FHe secoRD rr?ar? j.n.sHiRLeY BV250 .S54 1919 Shirley, J. A. The second man L6i6r 5hi THE SECOND MAN ^■i. OF PilliJ??> BY J. A. SHIRLEY, M.A., B.D. ^., -I :>\Mff& BOSTON RICHARD G. BADGER THE GORHAM PRESS COPYEIGHT, I919, BY RiCHARD G. BADGER All Rights Reserved Made in the United States of America The Gorham Press, Boston, U. S. A TO THE WARDENS as representatives of the two congregations with whom i have labored in christian service St. Alban's Church, Oak Lane, Manitoba (1913-1916) R. A. Montgomery E. E. Orr N. Banister J. L. Clarke St. Stephen's Church, East Kildonan Road, Winnipeg (1916, TO present date) D. E. Williams A. Brazier W. J. Major CONTENTS I PAGE The First Adam 7 II The Incarnation 25 III The Second Man 35 IV The Sacrifice 44 V The Communion of the Saints ... 53 THE SECOND MAN THE SECOND MAN THE FIRST ADAM Gen. I. I — In the beginning God THINKING men in all ages and in all lands have been greatly puzzled about the origin of things. Even among the most savage tribes the teachers hold some theory of the creation of the universe. How did it come into being? Did the earth and the heavens always exist in their present form? Did they develop out of something else, and, if so, from whence did that something else arise? Whence came man? There are some who say that for man to try to contemplate the infinite or to inquire into the origin of things is a vain and useless task, that our time might be better occupied in dealing with those ac- tualities of life which more closely concern our present existence. But surely anything that will make us think more deeply about God and about the great eternal principles of life cannot be con* sidered useless. 8 The Second Man It is extremely interesting and profitable to study that period of Greek thought just preceding the dawn of Christianity to see to what high attain- ments the human mind could go, even at that time, in working out a theory of creation, and that among a people who had never seen the Book of Genesis. But there is so much to deal with in regard to mis- understandings between science and religion in rela- tion to creation, in those countries which profess to be Christian, that time will not permit our dealing with pre-christian ideas. We will turn at once to the struggle between science and religion as it concerns us in Christian lands. Throughout those countries that profess to believe in the revelation of Holy Scriptures as the word of God to man there has been waged the most bitter warfare between science and religion. And the responsibility for that warfare must rest upon the narrow-mindedness of those who have assumed to be the defenders of religion rather than upon the men of science. This warfare may be divided into three stages. The first is that in which religion and science stand as open enemies. Religion was suspicious of the intentions of science, and every move which science made was closely and critically watched. New dis- coveries made by science were almost instantly con- The First Adam demned as contrary to revealed religion. And as a result scientists grew impatient and made some merciless counter-attacks, pointing out things in Scripture which appeared to them absurd, and when they asked the defenders of religion to explain them they could not do so; their only answer was, that it had been so revealed to us and we must accept it as given. Such an answer was little use to science, for it has always been one of the funda- mental principles of science to accept nothing with- out an explanation. The next stage in the warfare between science and religion was a stage of compromise. They vir- tually said to one another, that while there were certain fundamental differences on which they could not hope to agree, yet as for minor differences, they would submerge them as far as possible. The third stage is the one through which we are passing now, the stage of mutual understanding. Religion is saying to science, **I see that I have been attacking you unjustly; I have been interpreting my own Scriptures too narrowly; I see now that many of the things I have been condemning in science as contrary to Scripture do not conflict at all, but in reality they are the complement of Scrip- ture and help us to understand it." And science is now saying to religion, "I see now that I was 10 The Second Man wrong in many of the attacks that I made upon Scripture. Certain things revealed in Scripture seemed absurd, impossible. You yourself had no ex- planation to offer, but by scientific research many explanations have been found and things once con- demned as impossible are now conceded to be pos- sible." Religion and science stand closer together and understand each other better to-day than they have ever done before. Between true religion and true science there should be no struggle now, and there never should have been any struggle in the past. They are full brothers, both of them inspired gifts of God to man, for the God of revelation is also the God of nature, and between the truths which God Him- self reveals to man, whether those truths are re- vealed by inspiration as through the prophets, or whether they are revealed by nature to the students of nature, between the truths which God Himself reveals to man there can be no conflict. They are full brothers. The surname of both of them is Religion, the Christian name of the one is Re- vealed and the Christian name of the other is Natural. Yet how frequently it has happened in human experience that brothers have quarreled be- cause of misunderstanding — so too the world has seen the most pitiable quarrels between these two The First Adam ii brothers, Revealed Religion and Natural Religion. We shall consider now two or three typical at- tacks which religion has made upon science, and show, if we can, that the attacks have been the result of hasty and premature decisions. When Copernicus, the father of modern astron- omy, came forth with his new ideas that the world was round and that the sun was the centre of our system, religion held up its hands in horror at such heresy. God had made the world and religion felt called upon to come to God's defence. The theories of Copernicus were condemned by a papal decree, and for two hundred years his views were not allowed to spread. But the Copernican theory of the world has come to stay, no matter what religion has to say, not exactly as Copernicus him- self propounded it, it has been revised and improved since then; but the fundamental principles of his discovery have been demonstrated beyond all ques- tion, and the defenders of religion have found out that so far from conflicting with Scripture, the Copernican theory of the universe really comple- ments and helps to explain the Book of Genesis. It was the same with Newton's discovery of the law of gravitation. Religion was horrified at the thought of men saying that the universe was held in place by physical laws of gravitation. God made 12 The Second Man the world and He placed the stars and the sun and the earth in their respective places and held them there. What sacrilege for men to say that they had discovered physical force to be holding the universe in place ! But Newton's law of gravitation, not exactly as he discovered it, but modified and perfected, has come to stay. The fundamental principles which he discovered have been demon- strated beyond all question, and the defenders of religion have had to make room for it in their beliefs, and instead of denying and conflicting with Scripture they have found again that the law of gravitation really complements and helps to explain. Once again when Herschel brought forth his nebular theory of the universe, that the earth to- gether with other heavenly bodies was once in a molten state, and was very slowly and gradually transformed into earth, religion again declared this to be an enormous heresy, for the Book of Genesis had declared the world to be made in six days, a single week. But a modified form of Herschel's theory has been demonstrated, neither does it come into conflict with Scripture. But the great storm centre of controversy centred on the Darwinian theory of evolution, particularly the evolution of man from the lower orders of creation. Religion could scarcely find words to The First Adam 13 express her consternation and disgust. But a modi- fied form of Darwin's theory of evolution has been demonstrated, and to-day it would be hard to find a professor of science in any accredited university who could deny the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution and retain his position. And again religion is finding that evolution, as applied to man, does not conflict with Scripture, but rather aids and explains it. These latter statements are rather sweeping in extent and will require further explanations ; we will return to them in due time. We have previously stated that when religion challenged the discoveries that science had made, science turned round in the spirit of defiance and said that Scripture contained things that were scientifically and historically inaccurate. We shall pause here long enough to mention two or three typical attacks made by science upon religion. It is to be observed that in the account of creation, on the very first day God said, ''Let there be light," and there was light; while the command that the sun and the moon and the stars be called into exist- ence was not given until the fourth day, and science said that it was absurd to say that there could be light before the heavenly bodies that give light were created. Again science took hold of some of the historical 14 The Second Man books of Scripture, especially those parts relating to wars against the Assyrians and Babylonians, and science said that some of these accounts were very doubtful. They produced histories of Babylon and Assyria wherein many of the accounts differed, and where many of the events narrated in Scripture were not to be found. Therefore science was not pre- pared to accept a great many passages of the Old Testament. Once again science challenged the New Testa- ment in connection with the doctrine of the miracu- lous birth of Christ, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, a child born of only one natural parent. Science said the thing was impossible. But just as religion has had to back down in its attack on science, so has science had to back down in many of its attacks on religion. Just recently scientific discoveries have revealed the marvels of radium, a substance which in the darkest underground recesses shines forth and gives light of itself, and science has had to acknowledge that the order of events as narrated in Genesis is not scientifically impossible. Recent research among the ruins of ancient cities have brought to light inscriptions describing the very events of history concerning which science had expressed its doubts because they had been recorded The First Adam 15 in no other language save Hebrew. Science has had to acknowledge the injustice of its attack. And concerning the doctrine of the Virgin Birth no less an authority on science than Lord Kelvin has recently stated that while the phenomenon of a virgin birth is a most unlikely occurrence, and one that will probably never happen again, yet it is not absolutely impossible according to the laws of science, the very verdict that Scripture would ask. Now for that phase of the conflict between reli- gion and science through which we have been pass- ing for the last half century, namely, religion versus geology and evolution! Let us endeavor to isolate one single aspect of the conflict between religion and geology. Geology looks at rocks and says that by a slow process of formation through inestimable ages, these rocks have been formed, layer upon layer; moreover in the lower layer there are found imprints of species of animal and plant life and of fish that have died and been buried in the forma- tion of these rocks, species that do not exist upon the earth at the present time; while in the layers of rocks over this there are other species of animal and plant life that are clearly of a higher order of development though they too have vanished from the earth. 1 6 The Second Man And geology draws the inference that the forma- tion of the earth was very, very slow, requiring ages upon ages of time; moreover, geology draws this other inference that there w^as a gradual progress upward in animal and plant life for ages upon ages before man appeared upon the earth at all. But religion said — it cannot be. The world was created in six days, not in long periods of time, moreover, the animals and plants of every kind were made by God and this idea of a new and higher kind of animal developing out of a lower animal is false; God made them and He made them as they are. Then science put this challenge to religion. Here are the evidences imbedded in the rocks that great periods of time were required for the development of the earth and of animal and plant life thereon. Now if God made the earth in a week why did He put these evidences into the rocks to show that long periods of time were required? But religion had no satisfactory answer to that challenge. There were a few, but no one could take them seriously who said that God may have put these evidences into the rocks to lead curious and inquisitive men astray. Such an explanation is dishonoring to God. Would anything tend to shake man's faith in God more quickly than to be told that God had created The First Adam 17 the earth in such a way as to deceive and to mock him, and to make man's intellect the intellect of a fool? No, you cannot make men believe to-day that the earth w^as made in a week. The evidences of nature placed there by God Himself are against it. Neither do the early chapters of the book of Genesis say that the earth was made in a week. The six days of creation were not days of twenty- four hours each as some have vainly thought; there is nothing in Genesis to indicate that each day was not a great period of time. Time and time again in Holy Scripture the word day is used with this meaning of a great period of time. When Daniel speaks of days and weeks and times and half times we do not take it to mean days of twenty- four hours each or weeks of seven times twenty- four hours. When St. Matthew speaks of the great and terrible day of the Lord he does not mean a twenty-four hour day. And Timothy tells us that a day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day. Now turn to Genesis and see what was created on the fourth day, the fourth great period of crea- tion. We see that it was in this fourth period that the sun and the moon and the stars were created and the purpose of their creation is also given, they shall be for signs and for seasons and for days and The Second Man for years. Here, then, is the beginning of the division of time as we know it, days, seasons, years measured by the sun ; this division of time only began in the fourth period of creation. Therefore the first three periods of creation, the first three days could not have been twenty-four hour days meas- ured by the rising and the setting of the sun, for the sun and consequently the twenty-four hour day had not yet come into being. The Book of Genesis itself is against the idea that the world was created in six days of twenty-four hours each, in other words, created in a week. We get these miscon- ceived ideas of Scripture because we do read Scrip- ture carefully enough, and because we do not take time to reflect. When geology states that the earth required ages upon ages for its formation geology is not therefore flying in the face of Scripture as some have thought, but is in reality helping us to understand our Scriptures better. Let us come now to the real heart of our subject, namely, the conflict between evolution and reli- gion. This is where science begins to touch the origin of man himself, and this is where the con- flict has been hottest. Evolution says that all animal life, including man, has slowly developed out of the lower orders of The First Adam 19 creation. Evolution does not deny that God has created life in the first place, but evolution does stand out against the view that God created one kind of animal away down at the bottom, that He created another a little higher up, another still higher up, and on and on about a thousand times until eventually He created man above them all. Evolution says that in the beginning God created life, and that He created it in such a way that life itself developed into these succeeding stages. In other words, there has been no real conflict between science and religion as far as creation is concerned; both agree that in the beginning God created, but the conflict arose when they attempted to explain the method of creation. What about the theory of evolution ? Has it been demonstrated to such an extent that we should be- lieve it? Assuredly it has, not exactly as Darwin Ijimself advanced it, but in a modified form for which we are chiefly indebted to the great scientist Lord Alfred Russel Wallace, who was Darwin's co- worker and who for many years outlived Darwin and made many changes in the theory of evolution. Among the scientists of all ages it is doubtful if there ever has arisen a greater than Darwin. Standing at first alone, with practically all of earth's intellect arrayed against him, he stood his 20 The Second Man ground and gradually one by one he brought them over to his side, until to-day the man who would take his stand against the fundamental principles for which the name of Darwin stands is the man who would find himself deserted by the world's intelligence. To attempt to deal with the works of Darwin in an address of this kind would be utterly vain. I shall be content to state in briefest terms the broad principles of the theory of evolution as it is held to-day in relation to the origin of man, which as far as I can see do not conflict with the early chapters of Genesis. It is this. The physical man, call it the bodily man, the animal man, call it what you will, the physical part of man has ascended from the lower orders of creation. Then into the physical man God breathed the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Now the view that most of us were taught in childhood was this, that God took the dust of the earth and moulded it into the form of a human being in the same way that a sculptor would mould a piece of clay or bronze. Then into that human form that He had made God breathed the breath of life and man began to live, and if we pursue this view to its con- clusion it must follow that by that miraculous breath all the varied parts and organs of the human The First Adam 21 body were formed, the heart, the veins, and the blood sent circulating through them. Evolution differs only from this view in the method. Evolution says that God made man out of the dust of the earth, but that long ages were required to accomplish the work by developing the lower orders of creation upward, ever upward, until the animal kingdom was brought to that state of perfection where it resembled the human body. Then into that body, not a dead body, but a living body with all its organisms formed, God breathed the breath of life, and man became a living soul. This second view seems far superior. It seems to present a far grander view both of man and God. First think of God's part. It is one thing to make a clock or a piece of machinery which from the moment it is made begins to deteriorate; man can do that. But it is quite another and a grander thing to make an organism which, from the moment it is made and ever afterwards, goes on improving and rising higher and higher; only God can do that. Let me give in this connection the view expressed by Darwin himself in his book, "The Origin of Species," "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone 22 The Second Man cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful, r.nd most wonderful have been and are being evolved." And as for man. If man was created at the very beginning exactly as he is to-day it is cause for great despair. But if during the past man has already come so far as to have risen from the lower orders of creation, then there is hope that he may rise even yet to something far superior. The evolutionary theory is essentially the optimistic view of man. Now let us turn to the dividing point between modern evolutionists and Darwin. Darwin believed that man had ascended from the lower orders of creation, and he left it at that. Present day evo- lutionists qualify that view at a very vital point. They say that man did ascend from the lower orders of creation physically, but not spiritually; that when God had brought the animal world to such a state of perfection that it resulted in the physical man. He then took that physical man and breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And it would seem on exami- nation of the Book of Genesis that this view is not only permissible, but requisite. When God breathed into man the breath of life man became a living soul, not a living body. Man was a living The First Adam 23 body before God breathed Into him the breath of life; the change that came over man at this point was not the creation of physical life, but the creation of spiritual life, that one thing which so widely differentiates man from the lower orders of crea- tion, and makes of man a being which can never die. Men in their haste have condemned the theory of evolution as dishonoring to God, because we are told in Scripture that man is made in the image of God, and it has often been said that when evolution asserts that the physical ancestor of man can be traced to the lower orders of creation, that evolution must therefore say that the lower orders of creation are also made in the image of God. If there is anything dishonoring to God in such an argument it certainly is not on the side of evolu- tion. Surely no one to-day holds the view that it is our bodies, heads, arms, legs that are made in the image of God. God is not flesh and blood ; God is spirit and they who worship Him must wor- ship Him in spirit and not in bodily form. We are made in the "image of God, but not physically. These poor bodies of ours which after the soul has winged its flight return to the dust from which they have been made, these do not con- stitute our likeness unto God. We are made in the image of God spiritually. It is that part of 24 The Second Man us that is immortal, the soul, that is made in the image of God, and with that part of us evolution has nothing to do. The connection between man and the lower orders of creation is physical only, not spiritual, and such a view does not seem to conflict in the slightest degree with revealed religion, but rather helps to interpret it. There are other parts of Genesis, for instance, the giants that were in the earth in those days, the distinction that is made between the sons of God and the daughters of men, which can be better explained on this basis of the physical ascent of man than upon any other. This view of evolution requires two definite crea- tive acts in man's experience, the first away back in unknown ages when physical life was first brought into being, and the second when physical life had been evolved to that state of perfection into which God breathed the breath of life to create a soul. Between true science and true religion there can be no real conflict. Both are inspired gifts of God to men, both proclaim the great eternal truths that in the beginning God created, that the world and all that therein is to-day have taken their origin and their being in God, and that all things are still under His guidance and control. II THE INCARNATION Isaiah 7. 14 — Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son AS in science so in religion there are phenomena for which as yet no solution has been found. One of the subjects that has baffled the theologians is the advent of sin. Where did it come from? Who first conceived the idea of doing wrong? Do we not believe that God created the whole world and all things that are therein? Did God therefore create sin? We say, of course not — it came by man's disobedience. But the next question that arises is this — who put it into man's mind to disobey? Where did the Tempter come from? St. Luke gives a partial explanation when he records our Saviour as saying, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." This statement is the foundation for the belief that Satan was at one time an angel, but that he rebelled against God and was ejected from heaven. But instantly the question comes back — who put it into the mind of an angel to rebel against God? This brings us back to the 25 26 The Second Man primary issue — the origin of sin. As we have al- ready said, there are some things which cannot be answered, and the question of the origin of sin is one of the most difficult. It may be that in the sight of God neither angels nor men could render a satis- factory and perfect obedience apart from the possi- bility of disobedience, and that possibility of disobey- ing became the first tendency towards sin. The view that Satan is a fallen angel finds ex- pression in Milton's 'Taradise Lost," "what cause Moved our grand parents, in that happy state, Favour'd of Heaven so highly, to fall off From their Creator, and transgress His will For one restraint, lords of the world besides? Who first seduced them to that foul revolt? The infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile, Stirr'd up with envy and revenge, deceived The mother of mankind; what time his pride Had cast him out from heaven, with all his host Of rebel Angels; by whose aid aspiring To set himself in glory above his peers. He trusted to have equal'd the Most High, If he opposed; and with ambitious aim Against the throne and monarchy of God Raised impious war in heaven and battle proud With vain attempt. Him the Almighty Power Hurl'd headlong flaming from the ethereal sky, With hideous ruin and combustion, down The Incarnation 27 To bottomless perdition, there to dwell In adamantine chains and penal fire, Who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms." Whatever the source of sin, this much we know that sin entered into the world and God promised through the prophets that He would send His only- Son into the world to overcome sin, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son." This prophecy with its fulfilment as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke plunges us into one of the most funda- mental, and at the same time a very difficult doctrine of the Christian faith, namely, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ. The child Jesus did not have two earthly parents as did other children. Only one was earthly, the other was spiritual: "con- ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." Many earnest conscientious people have their doubts concerning this doctrine. It seems to them incredible that such a thing should have taken place ; indeed many condemn the doctrine outright as physically impossible. But the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is not without its defenders even on the physical side. Lord Kelvin is one who be- lieves that virgin birth is not physically impossible, though so extremely exceptional that its recurrence is not likely. It is significant in dealing with the 28 The Second Man physical side of the problem to observe that the most complete account of the birth of Christ is given by St. Luke. Luke was a physician, and probably questioned the idea of the Virgin Birth more than the other disciples of his day vrould question it. He therefore went into the matter more deeply and obtained facts which could only have come directly from Mary or from "those other women" who were on exceedingly intimate relation- ships with her. At any rate we must agree that the early chapters of the third gospel demonstrate clearly that St. Luke investigated the matter of the miraculous conception of the child Jesus thoroughly, and was so convinced of its truth that he staked his reputation as a physician upon the evidence he procured. But the real answer to those who object to the Virgin Birth upon its physical side is that the doctrine needs no explanation. It is miraculous. God is the Giver of all life, and if He chooses to create life a little out of the ordinary is it not presumption for us whom He has also created to complain or criticise His methods? H we grant the miraculous when God breathed into the first Adam the breath of life, and if Christ is the second Adam as St. Paul affirms, it is natural to expect the miraculous also in His incarnation. The Incarnation 29 But there are many objections to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth which do not lie on the physical side. Many people would be willing to pass over that. But there seems to them something incredible in the assertion that the actual Son of God from heaven did come down to earth to live here as man, and so like man that people seeing Him so fre- quently saw little or no difference between Him and other men. Christ, it would be freely admitted, was the godliest, the most perfect man that ever lived, yet only human. What follows? Chris- tianity bids us worship as God some one who is not God. Let us force this issue to its final con- clusion, for it is one of the most convincing argu- ments for the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and for the divinity of Christ. If Christ had two earthly parents and as a result He is only human, Christianity which worships Him as God becomes the greatest system of idolatry which the history of religion can produce. By their fruits ye shall know them. The man who denies the doctrine of the Virgin Birth has a tremendous problem on his hands. He must account for a religion, false from the ground up, proving its moral and ethical superiority over every other religion, creating a more profound influence upon mankind than any other religion has ever made. Far easier is the 30 The Second Man acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the explanation of Christianity as the result of the twofold nature of Christ, perfect God and perfect man, than the denial of the Virgin Birth and the consequent attempt to explain Christianity from the manhood of Christ alone. To deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is to deny that Christ is the Messiah, for the prophecies demand that Messiah be born of a virgin. To deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is to deny that Christ is divine, for if Christ had two earthly parents He is not in any particular sense the Son of God. To deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is to make the whole life and teachings of Christ false, for He claimed for Himself equality with God. To deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is to turn the Christian religion into a gigantic system of idolatry, for to worship some one who is only man is idolatry. To deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is to deny to mankind the hope of salvation through Christ. This is a bold statement which remains to be justified towards the end of our address. Deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and what follows? No Christmas season of reunion, no Santa Claus for the children, no joyous resurrection hymns on Easter morning, no calling to repentance during The Incarnation 31 the season of Lent, no earnest expectations of Ad- vent season; we can throw our Prayer Books and our liturgies into the fire; we can tear the New Testament from our Bibles. If the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is false, all these things are false, for they are built upon it. In truth, if the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is false we Christians are of all men most miserable. Is this statement an exaggeration? Not at all! The Jews do not accept the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and the Jew follows his belief to the only logical conclusion. What is the result ? No Christ- mas season of reunion, no Santa Claus for the chil- dren, no joyous resurrection hymns on Easter day, no season of Advent or of Lent, no Christian Church, no New Testament. But there are many who say, let us pass over the question of the birth of Christ in silence; let us inquire into His life, His teachings, they are the all important part. Not so. It is not by the life and works of Christ that man is saved; salvation is possible only as the result of His death. And the perfect sacrifice He made on Calvary was pos- sible, not only on account of the sinless life He lived, but also on account of the sinless and miracu- lous nature of His birth. If the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ 32 The Second Man falls, the doctrine of redemption for the human race through His death must also fall. Why is this necessary ? Why is it essential that the two natures, human and divine, should be united into one? Among the most convincing answers given to this question is that of Anselm. Briefly it is this. When man fell into sin and was estranged from God, in absolute justice God pronounced the penalty of death upon the human race as the result of sin. But God is love, and God desired to restore man, to make atonement for His sin and lift from him the penalty of death. But how could it be done? Man himself could not atone for his past sins, for if man henceforth did live a sinless life, in perfect obedience to God, he would be ful- filling only his duty towards God day by day, and in no way would he be making restitution for the past. God alone possessed the power to make restitution for man's sin; but God must not do it because it was man, not God, who had committed the offence and in absolute justice the offender must make restitution or pay the penalty. How, then, was it to be accomplished? God alone could do it; but man alone must do it. The only way left was for God to become man and as a human being to redeem mankind. Thus Christ the Son of God became the Son The Incarnation 33 of Man. Throughout His life on earth He re- sisted all temptations, and because of His miraculous conception He was not born under bondage to sin as other men. Therefore, having no sin in Him the penalty of death did not apply to Him. Had Christ committed sin, or had He been born of two earthly parents as other men and therefore in bondage to sin. His death would have been but the result of sin within His own life. But because the penalty of death was not pronounced on Him, God could in perfect justice accept His voluntary death in place of ours. As far as Christ's own personal fitness was concerned He might have ascended into heaven before His death as well as after it. But that would have been to defeat His whole purpose in coming to earth, the death penalty would not have been lifted from the human race. He died that we might live. Thus the conclusion of our argument is this. In order that Christ's death should be substituted for ours. His death must have been purely voluntary, and in no way merited by sin within His own life. His life must have been free from sin not only be- tween His birth and death, but His birth itself must have been extraordinary, miraculous, otherwise like other children He would have come into the world under the shadow of death. Viewed in this 34 The Second Man light the doctrine of the Virgin Birth becomes no longer a stumbling-block to the believer, but the very rock-foundation on which our hope of redemption rests. The stone which many have rejected becomes the corner-stone of the Christian Church. Ill THE SECOND ADAM I Cor. 15. 47 — The second man is the Lord from heaven WHEN God breathed into man the breath of hfe and man became a living soul, the world lay there before him to be mastered or to mas- ter him. Two courses were presented; to follow in obedience the will of His Creator or to disobey. Sufficient strength was given him to do the will of God, but with that strength was also given free- dom to choose the other if he would. Man chose the evil and despised the good, and God in justice pronounced the penalty of death. The death penalty pronounced upon the human race may have implied the physical, but it meant primarily the spiritual; it meant separation from the presence of Jehovah. In this regard God suffered as well as man, for He had made man in the image of Himself to live with Him forever. But man had sinned, and sin can never enter into heaven. Moreover the taint of sin had so affected and permeated man's whole being that from hence- 35 36 The Second Man forth the tendency to sin was bequeathed to all posterity. Does it follow then that the plans of God in creating man for heaven were all frustrated by the Devil when he seduced humanity to sin? Nay! we answer instantly, God is omnipotent and merciful and sent His only Son, to suffer, to be nailed upon the cross, to die for us, the just for the unjust, and to rise again victorious over death, then to ascend into heaven and lay His conquest of humanity before the throne of God. But if God is omnipotent and merciful could He not have given the command for sin to be removed from earth without such suffering on the part of Christ? No doubt He could. But God is justice too. And since man had sinned, man must make atonement for his sin. But man had so far fallen that he could make no restitution for the past. There remained then, it would seem, but one plan of redemption; for God to make atonement for the sins of man, but to do it not as God, but as man. And this was what was done, for Jesus Christ the Son of God became the Son of Man, became, as St. Paul has said, the second man, the last Adam. Wherein lies the likeness to the first man that was created? In this — each entered into the world free from sin, Adam because he was the firstborn of mankind, Christ because of His miracu- The Second Adam 37 lous birth. Each entered the world endowed with sufficient grace to withstand the temptations of the world. Each possessed that freedom of will which enabled him to determine for himself the course that he would follow, to choose the evil or to choose the good. The first Adam was tempted to do evil and yielded. The second Adam was tempted to do evil and resisted. We have often heard it said that God expected too much of the first Adam, but God, to prove that He had not expected the impossible of man, placed the second Adam, His own Son, in the same position. Christ came to earth as a little babe, and yet there was a difference between that babe born in the manger in Bethlehem and other babes. Others born of natural fathers are born with sin inherent in their natures; Christ begotten of the Holy Spirit was without sin. But that little babe as it lay in the manger was not conscious of its own divinity, not conscious of its miraculous birth, not conscious of any difference between itself and other children. St. Luke tells us that the child Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. (How like the first Adam! For before the fall at least, it could be said of him that he in- creased in wisdom and in stature and in favor 38 The Second Man with God and man.) Now to increase in wisdom precludes the possibility of omniscience on the part of Christ, and omniscience is an attribute of God. This, together with the fact that He increased in favor with God, seems to make it clear beyond all question that in coming to earth Christ had laid aside His robes of divinity to face life not as God, but as man. He took upon Himself our human nature, and as the first Adam was tempted in the garden of Eden, so was the second Adam tempted, sorely tempted, in the wilderness by the same Devil. Here is the central point of the whole analogy between the first and the second Adam. We believe that Christ was tempted as Adam was tempted. Then it must follow that it was just as possible for Christ to fall before that temptation as it was for Adam. We generally let our faith go so far as to believe that God permitted Christ to be tempted ; but then we like to think that God upheld Him by the power of His grace so that He could not fall. Then the temptation becomes shrouded in a mist of unreality. We see Adam and we see Christ in an unequal warfare against evil. Adam faces his adversary armed with his sabre and his shield, sufficient if he is always on guard; Christ bears similar armour, but underneath His outer garments there is a coat of mail which the Devil carmot The Second Adam 39 pierce. No, that cannot be. It is not just. They are equally armed. Each has sufficient armour to defend himself, but each is vulnerable. And to deny that the armour of Christ was vulnerable is to deny His true humanity; it is to say that God placed Adam in a danger to which He would not expose His Son. Nay! rather God placed Adam here and gave him armour sufficient to defend him- self, and when Adam was taken off his guard and fell, God clothed His own Son with the armour which He had given Adam and sent Him forth to fight against the enemy of man. St. Paul testifies clearly to this fact of Christ's humanity and makes the comparison between the first and second Adam undeniable when he says, "For since by man came death by man came also the resurrection from the dead." An illustration is furnished in the conduct of the present Prince of Wales who, before the war, had laid aside his royal robes in order to become a sailor. And as a sailor he was required to observe the same rules and regulations of the ship as other sailors, he was tempted by their temptations. The elements had no respect for his royal person; the perils of the sea were just as great for him as they were for any sailor. H he had chosen to do so, he might have remained in his father's royal palace 40 The Second Man and lived the life of a prince, but he chose to lay aside his royal robes and face life as a man. Of His own free will Christ laid aside the robes of His divinity and faced life as man; the tempta- tions that beset our paths were brought to bear on Him with far more studied subtilty, because the Devil recognized the greatness of the capture he would make if he could bring Christ to commit sin. What if Christ had yielded to the temptation? One hesitates to follow reason where it leads. God is just. And if Christ had yielded then surely He too would have received the same sentence of judg- ment as was meted out to Adam, death, spiritual death, separation from God, never to regain heaven. O! the length, the breadth, the depth of the love of God; for God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Just how nearly Christ came to yielding to that temptation in the wilderness we cannot know. When the traveller in an unknown region in the dead of night pitches his tent, and in the morning sees a few paces before him a yawning gulf whose bottom he cannot discern, he shudders to think hov/ nearly he has stood upon the brink of his destruc- tion. And throughout the remainder of his life that terrible abyss flashes at intervals unbidden before his mind. He is startled in his dreams, on The Second Adam the street, in his office, he cannot drive it from him. His closest friends have often heard of it. Now is it too much to infer that there was a similar spectre looming up unbidden before the mind of Christ? Naturally those who have recorded His words would be most deeply impressed with the things that He had most frequently mentioned to them in their daily talks. Among the sayings of our Lord most frequently mentioned in the gospels there is this, *'What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Did Christ realize in later days how nearly He had stood upon the brink of His destruction there in the wilderness in His conflict with the Devil? Did there recur to Him again and again the awfulness of that hour when He almost yielded to the persuasions to ac- cept an earthly kingdom? To deny that He had nearly yielded is to deny the keenness and the bit- terness of the temptation. Just so far as we believe in the reality of the temptation, so far are we permitted to believe that Christ could have fallen into sin; and just so far as we believe in the intensity of His temptation, so far are we compelled to believe that Christ stood upon the very verge of yielding, stood upon the very verge of death, stood upon the very verge of separation from His Father and of losing heaven 42 The Second Man itself. This is the sacrifice which God the Father made when He gave His only Son to make atone- ment for the sins of man. When the nation was endangered and the father called his only son, and laid his hand in blessing on his head, he gave him to fight the battles of his country and his king, gave him knowing that he would suffer many hardships and privations, gave him hoping that he would return crowned with glory and with honor; but gave him for his country if need be unto defeat and wounds, gave him if need be unto death itself. When our Heavenly Father sent forth His only begotten Son He blessed Him and He gave Him to the world, gave Him to redeem mankind, gave Him to suffer and to be wounded for our transgressions, gave Him hoping He would return victorious crowned with immortal glory and honor; but gave Him, if need be, unto death and separation from Himself. No verse in Holy Scripture is more familiar to us than this, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." But somehow there is a tendency to read those words, "God so loved the world that He loaned His only Son," loaned Him for a few years to be misunderstood, to be despised and rejected of men, to be condemned to death, crucified and buried, but loaned Him to the world The Second Adam 43 that He might rise again triumphant over death with the conquest of all humanity to glorify for- evermore His holy name. But how much greater does it make the sacrifice of God appear when we try to realize that God did not merely loan His Son, but that He gave Him to the world! IV THE SACRIFICE Matthew 26. 38 — My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death Matthew 27. 46 — My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken mef INTO the lives of most men there come moments which cannot be effaced. They are impressed indelibly into his very being. To the scientist the discovery of some hitherto unknown phenomenon will bring a thrill of joy which he never can for- get. Astronomers have calculated mathematically that an altogether unknown body must be in a certain place, and when one who has made this calculation turns his powerful telescope upon the spot and finds his star he shouts for joy. To the explorer that hour comes when he discovers a new island or lake. To the man of business that hour is swept in by the assurance of success. To the student of Holy Scripture that hour comes, some- times like a flash, as some new interpretation of the Word of God stands out before him. To me that hour has come twice; once as the result of 44 The Sacrifice 45 study, once almost by accident. It came first in academic days in the study of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, to which reference has already been made in our study of the Incarnation, Anselm's concep- tion of Christ's purpose in coming to earth. That view of Anselm seemed to satisfy a great longing; it is one of those genuine explanations which takes a difficult doctrine such as the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and makes it appear not only possible, but inevitable. But the meaning of the death of Christ was still veiled in a great mystery. The professors under whom it was my privilege to sit were learned doctors whose names stood out and still stand out as great authorities, nevertheless in college days I did not find that satisfying explanation of the death of Christ which Anselm had given of His birth. There were two questions for which I could not find an answer that would satisfy. First, why did our Saviour shrink so visibly from the cross when a few years later His followers sang hymns of tri- umph as the flames leaped up around them? The cross could not have been a more painful death than death by fire, except that the agony was prolonged ; the cross could not have been as painful physically as the death to which some of the early missionaries in North America were subjected by the Indians. 46 The Second Man Why did Christ shrink from the cross when so many of His followers have gone to their deaths singing hymns of triumph? And the other ques- tion is this. Have not thousands laid down their lives in order to save for a few years the life of one they loved ? Then why should Christ, knowing that after death He would be back in eternal glory with His Father, to lay before the throne of God the victory over sin which would enable all man- kind to escape the penalty of death, why should He shrink from a few hours of painful death? The question has come again and again, reverently I think, — what man is there who would not have done it if he could? The most satisfactory answer I had found was well expressed in a short article written by a Glasgow minister. Briefly the ex- planation was this, that Father and Son had been living together in perfect harmony and love from the very beginning. On account of man's dis- obedience it was necessary that that harmony and friendship should be broken for a time. The Son must go down to earth to redeem the human race; there must be a separation between Father and Son for more than thirty years during which time the Son would suffer intensely. He would be de- spised and rejected of men. He would eventually be nailed upon the cross. And just as it is hard The Sacrifice 47 for an earthly father and son who love each other truly to be separated for a season, so because the love between our Heavenly Father and His Son was infinite, the pain of separation was infinitely great. I can never forget the day I found the real answer to my questions, as at random I drew a book from the library shelves of the clergyman whom I was assisting. The book was a volume of sermons by Dr. Jowett, "Apostolic Optimism," and the ad- dress was on the text, "He died for all." As I read, it seemed that a new world was opening out to me. It was the thing for which I had been searching for years. It was the most priceless revela- tion I had ever had, and to-day, years later, it remains the sheet anchor of my faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice. Most earnestly do I desire to thank Dr. Jowett for that explanation of the sacrifice that was made in Gethsemane and on Calvary. It is the greatest misconception of the sacrifice of Christ to attempt to explain His suffering and death in terms of physical agony upon the cross, for, as Dr. Jowett points out so clearly, that was not His real death at all; that was an experience which in the case of the little maid and again in the case of Lazarus, both of whom He had raised from the 48 The Second Man dead, our Saviour called sleep. The passing of animation from His own body He Himself would not have called death; He would have called it sleep. His death was something else. Two of His expressions give us the real meaning. In the agony in Gethsemane He exclaimed, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." What is this? The death of the soul! We are coming nearer to the tragic reality of the passion of Jesus Christ. Then upon the cross listen to His words, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (I cannot refrain from quoting the words of Dr. Jowett.) "That was death. What would follow would be only sleep. That was death — appalling midnight in the soul, the horror of a great dark- ness, exceeding desolation, abandonment! That was death — the Father's house obscured, the Father's hand vanished, and the Son of God in the outer darkness, in the agonies of a consuming loneliness! That was death — the sinless Saviour out there in the night, in the abandonment which is called the "wages of sin." What we call death, Christ called sleep. "Christ died." And when we come to consider the purpose which our Saviour had in coming to earth how could it have been otherwise? He came to set us free from the penalty of death. We ask ourselves when and The Sacrifice 49 by whom that death penalty had been pronounced. It had been pronounced by God when our first parents sinned. What was it? What did it mean ? Surely not physical death, for Adam and Eve lived for years and begat sons and daughters after the penalty had been pronounced. No, the penalty was not physical; it was spiritual. The direct results were that man was thrust out of the garden of Eden; but the real penalty was that man was cut off from personal communion with God, cast out into outer darkness to battle against the inevitable consequences of sin. The death penalty pronounced upon the human race as a result of sin was spiritual, not physical; it was the death, not of the body which God had created out of the dust of the earth, but the death of the soul which He had created by breathing into that body the breath of life. That was the death which had been pro- nounced upon the human race. That was the death which Christ came to lift from ofE the human race. That, therefore, must have been the death He died. To say that the death from which Christ came to set us free was physical, and that the death which He Himself died on Calvary was physical is to attribute failure to His work, for He has not set us free from physical death. But if the 50 The Second Man death from which He came to set us free was not physical but spiritual and eternal, then likewise the death which He died must have been spiritual and eternal. It had to be. For if Christ did not die eternal death for us we are still in our sins and the penalty of eternal death, which God pro- nounced upon the sins of Adam, still hangs over us. ''My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" What is the meaning of that cry? It means that at the end God withdrew from Christ and the Saviour of the world faced death alone, faced it under the conviction that His life and work had failed. Of His own free will He had laid aside the attributes of His divinity to face life as man, in order to redeem the human race. He had fought hard and bitter conflicts with the Devil. He was not conscious of having committed any sin. Was it possible that sin had crept in unawares? If so — well He knew that God was justice absolute. He knew that though He was not conscious of having committed any sin, yet if to the piercing eye of God there were any traces of sin, then at the bar of eternal justice His death would be con- sidered but the payment of the penalty for His own sins. Unless it were that sin had crept in unawares why should the Father turn away from The Sacrifice 51 Him in the hour of His greatest need? Surely it was on the cross even more than at His baptism that He needed the reassuring voice from heaven, ''This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." But on the cross no reassuring voice from heaven came to give Him strength, no answer to His agonizing prayer, only a terrible and awful silence. He was deserted by His Father. He was facing death alone, — spiritual, eternal death. Thus subjectively Christ suffered all the agonies of that spiritual death which was pronounced upon a sinful human race — a death which meant eternal separa- tion from God. Now where does the martyr's stake appear in comparison? The martyr faces the flames with certain hope that because Christ died for him and triumphed over death that he will only suffer a few hours at most of physical death, but that his spirit freed from death by reason of the death and resur- rection of Christ, will wing its way to eternal glory in the presence of Christ. He faces death in the certainty of resurrection to eternal life. Christ faced death in uncertainty, no one before Him had ever triumphed over death, faced it at the end under the conviction that He had lost. "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Place the Christian martyr at the stake and let him feel that 52 The Second Man God has deserted him as Christ felt that He was deserted — let him feel in the hour of his death that he is lost from God and heaven as Christ felt that He was lost, and then he will not be able to sing hymns of joy and triumph. Under the conviction of failure and abandonment we can readily under- stand why Christ shrank from the sacrifice. But thanks be to God for Jesus Christ who faced the agonies of eternal death for us, so that if we have faith in Him we shall never die the death He died, but we can face our departure from this life in confidence that it will be only physical and not spiritual, only temporal and not eternal. He died for us. And standing by the graves of our beloved who sleep we can look up and through our tears of natural human sorrow we can sing our Easter hymns of triumph and of joy in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life. THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS* WHEN Christianity began to spread outside the province of Judea, and had penetrated into almost every part of the Roman Empire and had made converts of some even in Caesar's royal household — then there w^ent forth imperial edicts that the Christian religion should be suppressed. After that, to be called a Christian v^as sufficient vrarrant for persecution, and, in many instances, for death. Under such conditions the Christians could not openly meet for worship, for if they did the Roman legions would surround them, and the wor- shippers would be slain or taken prisoners to battle later in the arena with wild beasts. They dare not approach a stranger and ask him if he were a Christian, for if the man were not a Christian his suspicions would be aroused and the one who had asked the question would be followed and probably taken prisoner or even slain. How, then, were the Christians to know and recognize one another? *An address at the first Communion Service after new candidates had been admitted into membership by con- firmation. 53 54 The Second Man They did it by signs, and one of the signs most commonly used was to draw in the dust or in the sand or on the walls the outline of a fish. They probably chose this sign on account of our Lord's associations with the sea of Galilee, and because several of the disciples had themselves been fisher- men; perhaps they chose this sign because the out- line of a fish is so easily drawn. Writers tell us that to this day there can still be found in the catacombs of Rome these signs cut in the walls, to indicate the places where the Christians had met in secret. And in those days of persecution how much it would mean to a man to find another who could understand his sign ! For though the men had never met before they would recognize in each other in- stantly a friend and brother, and they would be able to sit down and enjoy each other's friendship in confidence knowing that neither would betray the other. The same is true in fraternal organizations. A man belonging to a fraternal order can go to a dis- tant town or city and though he knows no one in the place, by certain signs of the order to which he belongs, he is received as a friend and brother. The Communion of the Saints. In confirmation classes where we meet in small groups to study the teachings and the doctrines of our Church more The Communion of Saints 55 candidates ask for an explanation of this expres- sion than any other. Tie Communion of the Saints. The question whici arises in the mind of every one who thinks upon this subject is the meaning of the word "sains." Does it mean those who have passed to their reward, or does it mean those who still remain on earth, who have found salvation in Christ and who re living saintly Christian lives? Which does it men? More and more my convictions are turn- ing tov^ards the view that it means both. We shall considr first the Communion of the Saints on its humarside — the communion among faithful, ear- nest Gristian men and women who are still on earth. Whe Christ taught His own disciples how to pray, ail gave to them a form of prayer which has been haded down to us, He taught us to com- mence <\T prayer in these words, "Our Father." If God? your Father and God is my Father it must foW that we are brothers, children of the One Ete\al God. If God is our Father, and God is the F^er of men and women whom we have never see in Alaska and the Yukon, in Great Britain, iilndia, in China, and Japan, if God is our Fatheand the same God is their Father, then we must a be brothers and sisters; and the man 56 The Second Man or the woman who will not acknowledge other Christians as members of the family to which he belongs and his equals — that man or that wonan does not thereby thrust his neighbor out fron the family of God and from the Communion o the Saints, but he thrusts himself out. Who are numbered among the saints? Is t the Church and every member of the Church? No! Not even all of Christ's own disciples were num- bered among the saints. We have been accustomed to speak of four spects or phases of the Christian Church — the (hurch Militant and the Church Triumphant, the (Church Visible and the Church Invisible; and a bisf sur- vey of these four terms will help us to unerstand the question we are studying, namely, th Com- munion of the Saints. The Church Militant, that means the Church at war, the Church here on earth at war»vith sin and iniquity, at war with idolatry and hethenism. The Church Triumphant is the Church f heaven where sin and idolatry have been ovePme and where the will of God is done perfectljand com- pletely. Now what do the terms, the Church isible and the Church Invisible mean ? There h; been con- siderable confusion of ideas, and ma; have un- The Communion of Saints 57 thinkingly considered the Church Visible and the Church Militant to be one and the same, that is the Church here on earth in its conflict against sin ; and on the other hand it has been thought by some that the Church Invisible and the Church Tri- umphant are the same, the Church we sometimes speak of as the Church of the New Jerusalem, the Church of Heaven. But that is not the meaning of the terms, the Church Visible and the Church Invisible. The Church Visible is the whole church membership here on earth, both the good and the bad, both wheat and tares. The Church Invisible is the Church within the Church, only those who are true and sincere — only the wheat. The Church Visible we all can see; the Church Invisible we cannot see. In the Visible Church we can count the membership; in the Church Invisible we can- not. If we take the band of Christ's disciples as the first Visible Church, there were in that Church twelve members besides Christ, but only eleven of them were members of the Church Invisible. At the same time there were several who were not numbered among the members of the Church Visible who were surely numbered in the Church Invisible, Mary, Martha, Lazarus, the mother of our Lord, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, the mother of John Mark. 58 The Second Man In the Visible Church of this parish we can number with a fair degree of accuracy the mem- bership ; but the membership of the Invisible Church of this parish God alone can number, and it may even be that the two memberships would differ considerably. Last Sunday twenty-eight people were admitted into full membership in the Visible Church through the Order of Confirmation by the Bishop. But how many of those twenty-eight were admitted by the Holy Spirit through conversion into the Church Invisible it is impossible that man should say. We can only pray and trust that each one was sincere and true in his or her profession of faith in Christ, and that each one who has been admitted into membership in the Church Visible is also now a member of the Church Invisible. The Bishop intimated in his address that some of the candidates who were of mature years had been lead- ing Christian lives for years before they came to him to be admitted into full membership in the Church, implying that they had been admitted by the Holy Spirit into the Church Invisible before they were admitted by the Bishop into the Church Visible. Let this distinction between the Church Visible and the Church Invisible be made clear. Candidates are admitted into full membership and privileges of the Church Visible by the Order of The Communion of Saints 59 Confirmation by the Bishop as head of the Church Visible. (Other Churches differ in their form of admission, and the work is intrusted to officers other than Bishops.) Candidates are admitted into mem- bership in the Church Invisible by conversion and by the Holy Spirit as head of the Church Invisible. Our Saviour's vv^ords to Nicodemus, *'Ye must be born again," are written boldly over the entrance to the Church Invisible, and without that new birth which is conversion, no man can enter. Member- ship in the Visible Church is not a guarantee of salvation; nevertheless the Visible Church is a divinely appointed institution to point men to the way of salvation. The Communion of the Saints — it is that com- munion which exists among all those who are mem- bers of the true Church Invisible, the bond of love and brotherhood that exists among them and the bond of union between them and Christ. And the one great common ground for all is the Holy Communion, where we meet as brothers and sisters, children of the One Eternal God, where wealth and social standing are not counted, where none are first and none are last, for all are equal; where Christ has promised that He will be and meet with us, and where we may hold communion with Him and feel His presence and His power. 6o The Second Man Nor can we leave our subject without a tender reference to the memory of the saints who once were with us and who have now passed away from earth. I am not prepared to go as far as some earnest thinkers on this subject and say that we can hold communion with our loved ones who have gone before, neither would I say, in the face of great evidence, that such communion is impossible. But this I do say that we can come here to the Holy Communion and here we can meet with Christ, and we can as it were reach out our hand to grasp His hand that once was pierced on Calvary's tree in atonement for our sins, while in His other hand is grasped the hand of a father, mother, brother, sister, or a loved one who has been called away. Oh! you whose loved ones have fallen on the field of battle, how eagerly you seek to meet an officer or a comrade or the chaplain in the hope that he will have a message for you from the one who has passed into eternity! Oh! you whose hearts are sore and bleeding by reason of a separa- tion from the ones you love, draw near with faith and take this holy sacrament which Christ Him- self ordained as the place where He would come to meet with you. Draw near with faith, for Christ was with your loved one in the last moments of his life, yea, Christ can tell you all about him The Communion of Saints 6i now that he has passed into eternity, and He has a message of comfort to give you now; if you will come forward worthily and in faith to receive it in the Communion of the Saints. Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 1 1012 01197 0516