
 "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ; being justi- 
 fied freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith 
 in His blood." 8 
 
 " Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price : therefore 
 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 9 
 
 " God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the 
 law, to redeem them that were under the law." ^° 
 
 " In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgive- 
 ness of sins." i^ 
 
 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood 
 He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal 
 redemption for us." ^2 
 
 "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
 
 * John iii. 14-17. "" i Thess. v. 9, 10. 3 Isa. liii. 11. 
 
 4 Rom. V. 8. 9. 5 Ibid, iii. 24-26. * Matt xx. 28. 
 
 7 Acts XX. 28. 8 Rom. iii. 23, 24. ' i Cor. vi. 19. 
 
 '^ Eph. i. 7. " Col. i. 14. " Heb. ix. 12. 
 
44^ Appendix, 
 
 gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your 
 fathers ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without 
 blemish and without spot." ^ 
 
 *' Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood 
 out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." 2 
 
 (4) Reconciliation to God. 
 
 " If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
 death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved 
 by His life." 3 
 
 "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." 4 
 
 "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by 
 Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation ; 
 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself 
 not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed 
 unto us the word of reconciliation." 5 
 
 " Reconciling both (Jews and Gentiles) unto God in one body 
 by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." ^ 
 
 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your 
 mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of 
 His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and 
 unreprovable in His sight." 7 
 
 III. Passages in which the Lord Jesus Christ is repre- 
 sented 
 
 (i) As a Propitiation for sin. 
 
 "And He is the propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, 
 but also for the sins of the whole world." ^ 
 
 " Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, 
 and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 9 
 
 " A merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God 
 to make reconciliation " (more properly, propitiation or expiation) 
 "for the sins of the people." ^0 
 
 " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in 
 His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins." " 
 
 (2) As a Priest. 
 
 '^ I Pet. 1. 18, 19. 2 Rev. V. 9. 3 Rom. v. 10. 
 
 <Rom. V. II. 5 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. ^ Eph. ii. 16. 
 
 7 Col. i. 21, 22. 8 1 John ii. 2. 9 1 John iv. 10. 
 
 " Heb. ii. 17. " Rom. iii. 25. 
 
Note B. 449 
 
 " The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for 
 ever after the order of Melchisedec." ^ 
 
 " The high priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." ^ 
 
 " A merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to 
 God." 3 
 
 " A high priest over the house of God." 4 
 
 " A great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the 
 Son of God." 5 
 
 " Such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, unde- 
 filed, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." ^ 
 
 (3) As a Representative. 
 
 '* Every high priest taken from among men is ordained /or men 
 in things pertaining to God." 7 
 
 " Surety of the better covenant." ^ 
 
 " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and 
 so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. . . . There- 
 fore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con- 
 demnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came 
 upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's dis- 
 obedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one 
 shall many be made righteous." 9 
 
 " Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits 
 of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came 
 also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . The first man Adam was 
 made a living soul ; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 
 . . . The first man is of the earth, earthy : the second man is 
 the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that 
 are earthy : and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are 
 heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we 
 shall also bear the image of the heavenly." ^° 
 
 IV. Passages WHICH Represent the Sufferings of Christ 
 
 (1) As ^^ sacri/icial." 
 
 Under this head, " Behold the Lamb of God," &c., should re- 
 appear. To these may be added — 
 
 ^ i-'sa. ex. 4. • Heb. iii. t. 3 Ibid. ii. 17. 
 
 < Ibid. X. 21. 5 Ibid. iv. 14. * Ibid, vii, 26. 
 
 7 Ibid. V. I. 8 ibi(j vii 22. 9 Rom. v. 12, 18, 19. 
 
 " I Cor. XV. 20-22, 45-49. 
 30 
 
450 Appendix, 
 
 " Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." ^ 
 
 " Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given 
 Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God tor a sweet smell- 
 ing savour." 2 
 
 " These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have 
 washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 
 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day 
 and night in His temple : and He that sitteth on the throne shall 
 dwell among them." 3 
 
 "Almost all things are by the law purged with blood ; and with- 
 out shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore neces- 
 sary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified 
 with these ; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacri- 
 fices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
 made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven 
 itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us : nor yet that 
 He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the 
 holy place every year with blood of others ; for then must He 
 often have suffered since the foundation of the world : but now 
 once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin 
 by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once 
 to die, but after this the judgment : so Christ was once offered to 
 bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for Him shall He 
 appear the second time without sin unto salvation." 4 
 
 " Every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering often- 
 times the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But 
 this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat 
 down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expecting till His 
 enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He hath per- 
 fected for ever them that are sanctified." 5 
 
 V. Passages which connect our Lord's Sufferings with 
 His Intercession. 
 
 I Tim. ii. 5, 6 ; i John ii. i, 2 ; Rev. v. 6 ; already quoted, reappear, 
 and — 
 
 "He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, 
 
 ^ I Cor, V. 7, » Eph. v. ii. 3 Rev. vii. 14, 15. 
 
 4Heb. ix. 22-28. sibid. x, 11-14. 
 
Note B. 451 
 
 and given Him a name which is above every name : that in the 
 name of Jesus (not at) every knee should bow." ^ 
 
 VI. Passages which Represent the Mediation of Christ 
 
 (i) As procuring the gracious infiuence of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 "Jesus spake this of the Spirit, which they that beUeve on 
 Him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; because 
 that Jesus was not yet glorified." 2 
 
 "It is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not away, 
 the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send 
 Him unto you." 3 
 
 " I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, 
 that He may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of ti-uth."4 
 
 "The Comforter, . . . whom I will send unto you from the 
 Father." 5 
 
 " The Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name." ^ 
 
 " Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having 
 received of the Father the gift of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed 
 forth this, which ye now see and hear." 7 
 
 ** Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made 
 a curse for us : (for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth 
 on a tree) : that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gen- 
 tiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of 
 the Spirit through faith." 8 
 
 " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but accord- 
 ing to His mercy. He saved us, by the washing of regeneration 
 and renewing of the Holy GhQst ; which He shed on us abundantly 
 through Jesus Christ our Saviour." 9 
 
 (2) As conferring all Christian graces which are fruits of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 "Of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." ^o 
 
 " Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit 
 of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye 
 abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth 
 in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit : for with- 
 out Me ye can do nothing." ^^ 
 
 ^ Phil. ii. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 
 'John vii. 39. 3 Ibid. xvi. 7. 
 
 <Ibid. xiv. 16, 17. 
 
 
 5 Ibid. XV. 26. * Ibid. xiv. a^. 
 
 7Acts ii. 33. 
 
 
 8 Gal. iii. 13. 14 9 Titus iii. 5, 6. 
 
 '° John i 
 
 . 16. 
 
 "John XV 4, 5. 
 30 * 
 
452 Appendix, 
 
 " 1 thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God 
 which is given you by Jesus Christ ; that in everything ye are en- 
 riched by Him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge ; even as the 
 testimony of Christ was confirmed in you : so that ye come behind 
 in no gift ." ^ 
 
 " Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us 
 wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 2 
 
 "Blesssd be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places 
 in Christ : according as He hath chosen us in Him before the 
 foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame 
 before him in love." 3 
 
 " We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
 works." 4 
 
 " Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure 
 of the gift of Christ." 5 
 
 " In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye 
 are complete in Him."^ 
 
 (3) As delivering us from the dominion of Satan. 
 
 " For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that He 
 might destroy the works of the devil ." 7 
 
 " Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince of 
 this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will 
 draw all men unto me." ^ 
 
 " He took part of flesh and blood, that through death He might 
 destroy Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and 
 deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime sub- 
 ject to bondage." 9 
 
 " And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show 
 of them openly, triumphing over them in it." ^° 
 
 (4) As obtaining for us eternal life. 
 
 " The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever iDelieveth in 
 Him should not perish, but have eternal life." ^^ 
 
 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, 
 and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and 
 
 * I Cor. i. 4-7. ^ Ibid. i. 30. 3 Eph. i, 3, 4. 
 
 * Ibid. ii. 10. 5 Ibid. iv. 7, ^ Col. ii. 9, 10. 
 
 y I John iii. 8. ^ John xii. 31, 32. 9 Heb. ii. 14, 15. 
 
 »o Cr\, ii. IK. "John iii. 14, 15. 
 
Note B. 453 
 
 shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death 
 unto life."^ 
 
 " This is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth 
 the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life : and I 
 will raise him up at the last day." « 
 
 " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath 
 everlasting life." 3 
 
 " I am the living bread that came down from heaven : if any man 
 eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread which I 
 shall give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 4 
 
 " My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me : 
 and I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never perish, 
 neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand." 5 
 
 " In My Father's house are many mansions : if it were not so, I 
 would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go 
 and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you 
 unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." ^ 
 
 " Father, the hour is come ; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also 
 may glorify thee : as Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that 
 He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him." 7 
 
 " Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound : that as 
 sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through 
 righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." ^ 
 
 " For the wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal 
 life through Jesus Christ our Lord." 9 
 
 " I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also ob- 
 tain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." ^° 
 
 " Being made perfect. He became the author of eternal salvation 
 unto all them that obey Him." " 
 
 " He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of 
 death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the 
 old testament, they which are called might receive the promise 
 of eternal inheritance." ^^ 
 
 " The God of all grace hath called us unto His eternal glory by 
 Christ Jesus. " ^3 
 
 * John V. 24. ' Ibid. vi. 40. 3 Ibid. vi. 47. 
 
 * Ibid. vi. 51. 5 Ibid. x. 27, 28. * Ibid. xiv. 2, 3. 
 7 Ibid. xvii. i, 2. ^ Rom. v. 20, 21. 9 Rom. vi. 23. 
 
 » 2 Tim. ii. 10. " Heb. v. 9. »= Ibid. ix. 15. *3 i Pet. v. 10. 
 
454 Appendix. 
 
 " This is' the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and 
 this life is in His Son." ^ 
 
 " Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." 2 
 
 VII. Passages which indicate the state of the Saviour's 
 Mind in the Prospect and in the Endurance of His 
 Sufferings. 
 
 " I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh 
 it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it 
 down, and I have power to take it again. "3 
 
 " I have a baptism to be baptised with ; and how am I straitened 
 till it be accomplished." 4 
 
 " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say } Father, save 
 Me from this hour : but for this cause came I unto this hour." 5 
 
 " Then Jesus cometh with them unto a place called Gethsemane, 
 and saith unto the disciples. Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. 
 And He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and 
 began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, 
 My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death : tarry ye here, 
 and watch with Me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His 
 face, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let this 
 cup pass from Me : nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt. 
 And He cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and 
 saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with Me one hour.? 
 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit in- 
 deed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the 
 second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not 
 pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done. And He 
 came and found them asleep again : for their eyes were heavy. And 
 he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, 
 saying the same words." ^ 
 
 " My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me.?" 7 
 VIII. Passages which speak of the Mediation of Christ 
 IN relation 
 
 (i) To the free calls andofers of the gospel. 
 
 ^ I John V. II. »' Jude 21. 3 John x. T7, 18, 
 
 4 Luke xii. £0. 5 John xii. 2j. * Matt. xxvi. 36-44. 
 
 7 Matt, xxvii. 46. 
 
Note B. 455 
 
 " J am the way, the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto the 
 Father, but by Me." ^ 
 
 " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
 Jesus Christ." 2 
 
 "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus." 3 
 
 " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other 
 name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be 
 saved." 4 
 
 (2) To /Ae necessity of faith in order to obtain the blessings of 
 the gospel. 
 
 "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become 
 the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name." 5 
 
 " He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that 
 believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed 
 in the name of the only begotten Son of God." ^ 
 
 " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that 
 believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God 
 abideth on him." 7 
 
 " Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life : he that cometh 
 to Me shall never hunger ; and he that believeth on Me shall never 
 thirst." 8 
 
 " Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of 
 sins : and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from 
 which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 9 
 
 " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." ^o 
 
 " I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ : for it is the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." ^^ 
 
 " Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without 
 the deeds of the law." " 
 
 *• Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ : by whom also we have access by faith into 
 this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of 
 God." 13 
 
 * John xiv. 6. » i Cor. iii. 11. 3 i Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 * Acts iv. 12. 5 John i. 13. * Ibid. iii. 18. 
 
 7 Ibid. iii. 36. 8 ibjd. vi. 35. 9 Acts xiii. 38, 39. 
 
 «> Ibid. xvi. 31. *» Rom. i. i6. » Ibid. iii. 28. 
 
 *3 Rom V. 12. 
 
45 6 Appendix. 
 
 " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that 
 beheveth." ' 
 
 " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor 
 uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." 2 
 
 " By grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of your- 
 selves : it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should 
 boast." 3 
 
 IX. Passages which speak of the Mediatorial Work 
 AND Sufferings of Christ in relation 
 
 (i) To His covenant with the Father. 
 
 " I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the 
 will of Him that sent Me. And this is the Father's will that sent 
 Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but 
 should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of 
 Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and 
 believeth on Him, may have everlasting life." 4 
 
 " And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give 
 for the life of the world." 5 
 
 (2) To His union with believers. 
 
 " Abide in Me and I in you." ^ 
 
 " If we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, 
 we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." 7 
 
 " Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, 
 that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." ^ 
 
 " I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but 
 Christ liveth in me : and the life which I now live in the flesh I live 
 by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself 
 for me." 9 
 
 " Quickened together with Christ, and raised to sit together in 
 heavenly places in Christ." 1° 
 
 " That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and 
 the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His 
 death." " 
 
 " Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
 Him." ^2 
 
 '■ Rom. X. 4. • Gal. v. 6. 3 Eph. ii. 8, 9. 
 
 4 John vi. 38-40. 5 Ibid. vi. 51. ^ John xv, 4. 
 
 7 Rom. vi. 5. ^2 Cor. iv. 10. 9 Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 *° Eph. ii. 5, 6. " Phil. iii. 10. " Col. ii. 12. 
 
Note B. 457 
 
 " Your life is hid with Christ in God." « 
 
 X. Passages which speak of the Death of Christ 
 
 (i) As a manifestation of the love of God. 
 
 " God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, 
 that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have ever- 
 lasting life."* 
 
 " God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were 
 yet sinners, Christ died for us." 3 
 
 " He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for 
 us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things .-* " 4 
 
 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because 
 that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might 
 live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 
 He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 5 
 
 (2) K% furnishing an example of patience and resignation. 
 
 *' Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking 
 unto Jesus, . . . who endured the cross, despising the shame. . . . 
 Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against 
 Himself, lest we be wearied and faint in our souls." ^ 
 
 "If when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is 
 acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because 
 Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should 
 follow His steps." 7 
 
 " If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take 
 up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his 
 life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for Mysake, the 
 same shall save it."^ 
 
 (3) As designed to pro?note our sanctification, 
 
 " For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be 
 sanctified through the truth." 9 
 
 " By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the 
 body of Jesus Christ once for all" ^o 
 
 "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, 
 suffered without the gate." ^^ 
 
 "He died for all, that they which hve should not henceforth live 
 
 =■ Col. iii. 3. « John iii. 16. 3 Rom. v. 8. 
 
 < Ibid. viii. 32. 5 i John iv. 9, la * Heb. xii. 1-3. 
 
 ^ I Pet. ii. 20, 21. s L^i^g j^. 23, 24. 9 John xvii. 19. 
 
 ^^ Heb. X. 10. " Ibid. xiii. 12. 
 
45 S Appendix, 
 
 unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose 
 again." I 
 
 "Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from 
 this present evil world." ^ 
 
 " Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; that He might 
 sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 
 that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having 
 spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing j but that it should be holy and 
 without blemish." 3 
 
 " He gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all 
 iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works." 4 
 
 " Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, 
 that we, being dead to sins, might live unto righteousness." 5 
 
 Note C. Page 52. 
 
 The controversy on the testimony of the Baptist, " Behold the 
 Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," turns on two 
 points: — (i) What was the precise force of the testimony? (2) 
 How did John come to regard our Lord as the Lamb of God.-* 
 
 (i) That John described our Lord as the Lamb of God, because of 
 the patience and gentleness with which He would endure the evils 
 which were to come upon Him in fulfilling His mission — an inter- 
 pretation for which the names of Paulus, Gabler, Kuinol, and 
 Ewald, are alleged — is inconsistent with the critical words, " which 
 taketh away the sin of the world." There must be some relation 
 between the descriptive name which is given to Christ and the work 
 which is ascribed to Him. A lamb might very naturally be selected 
 as a symbol of meekness ; but why should Christ because of His 
 meekness be described as " taking away the sin of the world " ? 
 So interpreted, the testimony is not homogeneous. John had been 
 accustomed to describe our Lord as "mightier" than himself; had 
 he intended to say that the Christ, by the power of His teaching, or 
 of His character, or of the Spirit with which He would baptise men, 
 would deliver them from sin, there would surely have been a re- 
 
 » 2 Cor. V. 15. " Gal. i, 4. 3 Eph. v. 25-27. 
 
 4 Tit. ii. 14. 5 I Pet. ii. 24. 
 
Note C. 459 
 
 assertion of our l^ordHs power ; hut power is not an idea associated 
 with a lamb. Moreover, whenever in other passages the Lord 
 Jesus Christ is described as a lamb by the sacred writers, when- 
 ever there is any comparison between Him and a lamb, it is on the 
 ground of His sacrificial death. It seems unreasonable, therefore? 
 to exclude the sacrificial idea from the testimony of the Baptist. 
 
 Old Testament usage is altogether against interpreting John as 
 meaning that our Lord — as a "lamb" — was to take away sin by His 
 moral and spiritual influence. In Exod. xxxiv. 7, we have d(paipufv 
 dvofiiag applied to God in the sense of removing sin in the way of 
 forgiveness. In i Sam. xv. 28, Saul appeals to Samuel and says, 
 " I pray thee pardon my sm " (dpov Srj to dfiaprrjixd fiov). In i Sam. 
 XXV. 28, Abigail, speaking to David, says, " I pray thee forgive the 
 trespass {dpov to dvoixriixa) of thine handmaid." If John the Baptist 
 did not mean that Christ was to lift up from the world the burden of 
 its sin by forgiving it — an inconceivable hypothesis when He is 
 described as " the Lamb of God," — John must have meant that He 
 would lift up the burden of sin by expiating it. The aipiav represents 
 the sbJ'D of the Old Testament. Had the Baptist followed the usage 
 of the LXX., which in passages where parts of Sti"'3 denote the bear- 
 ing of sin — /.<?., the bearing of its punishment — uses corresponding 
 parts of Xap^dvoj or (pepcj^ he would have failed to convey his precise 
 idea. He was not thinking so much of our Lord's taking our sins 
 upon Himself, as of His taking them from us. We might, however, 
 have used the participle of d^atpw, as the LXX. in Lev. x. 17. The 
 testimony includes the result as well as the act of expiation. 
 
 By the taking away of the sin of the world (6 atjowv Tr\v dfiapHav 
 Tov K6ap.ov) we must not understand that John meant simply that our 
 Lord was to bear the sin of the world. What h^ means is that 
 Christ was to take up the sin of the world to carry it away. The 
 burden that had been weighing on men so heavily, and which they 
 had no strength to bear, Christ was to lift up and remove. The sin 
 was laid upon the Sacrifice, in order to be removed from the sinner. 
 
 The sacrificial idea being conceded, there is still some uncertainty 
 as to the Baptist's meaning. It has been maintained by a long succes- 
 sion of authorities that St. John intended to describe our Lord as the 
 true Paschal Lamb. The probability of this interpretation would 
 be greatly strengthened if the suggestion of Bengel could be 
 defended, that a Feast of the Passover was near. It appears, how- 
 
460 Appendix. 
 
 ever, that two days after the testimony was given our Lord was on 
 His way to Galilee.^ On " the third day " — whether after the testi- 
 mony now given, or after the conversation with Nathanael — He was 
 at Cana: "after that He went down to Capernaum," where He re- 
 mained for a short time. Then St. John tells us that as " the Jews' 
 Passover was at hand," Jesus went up to Jerusalem,^ and He seems 
 to have arrived there before the feast actually began. The time He 
 spent in Capernaum is doubtful, but had the Passover been near 
 when the Baptist gave his testimony, it does not seem probable that 
 our Lord would have gone northward to Galilee instead of south- 
 ward to Jerusalem. Hengstenberg 3 endeavours to make a strong 
 point of the fact that, while John the Baptist speaks of Christ as a 
 sin-offering, lambs were rarely offered as sin-offerings — the great 
 exception, as he contends, being the lamb of the Passover. That 
 the paschal lamb was a vicarious sacrifice, and that the Israelites, 
 in whose houses the paschal lamb had been slain, escaped the doom 
 which would otherwise have come upon them, is obvious ; but it is 
 not so clear that the paschal lamb was regarded as being in the 
 ordinary sense of the term an offering for sin, nor do I know that it 
 was so described in the Old Testament. In the ritual of the Pass- 
 over 4 there is nothing said about the confession of sins and the laying 
 the hands of the offerer upon the head of the victim, in order to 
 express the transfer of his sins to the sacrifice. Had the Baptist 
 spoken of Christ as the Lamb of God slain for the redemption of 
 the world, the allusion to the paschal lamb would have been 
 obvious : as it is, the allusion seems more than doubtful. Those 
 who listened to him could hardly have caught it. 
 
 Another interpretation, which is also supported by a strong array 
 of authorities, discovers in the testimony a reference to Isa. liii. 
 But had the Baptist intended to make a direct reference to this 
 great prophecy, it seems probable that he would have described 
 Christ — not as the Lamb of God — but as the Servant oi God. It is 
 true that in ver. 7 the Servant of God is described as being "brought 
 as a lamb to the slaughter ;" and it is added that " as a sheep before 
 her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth ;" but these are 
 incidental allusions. The prophet does not conceive of the great 
 
 * John i. 43, compared with John i. 35. 2 \\y^^ jj, i^. 
 
 3 CommeKtary on tke Gospel of St. John, vol. i. ^6. 
 
 4 Exod. xii. 21-28 ; Dect. xvi. 1-8 
 
Note C. 461 
 
 Sufferer as a sacrificial lamb, but as " a man of sorrows and ac- 
 quainted with grief," who is not merely sacrificed, as were the 
 sacrificial victims, with as little pain as possible, but is " stricken, 
 . . . smitten, . . . afflicted, . . . wounded, . . . bruised : " " chas- 
 tisement" is inflicted upon Him, and He has to submit to " stripes/ 
 
 The most natural theory seems to be that John had somehow 
 come to know that the sufferings of the Messiah predicted in the 
 Old Testament, sufferings to be endured because of our sins, were 
 to be endured by Christ, and were to be endured by Him in order 
 to "take away our sins ;" and that, wishing to describe Him as a 
 sacrifice for sin, John felt instinctively that among the sacrificial 
 victims the fittest symbol of the meek and gentle personality of our 
 Lord was the lamb. 
 
 2. But how did John come to think of our Lord as a sacrifice for 
 sin ? Very much has been written to show that the idea of a suffering 
 Messiah was not altogether foreign to Jewish thought in our Lord's 
 time, and that the idea that the death of saints may constitute an 
 expiation for the sins of the nation, is also to be discovered in un- 
 inspired Jewish literature.^ It seems, however, extremely doubtful 
 whether before our Lord's baptism John had any idea that the Christ 
 whose coming he had been commissioned to announce would atone 
 by His Death for the sins of men. In the earlier preaching of the 
 Baptist the Messiah is a Messiah of power and even of terror. He is 
 to baptise with the Holy Ghost ; He is to burn up the chaff with un- 
 quenchable fire ; the Baptist himself is not worthy to unloose the 
 strap of His sandal ; the Messiah is mightier than His forerunner. 
 After the baptism of our Lord John's testimony included new 
 elements. Among the rest, it included his description of Christ as 
 " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." When 
 our Lord came to John to submit to baptism, John shrank from 
 administering it to Him. He had no sins to confess or to forsake — 
 why should He be baptised? Our Lord said, "Suffer it to be so 
 now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Is it un- 
 reasonable to suppose that after the baptism was over, John was 
 anxious to learn what Jesus meant by identifying Himself with the 
 extortionate publicans and the rapacious soldiery? Is it un- 
 reasonable to suppose that our Lord — who in submitting to the rite 
 
 » See HengSTENBERG : Christology of the Old Testament, vol. iv. 347-364 ; 
 Dr. Reynolds : John the Baptist, 374, 375. 
 
462 Appendix, 
 
 of baptism, must have had what we may almost venture to describe 
 as a new consciousness of the terrible nature of the work He had 
 undertaken — told John that He had come to redeem the world 
 from sin by making the sin of the world, in some sense. His own. 
 
 However clear the meaning of such passages in the Old Testa- 
 ment as Isaiah liii. may seem to us ; whatever may have been the 
 speculations of Jewish Rabbis about a suffering and atoning Mes- 
 siah — a Messiah Ben Joseph, whose death was to be the condition 
 of the glorious triumphs of the Messiah Ben David,^ — or about the 
 atoning sufferings of the Messiah in Paradise before His appear- 
 ance on earth ; 2 or about the atonement which the Messiah was to 
 accomplish on earth while He was unknown, and befoie He 
 asserted His claims to the throne of David; 3 there is nothing in 
 the four Gospels, at least, to suggest that the idea had taken hold 
 of the popular mind ; and even our Lord's disciples, who knew of 
 John's testimony, do not seem to have apprehended the prediction 
 it contained of their Master's sufferings. Had the idea of a suffering 
 Christ been a really active element in the Jewish mind, it is difficult 
 to believe that after John had uttered such words as these, the 
 disciples should have failed to receive any deep impression from our 
 Lord's repeated references to His Death. 
 
 Note D. Page 60. 
 
 In A Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christy by 
 William Stroud, M.D.,4 the proof that our Lord's Death was 
 the immediate result of mental agony is elaborated with great 
 skill and learning. His theory is stated in the following paragraphs 
 at the commencement of part i. chap. 4 : — 
 
 "In the preceding chapter it is presumed to have been demon- 
 strated that neither the ordinary sufferings of crucifixion, nor the 
 wound inflicted by the soldier's spear, nor an unusual degree of 
 weakness, nor the interposition of supernatural influence, was the 
 immediate cause of the Saviour's Death. The first of these con- 
 ditions was inadequate, the second followed instead of preceding 
 
 ^ See Hengstenberg: Christology, vol. iv. 357, seq. '^ Ibid. 362. 
 
 3 Ibid. 362. * London : Hamilton and Adams, 1847. 
 
Note D. 463 
 
 the effect, and the third and the fourth had no existence. What 
 then, it will be asked, was the real cause ? 
 
 " In confoiTnity with the inductive principles announced at the 
 commencement of this inquiry, it must have been a known power 
 in nature, possessing the requisite efficacy, agreeing with all the 
 circumstances of the case, and by suitable tests proved to have 
 been present without counteraction. It will be the object of the 
 ensuing observations to show that the power in which these charac- 
 ters perfectly and exclusively concurred was AGONY OF mind, PRO- 
 DUCING RUPTURE OF THE HEART. To establish this conclusion 
 numerous details will be adduced, but the argument itself is short 
 and simple. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ endured mental 
 agony so intense, that had it not been limited by Divine inter- 
 position, it would probably have destroyed His life without the aid 
 of any other sufferings ; but having been thus mitigated, its effects 
 were confined to violent palpitation of the heart, accompanied with 
 bloody sweat. On the cross this agony was renewed, in conjunc- 
 tion with the ordinary sufferings incidental to that mode of 
 punishment ; and having at this time been allowed to proceed to 
 its utmost extremity without restraint, occasioned sudden death by 
 rupture of the heart, intimated by a discharge of blood and water 
 from His side, when it was afterwards pierced with a spear." 
 
 The doubts which have been thrown on the genuineness of Luke 
 xxii. 43, 44 (including the words, " His sweat was as it were great 
 drops of blood falling down to the ground ") do not affect the force 
 of the general argument. 
 
 Although for many years Dr. Stroud's argument had seemed to 
 me perfectly conclusive, I was glad to have it confirmed by the 
 singularly interesting letters from high medical authorities appended 
 to Dr. Hanna's Last Day of our Lord's Passiott. ^ 
 
 ' Dr. James Begbie, Fellow and late President of the Royal 
 College of Physicians of Edinburgh, writes : 2 "I cannot help 
 accepting as correct the explanation which Dr. Stroud rlas offered 
 — and which you have adopted, and so strikingly applied— of the 
 physical cause of the death of Christ, namely, rupture of the heart, 
 and consequent effusion of blood into the pericardium, the investing 
 sheath of that organ." 
 
 * Edinburgh : Edmonston and Douglas, seventeenth edition, 1868. 
 » Page 333. 
 
464 Appendix, 
 
 Dr. J. Y. Simpson, Professor of Medicine and Midwifery in 
 the University of Edinburgh, regards the theory as having the 
 strongest probabihties in its favour. He says : ^ " Ever since 
 reading, some ten or twelve years ago, Dr. Stroud's remarkable 
 treatise On the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, I have been 
 strongly impressed with the belief that the views which he adopted 
 and maintained on this subject are fundamentally correct. Nor 
 has this opinion been in any way altered by a perusal of some later 
 observations published on the same question, both here and on the 
 Continent. 
 
 " That the immediate cause of the Death of our blessed Saviour 
 was — speaking medically — laceration or rupture of the heart, 
 is a doctrine in regard to which there can be no absolute cer- 
 tainty ; but, assuredly, in favour of it, there is a very high amount 
 of circumstantial probability." He adds : 2 " No medical jurist 
 would, in a court of law, venture to assert, from the mere symp- 
 toms preceding death, that a person had certainly died of 
 rupture of the heart. To obtain positive proof \}[i2X rupture of the 
 heart was the cause of death, a post-mortem examination of the 
 chest would be necessary. In ancient times such dissections were 
 not practised. But the details left regarding Christ's Death are 
 most strikingly peculiar in this respect, that they offer us the result 
 of a very rude dissection, as it were, by the gash made in His side 
 after death by the thrust of the Roman soldier's spear. The effect 
 of that wounding or piercing of the side was an escape of blood 
 and water, visible to the Apostle John, standing some distance off ; 
 and I do not believe that anything could possibly account for this 
 appearance as described by that Apostle, except a collection of 
 blood effused into the distended sac of the pericardium in con- 
 sequence of rupture of the heart, and afterwards separated, as is 
 usual with extravasated blood, into those two parts, viz., (i) cras- 
 samentum or red clot, and (2) watery serum. The subsequent 
 puncture from below of the distended pericardial sac would most 
 certainly, under such circumstances, lead to the immediate ejection 
 and escape of its sanguineous contents in the form of red clots of 
 blood and a stream of watery serum, exactly corresponding to that 
 description given in the sacred narrative, 'and forthwith came 
 there out blood and water,' an appearance which no other natural 
 event or mode of death can explain or account for." 
 
 * Pp- 335' 336. 3 Pp. 337. 338. 
 
Note D. 465 
 
 The letter of Dr. John Struthers, Lecturer on Anatomy- 
 Surgeons' Hall, may be given at length. 
 
 "Dear Dr. Hanna, — I do not think that any intelligent medical 
 man will read Dr. Stroud's treatise On the Physical Cause of the 
 Death of Christy without being satisfied with the explanation. 
 No other hypothesis will satisfactorily explain the separate escape 
 of blood and water from a wound in that region, and all the 
 incidents attending the death of Christ are entirely accounted for 
 by the hypothesis of rupture of the heart, and the separation of 
 the watery and the red constituents of the blood within the dis- 
 tended pericardium, on the puncture of which they would escape 
 forcibly. The various cases of rupture of the heart from mental 
 emotion, with similar separation of the watery and the red parts 
 of the blood, collected by Dr. Stroud, and also his cases of bloody 
 sweat, form a body of extremely interesting illustration and proof, 
 and altogether the treatise is a monument of careful research and 
 cautious reasoning. 
 
 " To medical men it has a special additional value, as accounting 
 for incidents which force themselves upon the medical mind for 
 explanation. Those of my brethren who have not read Dr. Stroud's 
 book, must be much puzzled, as I was before I had read it, to 
 account for the escape of water after, and distinct from, blood, from 
 a wound in that part of the body — supposing the words ' blood 
 and water ' to be accepted literally, which there need be no hesita- 
 tion now in doing. Of course the rupture of the heart is in every 
 aspect the great point of interest, the escape of the blood and water 
 being of importance only as an incident which, having been seen, 
 requires explanation, and as further bearing on the previous rupture 
 of the heart. 
 
 " To all, Dr. Stroud's treatise must be interesting, not as raising 
 or gratifying curiosity, but as an intelligent explanation of the 
 incidents themselves, and, still more, as a new illustration of the 
 awful agony which our Redeemer must have suffered. I was in- 
 debted to you for first bringing Dr. Stroud's book under my notice, 
 and I have since repeatedly recommended it to the notice of my 
 medical friends and students. I find lately that the first edition is 
 now exhausted, and hope that it will not be long before a new 
 edition of so valuable a work makes its appearance. — Believe me 
 \\ith much respect, yours very sincerely, "John Struthers." 
 
 3^ 
 
466 Appendix, 
 
 Note E. Page 86. 
 
 For an extremely able and learned account of Jewish sacrifices, 
 see The Typology of Scripture,'^ by Patrick Fairbairn, D.D. 
 
 In The Jewish Temple and Christian Church ^ I have given 
 a sketch of the various kinds of Levitical sacrifices that had re- 
 lation to transgressions of the Jewish law, 3 and have discussed 
 their relation to the Idea of Atonement. In illustration of the 
 statement in the text that no sacrifices secured forgiveness for 
 specific moral offences, I extract two or three passages in which 
 the apparent exceptions to the rule are considered and explained. 
 
 " If a man had knowingly failed to bear testimony in a court of 
 law against men whom he knew to be justly accused of a crime, he 
 was required to confess his sin and to bring a lamb or a kid for a 
 sin-offering ; or, if he was poor, two turtle-doves or two young 
 pigeons, or a small quantity of fine flour ; and then his sin was to be 
 forgiven . The moral element in this case would generally be very 
 slight and insignificant. Desirable as it is that all who know any- 
 thing that would inculpate a guilty man should bear their testimony 
 at his trial, I suppose that there are many circumstances which 
 most of us would regard as morally releasing us from the obligation 
 to vo&nteer adverse evidence ; and many suppose that it was for 
 the neglect of this that the offering was to make atonement and 
 obtain pardon. But even if the law refers to the case of one who 
 has actually been a witness in court, but has been silent on what 
 would have demonstrated the guilt of the accused, the silence 
 would commonly be occasioned by natural affection, by friendship, 
 by generous compassion for the guilty ; and though a sin against 
 the State would, when morally considered, be a very slight offence, 
 the telling half the truth when a man had promised to tell all, 
 equivocation, falsehood, perjury, could not be cancelled by the 
 offering of a lamb, or by any offering at all. The concealment of 
 damaging evidence to which the provision of the law points, was 
 not an act of falsehood, but a want of adequate zeal for the inflic- 
 tion of just penalties on the guilty. If the man's repentance of his 
 omission was sufficient to lead him to confess and to provide the 
 
 ^ Fourth edition. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1864. Vol. ii. 317-392. 
 
 2 Second edition. London : Hodder and Stoughton, 1871. 
 
 3 Pp. 186-204. 
 
Note E. 467 
 
 sacrifice, his failure might well be forgiven. This law is an indica- 
 tion of the firmness and resoluteness with which the whole nation 
 was to unite in the administration of criminal justice, rather than of 
 any tendency in the Jewish law to relax moral obligations by 
 promising forgiveness, on the bare ground of a ritual sacrifice, to 
 what we call sin. 
 
 " If a man had sworn an oath to do good or to do evil, the force 
 of which he did not at the time perceive, or which he was unable, 
 unwilling, or forbidden by the Divine law to perform, he had to 
 bring the same sin-offering as in the case last mentioned, and was 
 assured of forgiveness. Among ourselves, if a man 'pronounce 
 with his lips' words whose meaning and purpose he does not 
 apprehend, utters a vow in a state of intoxication, for instance, 
 utters it under some transitory delusion, utters it under the influ- 
 ence of deception practised upon him by others, it would not be 
 considered binding at all. His soul is under no obligation ; his 
 lips, not his will, have offended. But the Jewish lawgiver, solici- 
 tous for the sanctity of holy things, does not permit him to retreat 
 from his oath without acknowledging his involuntary error, and 
 bringing the appointed sacrifice : then he might retreat and be 
 forgiven. This cannot be regarded as a case of a moral offence 
 actually forgiven because a sacrifice has been offered." 
 
 Again : " If a man who had received property in trust was guilty 
 of fraud in relation to it ; or committed a fraud against his partner 
 in business ; or dishonestly kept lost property which he had found ; 
 or by an oath unjustly deprived another of property ; or, finally, by 
 any deception, or by any high-handed wrong-doing, enriched him- 
 self at another's expense, he was to bring a trespass-offering and 
 restore the property, adding to it a fifth of its value, and the sin was 
 to be forgiven. It is rather startling to find that actual pardon was 
 promised for crimes like these upon making compensation and 
 bringing the sacrifice ; but a little consideration may perhaps 
 diminish the surprise. It is clear that the law did not apply to 
 those whose crimes had been detected by others, or could be 
 punished by public justice. Severer penalties than these were 
 inflicted by the magistrate. The thief, if brought before the public 
 tribunals, had to restore, according to circumstances, twofold, four- 
 fold, or fivefold what he had taken, or was sold into bondage. 
 Breach of trust, or denying the possession of property thit had 
 
 31* 
 
468 Appendix, 
 
 been found, was punished by requiring the restitution of double its 
 value. But if a man guilty of any of these crimes had not been 
 brought before the magistrate, or, through defective testimony, or 
 judicial feebleness or corruption, had escaped the penalty, this law 
 of the trespass-offering appealed to his conscience to make public 
 confession of his guilt, to implore God's pardon by sacrifice, and to 
 make adequate compensation to him who had been wronged. If 
 conscience responded to this appeal — if he was able to overcome 
 the natural shame which would prevent him from Dublicly acknow- 
 ledging his crime, if he restored the property, augmented by a fifth 
 of its value, his repentance might surely be accepted as genuine. 
 He could give no further proof of the reality of his sorrow than this 
 voluntary confession and voluntary restoration. He was therefore 
 assured of forgiveness. 
 
 " But this is not an instance of a crime being pardoned simply on 
 the ground of a sacrifice being offered. The consequences of the 
 crime were voluntarily and completely repaired ; a heavy pecuniary 
 penalty was voluntarily borne, and public shame was voluntarily 
 endured, in obedience to the Divine law. Nothing is said in the 
 rubric of the trespass-offering concerning the necessity of repent- 
 ance to make the sacrifice effectual ; the reality of the repentance 
 is naturally and justly taken for granted. The object of the law 
 was to encourage restitution when wrong had been done, and to 
 remind the wrong-doer that the Divine displeasure had to be 
 averted, as well as compensation given to the victim of injustice. 
 
 "There was one other case in which a trespass-offering was 
 required. If a man committed adultery with his slave, the crime 
 was not to be punished by the death of both, as was the law when 
 both were free ; but there was to be a scourging, not of the woman 
 only, as our version has it, but perhaps of both, or still more pro- 
 bably of the man only, and then he was to bring a trespass-offering 
 and to be forgiven. This assurance of pardon, apart from any 
 guarantee of repentance for a real crime, stands alone in the Jewish 
 law : its exceptional position would justify us, I think, in passing it 
 over in a general estimate of the efficacy and results of animal 
 sacrifice. Perhaps we ought to regard the provision as primarily 
 intended not to provide atonement and secure pardon, but as one 
 of the numerous arrangements by which the Mosaic system en- 
 deavoured to soften and to elevate the condition of the slave. It is 
 
Note E. 469 
 
 clear that the relation of a master to his slaves involved the same 
 evils in the early ages of the world that it involves now ; and the 
 Jewish lawgiver, unable to break down the atrocious system by the 
 force of mere authority, so regulated it as to diminish its hard- 
 ships, and gradually to develop a recognition of the indestructible 
 right to personal freedom of every man who has not been guilty of 
 a crime. The scourging was the physical penalty of the offence ; 
 the trespass- offering reminded the wrong-doer that he had both 
 violated the rights of another and provoked the anger of God. But 
 the difficulty of this case I frankly admit. 
 
 " Speaking generally, neither sin-offering nor trespass-offering 
 could, when offered by an individual, assure forgiveness to the 
 guilty for any sins committed either against God or man. They 
 removed ceremonial defilement which had been unavoidably, in- 
 voluntarily, or unconsciously incurred ; but provided no atonement 
 and secured no pardon for intentional violation of even ceremonial 
 precepts. They gave rest to the conscience for unconscious trifling 
 with holy things, or neglecting to aid in the administration of 
 justice ; but provided no atonement and secured no pardon for 
 breaking solemn vows, or disregarding the sanctity of an oath. 
 They gave assurance of God's forgiveness when, through ignor- 
 ance, God's claims on property had not been satisfied, and this 
 only on condition that more was consecrated to Him on the dis- 
 covery of the offence than the law originally required ; but provided 
 no atonement and secured no pardon for intentional sacrilege. In 
 certain special cases of injustice they obtained God's mercy wher 
 the wrong had been actually undone by voluntary restitution to tht 
 injured, and the shame of public confession had been voluntarily 
 endured ; but provided no atonement and secured no pardon for 
 the innumerable sins against God or against man which cannot 
 actually be undone by subsequent acts of reparation. The only 
 moral offences which God forgave on the mere offering of a sacri- 
 fice, were offences freely acknowledged, offences not symbolically 
 but actually atoned for and cancelled by voluntary restitution. 
 God forgave only when by the voluntary act of the guilty the victim 
 of injustice no longer suffered from the crime. If, when a man had 
 told a lie, or committed a sensual sin, or intentionally neglected 
 any religious duty, he had been directed to procure a sacrifice — no 
 instruction, however clear, however authoritative, however solemn, 
 
470 Appendix, 
 
 to the effect that apart from interior repentance and trust in the 
 Divine mercy the sacrifice would be unavailing, could have pre- 
 vented men coming to regard the mere ceremonial act as an easy- 
 means of blotting out the moral offence. Iniquity would have been 
 established by a law. The moral sense of the nation would have 
 been enfeebled and paralysed by the natural influence of its reli- 
 gious institutions." 
 
 The ceremonial of the great Day of Atonement is illustrated 
 on pages 196-201. 
 
 Note F. Page 91. 
 It would be worth while to trace the direct influence of Isaiah 
 liii. on the mind of our Lord Himself and of His first disciples. 
 St. Matthew ^ recognises in the miracles of our Lord the fulfilment 
 of Isaiah liii. 4. St. Mark 2 recognises in His crucifixion between 
 two thieves the fulfilment of Isaiah liii. 12. St. Luke 3 represents 
 our Lord as saying that " this that is written of Me must yet be 
 accomplished, And He was numbered among the transgressors." 4 
 St. John 5 finds in the unbelief of the Jews the fulfilment of 
 Isaiah liii. i. Philip ^ finds the eunuch reading Isaiah liii. 7, 
 and "he began at the same scripture, and preached unto him 
 Jesus." St. Paul 7 finds in, "Who hath believed our report .^"8 
 an anticipation of His own sorrowful experience — " They have not 
 all obeyed the gospel." In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, his 
 statement that " Christ died for our sins, according to the scrip- 
 tures," 9 looks like a direct allusion to Isaiah liii. 5, 6, 8. A passage 
 of some length in St. Peter 1° is partly a quotation and partly a 
 paraphrase ot Isaiah liii. 5, 6. 
 
 Note G. Page-92. 
 
 The Rev. Stopford Brooke, in the first of the two sermons 
 on the Atonement contained in his Freedom in the Church of Eng- 
 
 ^ Matt. viii. 17. = Mark xv. 28. 3 Liike xxii. 37, 
 
 4 Isa. liii. 12. 5 John xii. 38. ^ Acts viii. 32. 
 
 '•' Rom. X. 16. ^ Isa. liii. i. 9 i Cor. xv. 3. 
 
 ^° T. Pet, ii. 22-25. 
 
Note G, 471 
 
 land, ^ has given an explanation of our Lord's cry on the cross, 
 which, if it could be sustained, would go far to invalidate the ar- 
 gument of Lectures ii. and iii. The explanation is of a kind to be 
 extremely attractive to many devout persons who shrink from the 
 expiatory theory of the Atonement. 
 
 Mr. Brooke begins by laying down the principle that " this ciy 
 of Christ's, as all His acts, was at once individual and universal ; 
 was the cry of a man and the cry of humanity." 2 As the " cry of 
 a man " — *' a personal utterance," he speaks of its exquisite truth to 
 human nature, 3 and calls special attention to " the way in which, 
 unconsciously, He identified His suffering with that of another 
 man," by making the words of an ancient Jewish psalmist the 
 expression of His sorrow. 4 As I find no clear explanation in the 
 earlier pages of the sermon of what it was that forced this personal 
 cry from our Lord, I am obliged to look for it later on, and in pages 
 38, 39, there is the following passage : " During those awful hours 
 Christ was, as perfect man, and sensitive in proportion to His perfect 
 humanity, face to face with death, and with death accompanied 
 with torture, with loneliness, with undeserved bitterness of enemies, 
 with the sense of wrong. It was impossible for Him not to realise 
 that that which had nailed Him there was the sinfulness of man. 
 It was impossible for Him not to feel that all this pain and misery 
 and death itself which He was suffering was caused on earth by 
 sin, and that these things were the judgment of God on account of 
 sin. But at the same time He must have also felt that He Him- 
 self was sinless. No consciousness of personal sin, no remorse 
 passed across His soul. He was suffering the natural penalties of 
 sin, and yet He knew that He did not deserve them, and feeling 
 this — feeling at one with God in spirit, and yet enduring the con- 
 sequences of man's evil — how could the cry help coming to His lips, 
 * My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ? ' This was the 
 personal cry, and this we reverently suppose its cause." 
 
 I submit that the explanation is inadequate. If this is all, the 
 cry may be marked by its " exquisite truth to human nature," but 
 it is not true to the character of Christ or to the facts of the spi- 
 ritual universe. Could Christ have felt, even for a moment, that 
 the sufferings inflicted upon Him by the hands of lawless men, the 
 
 ^ London : H, S. King and Co. Second edition, 1871. 
 » Page 30. 3 Page 31. •♦ Pp. 31, 32. 
 
472 Appendix, 
 
 physical anguish of the cross, the public scorn to which he was 
 exposed, were in any sense the sign that God had forsaken Him ? 
 Had He not said to His disciples, "Blessed are ye when men shall 
 revile you and persecute ; . . . . rejoice and be exceeding glad, 
 for great is your reward in heaven : for so persecuted they the 
 prophets which were before you " ? ^ Had He not also told them 
 that the world would hate them as it hated Him ; and that in 
 hating Him men had hated the Father also? 2 It is true that 
 when great trouble has come upon a man, other men have been 
 very apt to suppose that the sufferer is the special object of God's 
 anger. But this is what Mr. Brooke, in his second semion on the 
 Atonement in the same volume, justly calls the world's "stupid 
 maxim." Mr. Brooke continues : " Suffering does not always 
 prove God's anger ; " 3 and Christ knew that His own suffering did 
 not prove God's anger. He knew it, on the cross, as perfectly as 
 He had ever known it. The world's " stupid maxim," which too 
 often perverts our thoughts of the sufferings of others, and 
 which sometimes perverts our thoughts of our own sufferings, had 
 no place in the mind and heart of Christ. Such an utterance as 
 that on the cross — had it been the result of the kind of suffering by 
 which, as a personal cry, Mr. Brooke accounts for it — would have 
 been altogether inconsistent with the normal character of our 
 Lord. 
 
 But the cry was also " the cry of humanity j " the cry of One who 
 " felt Himself then as the impersonation of the whole race, who 
 spoke to God and acted before God as the whole of humanity in 
 one man." 4 Mr. Brooke conceives Christ as passing through the 
 channel of His personal sorrow away from it altogether, and iden- 
 tifying Himself with the same sorrow as felt by all mankmd. What 
 men in all ages had felt when trials like His own had come upon 
 them, what, apart from Himself, men in all future ages would feel 
 under the strain of similar trials, came into the soul of Christ 
 through His intense sympathy with mankind. " Into the whole 
 sense of this vast human suffering, Christ, losing the consciousness 
 of Himself and of His own pain, through the intensity of His 
 sympathy with us, threw Himself — and so realising it as His 
 own, oftered it up to the pity and love of God, and cried, as the 
 
 ^ Matt. V. II, 12. * John xv. 18-23. 
 
 3 Page 49. •♦ Page 35. 
 
Note G, 473 
 
 expression of all this sorrow of mankind to God, * My God, My 
 God, why hast Thou forsaken Me, forsaken man ? ' " i 
 
 This is an intelligible hypothesis, but as it stands it is imper- 
 fect, and Mr. Brooke himself supplies its imperfection a page or 
 two later ; but in completing the hypothesis he destroys it. He 
 thinks it necessary, indeed, to qualify even this half of his theory 
 as soon as he has stated it. " We must carefully distinguish the 
 feeling of being forsaken from the reality." Man hdiS felt that he 
 was abandoned by God ; but in reality God has never abandoned 
 him. Christ, he alleges, recognised this, " even when by self- 
 forgetfulness he had thrown Himself completely into the feeling 
 of the race, and suffered through sympathy with its pain." Hence 
 He said, " My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me 1" Mr. 
 •Brooke describes these words as " a paradox." 
 
 I should prefer an interpretation of them which rendered it un- 
 necessary to regard them thus. The sense of the entire withdrawal 
 of the light and joy of God's presence, whatever its cause, whether 
 it was the psychological result, according to Mr. Brooke's theory, 
 of an intense sympathy with the feeling of having been forsaken by 
 God which had been the supreme sorrow of mankind, or whether 
 it was the direct result of an actual suspension of the free personal 
 manifestation of the Divine presence to the soul of Christ, is per- 
 fectly consistent with the continuance of that deep relationship to 
 God which no loss of the consciousness of God's presence could 
 destroy. 
 
 I object to Mr. Brooke's explanation because it makes our 
 Lord's cry unreal. According to this explanation, God had neither 
 forsaken Christ Himself, nor had God ever forsaken humanity ; 
 and therefore (i) the cry expresses, not what was really true of 
 Christ Himself, but only what through His sympathy with men 
 seemed for the moment to become true of Himself; and (2) the 
 feeling with which Christ sympathised was in itself false. Man 
 had felt that he was abandoned by God, but God had never really 
 abandoned him. Why should Christ have endorsed a false in- 
 ference which human weakness had drawn from the pain and 
 misery of human life ? 
 
 But Mr. Brooke perceived very clearly, that in affirming that 
 Christ had this deep sympathy with the suffering of the race, he 
 ' Pp- 35 36. 
 
474 Appendix, 
 
 was affirming only half the truth which is implicated in the con- 
 ception of our Lord as " the representative Man ; " and therefore 
 he completes the explanation by adding that Christ "realised 
 through His own Death the sense of the death and pain and woe 
 of all the world, and, with it, the Sin of all the world as their 
 cause. He lost all thought of self in awful realisation of the Sin 
 of the whole world." ^ But if so, how was it that He " cried to 
 God as the voice of all humanity, ' My God, My God, why hast 
 Thou forsaken Me, forsaken man ? ' " 2 Realising the sin of the 
 world, should we not have expected Christ to utter an acknowledg- 
 ment that God might justly forsake, or had justly forsaken, man .-* 
 
 On Mr. Brooke's conception of our Lord's relationship to the 
 race, it is absolutely necessary to conceive of our Lord as realising 
 on the cross the sins of men as well as their sorrows ; and if He 
 realised their sins, He must have had present to Him so vividly 
 the terrible cause of man's sense of separation from God, that the 
 cry becomes quite unintelhgible as the cry of the representative 
 of the race. 
 
 While unable to accept his explanation of these mysterious and 
 awful words, I am too thankful for every recognition of the real 
 objective value of our Lord's Death not to acknowledge that Mr. 
 Brooke's theory includes the objective element very distinctly, 
 though, as I venture to think, in an incomplete form. 
 
 The following passage 3 is practically a statement of that side 
 of the theory which I have endeavoured to illustrate in Lecture x. 
 " There in Christ all humanity was concentrated ; there all hu- 
 manity suffered and sacrificed itself; there all humanity recon- 
 ciled itself to God ; there God saw all humanity die to sin, and 
 reconciled Himself to it; there all humanity conquered death in 
 a last struggle with it ; there the whole race united itself to the 
 life of God, for Christ was not only a man. He was humanity- 
 All the past of mankind had brought Him to this hour ; all the 
 future of mankind was anticipated and held in Him in that hour ; 
 all the present of mankind centered in Him there." 
 
 * Page 60. The italics and capitals are not Mr. Brooke's. 
 2 Page 40. 3 Page 29. 
 
Note H> 475 
 
 Note H. Page 129. 
 
 It is not quite clear that in any passage in the New Testament 
 the preposition vTrkp necessarily conveys the idea of substitution as 
 distinguished from the idea of representation. Representation, 
 indeed, in many cases implies substitution, but the two ideas are 
 not identical: practically, the representative may often be spoken 
 of as a substitute, but not always. When St. Paul says, " Now 
 then we are ambassadors for Christ {vTrkp xptarov), as though God 
 did beseech you by us : we pray you in Christ's stead (vnkp 
 XPtoTov) be ye reconciled to God," ^ he speaks of himself as 
 Christ's representative, and in representing Christ he takes Christ's 
 place. This is a case in which representation may be said 
 to include substitution. Christ does not "beseech," Paul does. 
 A-gain, when he writes to Philemon concerning Onesimus, " whom 
 I would have retained with me, that in thy stead (virep aov) he might 
 have ministered unto me," Onesimus is regarded as the representa- 
 tive of Philemon, and this involves the substitution of the service 
 of Philemon for that of Onesimus. Philemon cannot minister to 
 Paul ; Onesimus ministers in his place. But when St. Paul, writing 
 to the Cormthians, says, " The love of Christ constraineth us, 
 because we thus judged that [if] one died for all (vTrep ttolvtiov) then 
 all died," it is not clear that representation is equivalent to substi- 
 tution. For St. Paul's precise meaning seems to be, not that Christ 
 died in our stead, so that His Death takes the place of ours, and 
 renders it unnecessary for us to die — although when His Death is 
 considered under other aspects this is true — but that we died in 
 Him. If the idea of substitution as distinguished from represen- 
 tation had been in his mind, he would not have written " [if] one 
 died for all, then all died," but [if] one died for all, then all were 
 delivered from the necessity oj dying. 
 
 That vTzkp may be so used as to be practically equivalent to clvt'i, 
 is certain. It is so used in two of the passages which I have 
 just quoted, but it may be fairly contended that it is so used in the 
 New Testament only when representation necessarily carries with 
 it the idea of substitution. Its ordinary meaning is "on behalf 
 of," or " for the benefit of ;" and those passages in which Christ is 
 * 2 Cor. V. 20. 
 
476 Appendix, 
 
 said to have died " for us " can only be alleged in support of the 
 vicarious or substitutionary character of His Death, because if His 
 Death had not that character, it is impossible to see how it could 
 have secured for us the kind of benefits attributed to it. 
 
 Winer gives among the meanings of inrep with the genitive, " For 
 the most part, one who acts on behalf of another, represents him.^ 
 Hence vTrkp is sometimes nearly equivalent to avri instead, loco, 
 Phil. 13." 2 But in a note he adds, "Still, in doctrinal passages 
 relating to Christ's deaths it is not justifiable to render vTrep rjfiatv 
 and the like rigorously by " instead of," merely on account of such 
 parallel passages as Matt. xx. 28. 'Avri is the more definite of the 
 two prepositions. 'Yttsjo signifies merely /or, for men, for their 
 deliverance, leaving undetermined the precise sense in which 
 Christ died for them. 4 
 
 Meyer, discussing the force of v-rrkp in Rom. v. 6, says " that 
 Paul did not intend by vTrep to convey the meaning instead of, is 
 shown partly by the fact that while he indeed sometimes exchanges 
 it for the synonymous Trtpt'.s he does not once use instead of it the 
 unambiguous avTi, 6 which must nevertheless have suggested itself 
 to him most naturally ; and partly by the fact that with hithp as 
 well as with irtpi he puts not invariably the genitive of the person, 
 but sometimes that of the thmg (anapTiuiv), in which case it would be 
 impossible to explain the preposition by instead of. 7 It is true that 
 he has certainly regarded the Death of Jesus as an act furnishing the 
 satisfactio vicaria, as is clear from the fact ihat this bloody death 
 was accounted by him as an expiatory sacrifice.^ Comp. avriXvTpov 
 in I Tim. ii. 6 ; but in no passage has he expressed the substitu- 
 tionary relation through the preposition. On the contrary, his con- 
 stant conception is this: the sacrificial Death of Jesus, taking the 
 place of the punishment of men, and satisfying Divine justice, 
 took place as such in commodum {vrrep, Trepi) of men, or — which is 
 the same thing — on account of their sins {in gratiam), in order to 
 expiate them {-Trtpi, or vTcip dfiapTiCjv). This we hold against Flatt, 
 
 ^ I Tim. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 15, 
 
 " See in particular, Eurip. Alcesi. 700 ; Thuc. i. 141 ; Polyb. iii. 76, 
 
 3 Gal. iii. 13 ; Rom. v. 6-8 ; xiv. 15 ; i Pet; iii. 18, etc. 
 
 * Wwl&xs Grammar of the New Testament Idiom. Masson's Trans, p. 401. 
 
 5 Gal. i, 4 ; like Matt, xxvi. 20 ; Mark xiv. 25. 
 
 fi Matt. XX. 28. 7 Rom. viii. 3 ; i Cor, xv. 3. 
 
 8 Rom. iii. 25 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Steiger on i Pet, p. 342, seq. 
 
Note H. 477 
 
 Olshausen, Winzer, Reithmayr, Bisping, who take v-n-ep as loco. 
 That vTrep must at least be understood as loco in Gal. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor. 
 V. 14 (notwithstanding ver. 15) ; i Pet. iii. 18 (Riickert, Fritzsche, 
 Philippi), is not correct. ^ 
 
 Dr. F. C. Baur, while recognising the fact that virsp by itself ^o^s 
 not carry >;he idea of substitution, goes very far beyond Meyer in 
 conceding or rather maintaining that the preposition may some- 
 times, and that it actually does, imply substitution. Dr. Crawford 2 
 gives the following extract from F. C, Baur's posthumous work: 3 
 " As the death of Christ in relation to God is an act of satisfaction., 
 so in relation to man it is stibstitutionary {stellvertretend). That 
 Christ died v-Kip riii(hv, is the expression most commonly used by Paul 
 to indicate the significance of His Death for men. From the pre- 
 position vTzkp by itself, the notion of substitution cannot indeed be 
 inferred ; but just as little can the notion be excluded from it. The 
 two notions, that which was done for men, and that which was done 
 in their stead, pass over into each other. Among the many places 
 in which it is said of Christ that He died tia to. TrapaTrToJfxaTa Jifiwv, 
 or Trepi Tu)v afiapTiiov r'uxaiv, or virkp ToJv anapTio>v t'jfxuiv, 4 the passage in 
 2 Cor. V. 15 contains most distinctly the notion of substitution. 
 The Apostle draws from the proposition, etg virip ttclvtwv aTreOavev, 
 the immediate inference, apa oi Trdvreg ainOavov. Christ not merely 
 died for them, but also in their stead, as the one in the place of 
 many, — who, even because He died for them and in their stead, 
 did not themselves actually die, but are only regarded as dead in 
 Him their substitute. What happened to Christ happened objec- 
 tively to all. 5 The idea in this passage is that of a union of Christ 
 with us, effected by means of the principle of love [.?], in virtue of 
 which union, that which He has done for us is just the same as if we 
 had done it ourselves ; as He in His death has identified Himself 
 with us, and in dying for us has put Himself into our place, so we 
 must also think ourselves [?] into His place and regard ourselves as 
 
 ^ Commentary on Epistle to Romans, Vol. i. p. 231. Edinburgh : T. & T. 
 Clark, 1873. 
 
 - The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respectifig the Atonement. Edinburgh and 
 London : Blackwood & Sons, 1871. Pp. 473, 474. 
 
 3 Neutestamentliche Theologie. Pp. 158, 159. 
 
 4 Rom. iv. 25 ; V. 6 ; viii. 3 ; Gal. i. 4 ; i Cor. xv. 3. 
 
 5 This seems a somewhat different conception of the passage from that in 
 the previous sentence, and it is a much truer conception. [R. W.D.J 
 
478 Appendix, 
 
 dead with Him. This mutual oneness of being, in which the one 
 lives in the other, in which we are crucified with Christ, because 
 He was crucified for us, and we live in Him because He lives in 
 us,^ is the genuine Pauline notion of substitution. This, therefore, 
 is also the correct meaning of the preposition virtp. It is not the 
 vague general ' for,' which may stand in all possible relations, but 
 it expresses the inmost immediate entering (Eingehen) into 
 another, and putting oneself in his place." 
 
 Note I. Page 135. 
 No doubt St. Peter's thought, if it were fully developed, would 
 amount to this : — " You are falsely accused of committing sins ol 
 which you are innocent, and you suffer : it is better for you to sufter 
 for sins of which you are innocent, than for sins of which you are 
 guilty, for it was thus that Christ suffered." But the manner in 
 which this thought is expressed is not the less startling ; for 
 although in a previous sentence he had said, " They speak evil of 
 you as evil doers," and had spoken of the false accusations that 
 were brought against good men, the sentence immediately preceding 
 the phrase, " Christ also once suffered for sins " {kpIittov yap 
 dyaQoTTOiovvTag, d Q'tku to Oikrjfxa tov Gtou, Tracrxfi*', j) KraKOTroiouvras), 
 prepares us for some such sequence as on kuI xpioroc dyadoiroiujv 
 tiraOs. But to have written this, true as it is, would have been con- 
 trary to the Apostle's habit of thought. 
 
 Note J. Page 143. 
 I do not imagine that what is said on pages 140-143 is an ex- 
 haustive explanation of I Pet. i. 17-19. That the conception of the 
 whole passage is sacrificial, is obvious : the blood of Christ has the 
 power of the blood of " a lamb without spot," and had redeemed them 
 from their " vain conversation," But St. Peter doubtless believed 
 with St. Paul, and there are some intimations of it in this epistle — 
 that the Death of Christ was the death of sin. The heathen were 
 to yield themselves to God as those that were alive from the dead, 
 
 ' Gal. ii. 20. 
 
Note K, 479 
 
 because in the Death of Christ sin died. This, however, in no 
 way enfeebles — perhaps it strengthens — the force of the argu- 
 ment derived from this passage for an objective Atonement. 
 
 Note K. Page 163. 
 
 Cremer's articles^ on 'iXaaKOfiai and 'iXao-juoc, are extremely inter- 
 esting and able. 
 
 Dr. BUSHNELL, in his Vicarious Sacrijice,^ tries very hard to 
 eliminate the idea of Expiation from the Old Testament as well 
 as the New. In an article on The " Moral View " of the Atone- 
 menty which appeared in the British Quarterly Review, October, 
 1866, I endeavoured to reply to his argument. His first two points 
 are of inconsiderable importance, the rest appear to require dis- 
 cussion. I do not know that I have anything to add to the follow- 
 ing passages extracted from the article. 3 
 
 "Thirdly, he objects that 'the original of the word atone, or 
 7nake atonement, in the Hebrew Scriptures, carries no such idea of 
 expiation. It simply speaks of covering, or making cover for sin, 
 and is sufficiently answered by anything which removes it, hides it 
 from the sight, brings it into a state of reconciliation, where the 
 impeachment of it is gone. . . . Everything turns here, manifestly, 
 on the meaning of the original Hebrew word ; and as the root or 
 symbol of this word means simply to cover, we can see for ourselves 
 that while it might be applied as a figure, to denote a covering by 
 expiation, it can certainly as well and as naturally be applied to 
 anything which hides or takes away transgression." But if the 
 word is almost uniformly used in. a connection which shows that 
 the * covering ' was effected by ' expiation,' it is to no purpose to 
 urge that it can * as well and as naturally be applied to anything 
 which hides or takes away transgression.' Can he give us any 
 instance in which atonement can possibly mean the awakening of 
 repentance in the wrong-doer ? 
 
 " The true explanation of the word is that it means originally to 
 ' cover ;' that in relation to sin it always means so to cover it as to 
 avert the penalty due to it ; and that this covering is almost always 
 
 "^ Biblico- Theological Lexicon. 
 * Page 425, seq. 3 Page 442, seq. 
 
4S0 ^ Appendix . 
 
 effected by expiation. It is, without exception, an objective effect 
 that is said to be accomphshed by atonement. 
 
 " The fourth point is that ' atonements are accordingly said 
 to be made where the very idea of expiation is excluded, and 
 sometimes where there is in fact no sacrifice at all.' 
 
 *'He instances first the atonements which were made for the 
 sanctifying of the altar. The altar could not sin ; and, therefore, no 
 expiation could be made for its sin. But the ceremony of making 
 an atonement for the altar, and indeed for ' the holy place ' itself, 
 was repeated every year on the great Day of Atonement, and 
 the reason of the ceremony is given in Lev. xvi. 16 : ' He shall 
 make an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness 
 of the children of Israel^ and because of their transgressions in all 
 their sins.' Kurtz gives a very just interpretation of the ritual 
 when he says that, ' having been erected in the midst of the sinful 
 nation, they might be regarded as having been contaminated and 
 defiled by the impurity of the atmosphere that surrounded them.' 
 The sanctification of the altar, ' in men's feeling,' was the result of 
 the atonement for the sins which had defiled it. 
 
 " The (5ther case, ' where expiation is excluded because there is 
 no sacrifice,' is that of the intercession of Moses, who, when the 
 people had sinned by making and worshipping the golden calf, said, 
 'Now I will go up unto the Lord, perad venture I shall make an 
 atonement for your sins.' No more fatal illustration could have 
 been alleged on behalf of the theory it is quoted to support. 
 
 "For (i), according to the 'moral view,' Moses should have 
 preached to the people, to bring them to a better mind : instead of 
 this, he went up into the mount, to pray to God. Plainly he must 
 have thought that the immediate object of atonement was not to 
 make men better, but to avert God's displeasure. (2) Did Dr. 
 Bushnell forget the sublime spirit of self-sacrifice which was in the 
 heart of the great legislator when he went back into the solitudes 
 of Sinai to meet God ? ' Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin,' he 
 exclaimed, ' and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book ;' 
 anticipating the passionate exclamation of St. Paul, ' I could wish 
 myself accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen accord- 
 ing to the flesh.' It is clear that the immediate purpose of Moses 
 was to obtain Divine pardon for the sins which the people had 
 already committed, not to keep them from sin in the time to come ; 
 
Note K, 481 
 
 and it is even possible that when he spoke to them of ' atone- 
 ment/ he was meditating an appeal to God that he might himself 
 be punished in their stead. In any case, he was endeavouring to 
 
 * cover ' the sin ; not by leading the idolaters to repentance, but by 
 interposing something, — perhaps his own vicarious intercession 
 merely — between the anger of God and the guilt of the people. 
 
 " Fifthly, — ' It is a great point that expiations or expiatory sacri- 
 fices are certainly not offered where we should expect them to be, if 
 they are offered at all.' He instances again the case of the golden 
 calf, also the mutiny which followed the judgment of Korah, and 
 the reformations of Jonah and of Ezra. ' In all such cases,' he says, 
 
 * and they are many, we look for expiation, and do not find it ; and 
 what is quite as remarkable, there is no case to be found where 
 God's anger in a day of guilt and fear is placated, or ever attempted 
 to be, by a clearly expiatory sacrifice.' 
 
 " The reference to the popular discontent which followed the de- 
 struction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is singularly infelicitous. 
 ' Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer and put fire thereon from 
 off" the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly into the congrega- 
 tion, and make an atonement for them.' Dr. Bushnell says, ' It is 
 never supposed that there is any such thing as expiation by in- 
 cense.' But (i) what was the object of the act which Moses sug- 
 gested ? To use Dr. Bushnell's language, ' no one supposes that it 
 was intended to touch the hearts of the people.' ' There is wrath 
 gone out from the Lord ; Ike plague is begim;^ and Aaron's direct 
 and sole purpose was to appeal to the Divine mercy, and to avert 
 the wrath against the whole nation, which threatened to ' consume 
 them as in a moment.' If there was no 'expiation,' there was 
 certainly not ' such a working on the bad mind of sin as ... . 
 reconciles it to God.' 'The effect' was not what Dr. Bushnell 
 declares the effect of atonement to be, ' wholly subjective, being 
 a change wrought in all the principles of life and character, and dis- 
 positions of the soul.' And (2) the fire is distinctly stated to have 
 been taken ^ from the altar.^ The burning incense was thus con- 
 nected with the ritual of expiation. 
 
 "It is, however, perfectly true that the Jewish law did not provide 
 for the expiation by sacrifice of definite moral offences, strictly so 
 called. This act of Aaron's stands alone, so far as we remember, 
 in Old Testament history. It was the natural impulse of a moment 
 
 32 
 
483 Appendix, 
 
 of agony, and the spirit in which the appeal was made to the Divine 
 mercy was a reason for the Divine response to it : no such use 
 either of incense or of sacrifices was contemplated in the Levitical 
 institutions. 
 
 " We shall have occasion to speak of the great annual atone- 
 ment in reply to another passage in Dr. Bushnell's treatise ; but 
 apart from that ceremonial, prescribed for a particular day once a 
 year, the Jewish sacrifices did not profess to atone for violations of 
 the moral law. Only involuntary ceremonial offences, which were 
 but the symbols of real moral transgressions, could be expiated by 
 sacrifices which were but the symbols of the real atonement for 
 sin. Had it been otherwise, the worst and most fatal consequences 
 would have followed. If when an individual or the whole nation 
 had committed any moral offence, or intentionally violated any 
 ceremonial law, the Levitical system had provided a ritual of atone- 
 ment, nothing qould have prevented the external act from being 
 regarded as a means, divinely appointed, for cancelling the guilt. 
 No exhortations about the necessity of repentance would have any 
 practical effect. * The moral sense of the nation would have been 
 enfeebled and paralysed by the natural influence of its religious 
 institutions.' When, therefore. Dr. Bushnell says that ' expiatory 
 sacrifices are certainly not offered where he should expect them to 
 be,' he shows that he has failed to recognize a most remarkable 
 proof of the profound wisdom of the Mosaic legislation. In such 
 cases as he instances — cases of gross moral offences — expiatory 
 sacrifices were not offered, because they were not prescribed : to 
 have prescribed them would have been to inflict the gravest in- 
 jury on the moral life of the people. 
 
 " Sixthly — ' The requirement of the heart, as a condition necessary 
 to acceptance in the sacrifice, is a very strong presumptive evidence 
 that no idea of expiation belonged to sacrifice. At first, nothing 
 appears to be said of the spirit in which the offering is to be made, 
 though it is not to be supposed that it was ever accepted, in any 
 but a merely ritual and ceremonial sense, unless coupled uncon- 
 sciously or implicitly with a true feeling of repentance.' 
 
 " A closer investigation of the Jewish sacrificial system would 
 have led to the cancelling not only of these two sentences, but of 
 the four or five paragraphs which follow them. For (i) it is a fact 
 which any one may verify for himself, that though four books of the 
 
Note K, 483 
 
 Pentateuch are almost filled with ritualistic laws, there is not a 
 single line to remind the man who brings a sin-offering to the 
 priest that its atoning efficacy will depend upon ' the spirit ' in 
 which the offering is made. (2) The offences which could be ex- 
 piated by sacrifices were not, generally speaking, such as could 
 be thought of * unconsciously or implicitly with a true feeling of 
 repentance ; ' and in the special cases in which acts of injustice 
 were atoned for by 'trespass-offerings,' the wrong had actually 
 been undone by voluntary restitution to the injured person, and 
 the shame of public confession had been voluntarily endured, be- 
 fore the sacrifice was presented. (3) The denunciations of the 
 prophets, directed against the hypocrisy and formalism of the 
 Jewish people, were not intended to show that ceremonial atone- 
 ments could not expiate involuntary ceremonial offences unless 
 there was aright 'spirit' in the offerer. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, 
 and Micah insist upon the great moral duties which the nation 
 had neglected, denounce the moral offences of which the kings, 
 priests, and commonalty were guilty, and in the very spirit of the 
 ancient legislation maintain that no ritualistic services can com- 
 pensate for disobeying the moral law. 
 
 "A singular use is made of Saul's haste to offer sacrifices at the 
 commencement of his campaign against the Philistines, and his 
 sparing of the spoil taken from Agag. 
 
 " ' We find that Saul, an overgrown child of superstition, offers a 
 sacrifice on two several occasions in his own way, disregarding 
 God's appointed way, and even His special command. In t;he first 
 instance, because, in going to battle, he wants to " make supph- 
 cation to the Lord ;" and in the second, because, having gained 
 a victory, he wants to honour God in a grand ovation of sacrifice. 
 Whereupon Samuel meets him in sharp rebuke, saying, '* Hath 
 the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in 
 obeying the voice of the Lord ? Behold (this appears to be an 
 already accepted proverb), to obey is better than sacrifice, and to 
 hearken than the fat of rams.' " 
 
 " Surely this does not prove that ' the spirit ' in which the offer- 
 ing was made was essential to whatever expiatory effect the sin- 
 offerings were supposed to produce. For (i) it is not said that 
 Saul offered or intended to offer any 'sin-offerings' at all. (2) 
 Saul committed, in the first instance, ^ moral offence in not 
 
 32-* 
 
484 Appendix, 
 
 waiting till Samuel came. As Samuel had told the king to wait 
 for his coming, Saul was guilty of impatience and distrust by 
 precipitately offering the sacrifice before the prophet's arrival. It 
 was of the greatest importance that the first human monarch of 
 the elect nation should recognize God as the true mvisible King, 
 under whose authority he reigned 
 
 ( ' ' Ere Saul they chose, 
 God was their king, and God they durst depose ") ; 
 
 but Saul was about to attack the Phihstines without the Divine 
 directions which Samuel would have given him. ' He disre- 
 garded/ as Dr. Bushnell says, ' God's special command,' and 
 did not merely fail to offer his sacrifices in the right ' spirit.' In 
 the second instance, Saul had already disobeyed ' the voice of the 
 Lord,' in preserving the spoil which he had been told to destroy. 
 Samuel does not condemn him for being about to sacrifice 'the 
 sheep and oxen,' without ' the requirement of the heart,' which 
 was ' a condition necessary to acceptance in the sacrifices,' but for 
 rebellion and ' stubbornness.' 
 
 " Dr. Bushnell's seventh point, that it was not the death, but the 
 blood, which was the significant element in the Jewish sacrifice, 
 and that as ' the blood is the Hfe, so it is life-giving ; a symbol of 
 God's inward purifying and regenerating baptism in the remission 
 of sins,' has already been answered. Even if it be true that this 
 was the meaning of the sprinkling of the blood of the victim, it 
 only shows that after the death had expiated guilt, and so averted 
 penalty, the removal of the interior pollution was still necessary. 
 
 " Eighthly — It is maintained that ' the passover sacrifice has cer- 
 tainly nothing of expiation in it,' and that as the ' Christian Supper 
 which commemorates our Lord's Death is the continuance of this 
 ceremony,' it is unlikely that the Death of Christ was expiatory. 
 This argument we can afford to let go : to discuss it, would carry 
 us far beyond the space to which the present article must be 
 limited ; but that there was an expiatory value in the blood of the 
 paschal lamb, is confessed by some who deny that it was properly 
 a sin-offering. 
 
 " Ninthly — Dr. Bushnell cannot believe that the sacrifices were 
 associated with 'notions of penal sanction for sin,' because all 
 ' the most joyous and grandest ' religious festivals were ' cele- 
 brated in rivers of blood.' But (i) why should not the Jews rejoice 
 
JSIote K. 485 
 
 when their sins had been atoned for ; and especially when by 
 ' burnt-offerings,' between which and ' offerings for sin' Dr. Bushnell 
 makes no distinction, * they had surrendered themselves afresh to 
 God ' ? Nehemiah and Ezra checked the grief occasioned by the 
 reading of the law, and charged the people, at the very time they 
 were distressed by their long neglect, to ' go their way, eat the fat, 
 and drink the sweet, and send portions to them for whom nothing 
 is provided.' (2) The day on which the annual atonement was 
 effected, was not a day of gladness ; there were no ' processions 
 of music and songs of praise ; ' but the people were to afflict their 
 souls. 
 
 " Finally, it is alleged that * where the rite of sacrifice bears a 
 look of expiation, and the instances are taken as facts of expiation, 
 a closer examination shows in every case that the impression is 
 not supported by the transaction.' 
 
 " The sacrifice of Job for his sins is the single historical example 
 on which Dr. Bushnell relies, and as we believe that in the ' burnt- 
 offerings ' of patriarchal times, the expiatory idea, if present at all, 
 was exceedingly obscure, we do not take any exception to the 
 paragraph in which it is contended that this was at most a suppli- 
 catory offering. 
 
 " We cannot extract, nor indeed is it necessary that we should, 
 Dr. Bushnell's account of the solemnities of the Day of Atonement. 
 A single paragraph in which, under the influence of the funda- 
 mental mistake of his whole argument, he implies that what is 
 intended to produce a moral effect upon man cannot at the same 
 time be expiatory before God, will adequately represent his account 
 of these remarkable ceremonies. 
 
 " ' We shall be struck in the review of them, no^ with any dis- 
 covery of an expiatory element^ but with the fact that everything 
 is ordered with such a manifestly artistic study and skill, to beget, 
 in minds too crude for the reflective modes of exercise, a whole 
 set of impressions answering to those of the Christian doctrine of 
 salvation, the holiness of God, the uncleanness and deep guilt of 
 sin, and the faith of God's forgiving mercy.' 
 
 " Expiation, as defined by Dr. Pye Smith, ' denotes anything that 
 may supply an adequate reason for exempting the crimmal from 
 the penalty due ; ' and it admits of proof that expiation was the 
 most conspicuous and sometimes the only idea of all the * sin- 
 
486 Appendix. 
 
 offerings ' and ' trespass-offerings ' of the Mosaic legislation. The 
 subjective effect was secured by the presentation of an objective 
 atonement. 
 
 " Dr. Bushnell discovers no ' expiatory element ' in the service on 
 the great Day of Atonement ; but what was a Jew likely to dis- 
 cover in it .'^ If the ' moral view ' had been suggested to a devout 
 worshipper in the tabernacle or the temple, we can imagine him 
 giving some such reply as this : — ' What atonement is, I know. 
 More than once, ignorantly and unintentionally, I have broken the 
 precepts of the law, and when I discovered my offence, I was 
 troubled by fear of the Divine displeasure. I brought a kid of the 
 goats to the priest, and he offered it as a " sin-offering," — it was 
 an expiation for the transgression I did not mean to commit ; when 
 it was offered, my involuntary offence was blotted out. But I have 
 been guilty of sins innumerable, for which I could not offer any 
 expiation. For my ungoverned anger, for my selfishness, for my 
 want of pity for the poor, for the ingratitude of my heart to Jehovah 
 for all His goodness to me, the law permits me to bring no sacri- 
 fice. If my lesser offences can only be forgiven when the priest 
 has atoned for them, these greater sins must surely need atone- 
 ment too. My case is that of the whole nation. We have all 
 sinned and done wickedly ; and though we have expiated involun- 
 tary transgressions, for our worst crimes no expiation has been 
 made. But, year by year, we call to mind all our iniquities and 
 we " afflict our souls." We assemble before the holy place, and 
 sacrifices are slain for us all. They are called " sin-offerings," — 
 the very name which is given to the atonements for our inferior 
 transgressions of the law. We cannot indeed believe, that if one 
 man must bring a goat to expiate an unintentional breach of one 
 of God's lighter precepts, these two goats can expiate all the great 
 offences of which all the people have been guilty ; and yet these 
 two goats are also a " sin-offering." Over the head of one of them 
 the high priest confesses "all the iniquities of the children of 
 Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins." Surely I am 
 to think of the sacrifices offered for the nation as I think of the 
 sacrifices which I have offered for myself : when the annual atone- 
 ment is made, I may look to God to pardon me. God means me 
 to think of all my sins as expiated by the death of the goat that is 
 ''slain, and as removed from me, " far as the east is from the west," 
 
Note K. 487 
 
 by the goat that is driven into the wilderness. No promise, in- 
 deed, is given that when the day is over all our iniquities shall be 
 forgiven ; and in this the law of the great Day of Atonement is 
 unlike the laws which direct us how to atone individually for our 
 ceremonial offences. The reason of the difference is plain, for in 
 other cases a full expiation is made : in this case there is only the 
 form of an expiation. But it is just because I see on this great 
 day what exactly corresponds to the common atonements for ce- 
 remonial transgressions, that I dare to trust in the Divine mercy, 
 and to hope that God will pardon all my sins. It is only a form ; 
 it has no real atoning power ; and this prevents me sometimes 
 from finding perfect peace. But God means that I should think of 
 my worst sins as expiated, and though sometimes " heart and flesh 
 fail" when I remember my transgressions, I will believe that He is 
 willing to forgive them all.' 
 
 " Our imaginary Jew's account is, we think, truer to the genius 
 of the Levitical institutions, and to the ritual of the Day of Atone- 
 ment itself, than Dr. Bushnell's ; nor would the Jew be at all per- 
 plexed by the suggestion that the goat ' by which the people are to 
 be personally cleansed themselves, suffers no death or dying pain at 
 all, as their substitute ; but having their sins all put upon his head 
 by the priest's confession, is turned loose alive, and driven off into 
 the wilderness, so to signify the deportation or clean removal of 
 their guiltiness.' It is expressly said that the ^zcjo goats consti- 
 tuted the sin-offering : they cannot be severed. The one is sent 
 off into the wilderness as a visible sign that the sins confessed over 
 him are utterly removed, because the other has first been put to 
 death. 
 
 " The idea of a real expiation cannot be separated from the sin- 
 offerings for individual and ceremonial offences ; the idea of a 
 symbolic expiation cannot be separated from the sacrifices annu- 
 ally offered for the sins of the whole people. The institutions of 
 Judaism, as well as the explicit teaching of Christ and the Apostles 
 protest against the theory of an Atonement from which the ex- 
 piatory idea is excluded." ' 
 
488 Appendix. 
 
 Note L. Page 196. 
 
 The question whether St. Paul had received a supernatural reve- 
 lation, which he was commissioned to make known to mankind, 
 and the question whether his writings are inspired, are quite dis- 
 tinct. Revelation and inspiration are very far from being identical. 
 The Jewish nation at Sinai received a revelation from heaven. To 
 the crowds that listened to the Sermon on the Mount, God Him- 
 self, in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, directly revealed His 
 thought and will. But in neither case were those who received the 
 revelation " inspired." That inspiration is the condition of receiv- 
 ing certain forms of Divine revelation, is true ; but Divine revela- 
 tions are possible without it. Those persons to whom the theory of 
 inspiration is involved in great difficulty, and to whom the doctrine 
 that the writings of the New Testament are in any sense inspired 
 writings is especially perplexing, may perhaps find a temporary 
 foothold for faith in distinguishing between revelations which in 
 ways unknown to us may have been made to St. Paul and the 
 inspiration which is claimed for his epistles. In our times many 
 persons must find their way from doubt to faith by postponing the 
 question of inspiration until they have settled some other contro- 
 versies of more immediate interest. The question of inspiration is 
 one for those who have already arrived at a personal knowledge of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of mankind, 
 rather than for those who are still doubting whether He has a right 
 to claim the perfect homage and perfect trust of the human race. 
 The subject is discussed incidentally and popularly in T/ie 
 Ultimate Principles of Protestantism^^ by the author of these 
 Lectures. 
 
 Note M, 'Page 222. 
 The argument in Galatians iii. is immediately directed against 
 ihose who were looking to the Jewish law for justification, and the 
 point of it consists in the demonstration that the law, instead of 
 justifying men, revealed their sin, and declared that because of sin 
 they were under the curse ; Christ brought deliverance from the 
 
 * London : Hodder & Stoughton. 1874. 
 
Note M. 489 
 
 curse by being made a curse for us. But it was not for the Jews 
 alone that Christ died ; nor did He die merely to exhaust the formal 
 penalty which avenged transgression of the Jewish law. The 
 Jewish constitution bore witness to the enduring order of the king- 
 dom of God. The moral precepts of the Jewish law were but the 
 temporary and imperfect expression of the precepts of that eternal 
 Law of Righteousness which can never receive adequate expression 
 in definite commandments ; and its penalties were the visible sym- 
 bols and prophecies of the final revelation of the righteous judgment 
 of God. The Death of Christ, while satisfying the merely external 
 conditions of the temporary law, also satisfied deeper and more 
 august necessities ; otherwise it could have had no universal or 
 lasting significance. Hence in this very epistle St. Paul writes that 
 Christ "gave Himself" — not merely for those transgressions which 
 were formally forbidden and formally condemned by the Jewish 
 law, but — " for our sins " — for our transgressions of that other and 
 higher law of which the Jewish law was but a shadow. And He 
 " gave himself for our sins " — not merely that He might redeem us 
 from a formal curse, but — " that He might deliver us from this pre- 
 sent evil world," ^ separating us now and for ever from that moral 
 chaos out of which no Divine order can arise, and which is ulti- 
 mately to perish. He effected this not merely by the moral and 
 spiritual forces which act directly on the heart and conscience, but 
 by giving Himself " for our sins." He endured the penalty of sin 
 for us, that He might lift us out of the " world," which was disor- 
 ganized by sin and exposed to the wrath of God. Later on in the 
 epistle the Apostle appropriates Christ's great act of self-sacrifice 
 to himself: He " loved me and gave Himself for me ; " 2 and later 
 still he expresses his sense of the infinite worth and power of the 
 Death of Christ, by exclaiming, " God forbid that I should glory, 
 save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has 
 been crucified to me and I unto the world." 3 The recognition 
 of the unique function of the Death of Christ in human redemption 
 is a golden cord woven into the very texture of the epistle. 
 
 » Gal. i. 4. ' Ibid. ii. 20. 3 Ibid. vi. 14. 
 
490 Appendix. 
 
 Note N. Page 235. 
 
 It would be difficult to find in any Christian commentator or 
 theologian a clearer and firmer apprehension of St. Paul's concep- 
 tion of Justification ai a single point than that which is given in a 
 very interesting treatise written by a Jewish rabbi at Leghorn. ^ 
 St. Paul's doctrine of Justification is practically destructive of the 
 " moral theory" of the Atonement ; for if we were justified through 
 the Death of Christ only because the Death of Christ makes us better 
 men, the Pauline theory of Justification would have to be re-cast. 
 The following passages from Morale Juive et Morale Chretienne,'^ 
 strengthen the argument in the text. 
 
 " Christians of every sect, of every party, of every shade, are 
 agreed on one point — that in the judgment of St. Paul, the great 
 lawgiver, the great moralist of Christianity, faith justifies without 
 works. . . . But the principle so stated appeared so confounding, 
 so opposed to the noblest instincts of the human heart, so contrary 
 to that emotional morality which Christianity preached, that it was 
 very soon limited and qualified. While Protestantism, true to 
 logic and to reason, boldly drew from the principle all that it 
 involves, and proclaimed that works of morality are useless and 
 pernicious, faith being the only condition of salvation, Catholi- 
 cism on the contrary, since it was ruled by an external, social 
 political authority, which is at once a government, an adminis- 
 trative system, and a police, shrunk with alarm from these revolu- 
 tionary conclusions, this moral licentiousness, and it understood 
 the " works " of St. Paul in their most restricted sense, that is to say, 
 as the works of the law, as Mosaic practices, and it declared against 
 the Protestants, in the Council of Trent, the necessity of good works. 
 This was a return to the ancient Hebraic morality, it was to contra- 
 dict at every point the Apostle of the Gentiles, it was to diminish 
 considerably the importance and efficacy of redemption. 
 
 " Thus you see Protestants use the same language against the 
 Catholics as Paul employs against the Pharisees and Judaizing 
 Christians, and they place the Catholics on the same level as the 
 Jews. ' The Catholic doctors^ said Mosheim, ^ confound the law 
 
 ^ Morale Juive et Morale Chrdtlenne. Par E. Benamozegh. Paris. Michel 
 l.evy, 1867. 2 pp_ 48-53. 
 
Note N. 491 
 
 ii'f//i the gospel^ and represent eternal happz7tess as the reward of 
 good works, ^ Is this the true meaning and the real intention of 
 St. Paul ? This is the ground upon which the great dispute between 
 the Catholics and Protestants began, as we have before said. For 
 ourselves, the doctrine of St. Paul is exactly that which reason and 
 independent criticism has ascribed to him by the mouth of Protes- 
 tants. The following passages and expressions of St. Paul are 
 explicit on this point. He gives us as an example of his principle, 
 Abraham, Abraham justified not by works, but by faith.^ Now 
 the works of Abraham, 'which are not weighed in the balance by 
 God,' according to St. Paul, were not, that I am aware of, the works 
 of the law, which was not yet given, but in the strictest sense moral 
 works — charity, justice, hospitality, the love of men, virtue, and mo- 
 notheism spread among the Gentiles. And yet Abraham was not 
 justified by his works, but simply by his faith. Would St. Paul 
 speak thus if he were thinking only of the works of the law .? Further, 
 I say that if the example chosen by Paul is one of the most con- 
 clusive, the phrases which accompany it, the consequences which 
 he draws from it, are in their turn not less decisive. ' For what 
 saith the scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
 unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the re- 
 ward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.' ^ Here then every title 
 to recompense, every meritorious work, is declared worthless. 
 But this is not all. ' But to him that worketh not, but believeth 
 on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for right- 
 eousness.' 3 No doubt about his meaning is possible. Without 
 works, and however sinful, faith alone in Him who justifies the guilty 
 is sufficient for salvation. Do we desire more proof .-* Paul goes on 
 to say : " Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the 
 man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, 
 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are 
 covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute 
 sin." 4 That is to say, according to the meaning given by Paul to 
 these words of David, the grace of faith brings with it the pardon 
 of iniquities, the imputation ofrighteousness; and in Rom. iii. 26 the 
 ground of glorying is placed not in the law of works, but in the 
 law of faith. Likewise in the Epistle to the Galatians 5 we learn 
 ^ Rom. iv. 1-4, 3 Ibid. iv. 3, 4. 3 ibid. iv. 5. 
 
 4 Ibid. iv. 6-8. 5 Gal. ii. 16. 
 
492 Appendix, 
 
 that man is not justified by the works of the law (no distinc- 
 tion being made between different kinds of works), but solely by 
 faith in Jesus Christ. It is true that in the Epistle to the Romans ^ 
 the Apostle declares that the law is not made void through 
 faith, but on the contrary it is established. It is also true that in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians^ he exhorts them not to sin; but it is 
 because in the first place he was imitating the language of the 
 Master, who saw in Christianity only what was spiritual and 
 eternal in the reality and substance of the ancient law; and, 
 further, because he was conscious himself of all the danger of 
 his principles, because he saw all the possible consequences, 
 and the immorality that might be introduced into the world 
 under the cover of proclaiming that faith is the sole virtue 
 which justifies. Again, I say, if he condemns immorality, if he is 
 not willing to accord all the liberty that faith admits of, it is for some 
 reason of expediency, and for some secondary consideration. For 
 we know very well that it is not in the name of truth, justice, and 
 absolute virtue, that Paul does not admit immorality under the 
 empire of faith ; but it is because faith, being perfectly able to 
 forgive all vice and crime, it would be very unfitting to make it a 
 party to sin, an instrument of evil, to make, as he says, Christ the 
 instrument of sin. See how far Christianity was obliged to descend 
 to find a support for morahty after having taken away from it its 
 ancient and natural foundation, the law." 
 
 Note O. Page 262. 
 To interpret 2 Cor, v. 19, as meaning that God in Christ was 
 subduing the hostihty of men, and so reconciling them to Himself, 
 is to force upon the words a sense which goes very far to destroy 
 the coherence of the whole passage in which they occur, and is to 
 disregard what may be described as the idiom of apostolic thought. 
 The phrase " not imputing to them their trespasses " is in direct 
 apposition to "God was reconciling the world to Himself" The 
 appeal, " Be ye reconciled to God," is based on the fact that God 
 had already reconciled Himself — as we should say — to mankind. 
 
 ^ Rom. iii. 30. * ^ Gal. ii. 17. 
 
Note O, 493 
 
 Our use of the word misleads us. When we speak of a man being 
 " reconciled " to another, we always mean that the person who has 
 received a real or imaginary offence ceases to be angry with the 
 offender ; and so the Apostle's phrase, " God was reconciling the 
 world to Himself," naturally conveys the impression that God was 
 removing the antagonism with which the world regarded Him. 
 But KaraWdaauj really means the re-establishing of friendly relations 
 between those who have been antagonistic ; and it is by no means 
 implied that the antagonism exists in the person who is the direct 
 object of the active verb, or who, if the passive is used, is said to 
 be reconciled. This is very clear in the case of the cognate 
 SiaXkdaau) in Matt. v. 24. Our Lord supposes that a man who has 
 brought his gift to the altar remembers that his brother has some 
 cause of complaint against him : the man is to leave his gift before 
 the altar, and to go to his brother and " be reconciled " to him 
 {irpCJTov SiaXKdyrjOi r^ d^sX^^ aov). According to the idiom of our own 
 language, we should say that it is the man who has something 
 against his brother who must " be reconciled ; " but our Lord puts 
 it the other way. The man agaiiist whom his brother has a com- 
 plaint is to be " reconciled." For a man to " be reconciled " to 
 another may therefore mean — not the removal of antagonism on 
 his part — but the removal of antagonism on the part of the person 
 to whom he is reconciled. The word means, as I have said, the 
 re-establishment of friendly relations between persons who have 
 been at variance : on which side the antagonism exists is not to be 
 determined by the word itself or by its grammatical construction- 
 A may reconcile B to himself — ^not by the removal of the an- 
 tagonism of B : there may be no antagonism in B to remove, and 
 the whole process may consist in the removal of A's own anta- 
 gonism. God reconciled the world to Himself— changed His rela- 
 tion of antagonism to the world into a relation of friendship — by 
 sending His Son "to be the propitiation for our sins.' His own 
 love for the world moved Him to do this ; but until He did it 
 there was antagonism, which, according to the apostolic thought, 
 would have ultimately issued in " wrath." 
 
 Cremer's articles on KaToKKdaaia and KaraWayri are very valu- 
 able, and he strongly supports the view contended for in this 
 note. He defines the word as meaning " to exchange ; then, like 
 biaWdacuv, KaraXXdcrcrw = avvaWdaaeiv = to reconcile, .... both 
 
494 Appendix, 
 
 in onesided and mutual enmity. In the former case the context 
 must show on which side is the active enmity."^ The whole 
 article deserves careful study. 
 
 Note P. Page 262. 
 
 '' He made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin," — and was 
 morally incapable of knowing sin [iirj yvovra afiapTiav) — " that we 
 might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 it is illegiti- 
 mate to play fast and loose with the word "sin " in this passage, 
 and to say that in one clause it means *' sin," and in the other a 
 " sin-offering." When St. Paul says that Christ, who could have no 
 personal consciousness of sm, was made sin for us, the word 
 should be taken in the same sense in both clauses. But how was 
 it possible for God to make Christ sin for us ? Are we to suppose 
 that St. Paul meant that by a Divine fiction the sins of the world 
 were imputed to Christ, and that so by imputation He became a 
 sinner, and suffered in our stead .f* This is virtually to change 
 "sin" into "sinners," and is no more legitimate than to change 
 " sin " into " sin-offering." God made Christ " sin for us," not a 
 " sin-offering," not a " sinner." This is what St. Paul affirms. The 
 sentence is intensely rhetorical ; literally, it was impossible that 
 God should make Christ " sin." But the rhetoric stands for some- 
 thing, and it is our duty to try to find out the actual fact which 
 rendered possible such a conception of Christ's Death as this. 
 
 Great light is thrown on the whole passage by the closing words. 
 The ultimate end of Christ's redemptive work is that " we may be- 
 come the righteousness of God in [Christ]." Righteousness is 
 conceived — not as a mere quality of the redeemed, but as their 
 very substance and life. It is no longer separable from them, even 
 in idea. This is the consummation of our holiness. Had we not 
 been saved, sin would at last have become something more than a 
 mere quality of our nature ; it would have become our very self ; 
 it would have become inseparable from us, even in idea. Not 
 until there is a complete identification between the soul and sin, 
 does God finally abandon us. While our true self can in any way 
 
 ^ Cremer : Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. T. & 
 T. Clark. 1872. ^ 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
Notes Q, R. 495 
 
 be distinguished from the sin that is in us, He clings to us and 
 works for our redemption. When sin and self become inseparable, 
 then God deals with us as He deals with sin ; He cannot do other- 
 wise. He withdraws Himself from us, and His withdrawal is a 
 mortal blow — a blow which, on one theory of the future of the 
 impenitent, inflicts endless torment, which is what is commonly- 
 understood by " the second death ;" and which on another theory 
 inflicts agony so sharp and terrible, that it ends in the exhaustion 
 and destruction of the life of the soul. God made Christ sin for 
 us ; withdrew from Him, as He must otherwise have withdrawn 
 from us had we become sin, and this withdrawal brought with it 
 the Death which atoned for sin. This seems to have been St. 
 Paul's idea in this passage. I say again that the passage is in- 
 tensely rhetorical ; the conception is rhetorical as well as the 
 expression ; but what is of importance to the argument of these 
 Lectures, is that no such rhetorical conception of the Death of 
 Christ is possible to those who reject the vicarious or representative 
 theory of His sufferings. 
 
 Note Q. Page 290. 
 
 The idea of Merit, as distinguished from that of Satisfaction, 
 altogether obliterates the unique significance which Christ and His 
 Apostles attached to His Death. His act in humbling Himself to 
 become man was a moral act of infinite worth ; and on the hypo- 
 thesis that Atonement was effected by merit, the Incarnation — apart 
 from the Death of Christ — would have been a sufficient Atonement 
 for sin. 
 
 Note R. Page 319. 
 "It is not clear to us that either Dr. Bushnell or Dr. Young 
 believes in what is commonly understood by the Divine forgiveness. 
 Their theory of the constitution of the spiritual universe leaves no 
 place for it. ' In the very act, in the very moment of evil,' 
 according to Dr. Young, 'the real penalty descends irresistibly, 
 and in the very amount which is deserved. The sin insures, 
 because it is its own punishment.' ' Punishment or reward, 
 visible or invisible, or both, dispenses itself, and in the amount in 
 
4q6 Appendix. 
 
 which either is merited.' This is surely 'rectilineal justice.' But 
 he also says, ' It can readily be shown that rectilineal justice, in 
 the sense of apportioning exact desert, neither less nor more, is not 
 an attribute of God at all' ' He does not need to be, and He is 
 not just, in the human, rectilineal sense at all." 
 
 " What, then, are we to believe ? Can the penalties of sin be re- 
 mitted, averted, or not ? Are we in the power of the ' spiritual 
 laws' which 'never slumber and are never defrauded for a 
 moment,' whose ' dire sanction ' ' there is no evading,' from whose 
 ' retributive awards ' there is no escape, which infallibly and 
 inevitably dispense 'punishment or reward' 'in the amount in 
 which either is merited ' ? Or are we in the good hands of Him 
 who is ' more and better than merely just, and acts on the ground 
 of pure mercy ' ? ' Ever and ever,' says Dr. Young, elsewhere, 
 'justice inflicts an inevitable penalty, and expects the coinpletest 
 satisfaction.' And yet ' the whole course of the world, from the 
 creation till now, and the manifest system of Divine providence 
 towards the good and towards the bad, are right in the face of 
 rectilineal justice. 
 
 " Into such irreconcilable contradictions is an able man betrayed 
 when he constructs a theory which begins by affirming the inde- 
 pendent and immutable authority of the eternal Law of Righteous- 
 ness, and then denies the necessity of an Atonement as a condition 
 of Divine pardon. Abelard was more consistent. He rejected the 
 idea of expiation ; but he also maintained that the Divine will is 
 the fountain of moral law. 
 
 " A reconciliation of these apparently conflicting statements is 
 attempted in the following passage, which states very concisely 
 the theory of redemption which is off"ered to us in place of that 
 which is commonly received in the Church : — ' There is no such 
 attribute in God [as rectilineal justice]. But the inevitable punish- 
 ment of moral evil, always and everywhere, is certain nevertheless. 
 The justice of the universe, in this sense, is a tremendous fact, an 
 eternal and necessary fact, which even God could not set aside. 
 There is an irresistible, a real force, springing out of the essential 
 constitution, whereby sin punishes itself. This is the fixed law of 
 the moral universe, a law in perfect harmony with the eternal will, 
 and which never is, and never can be broken. God's mercy in our 
 Lord Jesus Christ does not in the least set aside this ju'5tice ; what 
 
Note S. 497 
 
 it does is to remove and render non-existent the only ground on 
 which the claim of justice stands. Instead of arbitrarily withdraw- 
 ing the criminal from punishment, it destroys in his soul that evil 
 which is the only cause and reason of punishment, and which being 
 removed, punishment cease of itself." 
 
 " Again, we ask, Does God forgive ? Or does He simply change 
 the condition of a man so that he does not need forgiveness ? 
 
 " We further deny that Dr. Young is entitled to affirm that his 
 theory does not represent God as "arbitrarily withdrawing the 
 criminal from punishment." If sin is not merely " the only cause 
 and reason of punishment," but, as is elsewhere maintained, " its 
 own punishment," — the moral disorder and tendency to evil which 
 every act of transgression increases being the worst consequence 
 of disobeying the Divine precepts — is not the punishment, after all, 
 "arbitrarily withdrawn," if God by a supernatural interference 
 restores the harmony and purity of the soul "i 
 
 " No natural law was violated when, at the Divine word, Lazarus, 
 after he had been dead four days, left his sepulchre and came back 
 to Bethany ; for his resurrection was not an abnormal result of the 
 common forces of the universe whose regular action constitutes the 
 " order of nature ;" it was the immediate effect of a volition which is 
 above all natural law. But is the Divine will superior to the laws 
 of the spiritual universe? Does it move in a region where their 
 obligation does not bind? Is it absolutely free to dissolve the 
 connection between sin and its penalty? This passage of Dr. 
 Young's alleviates no difficulty and creates new confusion." ' 
 
 Note S. Page 407. 
 
 " Not then because He was from the Father was He called the 
 First-born" [as from the Father He is called the Only-begotten\ 
 "but because in Him the creation came to be ; and as before the 
 creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also 
 before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, not the 
 less was the Word Himself with God, and the Word was God."^ 
 
 " For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as being a 
 
 ' British Quarterly Review, October, 1866, pp. 423-425. 
 
 =» Athanasius : Select Treatises, page 370. Translated by J. H. Newman. 
 Oxford, J. H. Parker. 1844. 
 
49^ Appendix. 
 
 creature, nor as having any connection according to substance with 
 the whole creation, has He been called First-born of it ; but be- 
 cause the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, 
 condescended to things generate, that it might be possible for them 
 to come to be. For they could not have endured His untemporal 
 nature, and His splendour from the Father, unless condescending 
 by the Father's love for man. He had supported them and taken 
 hold of them and brought them into substance ; and next because 
 by tfiis condescension of the Word, the creation, too, is made a 
 son through Him, that He might be in all respects First-born of 
 it," &c. I 
 
 Athanasius also speaks of Christ as the " Offspring from the 
 Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into 
 sonship."2 
 
 In a note, Dr. Newman says Athanasius " considers that * first- 
 born ' is mainly a title connected with the Incarnation, and also 
 connected with our Lord's office at the creation .... In each eco- 
 nomy it has the same meaning ; it belongs to. Him as the type, idea, 
 or rule, on which the creature was made, or new-made, and the life 
 by which it is sustained." He also quotes Augustine as saying, 
 " Whatever God was about to make in the creature, was already in 
 the Word, nor would be in the things were it not in the Word." 
 
 To develop this idea of Christ's relation to the universe would 
 require a volume rather than a note. The creation of all things by 
 and in Christ appears to be the necessary postulate of a true con- 
 ception of the Incarnation ; and the theory of the Incarnation also 
 requires that man should be regarded as the crown and flower of 
 the creation — in whom, under Christ, the creation finds its com- 
 pletest expression. 
 
 Note T. Page 426. 
 
 The following passages from a Jewish Rabbi will be read with 
 interest. What he affirms is a fiction, is verified in the conscious- 
 ness of the Church : — 
 
 "The Hebraism of the Rabbis contained in its doctrine an idea 
 that was very natural, very common, which it was hardly necessary 
 
 ^ Athanasius: Select Treatises, page 372. Translated by J. H. Newman. 
 Oxford, J. H. Parker. 1844. 2 ibjd, 413. 
 
Note T, 499 
 
 to inculcate, but one which was needed to control some practices 
 touching man after his death. Already the Bible, and the Hebrew 
 prophets, greatly heightening the value of life, had said on in- 
 numerable occasions that the law, virtue, and God's commandments 
 end at the gates of the tomb, that the dead no longer praise the 
 Lord, that the sepulchre sends forth no hymn of gratitude ; pas- 
 sages which men have wished to interpret in a materialistic sense, 
 but on which, as we see, orthodox Hebraism put quite a different 
 meaning. Pharisaism formulated them in one general expression 
 the terms of which have a pecuhar importance for those who would 
 enter into the true meaning of very many passages in Christian 
 writers, and more especially in Paul. 
 
 " The Pharisees said : ' With the dead there is freedom ' (verse of 
 the Psalms). When a man dies he is freed from the command- 
 ments. Is it not incredible "i This is the one circle in which Paul's 
 words and thoughts incessantly turn, in a thousand passages where 
 the freedom of the dead is in question ; this is the origin, this the 
 ground of one of the boldest and most remarkable fictions that 
 have ever sprung from human imagination — a fiction, the effects of 
 which surpassed calculation. Paul would have the faithful identify 
 themselves with Christ, believe themselves condemned, crucified, 
 and dead in their flesh with Him. By virtue of this death which 
 they share with Him, they gain a freedom more precious than any 
 other, freedom from the Law. Will a man after death be still subject 
 to the Law? Can the Law stretch forth its sceptre beyond the tomb? 
 Can it exact from a dead man the fulfilment of its customs, rites, 
 and ceremonies ? Again, to touch upon another point which will 
 be raised in the words of Paul himself, what is the Kabbalistic 
 doctrine with regard to the expiation of original sin, spiritual 
 regeneration ? Does it not set forth the Law or death as the only 
 means of making amends for the first sin ? ' Then, said Paul, of 
 these two methods we have chosen the latter. We died, died com- 
 pletely with Jesus ; we are in Him, and He in us ; He died for the 
 whole world. He crucified in himself our sinful flesh ; He has ful- 
 filled all the law for us in dying on the cross.' Behold us then 
 returned, perfectly alive, into the precious freedom of spoiless 
 spirits, and no longer can a dead man be taxed with the non- 
 fulfilment of the Law. Have we exaggerated the ideas and expres- 
 si ms of Paul ? Hear what he himself says. ' Our flesh,' says he, 
 
500 Appendix, 
 
 * is counted as dead if Christ be in us.' ' He that is dead is freed 
 from sin.' * 
 
 " But this is a far more important passage : * Know ye not brethren 
 for I speak to them that know the law ' — that is to say, to those 
 who are not ignorant of the Pharisaic ideas with reference to the 
 duration of its observance — ' how that the law hath dominion over 
 a man as long as he liveth } ' ^ 
 
 " And after quoting the example of the woman who is free to 
 marry after the death of her husband,3 so, says he, my brethren, *ye 
 are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ ; that ye 
 should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the 
 dead.'4 ' For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which 
 were by the law, did work in our members ; 5 but now we are de- 
 livered from the law, having died [here we follow the more trust- 
 worthy rendering of Diodati] to that wherein we were held. * Nay 
 more, the sin of Adam, which, as the Kabbalists and Paul hold, 
 called forth the law, is expiated by the death of Jesus. * He dies 
 and is buried, and so are his disciples with Him.' ^ ' Our flesh has 
 been condemned to suffer for all in Jesus. There is therefore 
 now no condemnation for those who are in Jesus, who walk not 
 after the flesh, but after the spirit. . . . For what the law could 
 not do' (give complete liberty, at the same time expiating the 
 old sin), ' in that it was weak in the flesh, God has done in sending 
 his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin ; and He 
 has condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law 
 might be fulfilled in us.' 7 
 
 " We will not further multiply quotations. A mere perusal of 
 Paul's writings will make us better acquainted with the spirit which 
 dictated them than isolated fragments. But the most prominent 
 feature throughout is the strange abuse which is made there of 
 what is simply and solely a fiction, and the conclusion which is drawn 
 thence with a coolness almost incredible — the abolition of the Law. 
 But in this tomb wherein you would bury the Law, in this quiescence 
 which you demand in the dead, do you not see the death and an- 
 nihilation of something else too— even of morality itself.? Do you 
 not fear to see this " dead man " release himself from the restraints 
 
 I Rom. vi. 7. = Ibid. vii. 1. 3 Ibid. vii. 4. 
 
 * Ibid. vii. 5. 5 Ibid. vi. 7. * Ibid. vii. 4. 
 
 7 Ibid. viii. 1-4. 
 
Note T, 501 
 
 of virtue and from moral obligations, as well as ceremonial ordi- 
 nances ? Do you not fear lest these members, which are said to be 
 completely dead and buried, should refuse to discharge the holiest 
 duties, and lest the spirit on returning into its native liberty should 
 imagine that there is no yoke to lay upon the flesh by which it is 
 surrounded, but which is already dead and crucified in Jesus ? But 
 the fiction goes further still : this believer, dead and buried with 
 Jesus, rises again with Him ; with Him our flesh too is considered 
 to have undergone resurrection. We died to the Law that we 
 might be another's, even His who has raised us from the dead ; and 
 Jesus, our brother, is the first-born of the dead. There is no room 
 here for doubt. For Jesus, and for His disciples after Him, the era 
 of the resurrection, the renovation of the world, the resurrection of 
 the dead, was just beginning, and for the successors of Jesus, it had 
 already commenced in their Master's person, in His body which had 
 risen from the tomb alive, and had become ' the first-born of the 
 dead.* But it is the resemblance to the doctrines then extant 
 that gives to this fiction its exceptional importance. What did 
 Resurrection mean for the Pharisees? Undoubtedly their con- 
 ception not only comprised the bodies of mankind called to a new 
 life, and endowed with greater perfection of powers and constitution, 
 but included also all nature in a universal renovation, in a 
 Palingenesis which was to change the world's outward semblance ; 
 and indeed the comparison of this doctrine, with its imitations in 
 ancient and modern times, would be a task both curious and in- 
 structive. 
 
 "Though unanimous on this point, the Pharisaic school was 
 divided as to the epoch of the era of the resurrection and its rela- 
 tion to the Messianic era. In the minds of the one party these two 
 eras were identical and united in one and the same epoch, and the 
 Messiah was not only destined to instal Israel in an era of pros- 
 perity, safety, and liberty, but also to give the signal for the renova- 
 tion and the regeneration of nature, in which the most solemn and 
 most startling phenomenon would be the resurrection of the body. 
 
 "Others believed that the course of events would be entirely 
 different. Throwing back to the furthest limits of finke ages the 
 era of the resurrection, they anticipated nothing in the advent of 
 the Messiah but a mere social transformation, in which nature's 
 laws would remain unimpaired, where life would go its ordinary 
 
502 Appendix, 
 
 round : or, to sum up all in the formula of the text, ' Nothing will 
 change except slavery into freedom.' 
 
 " It is unnecessary to state to which of these two schools Chris- 
 tianity adheres. For it no difference, no interval, no distinction 
 between the Messianic era and that of the resurrection is possible, 
 and while the contrary doctrine definitely prevailed in Judaism, the 
 identity of the two epochs alone found support and sympathy in 
 the heart of Christianity. This prime difference gave rise to a 
 secondary one. Notwithstanding that the Pharisees extended to 
 its utmost limits the reign of the Law, they arrested its power at the 
 threshold of the resurrection. Corresponding to the complete 
 change which was to take place in the physical constitution, corres- 
 ponding to the new laws, created by new physical relations, which 
 were to govern the stars, the suns, and the worlds in their orbits, a 
 new Law, too, called into being by new social relations, was to super- 
 sede the ancient religious law. In this new world, on this new 
 earth, in the midst of new beings, and amid new relations, God's 
 thought, God's law, remaining still unchanged in essence, with the 
 very end that it might be permanent, would have varied in its 
 applications, just as it varies here on earth and in the actual uni- 
 verse, with different conditions, beings, and relations, according to 
 the world, sun, or star in which it acts.^ 
 
 " Here lie the origin and the true meaning of that crowd of argu- 
 ments, propositions, and parables, where the idea of a new Law, of 
 a new covenant, of repealed prohibitions, breaks through images 
 and allegories, weapons with which Jewish orthodoxy has been so 
 unduly attacked, and which Christian polemics have incessantly 
 brought against the Rabbis. These were the same ideas which among 
 the Jewish Christians led them to affirm the abolition of the Law ; 
 just as, almost universally, everything which has subsequently be- 
 come a weapon in the hands of Christianity when estabhshed, was 
 a force and creative power in primitive Christianity. Nothing is 
 more simple, nothing more inevitable, after all that preceded, than 
 this abolition of the Law. In the mind of the first Christians the 
 era of the Messiah was absolutely identical with the era of the 
 
 ' In the system of the doctors, especially of the Kabbalists, the Law governs 
 all worlds, from the most distant stars to the smallest atom. There is no star, 
 no world, no angel, which does not observe it, each in his own way. God 
 Himself is the chief observer of the Law. 
 
Note T, 503 
 
 resurrection, and since the latter had already commenced with the 
 resurrection of Christ, the first-born of the dead, and the entire 
 Church was looking for the near and immediate destruction and 
 renovation of the world, the first conclusion that would be drawn 
 would be that the Law of Moses was about to give place to another 
 Law more in harmony with the semi-spiritual state of the new com- 
 munity. In vain was this expectation proved false day after day, 
 in vain did the real resurrection ever recede into the far distance, 
 in vain did impatience prey upon their hearts, as we see it did by 
 the Epistles. What matters it.? Substitute still, in place of the 
 true resurrection its shadow, its image, a resurrection entirely 
 imaginary ; teach that the believer, having died with Jesus, is 
 raised with Him, that the sovereignty of the resurrection and the 
 age of the Palingenesis have prevailed down from the resurrection 
 of Jesus, and the abolition of the Law can still make its way." ^ 
 
 * E. Benamozegh : Morale Juive et Morale Chritienne. Paris, 1867. Pp. 
 62-70, 
 
 UNWIN BEOTHERS, THF GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND tONDOV. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE, THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $!.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 '■ 'V 21 
 
 33 
 
 JumK 
 
 IW1S76 
 
 UCLA 
 
 U^fcftllBRAR' ^ ' 
 
 t©M4 
 
 JAN 1 5 1979 
 
 Rti;. UK. rtAR — 5^97? 
 
272568 
 
 V3 
 
 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA UBRARY