"I give theft Btoks for the founding c i ~sfony" ' Y^LE«¥JMfl¥LEI&SIIirY° Bought with the income of the Ann S. Farnam Fund ADVERTISEMENT This series of ten volumes, each complete in itself, is designed to constitute a connected treat ment of the entire range of Catholic Doctrine. I. Introduction. (1907.) II. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical. (1908.) in. The Being and Attributes of God. (1909.) IV. The Trinity. (1910.) V. Creation and Man. (191 2.) VI. The Incarnation. (1915.) VII. The Passion and Exaltation of Christ. (1918.) VIII. The Church and Her Sacraments. IX. The Minor Sacraments. X. Eschatology: Indexes. It is hoped that the remaining volumes will be published at intervals of about eighteen months. THE PASSION AND EXALTATION OF CHRIST -33p the Same author Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: crown svo. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical: crown 8vo. The Being and Attributes of God : crown 8vo. The Trinity: crown 8vo. Creation and Man: crown 8vo. The Incarnation: crown 8vo. The Passion and Exaltation of Christ: crown, 8vo. The Kenotic Theory: Considered with particular refer ence to its Anglican forms and arguments; crown 8vo. Evolution and the Fall: Bishop Paddock Lectures, 1009-igio; crown 8vo. Theological Outlines — Three Volumes, nmo. Vol. I. The Doctrine of God Vol. n. The Doctrine of Man and of the God-Man Vol. m. The Doctrine of the Church and of Last Things The Historical Position of the Episcopal Church: i2mo, paper covers. The Bible and Modern Criticism: ismo, paper covers. THE PASSION AND EXALTATION OF CHRIST BY THE Rev. FRANCIS J. HALL, D.D. PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK CITY LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. FOURTH AVENUE tf 30th STREET, NEW YORK 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 1918 COPYRIGHT, 1918, BY LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. SDettitateU TO THE BLESSED MEMORY OF ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA WHOSE ECUMENICALLY ACCEPTED EPISTLES CONTINUE TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUTH OF OUR LORD'S PERSON AND THEREFORE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION PREFACE Three central and complex mysteries of the Christian faith are dealt with in this volume: Those of the death of Christ; of His resurrection and as cension; and of His heavenly priesthood. All have been combated in modem days, and this fact in creases the difficulty of embracing their treatment within the limits of such a volume as this. The author has been forced to pay attention to the apolo getical aspects of his subjects; and while taking great pains to make perfectly clear their construc tive aspects, as parts of a larger organism of saving truth, he has been obliged to dismiss some important questions with rapid summaries and references to fuller treatments elsewhere. As in the previous treatises of this series, the determinate principle has been to exhibit faithfully and without reduction or mutilation the historic faith of the Church of God, but to do this in terms that will be as intelligible to modem minds as the writer can make them. While discovering much onesidedness and cari cature in the so called objective theories of the atonement which have marked the history of specu- x PREFACE lative thought on that subject, the writer finds no reason for abandoning or modifying the New Testa ment doctrine that the death of Christ, coupled with His victory over death, accomplished in itself a real change in the relations between God and sinful mankind; and that this mystery is the historical and objective basis of the dispensation of saving grace and of our reconciliation to God through our living Saviour, Jesus Christ. The ancient doctrine of our Lord's resurrection in true flesh from the dead, and His ascension there with into heaven, as set forth in the Gospels, and not, as some have tried to prove, contradicted by the teaching of St. Paul, is also maintained in this volume. And an effort is made to show that the reasons given in our day for modifying this doctrine do not have the weight which is attached to them by certain writers. At the same time a few crude inferences from the catholic doctrine, which partly account for its alleged difficulties, are faced and eliminated. The doctrine of our Lord's heavenly priesthood, although unmistakably set forth in the New Testa ment, and traditionally maintained in the Church, has waited for clear theological development until the nineteenth century. It is here exhibited as the vital connecting link between the redemptive death and resurrection of our Lord and the present dis pensation of salvation and of restoration of the broken relations between God and men. PREFACE xi For space-saving reasons the titles of the works most frequently referred to are assembled in bibli ographies on pp. i, 164, and 264. In the references which follow these lists, the authors' names alone are ordinarily given. CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Part I. Biblical Developments of Doctrine PAGE § i. The doctrine of sin i § 2. Redemption in the Old Testament 5 § 3. Christ's teaching 10 § 4. Apostolic teaching 15 Part II. Objective Theories § 5. Theories vs. catholic doctrine 20 § 6. Patristic theories 21 § 7. Anselmic and Scholastic 25 § 8. Penal substitutionism 29 Part III. Modern Theories § 9. Socinian and Grotian 33 § 10. Ideal penitent theory 36 §11. Moral theories 39 § 12. The need of constructive synthesis 43 CHAPTER II ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS Part I. Eliminations § 1. Forensic imputation 45 § 2. Penal substitution 48 § 3. Opposition between divine justice and love. ... 52 4- Predestinarianism 54 xiv CONTENTS Part II. f Incidental Problems page § 5. How a temporal event can have effect in the eternal sphere 56 § 6. How the death of one person can have redemptive effect on other persons 60 § 7. How physical death can have spiritual results ... 62 § 8. The disparity between universal redemption and the extent of salvation 66 Part III. The Problem of Love and Justice § 9. That the loving God should be wrathful 69 § 10. The exacting nature of true love 73 § 11. Divine justice essential to divine love 76 § 12. The love and justice of the Cross 80 CHAPTER III THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Part I. Anthropological, § 1. God's purpose for man involves persuasive methods 84 § 2. But human nature is not self-sufficient 86 § 3. And external methods of assistance are needed . . 88 § 4. Also social and ecclesiastical methods 91 Part II. Christological § 5. The soteriological bearing of Christ's divine Person 93 § 6. And of His human life 97 § 7. The resurrection the completing factor of redemp tion TOO § 8. And Christ's heavenly priesthood makes it abid ingly effective 101 Part III. Soteriological § 9. Redemption has to be followed by salvation ... 103 § 10. What is included in redemption I04 CONTENTS xv PAGE ii. Saving grace dispensed through the Church . . . 105 12. Justification initiates the growth in righteousness wherein our salvation from sin consists . . . 107 CHAPTER IV THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH Part I. Introductory Truths 1. The doctrine and its theology distinguished. Resume of principles to be remembered . . no 2. Necessity and convenience of Christ's death ... 113 3. Christ is the Mediator and the Second Adam . . 115 4. His death not substitutionary, although vicarious . 118 Part II. Objective Aspects 5. Redemption and sacrifice for sin 121 6. Remission and cleansing from sin 125 7. Renewal of life and of evolution 128 8. Propitiation and reconciliation 131 Part HI. Moral Aspects 9. Their relation to objective aspects 134 10. Revelation and example 137 n. Love's challenge 140 12. The influence of the Cross 142 CHAPTER V AMONG THE DEAD Part I. Our Lord's Death 1. The fact that He died 144 2. The union between His Godhead and Manhood unbroken 145 3. His body and spirit in death 147 xvi CONTENTS Part II. In Hades page § 4. Did he enter the place of the damned? 149 § 5. His preaching to the dead 15° § 6. His deliverance of captives i52 Part III. Special Questions § 7. The where of Heaven and Hell 154 § 8. The Paradise of the penitent thief 157 § 9. What of those who do not receive the Gospel in this life? 158 CHAPTER VI THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION Part I. Standpoints and Approaches § 1. Of naturalism 164 § 2. Of the historical method, exclusively used .... 168 § 3. Of belief in an intrinsic opposition between flesh and spirit 170 § 4. Of traditional Christianity 173 Part H. The Evidence § 5. Of St. Paul 176 § 6. The kind of resurrection which he teaches .... 179 § 7. Of the Gospels .... 183 § 8. Confirmations from historical and theological contexts 187 Part III. Objections to the Evidence § 9. Variations in details 189 § 10. The two traditions, Galikean and Judaean .... 192 § n. Christ's non-appearance to people at large . . . 194 § 12. The difficulty with which He was recognized ... 197 CONTENTS xvii CHAPTER VII RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES Part I. Theories page § i. Swoon theory 200 § 2. Theft theory. Did the women go to the wrong tomb? 202 § 3. Vision theory 204 § 4. Objective vision theory 207 Part II. Some Difficulties § 5. Reversal of physical death and scientific knowledge 208 § 6. The closed door and the impenetrability of matter 210 § 7. Our Lord's post-resurrection eating 214 § 8. His clothing 217 Part III. Flesh and Spirit § 9. Belief in the resurrection of flesh not materialistic . 220 § 10. St. Paul's teaching .... 224 § n. The mcreasing and abiding functional value of the flesh for our spirits ... 227 § 12. Its value when our spirits are glorified 230 CHAPTER VIII THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION Part I. In Relation to Christ Himself § 1. Theological description of the event 236 § 2. Changes in His body 239 § 3. His justification and the vindication of His claim and teaching 240 § 4. His human reward and exaltation 244 xviii CONTENTS Part II. In Relation to the Plan of God page § 5. This plan is revealed by both the natural and the supernatural 246 § 6. Relation of the resurrection to the Incarnation and to the consummation 248 § 7. And to redemption 250 § 8. And to the new dispensation of grace 251 Part III. In Relation to Us § 9. Our physical resurrection 254 § 10. Our justification 256 § n. Our new righteousness . . 259 § r2. Our final participation in the divine nature . . . 261 CHAPTER IX THE ASCENSION Part I. The Forty Days § 1. Christ completed His self -manifestation .... 264 § 2. And organized the Church 266 § 3. The apostolic commission 268 § 4. The mysteries of the kingdom 272 Part II. The Withdrawal § 5. A real movement into the sky 274 § 6. Symbolically indicating a local destination some where 277 § 7. Christ's session and heavenly titles 279 § B. His second coming, its time and manner .... 280 Part III. Reasons for the Withdrawal § 9. To centralize His work in space and time .... 284 § co. That is, as mediatorial Prophet, Priest and King . 286 § n. To prepare places for us 289 § 12. To enable the Holy Spirit to come 291 CONTENTS xix CHAPTER X THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD Part I. Introductory page § i. The meaning of priesthood 294 § 2. Its place in religion 295 § 3. In the Old Covenant 298 § 4. The part therein of Christ's death 301 Part II. Christ's Priestly Office § 5. Its mediatorial and trinitarian basis 304 § 6. Its eternal and temporal aspects 307 § 7. Its consecration and modification in temporal aspects by the Cross 310 § 8. Its being exercised in the Manhood 312 Part III. The Heavenly Oblation § 9. New Testament description 314 § 10. Moral and effective aspects 317 § n. Our Eucharistic participation 319 § 12. There is but one sacrifice 321 THE PASSION AND EXALTATION OF CHRIST CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I. Biblical Developments of Doctrine § i. The proper introduction to constructive treat ment of any Christian doctrine is historical. Ac cordingly, this chapter will be given to such a very brief survey of the chief stages of the revelation of redemption, and of Christian thought concerning it, as our space permits.1 1 On the Atonement and subjects covered by chh. i-v, below, see, for constructive treatments, St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theo- logica, Pt. III. qq. xlvi-lii; J. P. Norris, Rudiments of Theol., Pt. I. ch. iii, and Pt. II; J. S. Lidgett, Spiritual Principle of the Atone ment; L. Pullan, The Atonement; D. Stone, Outlines of Christ. Dogma, ch. vii; R. W. Dale, The Atonement; Jos. Pohle, Soteriology; L. Ragg, Aspects of the Atonement; Jas. Denney, Death of Christ; The Atonement and the Modern Mind; R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality; W. J. S. Simpson, Reconciliation between God and Man; T. J. Crawford, The Doctr. of H. Scrip. Respecting the Atone ment; W. Milligan, The Ascension, Note B. pp. 340-366; P. B. Bull, Instructions on the Atonement; P. M. Rhinelander, Faith of the Cross. Biblical treatments, J. K. Mozley, The Atonement, chh. i— iii; J. S. Lidgett, op. cit., ch. iii; H. C. Beeching, Doctr. of the Atone ment; A. Cave, Scriptural Doctr. of Sacrifice; L. Pullan, op. cit.; 2 INTRODUCTION But in order rightly to understand biblical ideas concerning redemption and salvation we have first to reckon with the biblical doctrine of sin. This doctrine has been set forth in a previous volume of this series,1 and we here limit ourselves to indicating certain aspects of the subject which need to be kept in mind in all that follows. Sin is described as disobedience to the will and law of God.2 But the will of God is more than personal fiat. It is the ultimate standard of right eousness. It is this because it is controlled by and reveals the divine nature, wherein, righteousness is eternally actualized and has its determinative centre.3 Therefore sin is not limited in its God- E. D. Burton and others, Biblical Ideas of Atonement; G. B. Stevens, Christ. Doctr. of Salvation; Hastings, Die. of Bible and Die. of Christ, various articles; A. B. Davidson, Theol. of the O. Test., chh. vii-x; R. W. Dale, op. cit., App. B.; J. P. Norris, op. cit., Pt. II. Historical, J. K. Mozley, op. cit.; H. N. Oxenham, Cath. Doctr. of the Atonement; J. Rivifire, Doctr. of the Atonement; Jas. Orr, Progress of Dogma, passim; G. B. Stevens, op. cit., Pt. II; Geo. C. ' Foley, Anselm's Theory of the Atonement; A. Ritschl, Crit. Hist, of the Christ. Doctr. of Justif. and Reconciliation; Nathaniel Dimock, Doctr. of the Death of Christ, App. (a catena to 1489 a.d.); J. F. Bethune-Baker, Introd. to the Early Hist, of Christ. Doctr., ch. xviii. For fuller bibliography, see J. RiviSre, Vol. II. pp. 259-261; Geo. C. Foley, pp. 317-319. Authors only will ordinarily be given in references to the above mentioned works. 1 Creation and Man, chh. viii-ix (bibliographies, pp. 270-271, 281). Cf. the writer's Evolution and the Fall, Lees, iv-vi. 2 Rom. iii. 4; 1 St. John iii. 4. 3 Creation and Man, p. 229 (c); Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 292- 293. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 3 ward effects to private and personal relations, but involves a violation of the eternal order and a breach of the fundamental continuity and reason of things. God is supreme, but in so far as He is God, He has to be true to the righteousness which de scribes His eternal essence and standpoint. In His righteousness lies His supremacy, and in His vin dication of His supremacy lies the maintenance of righteousness.1 Accordingly, the dealing of God with sin cannot rightly be described in terms of arbitrary will or private good pleasure.2 The disturbance by sin of relations between God and His creatures is more than a personal matter, and no mere fiat can remedy it. To become reconciled with God necessarily requires us to become reconciled with righteousness. The reason is not because righteousness is an external law which limits divine freedom, but because, from the fundamental and unalterable nature of things, God and righteousness are to all intents and pur poses one.3 God is love because love is the central element of righteousness.4 But a love which seeks to evade or 1 This subject is more fully considered in ch. ii. §§ 10-11, below. 2 The idea of Duns Scotus, In Sent. Pet. Lomb., iii. 19-20. What we say is also corrective of St. Anselm's theory, wherein the per sonal honour of God is stressed to the neglect of the wider law of righteousness. 3 Cf. next chapter, pp. $$-$6 and § n. / 4 1 St. John iv. 7-21; Eph. v. 1-2; St. Matt. xxii. 37-39; Rom. xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7; xvi. 14; Col. iii. 14. 4 INTRODUCTION reduce the claims of justice is not perfect after its kind. Love looks to personal relations, and the enjoyment of these relations depends upon mutual congeniality.1 God loves us as created after His likeness, and as potential subjects of development in His righteousness, of which justice is an essential aspect. Therefore His love for sinners cannot impel Him to waive the claims of justice, but moves Him to help us to escape from sin and become godlike. And this display of love is as just as it is merciful, for it looks to the enjoyment of a communion and fellowship which is grounded in mutual possession of perfect righteousness. God • cannot pardon sin until provision has been made for its cure, and accomplished sin cannot be cured by mere penitence and future avoidance of sin. Furthermore, such avoidance itself is impossible without redeeming grace. The need of expiation, imperfect as every human explanation of it is, has always been recognized by sincere penitents as im perative. Moreover sin leaves consequences, both social and personal, which cannot be remedied by mere repentance.2 The task of expiating accom plished sin, and of remedying its consequences, is too great for the natural man to achieve. In some way death and victory over death are involved even for penitents, and no death can be followed by vic tory, much less can enable others to share in it, 1 Being and Attrib., pp. 301-303. 2 Idem, pp. 303-304. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 5 except the death of such an one as Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind.1 § 2. The revelation of the need and of the method of salvation came in the first instance to a chosen race, and was gradual.2 Its progress was condi tioned by the growth of Israel in spiritual receptivity, through ages of discipline under manifold statutes and judgments. Formally speaking, the method of revelation was chiefly twofold — sacrificial and pro phetic. But the very history of the chosen people was so overruled and controlled with reference to the mystery of redemption that it became a kind of parable, in which the Gospel drama was rehearsed with increasing fulness, and in which many sig nificant types emerged.3 The IsraeHtes passed through a divinely ordered kindergarten school, the deeper meaning of which they could not realize, but which is apparent to those who read its sacred records in the hght of accompHshed redemption.4 The Old Testament sacrifices were developed out of preexisting usages, usages not confined to the 1 Cf. ch. iv. § 6, below. 2 For refs. on O. Test, doctrine, see p. i, note 1. On gentilic looking for a Saviour, see J. A. Macculloch, Compar. Theol., ch. ix; W. R. Alger, Crit. Hist, of the Doctr. of a Fut. Life, pp. 456 et seq. 3 In Psalm lxxviii the history of Israel, there summarized, is described as a "parable" and as "dark sayings." Cf. Authority, Eccles. and Bibl., ch. vii. §§ 12, 14-15. 1 Creation and Man, ch. x. § 5, and refs. there given. On O. T. symbols, see A. Jukes, Types of Genesis; W. S. Moule, Offerings Made Like unto the Son of God. That O. T. prophets did not fully understand their own prophecies, see 1 St. Pet. i. 10-12. 6 INTRODUCTION Hebrews.1 But in the Jewish covenant, and by divine ordering,2 they were Hfted to a higher plane, and given forms which made them shadows "of the good things to come." 3 Thus the ritual of the Day of Atonement prefigured the Cross; 4 the dany and ever-smoking Burnt Offering foreshadowed the abid ing heavenly oblation in which the Cross Hves on; 5 and the Peace Offering, of which the Paschal Feast was an example, exhibited beforehand the com munion with God which the death of Christ makes possible, and which is enjoyed when we sacrament- aUy partake of the Flesh and Blood of Him through whom we gain access to God.6 In the Sacrament of the Altar we also plead the atoning death of Christ and unite ourselves with Him in His heavenly obla- 1 Hastings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "Sacrifice," A. iii; Cath. Encyc, q. v., I; W. R. Smith, Relig. of the Semites; J. A. Macculloch, op. cit., ch. viii. 2 That they were divinely ordered does not depend upon the accuracy of traditional views as to the part of Moses in their develop ment, but upon our Lord's recognition of the authority of the law. Cf. St. Matt. v. 17-18. 3 Heb. x. 1; viii. 5; St. Matt. v. 17; Gal. iii. 24; Col. ii. 17. On O. T. sacrifices and their typology, see L. Ragg, op. cit.; A. Jukes, Law cf Offerings; W. J. Gold, Sacrificial Worship; E. F. Willis, The Worship of the Old Covenant; A. E. Edersheim, The Temple; Hastings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "Sacrifice," A.; Cath. Encyc, q. 11., II; T. J. Crawford, pp. 254-263; L. Pullan, ch. iii; G. B. Stevens, Pt. I. ch. i. 4 Levit. xvi. Cf. Heb. ix-x. A. Edersheim, op. cit., ch. xvi. 6 Levit. i; vi. 8-23. Cf. Heb. x. 5-14; viii. 1-4; ix. 24; Revel. v. 6; Heb. vii. 24-25. A. Edersheim, op. cit., chh. vi-vii. 6 Exod. xii. 11; Deut. xvi. 1-8. Cf. Heb. x. 19-22; 1 Cor. x. 16-21; xi. 26. A. Edersheim, op. cit., pp. 134-136, and chh. xi-xiii. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 7 tion. Thus the Old Testament figures are fulfilled in a permanent spiritual sacrifice, made effective by Christ's death and everlasting priesthood.1 The Old Testament sacrifices could not put away sin, except in the sense of ceremonial atonement, whereby Israel was accepted by God in view of the true atonement which these sacrifices figured.2 It should be noticed, however, that recent investiga tion has overthrown the supposition that the word atonement, 1B3, as used in connection with these sacrifices, meant a covering of guilt. Rather it meant wiping clean or making bright; 3 and the IsraeHtes looked to a real cleansing of the soul from sin.4 But abuses crept in, and the prophets Hfted their voices in protest against the growing habit of relying on sacrificial ritual as a substitute for personal re pentance and forsaking of sin.5 But strong as their protests were,6 the whole course of Old Testament 1 For this interpretation of O. T. sacrifices, see also The Incarna tion, ch. ix. §§ 6-8. On their relation to Christ's priesthood and the Eucharist, see below, ch. x. § 3. 5 Heb. x. 1-12. Cf. L. Pullan, pp. 86-91. 3 L. Pullan, pp. 255-257, 62-64; J- K- Mozley, pp. 22-23. Tlie subject is threshed in the Expository Times for 191 1: Feb., pp. 232-234; April, two articles; May, pp. 378-381; and July, pp. 478- 479, by Ed. Konig, S. H. Langdon and C. F. Burney. Cf. Job xxxi. 33; Prov. xxxviii. 13, where covering of sin is treated as futile. 4 Zech. xiii. 1; Jerem. xxxiii. 8. B E.g. in Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21-24; Isa. i. 11-17. 6 When Jerem. vii. 22 and Amos v. 25 are dislocated from their larger biblical context, and the freedom of rhetoric is ignored, they seem to throw doubt on the divine requirement of sacrifice. 8 INTRODUCTION prophecy presupposes the place of sacrifice in the divine covenant, and, on the basis of purification by the Redeemer, even in the future messianic kingdom.1 The prophetic message was that salvation was to be ethical, consisting of deHverance from sin.2 Its ground was to be God's love, shown in readiness to forgive,3 and the redemption which the promised Messiah was to achieve. Its conditions on man's side were to be faith and repentance, issuing in obedience.4 This was to be brought about by an inner purification and renewal from above, by a writing of the law on human hearts.5 The mes sianic kingdom was to be a kingdom of righteousness, extending over aU the earth.6 The prophets came to see with growing clearness not only that this salvation was figured rather than achieved by animal sacrifices, but that a redemptive salvation was needed which human power could not accompUsh. A divine Redeemer was required,7 1 Cf. Psa. Ii. 16-19; Isa- lvi. 7; Mai. i. 10-n; iii. 1-4; Jerem. xxxiii. 18-21. 2 Isa. xliv. 22; liii. 5, 10-11; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; xxxvii. 23; Zech. xiii. j.. Cf. Psa. Ii. 3 Exod. xxxiv. 6; Numb. xiv. 18; Joel ii. 13; Jerem. xiv. 7; Isa. xlix. 13-16; liv. 5, 10; Job ii. 17; Psa. c. 5; ciii. 8-10. 1 Deut. xxx. 1-10; Psa. Ii. 17; Isa. i. 10-20; Ezek. xxxiii. 10-20; Hab. ii. 4; 1 Sam. xv. 22. K Psa. Ii. 5-12; Jerem. xxxi. 33-34; Ezek. xxxvi. 26-27. 6 Isa. xi. 4-9; xlix. 6; bri; Jerem. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 15-16; Psa. Ixxii. 7 Psa. xlix. 7-8, 15; lxviii. 20; Isa. xlvii. 4; Iii. 9-10; lx. 16. Cf. Job ix. 32-33. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 9 and the coming Messiah was to be this Redeemer.1 Taught no doubt by sacrificial symboHsm, but also by the present sufferings of Israel, they caught glimpses of the truth that vicarious suffering was to be the manner of redemption.2 The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is the clearest Old Testament evangel. And it is not less significant because it had immediate reference to the sufferings of Israel, and was not understood in its messianic reference3 until the promised redemption had taken place.4 In the meantime the camal-minded Jews inter preted messianic prophecy in poHtical and national istic terms. Thus they missed its deeper, ethical 1 Psa. ex; Isa. ix. 6; Jerem. xxiii. 5-6; Mic. v. 2; Zech. xiii. 7; Mai. iii. ±. 2 This is implied in the primitive prophecy that the serpent should bruise His heel, Gen. iii. 15. Cf. Psa. xxii. 1-21; lxix. 19-21; Isa. 1. 6; Mic. v. 1; Zech. xi. 12-13; xiii- 6-7. It is clear that the O. T. prophets did not enter into the full meaning which their words on the subject were to unfold. Cf. 1 St. Pet. i. 10-12. The Jews at large were not looking for a suffering Messiah. See T. J. Thorburn, Jesus the Christ, ch. i; L. Pullan, pp. 166-168. 3 See S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish Interpreters. Cf. E. Kautzsch, in Hast ings, Die of Bib., Extra Vol., pp. 707-708; G. A. Smith, in op. cit., s. v. "Isaiah," pp. 496-497; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 94-106; J. RiviSre, Vol. I. pp. 34-48. 4 On the prophetic doctrine of salvation, see Hastings, op. cit., s. v. "Salvation," pp. 358-360; J. S. Lidgett, ch. iii; L. Pullan, ch. iii; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets; E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament; T. J. Crawford, pp. 205-2-16; G. B. Stevens, ch. ii. 10 INTRODUCTION and expiatory aspects,1 and rejected our Lord be cause He was not and would not be the external deHverer for whom they were looking.2 § 3. Our Lord's human mind, being human, grew in the normal way. But being wondrously enhght- ened by grace, it grew perfectly,3 and came to know the significance of His Person and messianic func tion with sufficient rapidity to forestaU the possi bifity of His erring either in self-guidance or in teaching.4 He must have gained during His child hood an understanding of prophecy concerning Him self which, to say the least, was astonishing; 5 and must have entered upon His pubHc ministry with determinative knowledge of what He had come to teach, to do, and to suffer. It is to be acknowledged, in the present state of the question, that clear an nouncements of His messianic status and function,N and of His death as related thereto, appear to have been deferred until the period foUowing the confes- 1 On these later Jewish ideas, see V. H. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah; J. Drummond, Jewish Messiah; W. Fairweather, in Hastings, Die. of Bib., Extra Vol., pp. 295-302. 2 The Jews who were impressed by His miracles wanted to make Him King.. St. John vi. 15. 3 Cf. The Incarnation, chh. v. 6, viii. 2; The Kenotic Theory, chh. x-xii. * On His messianic consciousness and security as teacher, see The Incarnation, ch. x. § 11; E. D. La Touche, Person of Christ, pp. 248-285; C. F. Nolloth, Person of our Lord, ch. vi; H. R. Mack intosh, Person of Jesus Christ, pp. 14-19; Hastings, Die. of Christ, s. v. "Eschatology," B. 2. 6 St. Luke ii. 46-49. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE n sion of Peter. But earHer indications of the mind which He then began to declare were not lacking; and so long as the fourth Gospel is recognized to have any historical value, reasons can be given for beHef that some of these indications were fairly expHcit.1 At aU events, whatever may have been the tem poral sequence of His utterances, they ultimately revealed a definite consciousness on His part of hav ing come into the world to save lost sinners,2 to give His life as a ransom for many,3 and to shed His blood for the remission of sins.4 He did not set forth a theology of the atonement; but when His teaching at large is interpreted in the Hght of these determi native assertions, and of the events which foUowed,5 it can be perceived to afford a justifying basis of the later and more elaborate apostofic teaching.6 1 See St. John iii. 14-17; vi. 51-58, 64, 70-71; x. 11, 15, 17-18. The words of St. John Baptist, "Behold the Lamb of God," etc., (St. John 1. 29) would be clearly understood by such an one as Christ to foreshadow His death. Cf. in the Synoptic Gospels St. Matt. ix. 15; St. Mark ii. 20; St. Luke v. 35. See L. Pullan, ch. iv. §§ 2-3; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 82-87; J. Riviere, pp. 85-92; T. J. Crawford, pp. n-12. 2 St. Luke xix. 10. 3 St. Matt. xx. 28; St. Mark x. 45. Cf. Psa. xlix. 7. 4 St. Matt. xxvi. 28. Cf. St. Mark xiv. 24; St. Luke xii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 25-26. 6 His death, resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are determinative parts of the revelation given by our Lord which have to be reckoned with in its interpretation. See The Incarnation, pp. 275-276; T. J. Crawford, pp. 404-420; R. W. Dale, pp. 37-49- 6 On Christ's teaching concerning His death, see L. Pullan, chh. iv-v; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 77-88; W. J. S. Simpson, ch. v; J. P. Norris, 12 INTRODUCTION Our Lord ascribes His mission to the Father's preexisting love. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever be- Heveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting Hfe." x The parable of the prodigal son enforces this truth.2 Christ also ascribes His death to His own love. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." 3 That He did this voluntarily He - makes clear. "No one taketh it' away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again." Yet He immediately adds, "This commandment I received from My Father";4 and elsewhere He makes obedience to the Father the mainspring of His mission.5 He described His death as something which had to be, for fulfilment of the Father's will 6 and of prophecy,7 and for the effects which it was to bring about.8 Therefore, Pt. II. ch. ii; R. W. Dale, Lees, ii— iii; J. K. Mozley, ch. ii; J. Riviere, Vol. I. ch. vi. 1 St. John iii. 16. z St. Luke xv. n-32. To infer that repentance alone is neces sary for men's salvation is to disregard Christ's other teaching, and to enlarge imduly the scope of the parable, which of course presupposes Christ's redemption. T. J. Crawford, pp. 416-420; L. Pullan, pp. 94-95. 3 St. John xv. 9, 12-13. Cf. xiii. 1, 24; St. Matt: xxiii. 37. 4 St. John x. 17-18. 6 St. Matt. xxvi. 39-40 (cf. St. Mark xiv. 36; St. Luke xxii. 42); St. Luke ii. 49; St. John iv. 34; v. 30, 36; vi. 38; ix. 4; xvii. 4. 6 St. Luke xii. 50; St. John xviii. n. 7 St. Matt. xxvi. 24, 54; St. Luke xxiv. 25-26. 8 St. John xii. 24, 32. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 13 while keenly sensitive to the horror of His passion,1 "He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem,"2 revealing in several utterances His knowledge that He was to die.3 No doubt His death had other direct causation than His wtti to lay down His Hfe. It certainly did not represent suicide. It was the in evitable result of His faithfulness to His mission,4 and was caused by the spiritually blind leaders of His people. But as one of those leaders said, in terms more significant than he could understand, "It was expedient that one man should die for the people." 5 Our Lord undoubtedly set forth those aspects of His death and of His mission which are emphasized in the W caUed moral theories of the atonement. His being Hfted up was to draw aU men unto Him,6 1 St. John xii. 27; St. Matt. xxvi. 36-44; St. Mark xiv. 32-42; St. Luke xxii. 42-44. His agony was due not to lack of heroism, but to realization of what His death meant, to the climax of His battle with Satan, and to the burden of sin which He was taking on Him self. See St. Thomas, III. xlvi. 6-8; A. J. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, ch. vi. § 17; Hastings, Die. of Christ, s. v. "Agony"; T. J. Crawford, pp. 133-139. 2 St. Luke ix. 51. 3 St. Matt. xvi. 21 (cf. St. Mark viii. 31; St. Luke ix. 12); xii. 40 (cf. xvi. 4); xvii. 22; xx. 17-19 (cf. St. Mark x. 32-34; St. Luke xviii. 31-33); St. Luke xii. 50; St. John xii. 31-33. 4 Plato gave an unconscious prophecy when he said, "The just man (who is thought unjust) will be scourged, racked, bound . . . and at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled." Republic, II. 361, (B. Jowett's transl.). 6 St. John xi. 49-52 (cf. xviii. 14). On the historical cause of Christ's death, see J. S. Lidgett, ch. ii; R. C. Moberly, pp. 114-116. * St. John xii. 32. 14 INTRODUCTION constituting the most powerful chaUenge of love known to man.1 His life was designed to be a Hfe of service,2 which should be an example for men to foUow, even to the Cross.3 Moreover He put the saving value of His teaching to the forefront; 4 and defined the conditions of salvation as including re pentance on men's own part,5 their befief in Him 6 and their obedience to His commandments.7 The notion that His death alone could save them, as by an automatic working, is inconsistent with this teaching. But the relations in which He places men to Him self as their Lord and Master,8 and above all as the Mediator between them and God,9 prepare us to read a deeper meaning into His Hfe and death than the so called moral aspects alone contain. He came not only to teach and to lead, but also to save.10 He 1 St. John xv. 12-13. 2 St. Luke xxii. 27. 3 St. Matt. x. 38; xi. 29; xvi. 24; xx. 25-28; St. Mark viii; 34-35; x. 21, 43-45; St. Luke ix. 23-24; xiv. 26-27; St. John xiii. 13-15. Cf. St. John xvii. 19. 4 St. Matt. v. 29; St. John v. 34, 40; viii. 12; ix. 5; xiv. 6 (cf. x. 27; xvi. 13-14). B St. Matt. iv. 17; ix. 10-13; St. Luke xiii. 3; xv. 7, 21-23; xxiv. 47. 6 St. John v. 37-47; vi. 27-29; 46-47, 68. Cf. xx. 31; and the app. of St. Mark xvi. 16. 7 St. Matt. x. 37-39; xi. 28-30; xvi. 24-25, etc.; St. John iii. 36; xiv. 15, 23-24; xv. 10, 14. Cf. St. Matt. xxv. 1-30; St. Luke >• 33- 8 E.g. St. John xiii. 13. 9 St. John xiv. 6. 10 St. Luke xix. 10; St. John iii. 16-17. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 15 came that men might have Hfe,1 and the life which He came to give them is expressly conditioned by a vital union with Him, and by feeding on His flesh.2 It is in the Hght of such teaching that we should interpret the two utterances of Christ concerning His death which most directly ascribed objective efficacy to it: — "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His Hfe a ransom for many." "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many unto the remission of sins." 3 Further discussion of these passages must be postponed, but they plainly teach three truths: (a) that man's defiverance from the slavery of sin was the designed purpose of Christ's death; (b) that the shedding of His blood became the basis of the saving covenant; (c) that remission of sins is grounded therein. This teaching inter prets such sayings as, "I am the Good Shepherd: the Good Shepherd layeth down His Hfe for the sheep." "Except a grain of wheat faU into the earth and die, -it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit." "Now is My soul troubled; . . . Father save Me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour." 4 § 4. The apostles took up Old Testament teach ing, as it was brought to a head by the evangel of 1 St. John, v. 40; x. 10. a St. John vi. 51-58; xiv. 19-20; xv. 1-10; xvii. 21-23. Cf. 1 St. John v. n-12. 3 St. Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28. 4 St. John x. n; xii. 24, 27. Cf. iii. 14-17. 16 INTRODUCTION the suffering servant1 and completed it in the Hght of our Lord's teaching and of the accompHshed facts of His death and resurrection. They borrowed freely from current forms of Jewish thought and language, using the most readily available symbols. But the manner of their use of these conceptions and symbols was determined and controUed by the teaching of Christ, as completed and interpreted by His death and resurrection, and as understood by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.2 A real development of soteriological doctrine took place during the apostoHc period, for the minds of the apostles required time and conditioning cir cumstances to reckon with the numerous aspects and impHcations of the comprehensive mysteries which had been revealed to them. But this devel opment shows no trace of substantial innovation, or of departure from what had been received from the Lord. The several apostoHc writers selected different elements and aspects of soteriology for emphasis and development; but no real mutual inconsistencies between their resultant teachings can be found. They made no attempt to present a 1 Cf. Acts viii. 30-35; Heb. ix. 28; 1 St. Pet. ii. 22-25. See J. S. Lidgett, pp. 89 et seg.; L. Pullan, pp. 165-169; R. W. Dale, p. 470 (note F). Christ had appropriated Isa. liii. 12 as referring to Him self. St. Luke xxii. 37. 2 On apostolic teaching, see J. K. Mozley, ch. iii; L. Pullan, chh. vi-viii; J. S. Lidgett, 3S-76; J. P. Norris, Pt. II. chh. iii-iv; W. J. S. Simpson, chh. vi-viii; R. W. Dale, Lees, iv-vi; J. Riviere, chh. iv-v; G. B. Stevens (moral theory standpoint), Pt. I. chh. iv-vii. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 17 complete theory of the atonement. They simply ex hibited, in the terms then available and intelfigible, the complex truths which have to be reckoned with in any adequate doctrme of redemption and salvation. This was done most comprehensively by St. Paul. The regulative and context-providing ideas which controUed his soteriological conceptions are chiefly (a) his acknowledgment of Christ as eternal Son of God and Lord of glory,1 who by being born of a woman became the second Adam; 2 (b) the doctrine of the mystical Body,3 in which by Baptism we are united in Christ and become participators in His death and resurrection; 4 (c) our justification,5 or the imputation to us for righteousness of our faith in Christ,6 such faith being the beginning in us of the development by grace of true righteousness — that is, our becoming chfldren of God by adop tion and grace7 giving us the divinely accepted status of those who are growing after the likeness of Jesus Christ; 8 (d) the necessity that, on the basis of what Christ has done and is doing for us, and with the help of His grace, we should work out our own salvation.9 1 Acts ix. 5; Col. i. 13-17; Rom. ix. 5; Phil. ii. 6. 2 Gal. iv. 5-6; Rom. v. 15-21; 1 Cor. xv. 21-22. » 1 Cor. x. 17; Eph. i. 22-23; iv- I2; v- 235 Col. i. 18, 24. 4 1 Cor. xii. 13. Cf. Eph. v. 30; Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 3-5. 5 Rom. iii. 26-iv. 25; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 8-9; v. 6; Phil. iii. 9. • Rom. iv. 5. 7 Rom. viii. 14-17; Gal. iii. 26-29; iv- 5~7; Eph. i. 5. 8 Rom. vi. 2-11; Eph. iv. 13. 9 Phil. ii. 12. 18 INTRODUCTION It can be seen that St. Paul nowhere teaches that the death of Christ completed our salvation. On the contrary, whHe he declares that we are "recon ciled to God through the death of His Son," he adds that we shaH "be saved by His Hfe."1 The dis tinction between the redemptive effects of Christ's death and victory over death and the subsequent work of salvation made possible by redemption is vital to St. Paul's thought. The key words to his more specific teaching con cerning the meaning and objective effects of Christ's death and victory are sacrifice,2 redemption,3 pro pitiation 4 and reconciliation.5 Their exposition will be attempted elsewhere.6 We here content ourselves with three introductory thoughts. In the'first place, these terms are borrowed from current use, and yet are given the authority of "sound words,"7 the meaning of which is to be determined by their Christian and spiritual reference and context. In the second place, they are symbols rather than fuUy definitive terms. This does not mean that they are mere figures of speech or extraneous analogies, but that they are inadequate. They are the truest terms available, they were selected under divine guidance, and they must determine our thinking 1 Rom. v. 10. 2 i Cor. v. 7; Eph. v. 2. 3 Eph. i. 6-7; Col. i. 13-14; 1 Tim. ii. 5-6; Tit. ii. 13-14. 4 Rom. iii. 25. 6 Rom. v. 10-11; 2 Cor. v. 18-21; Eph. ii. 15-18; Col. i. 20-22. e See ch. iv. §§ 5-8, below. 7 2 Tim. i. 13. BIBLICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE 19 concerning the aspects of Christ's death with which they are severally concerned. They indicate the true fines of Christian beHef.1 Finally, these sym bols are to be taken together, if we would enter into their real meaning. Each term represents an in complete part of a complex mystery; and no one of them can safely be used apart from the rest, as a basis of theorizing, without onesided caricature resulting. These remarks apply to aU New Testament sym bols on the subject. For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews sets forth the conception of the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, which need never be repeated; 2 but connects it with the continuing mystery of our Lord's heavenly priesthood, and with our approach to the Holy Place through the veil of His flesh and by His blood.3 And St. John stresses what may be called the biological aspect of Hfe, which Christ's work has procured for us; 4 but he unites with this the aspects of Hght and of love,5 and is not forgetful of the propitiatory side of the mystery.6 1 On the symbolical nature of our knowledge and terminology in divine mysteries, see Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 47-48, 231-234; Trinity, pp. 276-278. 2 Heb, x. n-14, 18. 3 Heb. v. 7-10; vii. 24-25; viii. 1-3; x. 19-22. See Geo. Milli gan, Theol. of the Ep. to the Hebrews, in loc. 4 1 St. John i. 1-3; v. 1, n-12, 20. Cf. St. John iii. 15-16; v. 24-26, 40; vi. 33, 35, 47-5r; x. 10-n, 28; xiv. 6, 19; xvii. 2. See ch. iv. § 7, below. 6 1 St. John iv. 7-21. Cf. St. John i. 4, 9, 16-17; viii. 12; xii. 46; xiv. 21. 6 1 St. John ii. 2. 20 INTRODUCTION II. Objective Theories § 5. By theories of the atonement r we mean attempts to rationalize and unify the mystery of our Lord's death in one self-coherent conception. Owing to the complexity of the mystery, these at tempts almost invariably result in laying exaggerated stress on some one aspect of bibfical teaching and in at least subordinating, if not altogether suppress ing, other and equaUy vital aspects. So it is that the history of theories of the atonement is mainly a history of onesided caricatures of bibHcal doctrine which have successively given way to reactionary conceptions as onesided as themselves. But such a history does not describe Christian thought in its fulness, which through all phases of its development has retained for cathoHc theology an unquaHfied acceptance of the manifold elements of apostolic teaching and symboHsm. And the Church has been withheld by the Holy Spirit from giving ecumenical authority to any theory of the atonement. She has contented herself with the very general, although determinative, dogma that it was "for us men and for our salvation" that He who is "of one substance with the Father" "came down from heaven, and was incarnate . . . and was made man, and was crucified also for us." 2 In the Church's Hturgies and service books the substance of aU the 1 For references on the history of theories of the atonement, see p. 1. n. 1, above. 2 Nicene Creed. OBJECTIVE THEORIES 21 New Testament teaching on the subject can be discovered, and no ascertainable element of it has failed to receive general acceptance within the Church when set forth without theoretical enhancement and caricature. Under such circumstances the lack of a dogmatic formula, in which the several ele ments of the mystery of the Cross are defined in just proportion, is providential rather than prejudicial to the saving faith that Our Lord's death and victory over death is the formal method by which the loving God has redeemed mankind, and therefore is the di vinely provided means by which salvation from sin through the living Christ has been made possible. § 6. The theory that our Lord redeemed us by paying the ransom of His life-blood to the devil1 — the outcome of onesided stress on the term "ran som" — was first clearly set forth by Origen,2 and 1 This theory supposes (a) that Satan obtained a quasi right to man's service by his free yielding to temptation; (b) that God willed to recognize this right, and to buy it off by the ransom of Christ's blood; (c) that the devil was deceived into accepting this ransom, which he could not retain; (d) and which he forfeited by slaying one over whom he had no claim; (e) that, the right being cancelled, the Redeemer conquered the devil and delivered mankind from his power. It is to be noticed that the fathers did not confuse ransom with sacrifice, but recognized that the sacrifice of Christ was offered to God. For the history and explanation of the theory, see H. N. Oxenham, chh. ii— iii; J. Rivi&re, chh. xxi-xxiv; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 420-428; G. C. Foley, pp. 40 et seg.; J. F. Bethune-Baker, ch. xviii, 2 In Matt. xvi. 8; xx. 28; xxvi. 1; In Rom. ii. 13. He also treated, Christ's death as a propitiatory sacrifice to God, In Rom. iii. 8; In Numeros, Homil. xxiv. 1. He does not relate these two ideas. See J. Tixeront, Hist, of Dogmas, vol. I. p. 274. 22 INTRODUCTION was accepted by various writers until the twelfth century.1 It ought not, however, to be caned the patristic theory, for it was repudiated by such emi nent writers as St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. John of Damascus,2 and cannot be found in the majority of patristic writers. The theory was objectionable in making redemp tion a transaction with the devil, and in its develop ment seemed to ascribe to the Saviour a deceitful procedure. But its rejection has been accompanied by an overlooking of certain truths which it em bodied, and to which it owed its vitafity. These truths are (a) that for man's sake, and as a just consequence of his yielding to the temptation of the devil, the evil one has been permitted by God to exercise a real sway over mankind, not less real because obtained by a great wrong; (6) that this sway of the devil is a true part of the servitude from which we are redeemed; (c) that redemption involved our Lord's submission to, and victory over, satanic temptation, and that His death was due to the devil's instigation. But Satan found nothing in Him by which to obtain moral sway over Him, and in bringing death upon Him he justly forfeited the sway over mankind which because of human 1 St. Greg. Nyss., Great Catechism, xxii-xxvi; St. Leo Mag., Serm. xxii. 3-4; St. Ambrose, In Ev. Luc, iv; St. Jerome, In Ephes. i. 7. It is to be noticed that many fathers spoke of our Lord's con quest of Satan, using the idea of deception by His human disguise, without speaking of any ransom paid to the devil. 2 St. Greg. Naz., Orat. xiv. 22; St. John Dam., Orth. Fid., iii. 27. OBJECTIVE THEORIES 23 sin he had been permitted to exercise. Lying be hind the modern contempt for this theory1 is also the unhappy loss of belief in the reality of a personal Satan and of his kingdom. The fathers were too absorbed in other contro versies to pay much attention to the theological development of the doctrine of Christ's death, but they made some significant contributions to it. Origen's thought on the subject was by no means confined to his ransom theory, but embraced various aspects of New Testament doctrine. St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and others developed the mystical and what has been called in these pages the bio logical aspect of St. John's writings; To St. Irenaeus our Lord is the recapitulation and summing up of the human race, in whom we recover the likeness of God which was lost through the first Adam's sin.2 Our Lord became what we are in order that we might become what He is. St. Athanasius repeats this thought in sharp form, declaring that God became man in order that we might become God.3 The thought appears to be 1 A very few Anglican writers have supported it, at least in part. E.g. Thos. Jackson, Works, vol. vii. pp. 434-436, 502-511; Philip Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Pt. II. pp. 30-38. 2 St. Iren. Adv. Haer., iii. 19. 1; v. 16. 2; v. 21. 1. 3 St. Iren. Adv. Haer., v. Pref., fin.; St. Athan. De Incarn., 54, and elsewhere. Further refs. given by A. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, Vol. III. pp. 164-165, note 2. See esp. St. John Damasc, Orth. Fid., III. 17, where the impUcation that our nature ceases to be human is guarded against. 24 INTRODUCTION that we may share in divine immortality, in this sense becoming "partakers of the divine nature." " God gave unto us eternal Hfe, and this Hfe is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life."1 In the opening parts of his work on The Incarnation,2 St. Athanasius speaks of Adam's SU1 as having caused a falling away from immortaHty into corruption. By taking our nature our Lord provided a quicken ing medium by the reception of which we are re covered to immortaHty. On the other hand, he does justice elsewhere to the doctrine that the formal method of redemption is through the death of Christ, which he describes as a payment to God in our behalf of the debt which man has incurred through sin.3 That the beginnings of a penal conception of the passion can be found in the Fathers cannot be denied, but this conception receives no formal development; and, generally speaking at least, the term "substi tution" is quite too strong as a description of their thought concerning the vicariousness of our Lord's passion.4 St. Cyril of Alexandria was led by his controversy with Nestorius to emphasize the sig nificance in interpreting our Lord's death of His 1 2 St. Pet. i. 4; i St. John v. n-12. * Esp. |§ 4-10. Cf. Oral. c. Ar. II. § 70. 3 De Incarn., § 20. 2. Cf. | 9. 1-2; and Oral. c. Ar., II. § 66. 4 What they said with figurative rhetoric moderns have erected into formal theory, and then have read their theory into ancient rhetoric. Geo. C. Foley shows this. OBJECTIVE THEORIES 25 being personaUy divine; x and this thought not only precludes the supposition that he taught penal substitutionism in the modern sense, but has served as a permanent safeguard against the more extreme and really immoral elements of that conception. Tertulfian gave the term "satisfaction" a place in cathoHc theology, but as descriptive of an element of repentance, and this the original theological use of the term still survives in sacramental theology. Its use to describe the expiatory aspect of the passion came later.2 Latin patristic theology of the atone ment, which contains nothing distinctive, such as would here require comment, was crystallized and summed up by St. Augustine and by St. Gregory the Great. § 7. St. Anselm (a.d. 1033-1109) caused a new departure by emphasizing the need of making rep aration to God for sin.3 The analogies of the peni tential system of the Church led to his appropriation of the term satisfaction to describe the Godward effect of the passion; 4 and those of feudaUsm sug- 1 Thesaur. de Trin., Migne, P. G., lxxv. 284; Quod unus sit Chris- tus, P. G., lxxv. 1268. Cf. J. Riviere, Vol. I. pp. 224-227. St. Cyril continually refers to Christ's death and covers almost every aspect of New Test, doctrine. 2 J. F. Bethune-Baker, pp. 353-355. Tertul., De Poenitentia, v. Tertullian was followed by St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, xvii. 3 See his Cur Deus homo, esp. i. n, 21, 24; ii. 4, 6, 10, 18-19. Cf. H. N. Oxenham, pp. 181-188; J. Riviere, ch. xviii; Geo. C. Foley, pp. 101 et seg.; G. B. Stevens, pp. 141-151, 240-244; L. Pullan, pp. 103-106; R. C. Moberly, pp. 367 et seq. 4 He was anticipated in this by Radulfus Ardens (end of nth cen tury), In Dom., Parsl", horn, ix; Col. 1700-1701, according to Riviere. 26 INTRODUCTION gested the thought that sin involves not only a failure to pay the debt of obedience, but also dis honours God. Divine dignity requires not only man's return to obedience, but also either the pun ishment of accompHshed sin or some other adequate satisfaction of divine honour. Although the hypoth ecated satisfaction is not penal, it is said to enable God to show mercy, and to remit the punishment of sin, without loss of honour. Man ought to meet this obligation, but cannot, for his obedience is due in any case, and the propitiating gift which can satisfy divine honour is too great for man to offer. It can only be offered by a divine Person. By taking our nature the eternal Son identified Himself with man, and thus united in Himself the power both to represent mankind and to pay the debt by an adequate satisfaction. As man He owed and paid perfect obedience to God, but being sinless He did not owe death, which is due only because of sin. Therefore by dying for us He made full satisfaction to divine honour. That is, He accomplished something infinitely pleasing to God; and since He was eternaUy possessed of divine blessed ness, and needed no reward for Himself, the divine pleasure passes over to those for whom He died, in the form of forgiveness and future blessedness. In spite of its serious defects and of its non-script ural symbolism, this theory illustrates the possibility of emphasizing the Godward and propitiatory aspect of the passion without committing ourselves to the OBJECTIVE THEORIES 27 immoral impHcations of penal substitutionism; : and this is important. The faults of this theory are obvious, (a) It is based upon a priori considerations, and upon passing mediaeval analogies, rather than upon apostolic teaching; (b) It is too mechanical, external and in genious in its seeming completeness to be truly de scriptive of the complex union of objective and ethical mysteries in the Cross; (c) By stressing the personal honour of God, and by neglecting to find place for the larger requirements of righteousness in se, St. Anselm in effect reduces God to the level of an earthly despot, who is concerned with his private good pleasure rather than with the eternal and ethical order of things; (d) Although the truth of divine forgiveness is borne witness to, the exaggerated stress on the satisfaction of the Father's honour by the Son seems to crowd it out, so far as the Father is concerned, and suggests a duafism as between an exacting Father and a com passionate Son. And this duafism has vitiated much subsequent speculation concerning the objective as pect of the atonement; (e) The organic relationship between Christ and His members, which is needed to explain our participation in the benefits of His death, and which is secured by the establishment of the mystical Body, is not clearly set forth. These criti cisms apply to his theory rather than to his entire thinking, which his writings at large show to have been richer and more ethical in content. 1 Considered in our next section. 28 INTRODUCTION Modern thought was in an important particular anticipated by the freethinking Abelard (a.d. 1079- 1142). Although he seems to have accepted the ob jective aspect of the atonement, his leading thought on the subject was that the death of Christ was de signed to be a supreme exhibition of divine love, calculated to chaUenge a loving human response and to Hft men to the freedom of children of a loving heavenly Father.1 St. Thomas Aquinas (a.d. 1 226-1 274) can hardly be said to have broached a theory of the atonement. He presented a conspectus of orthodox teachings on the subject.2 Granting in the abstract that it was possible for God to pardon mankind without exacting the reparation of the Cross, he stressed its necessity in view of eternal foreordination and prophecy and of its ethical fitness. He described the passion as ef ficient by way of merit (through the mystical Body), of propitiation, of sacrifice and of redemption, its suf ficiency being derived from the Godhead of the Person who suffered. He summarizes its effects as including deliverance from sin, from Satan's power, and from punishment, reconcifiation to God, and opening of the gate of heaven. He ignored St. Anselm's distinction between satisfaction and punishment, and crystal lized the unfortunate notion that Christ was punished for our sins. He also helped on the development of the mechanical conception of a quantitative transfer 1 J. Rivi8re, Vol. II. pp. 54 et seg.; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 460-461. 2 In Summa Theol., IH. xlvi-xlix. OBJECTIVE THEORIES 29 of Christ's merits to His members, a development which paved the way for the external substitutionism and purely forensic imputationism of post-reforma tion thought. Duns Scotus (d. 1308 a.d.) denied both the infinite guilt of human sin and the infinite value of Christ's passion, and maintained that a purely arbitrary wul of God is the real basis of His acceptance of the pas sion as reparation for sin.1 The logic of this is to nullify the ethical aspects of the Cross, and, as a consequence, to undermine the whole doctrine of ob jective atonement. § 8. No space is available for a comprehensive ac count of the complex developments of soteriology which the protestant revolution brought about. But our purpose requires a brief statement and criticism of the penal substitution theory, inasmuch as modern thought concerning the atonement has been largely determined by it, either as a positive influence or as the cause of reactionary moral theories. The protestant revolt involved for its supporters a loss of the doctrines by which Christian believers had hitherto connected the finished work of redemption with the continuing mystery of salvation and sancti fication of souls. The doctrines referred to are those (a) of the continuing and saving priesthood of Christ, 1 J. S. Lidgett, pp. 140, 458-459; Hastings, Encyc. of Relig., s. v. " Acceptation"; A. Ritschl, ch. ii. |§ n-13. H. N. Oxenham, p. 149, gives refs. to show that certain fathers beheved that God could have saved mankind by fiat. But they did not develop the thought. 30 INTRODUCTION which His death has once for all consecrated; (6) of the visible Catholic Church, which is the mystical Body of Christ, wherein the Holy Spirit unites us with the Redeemer, and thus enables us in Christ not only to participate mystically in His death, but also by His grace to work out our own salvation from sin; (c) of the Church's ministerial priesthood, whereby, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ dispenses grace on earth to the faithful members of His mystical Body, and affords to them the means of eucharistic pleading of His death and acceptable self-oblation to God. The loss of these doctrines created a gap between the past fact of Christ's death and the present salva tion of souls; and this had to be bridged, if the bibli cal doctrine of objective atonement was to retain its practical value and living power. The new soteriol- ogy was naturaUy determined by a disproportionate development of what was retained of relevant script ural doctrine, and by efforts to make it do duty for the whole Christian scheme. Man's own part in his salvation was minimized to the last degree in the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith only and of forensic imputation of Christ's righteousness to believing sinners. And Christ's death came in prac tical effect to be regarded not only as redemptive, but also as His achievement in our stead of whatever is necessary to be done for human salvation. The stress in this direction was placed upon the punish ment of sin, which Christ was said to have endured OBJECTIVE THEORIES 31 in order to save the redeemed from the need of en during it.1 The new scheme was completed and hardened by the doctrme of a secret and absolute predestination from eternity of certain souls to glory and of the rest to damnation.2 The scheme reached its scholastic completion in the seventeenth century; and although it has in practice been modified and softened by the bulk of protestant writers since that time, this has been at the cost of consistency. There has been, and so long as its characteristic elements are retained, there can be, no successful rebuttal of the criticism that it misrepre sents the divine character and makes salvation an immoral transaction, one which evades rather than provides for man's escape from sin. Pending further criticism at a later stage,3 we con tent ourselves at present with calling attention to certain errors: — (a) The notion that Christ's right eousness is imputed to us is unscriptural. According to St. Paul, it is our own faith that is thus imputed,4 ' It is to be acknowledged, as Jas. Orr points out, pp. 223-238, that the reformers stressed the need of a righteous basis for the atonement, and lifted the problem out of the sphere of private right (Anselm) into that of public law, grounded in the eternal nature of God. * For explanations of the penal substitution theory, see H. N. Oxenham, pp. 221-242; G. B. Stevens, pp. 151-156, and Pt. II. ch. iii; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 470-474; Jas. Orr, pp. 233-239; J. A. Moehler, Symbolism, § 14; A. Ritschl, chh. v-vi. Among recent consistent maintainers of it are W. G. T. Shedd, Dogm. Theol., and Chas. Hodge, Syst. Theol. 8 See chh. ii. 2 and iv. 4, below. 4 Rom. iv. 3-5. 32 INTRODUCTION this faith being the beginning and potential principle of our becoming truly righteous; (6) Men are not passive recipients of salvation, but although redeemed by Christ's death, and dependent for the possibility of salvation upon the grace of Christ, the actual working out of salvation requires their own coopera tion with this grace, and growth in righteousness, under the conditions afforded by the Saviour in His mystical Body; (c) Although our Lord bore suffer ings that for us are penal consequences of sin, there is no trace in Scripture of their being penal in His case, except as regarded from the erroneous standpoint of His persecutors; (d) In the redemptive aspects of His passion, He may be said to have suffered in our stead, but to develop this aspect into a formally complete theory of substitution is to exaggerate it to the point of caricature. This is especially so when substitu tionary punishment is asserted; for neither was He punished, nor is our punishment whoUy remitted. It is true that by redeeming grace our sufferings cease to be merely penal and become purificatory as well, but they are not lifted until patience has completed her perfect work, and sin has been reaUy abofished in us; (e) The sixteenth century doctrine of absolute predestination and particular redemption is not only unscriptural, but contradictory to bibfical teaching concerning the will of God and the reality of human probation.1 1 On predestination, see Creation and Man, ch. i. §§ 7-12. Cal- vinists distinguished between the active obedience of Christ's life, MODERN THEORIES 33 III. Modern Theories § 9. Modern theories have been almost whoHy of two types, (a) those which by way of reaction from penal substitutionism reject objective atonement altogether; (&) those which are designed to preserve befief in ob jective atonement by modifications of the substitu tionary theory. It wfll serve our purpose to deal first with the latter. The Socinian theory reaUy stands by itself.1 Be cause of its reactionary nature, and its stressing the exemplary aspect of Christ's death, it has usuaUy been classed with moral theories; but Socinus did not reject en bloc the doctrine of objective atonement. What he did was to connect it with our Lord's res urrection and heavenly priesthood, and to define expiation as His delivering us from sin and its con sequences through His heavenly intercession, and by exercise of the prerogative which God has given Him because of His obedience unto death. His death secured for Him this reward, affords us an example, and enables Him to sympathize with us in our flls. It should be noted that Socinus rejected the divine the merits of which are imputed to us, and the passive obedience of his death, which makes satisfaction for sin. See J. S. Lidgett, pp. 140-149. 1 On the Socinian theory, developed by Laelius Socinus (a.d. 1525-1562) and elaborated by his nephew, Faustus Socinus (a.d. 1539-1604) in Praelectiones Theol., cc. xv-xxix, more briefly in Christiana Religionis Brevissima, see J. K. Mozley, pp. 147-151; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 474-476; G. B. Stevens,, pp. 157-161. 34 INTRODUCTION rank of Christ's Person, and betrayed utter inability to realize how vitally the truth of our Lord's God head determines the meaning and value of His death. His criticisms of orthodox doctrine concerning the passi&n were acute, and will have to be reckoned with in their proper place. His protest in behalf of the then neglected ethical aspects of the Cross was needed, as was also his emphasis on the resurrection and heavenly priesthood. But his work was nullified and discredited by his onesidedness and especiaUy by his unsound Christology. The jurist Hugo Grotius (a.d. 1583-1645) under took, as against Socinus, a defense of the proposition that by His passion our Lord paid the penalties due for our sins, in order that, "without prejudice to the demonstration of the divine righteousness," we might through faith "be freed from the penalty of eternal death." 1 His distinctive emphasis is placed upon the governmental supremacy and righteousness of God. "The preservation and example of order" constitutes the aim of God's punishment of sinners; and, provided this aim is achieved, it is not necessary that punishment should be distributed to men ac cording to their guilt. In fact the innocent are often grievously afflicted by God. It was right, therefore, that a notable example should be made of Christ. By giving Him up to the death of the Cross God af- 1 On the theory of Grotius, see T. J. Crawford, pp. 380-394; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 151-154, 480-481; G. B. Stevens, Pt. II. ch. ii and pp. 252-255, 417; J. K. Mozley, pp. 151-156. MODERN THEORIES 35 fords an exhibition and vindication of governmental justice; and this enables Him, without imperilling His moral government, freely to pardon those who by faith in Christ's death ratify the condemnation of sin, therein declared. The most obvious objection to this theory is its ex cessively juristic form, and its consequent obscuration of the moral aspects of the atonement. The purpose of human government is, indeed, the preservation of public order; and ethical interests enter only so far as they are embodied in those forms of visible con duct which affect the maintenance of it. The state deals with crime rather than with sin, and the pur pose and justification of human penal justice lies in its supposed effect in reducing crime. But sin is not only more extensive in its prevalence than crime, it is not amenable as such to the methods of human government. The problem of redemption has to do with de liverance from sin; and this is not solved in terms of punishment. Sinners must indeed endure punish ment so long as they remain sinners, and no forensic substitution can exempt them from this ethical re quirement. But the problem is to defiver men from sin itself, and to remedy its manifold and fatal con sequences. A display of governmental justice in the form of punishment of a sinless one does not achieve this result. On the contrary, it violates the ethical requirement that the sinner shall himself bear the penal consequences of his guilt. The theory of 36 INTRODUCTION Grotius, in brief, is open to aU the difficulties of penal substitutionism, and evades rather than lightens the difficulty of explaining how the Cross affords a re demption which is at once loving and just and which affords the basis of a true salvation from sin. It hypothecates a purely external and ingenious trans action; and like penal substitutionism not only mag nifies divine justice at the cost of divine love, but seems to create an incredible opposition between the respective attitudes toward sin of the Father and of the Son. § 10. The only other modification of substitu tionism which here requires our attention was sug gested, although rejected, by Jonathan Edwards, senior (a.d. 1703-1758), and was developed by Dr. J. McLeod CampbeU (a.d. 1800-1872) x and Dr. R. C. Moberly (A.D.1845-1903).2 Dr. Moberly lays down as his double premise the requirement of perfect penitence for the remedy of sin, and the impossibility that such penitence should be shown by a sinner, because of the moraUy deadening effect of sin upon human hearts and consciences. His theory is that the conditions of perfect penitence were fulfiUed by Christ, and that His complete identification with us through his catholic Manhood gives to His peniterice a representative value for us. More than this, the 1 See Jonathan Edwards, Sr., Satisfaction for Sin; and J. McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement. 2 In his Atonement and Personality, a work which, apart from the theory here criticized, has great value. MODERN THEORIES 37 Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ, appHes this objective achievement subjectively to the members of Christ by progressively transforming their sinful personafities after the pattern of the Cross. The seeming merit of this theory is that it aims to do justice to the moral requirements of salvation from sin, without sacrificing the objective aspect of Christ's death. This latter is retained by treating the death of the Cross as a necessary element and completion of the perfect repentance for sin which is supposed to be required. But both the premise and the theory to which it leads are without warrant either in Scripture or in the teaching of experience. Ideal penitence is a seH-contradictory conception. Penitence is sorrow for one's own sin, flowing from love, and placing the sinner in the attitude towards God which makes him susceptible to the work of saving grace. In order to be sufficient it must in clude real love, real acceptance of the divine con demnation of sin, and real turning to the means of recovery and satisfaction which the death of Christ has won for us. Moreover, it is not sufficient unless these elements become permanent and increasingly effective factors in progressive personal dissociation from sin, made possible by the grace of Christ which is appfied to us through His Holy Spirit. In brief, it is the abiding and growing reaHty of contrite love and sorrow and of turning to the way of Hfe, rather than their abstract perfection, that constitutes suf ficient repentance — sufficient, that is, to fiU out 38 INTRODUCTION what is meant by justifying faith in the death of Christ. The Ulustration of a hospital patient is clearly rel evant. A patient means one whose body is sick, and who submits himseU to the physician's treatment. It is not at aU needful for his cure that he should fuUy realize the nature and significance of his illness, provided he realizes it sufficiently to be moved to submit to treatment and to foUow the physician's directions. It is of the essence of his being a patient that he should be sick. A hospital filled with people whose condition is ideal is surely a strange hospital. Similarly, a penitent means one whose soul is sick because of sin, but who is submitting to treatment by the Physician of souls, and according to his im perfect capacity is utilizing the Physician's remedies and foUowing His directions. In faithfulness to his r61e of penitent Hes his hope of recovery, rather than in the impossible combination in one person of the respective characteristics of a sick soul and of a per fectly healthy one. One of the most secure results of modern scrutiny of the Gospel records is the conclusion that our Lord had no consciousness of personal guUt, and such con sciousness is a determinative part of real penitence. We must acknowledge, as vital to His equipment as our Redeemer, that He was "touched with the feeHng of our infirmities,"1 and that through His uniquely intense experience of the hardness of victory over 1 Heb. iv. 15. MODERN THEORIES 39 temptation He attained a full and sympathetic iden tification with our sorrows. Moreover, He possessed in perfect degree the horror of sin which we can ap proximate only, and that graduaUy only and through His saving grace. His condemnation of sin is the "Amen in humanity," as Dr. CampbeU caUs it, which we must make our own — not less truly because our acceptance of it is achieved by loving faith in Him rather than by adequate realization of what sin means. The contention that Christ was a penitent cannot be substantiated, and this fact alone overthrows the theory under discussion. FinaUy this theory has no bibfical support. That we must repent in order to receive the benefits of Christ's death is, no doubt, frequently set forth in the New Testament; but the work achieved by the death of Christ is described in other terms than those of penitence, which, indeed, cannot alone afford ad equate basis of salvation. "Sacrifice for sin," "re demption," "propitiation" and "victory over death" point to an objective achievement of which penitence is not a true description, although what Christ did procures the conditions which make repentance pos sible and saving.1 § 11. Modern moral theories of our Lord's death illustrate the truth of the saying that "Heresy is the vengeance of suppressed truth." In the middle ages S On the ideal penitent theory, see J. K. Mozley, pp. 193-196; G. B. Stevens, pp. 211-216 et passim; W. Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, IX; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 170-180. 40 INTRODUCTION the moral aspects of the passion received attention in an incidental way, as affording evidence of the convenience of that method of redemption.1 The emphasis then laid on good works and on man's own part in salvation also prevented the moral aspects from being whoUy neglected. But the tendency to pay disproportionate attention to the expiatory aspect of the Cross, and to neglect the truth that Christ's death is the method of divine love, and not its cause, can be detected in most of the scholastic theologians after the time of St. Anselm. Protestant theologians perpetuated and hardened this tendency; and their minimizing man's part in justification and salvation helped to make their theory of penal sub stitution appear like the displacement of moral re quirements by an external and magicaUy automatic transaction between a vindictive God and His more pitiful Son. The condemnation of this suppression of truth which the so-caUed moral theories represent inevi tably engages the earnest sympathy of aU who beHeve in divine love and in the part which man must play in his salvation, if he is not to be treated as a non- moral subject of forensic make-believes. But this sympathy ought not to hide from us the reactionary animus of moral theories, their onesidedness — not less excessive because appealing, — and their suppres sion of the truth of objective atonement which six teenth and seventeenth century theories caricatured. 1 E.g. St. Thomas, III. xlvi. 3-4. MODERN THEORIES 41 It is impossible to exhibit the many forms which moral theories have assumed.1 But the truths which they have recovered, even while excluding other and equaUy vital truths, are chiefly the foUowing: (a) that the death of Christ is due to the love of the Father for His sinful chUdren, and is not the cause of such love; (6) that it is not a self -working and automatic means by which human salvation is externaUy and com pletely achieved, but is the inception of a dispensa tion in which human hearts are reached, and men are afforded both the motive and the power to work out their own salvation, to escape from the enslavement of sin, and to attain to righteousness and to the fuU enjoyment of divine sonship in the kingdom of God; (c) that the Cross is both a chaUenge from divine love and an inspiring example; and that it has mighty influence as such in moving men to that loving, con trite and befieving response which conditions and initiates their personal salvation. The moral theories are determined both in their points of emphasis and in their omissions by reaction. They are therefore onesided,2 and when tested by the 1 G. B. Stevens, Pt. II. ch. v, gives an informing survey of sub jective theories of Schleiermacher, Rothe, Ritschl, Sabatier, Jowett, Bushnell, W. N. Clarke and others, and develops the moral aspects constructively in Pt. III. T. J. Crawford reviews these theories adversely, op. cit., Pt. III. The arguments against objective theo ries are given with skilful acumen by W. A. Wright, Problem of the Atonement. 2 On the onesidedness of reactionary developments, see Introd. to Dogm. Theol., ch. vi. § 19. 42 INTRODUCTION New Testament are found to be dangerously de fective. Their most obvious defect is their more or less radical suppression of the vicarious and redemp tive aspects of what the death and resurrection of our Lord of themselves objectively achieved. As either contributory or incidental to this primary defect, and to the exaggerated stress that has been laid upon man's part in saving himself, the foUowing errors are to be noted: (a) a lowered conception of Christ's Person, which has tended to obscure the Godward significance and value of His death, and its objective effect upon the status before God of those for whom it was endured; (b) a continuance of the protestant rejection of the truths of the heavenly priesthood of Christ and of His mystical Body,- upon allowance for which depends a true understanding of the vicarious aspect of the Cross; (c) modern theories of sin, especiaUy those of purely evolutionary type, which reduce men's realization of its seriousness and radical effects, both internal and external, and of the complex requirements which have to be met in saving men from it; (d) a more or less complete revival of Pelagianism,1 with its optimistic view of what men can do for their own salvation without supernatural aid, when they take advantage of the historical ex ample and abiding personal influence of the ideal Man, Jesus. 1 On Pelagianism, see J. F. Bethune-Baker, ch. xvii; W. Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine, Introd.; Jas. Orr, pp. 153- I59! J- B. Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, ch. iii. MODERN THEORIES 43 § 12. It can be seen that each successive theory of Christ's death has retained, and obtained accept ance through retaining, some precious aspect of that mystery. But each has gained coherence at the cost of sacrificing vital parts of the complex whole, and has exaggerated to the point of caricature what truth it has retained. What is needed is synthesis, a bring ing together in just proportion and on New Testa ment lines the several truths which theories have torn from their mutual connections and have cari catured. Thus only shall we attain to a sound and adequate theology of the Cross.1 The truths, for example, which modern moral theories emphasize are not less vital for a sound and just conception of Christ's death because they have previously faUed to secure adequate attention. And the task of restating the doctrine of -the atonement in terms that wiU do proportionate justice to them is perhaps the most pressing of aU duties by which cathoHc theologians are to-day confronted. We say proportionate justice, for the objective aspects of this doctrine, the aspects which many to-day suppress, also need to be given their scriptural emphasis. The task is fuU of difficulty, and many writers wfll have to contribute to its achievement. But the direction in which success Ues is perfectly clear. The method of building a theory of the atonement around some selected aspect of the Cross has been 1 J. S. Lidgett, pp. 123-130; T. J. Crawford, pp. 395-401. Cf. PP- 3-5- 44 INTRODUCTION repeatedly tried and has invariably fafled. An in ductive synthesis ought to be resorted to, and theo logians ought to keep in view the complexity of the subject of the Cross, and the importance of not shutting out any truth connected with it. The temptation to sacrifice truth in the interest of sim- pUcity and coherence is sternly to be resisted. CHAPTER II ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS I. Eliminations § i. Thoughtful consideration of the theories by which men have attempted, and have fafled, to rationafize the complex mystery of redemption and salvation brings to. Hght the need of carefuUy elimi nating some ideas, if we are to escape certain diffi culties which these theories have imported into our subject. The doctrine of the atonement is difficult in any case. But the difficulties to which we refer are not found in scriptural teachings as comprehen sively regarded. They are created by exclusive emphasis upon fragments of bibfical doctrine, and by pressing certain New Testament figures of speech beyond their scriptural appfication and reference. In brief, they are products of human speculation rather than necessary elements of the subject. First of aU, we ought to efiminate the notion that the God of truth and justice resorts to forensic im putation,1 whether of our guflt to Christ or of His 1 In his Commentary on Gal, iii. 13, as quoted by G. B. Stevens, Luther says, "God laid on Christ the sins of all men, saying to him: Be thou Peter, that denier; . . . that thief which hanged upon the Cross; and, in short, be thou the person which hath committed 46 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS righteousness to us. The presumption is over whelming that a method of dealing with sin which appears untrue and immoral to men cannot be divine.1 It took a long time for Israel to learn that "the righteousness of the righteous shaU be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him," 2 and that what is needed is the turning of men from sin to righteousness. But what was so slowly learned by the ancients has become a Christian- truism, which only needs to be reasonably stated, in order to be ratified by the moral judg ment of all enfightened and unprejudiced Christian believers. The texts which are depended upon to prove the transfer of our guilt to Christ do not prove it, for they can be otherwise interpreted without doing violence to their meaning and reference. Christ was made a curse for us because He hung on the tree and those who were thus treated were held to be under a curse,3 that is by men. There is no scriptural evidence that God's own curse rested on Christ. It is said that God "made Him to be sin all the sins of men." Cf. also C. Hodge, Syst. Theol., Vol. III. ch. xvii. §§ 5-7; Hastings, Encyc of Relig., q. v. For criticisms, see G. C. Foley, pp. 226-230; G. B. Stevens, pp. 456-458; J. P. Norris, pp. 62, 224, 266. 1 Not because man's ways are adequate measures of God's, but because righteousness has its seat in God, and what we know of its fundamentals must control our ideas of what God is likely to do. 2 Ezek. xviii. 20. 3 Gal. iii. 13. Cf. Isa. liii. 4. It was man who esteemed Him smitten of God. ELIMINATIONS 47 for us who knew no sin," x but the paradoxical form of the saying should preclude the radical inference that God transferred our guflt to Him. The thought is that God wflled that Christ should be reckoned amongst transgressors,2 that is by men, and should be crucified by those who thus regarded Him. It is safe to say that Christ was never more favourably regarded by His heavenly Father than when He was pouring forth His life for sinners. It is equaUy impossible to find in Scripture the notion that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the unrighteous. The righteousness which St. Paul says is imputed to us is the righteousness of our own faith;3 and this righteousness is not imputed by way of forensic transfer, but is based upon the fact that our faith constitutes a response to the grace of Christ which initiates the growth of His righteous ness in us. This is confirmed by the statement that "through the obedience of one shaU the many be made righteous." 4 Plainly this does not mean that Christ's obedience leads to our being regarded as righteous independently of our becoming so. Rather it refers to the fact that by His obedience unto death, our Lord won for us the redeeming 1 2 Cor. v. 21. 2 St. Mark xv. 28; St. Luke xxii. 37. The reason why "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him" was to "make his Soul an offering for sin." "He was wounded for our transgressions . . . and with His stripes we are healed." Isa. liii. 10, 5. 3 Rom. iv. 5. 4 Rom. v. ig, 21; vi. 1-14. 48 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS grace whereby, when we believe, we are enabled to imitate His righteousness. It is a making right eous,1 not a forensic imputation of righteousness, that is in view. The error which is here rejected is of mediaeval origin, and is involved in the theory of a treasury of superabundant merits, of which the Church is said to make use in the system of indulgences.2 But although connected in Latin theology with a context of doctrine and discipline which bears clear witness to the necessity of good works and of perse verance in sanctifying grace, this theory is not less subversive in itseH of the scriptural doctrine of sal vation than is the later theory of forensic imputa tion. The truth which modern moral theories have once more emphasized, and which cannot be aban doned without serious consequences resulting, is that salvation from sin can come to no man unless, with the assistance of redeeming grace, he works out his own salvation by repenting of his sins and by truly growing in righteousness. § 2. The notion of penal substitution is to be 1 Not that justification itself means making righteous, but that the accounting righteous which it does mean coincides with the inception of a state of grace in which we are enabled to grow in Christ's righteousness. Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 343-345; San day and Headlam, Romans, pp. 30-31, 36-39, 152. 2 Cf. p. 96, below. This doctrine is not in theological exposition so crude as it is represented in protestant polemic, but does imply a quantitative conception of merit and its transfer, as distinguished from our growth in grace through repentance and discipline. ELIMINATIONS 49 eliminated for similar reasons.1 The punishment of one who is not guilty, foUowed by exemption from punishment of the real sinners, appears on the face of it to be a parody of justice, and to violate the moral requirement that "the soul that sinneth it shaU die." 2 The penalty of sin is twofold: (a) the temporary sufferings of men, which culminate in physical death; (b) the death of the soul, or its final or permanent exclusion from the divine com munion and feUowship for which man was made. The former penalty has not been removed by Christ's death; and the latter was not endured by Him,3 its removal from us being caused not by any penal substitution but by our defiverance from sin — i.e. by the redemptive value of His voluntary sacrifice for sin, and by the subsequent dispensation of saving 1 Already considered historically in ch. i. | 8, above. On the true doctrine of vicariousness, see Ch. iv. § 4, below. For discussions of penal substitutionism, see G. B. Stevens, pp. 244-252; W. A. Wright, Problem of the Atonement, ch. vi; G. C. Foley, pp. 181-187; P. B. Bull, ch. ii; A. J. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, ch. vi. § 20; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 286-288. 2 Ezek. xviii. 4 et seq. 3 John Calvin says, Institutes, Bk. II. ch. xvi. | x, that Christ "suffered in his soul the dreadful torments of a person condemned and irretrievably lost." Bossuet held the same view, Mysteres, Vs1 Sermon sur la passion. Few to-day would accept such a view. It is, however, the logical outcome of the assumption that Christ's sufferings must take the place of our punishment. Cf. J. Riviere, p. 19; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 149-151. We need to distinguish between reparation for sin and compensation for the remission of its penal ties, and to give up the vain labour of proving equivalence as be tween Christ's sufferings and the penalties due to sinners. 50 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS grace for which His redemption has prepared the way. The penalties which penitent sinners do not escape cannot be remitted. This is so because justice, as perceived by the consciences of aU sincere penitents, requires their infliction for accompHshed sin. But the punishment of eternal death is remitted, because salvation from sin justly secures the termination of suffering, when previous sins have been sufficiently punished, and when the soul has acquired the right eousness which is pledged in its reconcifiation to God. In this connection we should note that, because of redeeming grace, and of our contrite response to it, the punishment which we cannot escape becomes also a purificatory discipline, whereby our perfecting is promoted until patience has com pleted its perfect work.1 Punishment and puri fication thus become hajmonious aspects of the same just and loving dispensation, the perfecting success of which at last removes its necessity and terminates its continuance. The only standpoint from which our Lord's pas sion is treated in Holy Scripture as penal — as His punishment — is the admittedly false one of His persecutors and of sinful by-standers. The true idea can be seen in the much misinterpreted pro phetic evangel, "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem Him . . . smitten of God. . . . But He was wounded for 1 Heb. xii. 5-1 1; St. Jas. i. 3-4. ELIMINATIONS 51 our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed . . . and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us aU. . . . For the transgression of my people was He stricken. ... It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shaU see His seed," etc.1 Here we find that "the chastisement of our peace was upon Him," that is, that by the wiU of God He endured sufferings and stripes which when endured by us constitute our chastisement; but the sacred writer carefully avoids saying that they constituted chastisement to Him. To Him they were our griefs and our sor rows, with which, obediently as a lamb, and as an offering for sin, He identified Himself, in this sense taking upon Him our iniquities. To Him these sorrows became, indeed, uniquely intense, so that men "were astonished" at Him and "esteemed Him not"; but the interpretation of the prophet, that His soul was made "an offering for sin," is not equivalent to the theory that He was punished. We have need to remember that it was God who in Christ's Manhood endured the passion; and the loving assumption by God-incarnate of suffer ings due in our case to sin, but voluntarily shared in by Him, cannot rightly be described as a divine infliction of punishment. And, as has been shown, the sufferings which Christ endured stfll have to be 1 Isa. liii. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. r3. 52 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS participated in by us. Even on the Cross He is our example.1 There is, therefore, no penal sub stitution. It cannot be denied that the term "sub stitution" is in line with certain scriptural phrases,2 and also with many expressions in patristic Hterature. But in its formal use it gives emphasis where Script ure does not, and expresses a more determinative idea than New Testament teaching, comprehen sively regarded, justifies. The subject wiU caU for treatment later on.3 We content ourselves at this point with repudiating the theory of substitution which describes it as penal. Our repudiation of this is absolute. § 3. Again, we ought to eliminate every idea concerning Christ's death that impfies an opposi tion between the love and the justice of God, and which suggests either that God had to put aside the exercise of love for sinners until the require ments of His justice had been satisfied, or that the Father and the Son were in some sense opposed to each other through the wrathful justice of the one and the merciful love of the other.4 The God in the presence of whom Christ is our propitiation is the triune God, in whose indivisible essence and 1 St. Matt. xi. 29; Phil. ii. 5-8; 1 St. Pet. ii. 21-25. 8 E. g. the preposition i.vH and compounds in which it is incorporated. 3 Ch. iv. § 4, below. 4 G. C. Foley, pp. 173-176 (in relation to St. Anselm's theory); H. Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice, Pt. III. ch. iii; G. B. Stevens, pp. 385 et seq.; W. A. Wright, op. cit., pp. 158-160. ELIMINATIONS 53 comprehensive attributes our Redeemer fuUy and eternaUy participates. The Son is therefore not less exacting in His justice than the Father, nor is the Father less loving than the Son. The Script ures do not speak of the Son as intervening between the Father and His chUdren but as sent by the Father to redeem and save them.1 Moreover, there can be no opposition between the attributes of God, and no abeyance of one of them during the manifestation of another. Each and every true divine attribute describes, however inadequately, what is eternaUy and uninterruptedly actualized in God and in each of the several divine Persons.2 And we fafl to interpret a given attribute rightly when we so stress it as to minimize the full and perfect actuality of some other attribute of God. It was the preexisting love of the Father for sinners that moved Him to spare. not His own Son;3 and His justice, while shown in the manner of re demption, does not in the slightest degree reduce the truth that the redemption constitutes the method of a love which has never been wanting. Being the eternal seat of justice, God cannot evade justice in dealing with sinners; but being eternal love, neither can His dealing be other than loving. It is our readiness to press unduly the analogies of finite and imperfect human justice and love that 1 E. g. St. John iii. 16-17. 2 Cf. The Trinity, pp. 243-249, 251-252. 3 Rom. viii. 31-32. 54 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS tempts us to conceive erroneously of an opposition between these attributes in God which His infinite perfection wholly transcends and excludes from His actions. The only available terms by which divine attributes can be revealed to us are those of human experience; but we may not use them as reasons for reading their human limitations and opposi tions into the ineffable nature and operations of the Infinite. § 4. Finally, we must eliminate every form of predestinarian doctrine which obscures the double truth that Christ died for aU mankind, and that men are truly free either to respond to redeeming grace with saving result or to reject it at the cost of just condemnation.1 That God wflleth the salva tion of aU men,2 although under conditions which He cannot fail to exact if He is true to His righteous ness, is the plain teaching of the New Testament. And the mission of the Church to extend the offer of salvation to every creature3 is reduced to a mock ery, if the refusal of many to hear the saving message is to be explained as an effect of God's eternal wfll that they shaU be consigned to perdition. The opposite truths of the eternal and unchange able wiU of God and of the contingent element in human probation, when brought into juxtaposition, obtrude a metaphysical problem the fuU solution 1 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 23-26, 37-38; D. Stone, p. 228; W. A. Copinger, Predestination, chh. ix-x. 2 1 Tim. ii. 4. 3 St. Matt, xxviii. 19; App. of St. Mark xvi. 15. ELIMINATIONS 55 of which Hes beyond the range, method and ca pacity of human speculation.1 Yet it is reasonable to maintain that, if the eternal is immutable, and if, therefore, God cannot change His wfll, none the less He both can and does wfll the changes which take place in time, including their moral conditions and contingent elements.2 At aU events, both of the truths in question are taken for granted, and occasionaUy asserted, in Scripture; and each in turn is confirmed by the rational considerations that are available to human thinkers. The truth that God's mercy extends to aU who can be per suaded to accept it and fulfil its necessary con ditions, is too abundantly set forth in the New Testament, and too precious in every way, for us to obscure it by onesided speculation. Every form of non-moral arbitrariness is foreign to the teaching of God's self-manifestation. And it teaches us that, however inscrutable His ways may in certain respects appear to those whose in telligence is controUed by temporal conditions and by the Hmited analogies of finite experience, the moving cause of each dispensation of God must be defined, so far as we can define it, as necessarily determined by a just and loving wisdom. There can be no purely arbitrary, that is unmotived or capricious, wfll of God. The notion, therefore, that the value and acceptance of Christ's death on the 1 Discussed in Creation and Man, ch. i. §§ 7-12. 2 Op. cit. ch. i. §§ 1-6. 56 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS Cross as the historic basis of pardon and salvation is to be explained by the mere wfll of God, without reference to any moral necessities and intrinsic considerations, is to be eliminated.1 No doubt every human attempt to explain the divine background of the atonement, and to describe just how the death of Christ is related to divine attributes, is inadequate. It must necessarily be so. But the assumption that a justice and a love which God cannot violate and be true to Himself have determined His choice of method in redeeming and saving us, is one which cannot be disregarded in our speculations concerning Christ's death, with out fataUy undermining the Christian doctrine of God. II. Incidental Problems § 5. It is surely to be expected that difficult problems wfll emerge when we seek to understand the complex mystery of the Cross. The fact that they do emerge ought not, therefore, to be a source of misgiving. It is rather a necessary incident in this line of investigation, the absence of which would prove either that we had overlooked the deeper aspects of Christ's death, or that it was not the dis pensation of infinite wisdom which our faith declares it to be. We are not maintaining that the Cross is whoUy baffling to human intelligence, so as to preclude 1 The allusion is to Duns Scotus' theory, to which reference is made in p. 29, above. INCIDENTAL PROBLEMS 57 any acceptance except that of bfind credulity. The Gospel of redemption is addressed to our intelHgence. It is given in terms which lend themselves to a fruit ful degree of human understanding, and which impose upon us the duty of interpreting them as adequately as we can. Were this not so, the message of the Cross would be a sheer enigma, in which men at large could have no vital interest. But the message is sufficiently intelligible to gain the joyful acceptance of those who rightly consider it. The difficulties which come to the surface when we study it are not of the kind that either prove its intrinsic in- credibflity or show that efforts to increase our understanding of it are useless. Complete under standing is indeed beyond us, but growth in the perception of the wisdom and significance of the Cross is quite possible, is indeed incumbent upon us, and is fruitful in inspiration and joy.1 Among the problems by which we are confronted is that of the relation between a historic event like the death of Christ and the effects attributed to it — effects, that is, which transcend the sphere and temporal limitations of the historical. How can what happens in time change relations and condi tions which are not subject to temporal limitations? 2 1 Cf. J. S. Lidgett, pp. 4-6, 488-498; T. J. Crawford, Pt. IV. § iv; R. W. Dale, pp. 5-19. 2 G. B. Stevens, Pt. III. ch. x, treats Christ's death as only a revelation of a process which is not tied to one event. So also A. H. Strong, Syst. Theol., Vol. II. p. 715 (f). 58 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS The difficulty of reckoning with this problem can be seen to grow largely out of our inability to picture or describe the eternal aspect of the relations in volved. We cannot describe effects of any kind except in temporal terms, because our experience gives no other terms with which to describe anything. But if we are Christian theists at aU, we accept the following truths: (a) that aU temporal effects have their ultimate explanation in eternal causation, although how an eternal cause can produce temporal results we can neither explain nor imagine; (b) that God has given to us a very real, although Hmited, power to modify temporal events — events, that is, which are to be explained in ultimate analysis by eternal causation, — so that human actions do in fact have indirect effect upon the eternal; (c) that human sin modifies for the worse the relations exist ing between us and God — relations which do not less truly impinge, so to speak, on the eternal centre of things because their visible and describable aspects are temporal. If this is so, no rational obstacle of the kind we are considering remains to the belief that such an act as the self-sacrificing death of Jesus Christ may modify the relations between us and God for the better. But there is more to be said. The death of Christ, even though endured in human nature and under temporal conditions, is more than these conditions describe. It is an act of the eternal Son of God, fulfiUed in obedience to the wUl of the eternal Father. INCIDENTAL PROBLEMS 59 Its effect in the eternal sphere is therefore not to be estimated exclusively with reference to its being a temporal or historical event. It represents a move ment, so to speak, of the eternal, whereby temporal events are utilized to rectify relations between the temporal and the eternal. The cause which operates in the redemption is therefore not simply historical, but also and primarily eternal and divine. It oper ates in time, and under temporal limitations, be cause it has to do with relations that concern the temporal as weU as the eternal, and because it is designed to persuade human minds and enlist human wills, and this requires that the divine act shaU take a form apprehensible by human understandings.1 The eternal aspect of the Cross also meets a diffi culty wfiich is often urged, that its effects can reach succeeding generations only, and that no benefits are afforded either for those who died before Christ came or for those who subsequently die but before the effects of His redeeming work are extended to them. An eternal act is not necessarily confined in its effects to the period hi which, and previously to which, it takes form in time.2 Only the mani festation of it, and the temporal inception of the persuasive and saving dispensation which it conse- 1 Cf. H. R. Mackintosh, Doctr. of the Person of Jesus Christ, pp. 307-310. Cf. ch. x. | 6, below. 2 Scripture teaches that the faithful under previous dispensa tions are redeemed and saved by Christ, being accepted by reason of their faith. See Heb. xi, esp. 39-40; St. Matt. viii. 11; St. Luke xiii. 28-29; Revel, xvii. 8. Cf. Revel, xiii. 8. 60 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS crates, is thus restricted.1 The souls of the departed continue to exist, and we are not precluded from believing that beneficial effects will somewhere and somehow be realized by all who respond to the mes sage of the Cross when it reaches them, even though such response becomes possible only in the other world.2 § 6. Then there is the problem of personality. How, it is asked, can the act of one person affect the moral status of another person, except by way of external example personaUy imitated? It is the objective efficacy of Christ's death for other persons that is here at issue, rather than its moral influence, which is not disputed by any who acknowledge the moral splendour of the Cross. Some have sought to solve this problem by deny ing the mutual impenetrability of persons. They seek to vindicate the directness and immediacy of the relations between Christ and the redeemed. But their choice of this method of handling the problem is often due to obliviousness of the New Testament method — its doctrine of the mystical Body, — and sometimes results in obscuring the permanent mutual distinctness of persons, their mutual otherness. In view of the fact that the divine Persons exist in each other, the contention that Christ's Person literally penetrates our persons so as to act within them, cannot be disproved, al- 1 Cf. i St. Pet. i. 19-20; Gal. iv. 4; Eph. i. 10. 2 Cf. 1 St. Pet. iii. 19-20. Cf. ch. v. § 9, below. INCIDENTAL PROBLEMS 61 though it is not the formal meaning of St. Paul when he describes "Christ in us" as "the hope of glory." 1 In any case, there can be no blending of persons, such as would nullify the distinct individuaHty and responsible integrity of each ego. Moreover, aU the pertinent facts of human experience point to the conclusion that human spirits are invariably acted upon indirectly, and through the substantial and organic environment in which they five and through which they act. Even telepathy is thus con ditioned, and we have no evidence that divine grace can operate in us except through what cathoHc the ology terms our "nature," as distinguished from "person" or inner seff. We are thus constituted by creation, and God never really violates the created constitution of things. His method is always to utilize, sometimes also to supplement, but never to stultify it. The immediate source of influences that change the attitude and status of the personal self is the nature or functional apparatus through which self acts, and by which it is conditioned. AU ob servable data agree with this statement. The maintenance of mutual integrity between persons is necessary for our continued personal responsibility, for personal immortality and for social relations. Because of our social nature our future bliss is based upon our fiving with Christ as weU as in Him; and any real confusion of our personal 1 Col. i. 27 62 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS identity with His would nullify this blessedness. The befief that we shaU fiterally lose ourselves in God is akin to pantheism. The New Testament does not afford a definitive solution of the problem which we are facing, but it does indicate where we are to look if we are to make any satisfactory advance towards its solution. The doctrine of Christ's mystical Body teaches us that, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, the human nature which Christ assumed, perfected by suffering and enthroned in the heavens, has become the me dium of organic, quickening and sanctifying contact with us on His part. Through this contact He operates effectively on our persons, and through it we effectively respond to His grace, and personaUy identify ourselves with the death and resurrection whereby He has redeemed us. Accordingly, although He suffered apart from us, our mystical union with Him enables us to make our own what He has done, and to appropriate its benefits.1 A more adequate and definitive explanation than this doctrine affords cannot be had. § 7. A third problem has to do with the value of physical suffering for a redemption from sin. Sin belongs to the moral and volitional sphere of things, and this sphere is so distinct from the physical that any attempt to describe its contents in physical terms results at best in metaphor. How then can physical suffering and death have the stupendous 1 Cf. ch. iii. § n, below. INCIDENTAL PROBLEMS 63 moral and spiritual effects which are ascribed to the Cross? The pertinence of this question is enhanced when we bear in mind that some of these effects are described as objective — as achieved antece dently to any movement of human wills towards righteousness.1 In reckoning with this problem we have first to face the broad fact that, in spite of the radical nature of the difference between the physical and the moral, these two meet and interact in a most intimate way in human nature and experience. Human nature is not less a vital unit because its physical and spirit ual elements are mutuaUy discrete. Many human actions are both physical and moral. And every one of them, wherein conscious purpose is involved, that is, every moral act, is performed under physical conditions. This is true even of internal actions, such as thinking, and willing, in which the moral quality of human conduct has its source. And it is beyond intelligent denial that physical action — and often its precise form — not only has sub jective influence upon subsequent determinations of the agent's wiU, but may in various ways hinder or help the moral decisions and actions of others, whether by example, by heredity or by external effects upon the physical conditions under which other men make their moral decisions. The broad fact that men constantly estimate human physical 1 The question is helpfully discussed by Jas. Denney, Atonement and the Modern Mind, pp. 84-106. 64 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS actions by their moral effects upon others is surely of determinative significance in this argument.1 Then it has to be remembered that our Lord's endurance of death for us was voluntary, and there fore moral, not less so because He died at the hands of others. He did not commit suicide, nor was there any provocation on His part except faithful ness to perfect righteousness and to the messianic mission from God which He was obediently fulfiU- ing.2 In brief, His death was the climax and final consummation of an obedient life, and in this fact lies its meritorious quality. As wfll be shown in another connection, the fact that the Person who thus lived and died was divine gave to His achieve ment a value for others which transcends aU that can rightly be ascribed to the most meritorious deeds or sufferings of any mere man.3 By way of reaction from a too exclusive emphasis upon Christ's death, a tendency has appeared to regard it as nothing more than an incidental ele ment in His Hfe — inevitable, no doubt, but not having in itself the formal place and value for re demption traditionaUy ascribed to it. As a result of this reaction, the point of emphasis in the doctrine of redemption has by certain writers been shifted from our Lord's death to His Incarnation and earthly fife.4 1 Cf. ch. iii. § 3, below. 2 Cf. pp. 12-13, above. 3 In ch. iii. § 5. 4 It underlies Bishop Westcott's expositions and is prominent in Archd. Wilson's Gospel of the Atonement. The Calvinistic dis tinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ appears to contain a suggestion of this development. There can be no INCIDENTAL PROBLEMS 65 So far as this tendency represents efforts to reem- phasize the antecedent necessity of the Incarnation, as enabling the Son of God to die for us, and various necessary conditions and aspects of His death, we ought most fuUy to sympathize with it. But the tendency has revealed a reactionary onesidedness of its own, and the bibfical doctrine of the atonement has been modified in ways that have not only dis turbed its revealed proportions, but have helped, along with other causes, to deaden men's sense of the awful consequences of sin and of the need of Christ's death for its remedy. We may not forget that the Incarnation is to be postulated in our redemptive interpretation of Christ's death, and this postulate wUl be discussed in our next chapter. Nor may we neglect the truth that His earthly fife of obedience to tfie Father's wfll im parts to His death its moral value.1 But Scripture plainly fixes attention upon Christ's death, and sub sequent victory over death, as the formal method by which human redemption has been achieved. To overlook this is to misinterpret the Gospel, to undermine significant elements in the dispensation of saving grace, and to reduce both the meaning and the appealing power of the Cross. legitimate separation between the two. The active obedience was consummated in His death. See J. S. Lidgett, pp. 145-149. 1 J. S. Lidgett's op. cit. is a fine exhibition of the spiritual prin ciple of the atonement as consisting in the obedience which our Lord's death expressed and consummated. See esp. pp. 1 19-120 for a brief statement. 66 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS § 8. A fourth problem arises from the disparity between universal redemption, said to be achieved once for aU by Christ, and the extent of salvation, apparently confined to a minority of mankind. The doctrine of particular redemption has been elimi nated, as inconsistent with the character of God; and the will of God to save aU men has been acknowl edged. If then the death of Christ has accomplished the redemption of all, why is the consequent dis pensation of salvation less comprehensive in its results? Is the power of Christ to save less than His power to redeem? 2 This problem is to some extent hypothetical, for we are in no position to dogmatize as to the number of the saved. What we really know is that the majority of men in the past have faUed to be brought during their earthly fives within the sphere of the appointed means of salvation. God is not limited, as are the recipients of the Gospel, by the conditions of the covenant, in dealing with the ignorant; and we have convincing evidence that the work of the Holy Spirit is not confined to the mystical Body of Christ. Possibilities of saving knowledge and grace after death are also suggested by the fact that be tween His death and resurrection our Lord preached to the spirits in prison who had been disobedient 1 This question is raised by W. A. Wright, Problem of the Atone ment, pp. 49-51, 199-200. He of course fails to distinguish between redemption, which is the effect of the Cross, and salvation, which is a further mystery. INCIDENTAL PROBLEMS 67 to the word of truth on earth.1 The fact remains, however, that many do reject the Gospel under conditions of knowledge and hardening obstinacy which seem to preclude their future recovery; and the final judgment has to do with the disposition towards truth and righteousness shown in men's earthly lives. Moreover our Lord's teaching on the subject not only reveals the possibility, but implies the fact, that many will be lost.2 The problem, therefore, is a real one, even after pessimistic exag gerations have been corrected. In dealing with it we must distinguish between divine omnipotence and power to do aU things. Power, as such, has no appfication, in fact no mean ing, in relation to the impossible.3 That God wfll save aU whom it is possible to save may be reason ably inferred from His love; and we befieve that no one will be lost who could have been saved.4 But salvation includes as its determinative element recovery to righteousness, and this is plainly impos sible except through a free response of men to sav ing grace, a factor depending in turn upon moral dispositions which no power can force. Human freedom being presupposed, as it has to be in the attainment of moral salvation by men, 1 1 St. Pet. iii. 19-20. 2 St. Matt. vii. 13-14; xxii. 13-14; St. Luke xiii. 23-30; xviii. 8. 3 Cf. Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 277-278. 4 See E. B. Pusey, What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment, pp. 7-18. 68 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS the possibifity of such salvation is contingent. If God were to employ compulsion, He would not thereby save men to righteousness; and what is caUed irresistible grace is, in such connection at least, a misleading name for compulsion.1 The power of men to choose carnal in preference to spirit ual, good, and to persevere in such choice, is a neces sary part of their being moral agents; and long continued wfifulness may easily blind the spiritual perceptions of men to the point of hopeless inca pacity to be enfigfitened and to be influenced by the motives which turn men's wills to God. The con clusion of the matter is that, if any man is lost beyond recovery, this is not due either to partiality in God's love or to defect in His power to do what can be done, but to conditions which can neither be prevented from arising nor be reversed by power extraneous to man himseff.2 The case is different with the objective effects of Christ's victory over death, which do not include the personal salvation of individual men. On the con trary they are accomplished antecedently to, and independently of, men's moral response to the Gospel; and are limited to the estabUshment by God of the conditions under which salvation can be offered to men, and can be accompHshed for those who 1 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 311, 342-343. 2 For refutations of universalism, see E. B. Pusey, op. cit.; W. G. T. Shedd, Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment; R. W. Dale, Christian Doctrine, pp. 237-248. PROBLEM OF DIVINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 69 rightly cooperate with saving grace. The work which Christ then achieved, required no cooperation by those for whom He died;1 and, as a work of God for mankind, it makes salvation avaUable to aU. It is this universal availability of salvation accom pHshed by Christ's work which is meant when we speak of universal redemption — not the taking advantage of it by aU men, upon which universal salvation depends. III. The Problem of Divine Love and Justice § 9. We have yet to deal with the problems con nected with the Godward aspects of our Lord's death.2 They are at once the most central and the most difficult of aU. But sufficient Hght is avail able to justify our confident acceptance of the New Testament interpretation of Christ's death as true. There is the difficulty of understanding why a God whose nature is love should need to be propi tiated by the Cross before He wfll forgive. The following dilemma illustrates this difficulty. If, on the one hand, God loved mankind before Christ died, the Cross was not needed to make Him propi tious; but if, on the other hand, He had not been 1 In this lies the element of truth which substitutionism exag gerates. Cf. ch. iv. § 4, below. 2 On its relations to divine attributes, especially justice and love, see T. J. Crawford, pp. 421-455; Jas. Denney, The Atone ment and the Modern Mind, ch. ii; J. S. Lidgett, pp. 155-170 (criticising R. W. Dale, Lee. ix) and ch. v. They are contributory rather than wholly satisfactory. 70 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS propitious already, He could not have been moved to send His Son to redeem us.1 It is assumed in this dilemma that "propitiation" and "reconcfliation" mean a turning of God from vindictive resentment to loving mercy. But this is wrong. These terms are borrowed by New Testa ment writers from human analogies to describe a rectification of relations between the unalterably righteous, although not less the loving, God and His sinful creatures. But the only change of dis position which they signify is that of sinners. The relations which are rectified are mutual, it is true, and changes in the method of manifestation of God's love are involved in this rectification. But the sternest aspects of the Cross are revelations of love. This view of the matter is not nullified by the fact that even the New Testament speaks of the wrath of God towards sinners,2 and represents Him as exacting not only a fuU restoration of obedience to His wfll, but also an adequate sacrifice for sin.3 Even in purely human relations wrath is consistent with love, and is often greatly intensified by it. In fact a careful consideration of the true meaning 1 The argument of W. A. Wright, Problem of the Atonement, pp. 119-120. Cf. G. B. Stevens, pp. 427-430. 2 E. g. Rom. i. 18; v. 9-10; Heb. x. 26-27; Revel, vi. 17. See Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 298, 306; St Thomas, I. iii. 2; Hast ings, Die. of Bible, s. vv. "Anger (Wrath) of God," "Hatred," "Jealousy"; R. W. Dale, pp. 338-351. * Heb. ix. 1 1-28, and elsewhere. PROBLEM OF DIATNE LOVE AND JUSTICE 71 of love shows that it Hes at the root of aU anger that is not purely vindictive. Love is the desire for, and the joy in, personal relations.1 No doubt it displays fruits of benevo lence, of service and of forgiveness; 2 but it cannot fulfil itseff, or gain real satisfaction for itself, except in the enjoyment of mutuaUy congenial personal re lations. It is not selfish, for the relations and joys that it seeks are mutual, and it is not reaUy satisfied until each party to it imparts joy to the other. Plainly such relations cannot be gained except on the basis of mutual congeniality of character, and a righteous person cannot enjoy them except with righteous persons. The fact is that, when its per sonal objects are human, love passes through a stage in which the elements of congeniality are potential rather than satisfyingly developed. Only when two persons reach perfect righteousness do they become entirely congenial to each other. Only then are the requirements of love fully satisfied. Until such consummation, human love is based upon men's faith in each other, that is, in the possibilities of congeniality, needing only to be cultivated in order to become actual. A mother's love for her trouble some child, and a Christian's love for his feUow men, are alike made possible by hopeful anticipation of congenial relations not yet developed. 1 Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 301-303. 2 It is often described in terms of such inevitable fruits and manifestations. Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 72 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS Now wrath is a frequently observed and perfectly natural incident of love, that is, during the stages which precede its final and perfect actuaHzation. The wrath of a lover is the attitude which he spon taneously assumes whenever the beloved one com mits an act which is calculated to interrupt the development of the mutual congeniaUty to which love looks. Its intensity is due to the depth of the craving for mutual feUowship, which causes inter fering acts to be regarded with correspondingly deep displeasure. And sincere forgiveness is always based upon belief that the barrier to the fulfilment of love's requirements has at least been put in the way of removal — this belief being caused either by the loved one's change of attitude or by faith in God's gracious work in his soul. True love is patient, but is also exacting, for its necessary requirements cannot fuUy be satisfied until every defect of mutual congeniality has been remedied. And wrath is one of the inevitable ways in which love reveals its exacting nature. This wrath is inconsistent with righteousness only when it becomes vindictive, so as to make the lover un willing to do his part in removing barriers. Un fortunately men usuaUy aUow their wrath to become vindictive, and thus to shorten their love; and this is why we find it hard to realize that God may be at once perfectly loving and sternly wrathful. Right eous wrath is not a failure of love, but grows out of it. PROBLEM OF DIVINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 73 Another characteristic of righteous love is that it requires a man to be true to himself, that is to the higher self which he is seeking by God's will and help to make perfect. It looks to perfect righteous ness as the only element in human character which can secure permanent and satisfying mutual con geniaUty. Accordingly, it moves men to those forms of self-sacrifice and service for others which help to develop in them the moral and spiritual perfection which they are seeking to acquire them selves. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." § 10. The basis and the requirements of love which have been imperfectly set forth above are fundamental. They do not arise from anything distinctively human, but are involved in a true definition of love as sucfi. Therefore the infinite perfection of God's love for sinners does not reduce their necessity, although His eternal nature, and His unique status as seat and source of righteous ness for aU, do determine the method in which His love manifests itseff. First of aU, then, to say that God loves men means, if we use language strictly and correctly, that He wflls to bring us into mutuaUy congenial relations with Himseff, relations which shaU be pleasing to Him and joyous to us. The only possible basis of such relations, and of mutual pleasure in them, is perfect righteousness; and because He is not only our Maker, but also the eternal and immutable seat and source of righteousness, this basis can be secured only by 74 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS our development after His likeness. His wfll is determined by His righteous nature and reveals His righteousness.1 Accordingly, our development in righteousness requires the entire conformity of our wflls to his wfll, which He has revealed to us in sufficient measure for our guidance.2 Sin raises a barrier to the actualization of this love of God, a barrier which has to be removed, if its necessary requirements are to be fulfilled, and if its joy is to remain among possibilities. Whatever method of divine dealing is required for the removal of sin is therefore a sine qua non of divine love, if it is not to be untrue to the necessities of love. The attitude which lies behind the demand of divine love that human sin shall not prevent its consummation is caUed the wrath of God. It is not vindictive, not maHcious or contrary to love, but is the inevita ble form which righteous love assumes in the presence of interference with its requirements.3 God is not only loving, but is also benevolent; and His mercy is over aU His rational creatures, regardless of their response to His love. Therefore we have reason to believe that He wfll bestow upon 1 Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 296-299. God is our Father, and this fatherhood, if it is righteous, as it must be, constitutes a branch and mode of the love which actualizes itself by the de velopment of the righteousness upon which congeniality between God and His creatures depends. Cf. J. S. Lidgett, pp. 229-233. 2 Creation and Man, pp. 229-230. Cf. Rom. i. 17-23; St. Matt. v. 48; Eph. v. 1-2. 3 Cf. pp. 70-71, above. PROBLEM OF DIVINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 75 aU men such good as they are capable of enjoying.1 Even the misery of heU is relative to the higher blessings that have been lost, and is consistent with this beHef. If God were not merciful to aU, heU would be unendurable — which it plainly cannot be, if creatures survive in it. No human suffering, whether penal or not, is such that it cannot be truly regarded as springing from the limitations of the sufferers, and as entirely consistent with divine mercy. But divine love is distinct from divine mercy, in that it looks not only to human happiness, but to that highest form of joy which mutually pleasing relations between men and their Maker alone can produce. And these relations, as we have seen, cannot be enjoyed on any other basis than that of perfect righteousness. Divine love, therefore, has an exacting quality the measure of which is proportionate to love's splendour. It cannot be come unconditioned beneficence and be true to itself. To be true to itself love must require righteous ness, as the necessary condition of its joy. This means that the love of God for men requires Him to be true to Himseff, because to be true to Himself is for Him the same thing as to be true to righteous ness. It is for the sake of love, therefore, that God must require sinners to come to terms with Himself. These considerations enable us to see that the dilemma above given is more specious than vaHd. God did 1 Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 299-301. 76 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS love mankind before Christ's death, and it was because of this love that propitiation was needed. And whatever else the propitiatory aspect of the Cross may signify, it means a provision of divine love, a provision whereby our fuU enjoyment of it is made possible. § n. This conclusion wfll be confirmed when we reckon with divine justice, to which the wrath of God, already spoken of, is also vitaUy related. So far as we are here concerned with it, divine justice means that moral attribute by reason of which God must in any case maintain, and, where sin occurs, vindicate, the requirements of righteousness.1 He must do this because He cannot be untrue to Himself and because righteousness, as its very name indi cates, is the principle upon the maintenance of which the universal order of things depends for self-cohe rence and for the fulfilment of its eternal purpose. The necessities of righteousness are absolute, and, as we have already seen, they are necessities of perfect love'. Accordingly there is no opposition whatever between perfect love and perfect justice. The triumph of love depends absolutely upon the triumph of justice, because the mutual congeniaUty which love inevitably seeks, and by which alone it can attain its goal, is inchoate in relation to sinners until they have been brought into entire aHgnment with perfect righteousness. The necessity that God should be controlled by 1 Op. cit., pp. 297-299. PROBLEM OF DIVINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 77 justice is not, however, an external necessity, as if it were something prior to and higher than God Himself. The seat and source of righteousness and justice is God Himself. Righteousness apart from Him is an unreal abstraction. The necessity is internal, and consists in the law that God must be true to Himself — must be God. Upon His being eternaUy what He is depends the existence and maintenance of the universe, and therefore also the existence and operation of its highest ele ment, viz. the very reason wherewith we consider the problem before us. The conclusion to which this internal relation between God and righteous ness points is that, although we can distinguish in thought between God's vindication of righteousness and His self-vindication, we cannot separate them. They are two aspects of one and the same necessary law of His dealing with sinners. Moreover, God is not a private person among other personal beings, but is one upon whose moral supremacy and self-vindication depends the whole moral order — the order, that is, to which finite persons have to conform in order to attain to self- realization. It foUows that God's self-vindication is not a display of what is meant by the term selfish ness. It is, indeed, self-centred; but apart from it moral chaos must rule, and everything that makes human Hfe worth Hving must be fatally undermined. The triumph of righteousness in the universe depends upon the self -vindication of God; and, as has been 78 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS shown, divine love cannot triumph unless righteous ness triumphs. In fact the self-vindication of God, divine justice, reveals itself in two ways. In the first place God has so constituted this universe that the way of the sinner is hard, deprived of all real satisfaction, and grows more miserable as the sinner becomes more wedded to sinful habit. In brief, God punishes sin, and there is no escape from this law. It is unques tionably true that the method of punishment is determined by love, being of such nature as to turn men to righteousness so that they can finally enjoy the blessedness of love, and of congenial feUowship with Him, to which true human love looks. But this curative aspect of the sinner's misery does not remove its penal aspect while it lasts, nor can pun ishment reach its term while sinfulness remains. The possibifity that it may remain permanently can be denied only on the assumption that human wflls can be converted by compulsion and remain true wflls — a false assumption. In the second place, God is revealed as vindicating Himself by exacting personal and voluntary repara tion for sin, and this requirement is signified in the New Testament by such symbols as "sacrifice for sin" and "propitiation."1 If we can trust the teaching which these symbols convey, accomplished sin is repaired, neither in itself nor in its Godward effects, .by mere repentance; and this teaching is 1 On which, see ch. iv. §| 5, 8, below. PROBLEM OF DWINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 79 confirmed by the human conscience. No truly penitent sinner can fully clear his conscience without offering some voluntary reparation to the violated majesty of God. And an impenitent sinner is not a competent judge in such a matter. The Christian doctrme of atonement teaches that the death of Christ is the act of God-incarnate by which He graciously enables us to offer sufficient reparation. Sin is not merely a deviation from righteousness, considered in the abstract, and which can be remedied by simply again conforming thereto. It is a personal break with Him in whom righteousness has its seat and source. And this break cannot be closed up in an indirect and impersonal way. Personal rec onciliation with God is love's demand, and is a vital aspect of rectifying sin.1 And this is not a proof of divine vindictiveness, but is the method by which personal offenses have to be repaired, if per sonal relations are once more to be what they should be for those who have offended. The fact that God has ever been ready to forgive sinners, and that immediately upon repentance, is perfectly consistent with this necessity. Divine forgiveness does not of itself complete human re covery, but puts men on a footing which enables them to benefit by Christ's death, and, on the basis of it, to work out their salvation. The conditions of salvation, which that death enables us to meet, are 1 Cf. ch. i. § 1, above. See Wm. Magee, The Atonement, app. iv-v; R. W. Dale, pp. 373_397- 80 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS unaltered by forgiveness and unalterable, since they are based upon eternal necessities of righteousness as seated in a personal God. God's forgiveness presupposes the Cross,1 whereby satisfactory repara tion has been made, and is immediately based upon the fact that by repenting, men show the disposition which leads them to identify themselves with Christ in His death. § 12. Inasmuch as the method by which God has enabled us to meet the necessities above considered is in fact the sending of His own Son to die for us, this method, simply because it is His, may be re garded as undeniably satisfying the requirements both of love and of justice. And it is not to be viewed as an ingenious means of balancing mutuaUy opposed requirements, but as entirely loving and entirely just. As we have seen, perfect love and perfect justice stand and faU together, and the requirements of each and of both are in ultimate bearing the same. That the Cross displays the love of God for men, and makes a powerful appeal to sinners on this ac count,2 is so readily perceived that this aspect of it has received too exclusive attention from many modern writers, with unfortunate results. The fright ful cost of our Lord's appeal to men is apparent when 1 It is presupposed in the parable of the prodigal son, unless either our Lord's teaching was inconsistent, or He was hopelessly misunderstood by apostolic writers. 2 This is reckoned with in ch. iv. || 11-12, below. PROBLEM OF DIVINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 81 we consider the Cross in its fuU context, and this affords proof of the depth and intensity of His love. Moreover the redeeming significance of this love appears when we reckon with His Person. His death was the death of God-incarnate, and the unique agony of it was borne by the very Being against whom we have sinned. The cost which Christ bore was then the cost that God was willing to bear, in order tfiat He might recover His rebellious children, save them from sin, and reconcile them to Himself. 1 But this costliness reveals tfie exacting, as weU as the appealing, side of divine love, a fact which is often disregarded. There is a law of parsimony in divine operations which forbids that God should do more than is necessary for the fulfilment of His purposes. Excessive action, disproportionate to the end in view, is foreign to divine methods. If God- incarnate died for sinners, therefore, it must have been because nothing less costly than such a death could avail for restoring the conditions under which love can actualize its blessed joy as between the righteous God and those who have sinned. In revealing and meeting the exacting demands of divine love, the Cross also reveals and satisfies divine justice; for, although these aspects are dis tinct in meaning, they are inseparable in working. The maintenance and vindication of righteousness, with which divine justice is concerned, is also, we 1 On the meaning of divine impassibility in this connection, see pp. 95-96, below. 82 ELIMINATIONS AND PROBLEMS have seen, the maintenance and vindication of the conditions of mutual congeniaUty between God and man, upon which depends the joyful fruition of mutual love between them. How does Christ's death meet the requirements of divine justice? We have for several reasons repudiated the explanation that it constitutes the punishment of sin.1 It was not endured by sinners, and does not. in fact exempt them from punishment while they remain sinful. To Christ it was not penal at aU, but a voluntary act of sacrifice. It was reparative rather than penal, and in this particular St. Anselm came nearer to the truth than the re formers. But no fuU explanation of the manner in which Christ's death meets the requirements of justice is possible. The mystery is too profound to be whoUy revealed. But Holy Scripture does contain truths which throw some Hght on the problem. Such elaboration of them as is possible in this volume wfll be undertaken in the fourth chapter. Only two leading thoughts can here be given. Redemption from sin, without which reconcflia- tion to God is a vain illusion, requires death. "With out shedding of blood is no remission." 2 The reason seems to be that divine forgiveness necessarily postulates the cure of sinfulness, an evfl which is so deeply ingrained that only the surgery of death can ' In § 2 of this chapter. 2 Heb. ix. 22. Cf. Levit. xvii. ii. The life, forfeited by sin, is in the blood. PROBLEM OF DIVINE LOVE AND JUSTICE 83 finaUy remove it. But the death of a sinner is fatal, unless death itself can be overcome. By His death and resurrection Christ overcame death, and because of His uniting in Himself the divine source of im mortaHty and a Manhood at once sinless and ca pable of being imparted to us, He has become the Firstfruits of them that are asleep. Then too Christ's death is an acceptable sacrifice to God for sin. It is so pleasing to Him in its splen did moral and spiritual significance that it constitutes a fuU reparation to His violated majesty. Morover the identification of Christ with sinners, which His catholic Manhood makes possible, and which is achieved through His mystical Body, gives vicarious value to His sacrifice for aU who fulfil their part in working out their salvation. These thoughts are merely contributory to the solution of the problem, and cannot be fully worked out by human minds. But they are vaUd inferences from the Word of God, and they reasonably fortify our beHef in the objective and Godward effects of Christ's death and victory over death. CHAPTER III THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT I. Anthropological § i. The doctrme of our Lord's death involves that of His resurrection; and both are related to a larger Christian scheme, and cannot be rightly understood when viewed apart from the whole of that scheme.1 Many of the misconceptions which have reduced the value of theories of the atonement have arisen from forgetfulness of this. This chapter is designed to prevent our falling into the same forgetfulness. It should be clear that man's destiny and nature need to be borne in mind in interpreting the means whereby he is redeemed from sin, and that the destiny which God has willed for him has determined the nature which He has given him. This destiny is to enjoy a free personal fellowship with his Maker, in a social order and kingdom in which aU things, whether visible or invisible, minister to the rule of righteousness and love. The saying of St. Augustine, "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee, O God," 1 Cf. L. Ragg, pp. 3-7. ANTHROPOLOGICAL 85 sums up the central element in our destiny and its determinative effect upon our nature.1 Such a destiny can be enjoyed only by free, ra tional and moral agents, agents between whom and God there can be developed the mutual spiritual congeniality of character upon which the enjoyment of feUowship necessarily depends. And the character which man needs for the production of this mutual congeniaUty is, of course, determined by the char acter of God. This is so not only because we are His creatures, and can attain to our destiny only on lines appointed by Him, but also because His character is changeless. The mutual enjoyment of feUowship between us and God depends, therefore, upon what we become, upon the assimilation of our characters to His. And our nature is determined by this necessity, making us capable, under condi tions to which our next section refers, of developing after His likeness.2 We are free as Christian befievers to accept the present conclusion of biologists that the method of human nature's origin, on its physical side at least, is that of evolution — of variation in lower forms of organic Hfe, of segregation, of heredity, and of survival of the fittest. Even if the beginnings of moral development are more ancient than the human, we need not abandon the truth that the "creative push" which explains the long process, and has 1 On human destiny, see Creation and Man, chh. vi. || 9-12; vii. § n. 2 Cf. pp. 71, 73, above. 86 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT controUed its results, is divine. And man is the distinctive creature that he is, made for a destiny pecuhar to himself, whatever may have been the method of his creation.1 Human freedom, finite though it be, is plainly necessary, if man is to develop the character required for his destined enjoyment of God; and God cannot disregard it in dealing with him without abandoning His purpose — an impossibility. It foUows that the keynote of divine government of man, even in its most objective aspects, is persuasion; and per suasion can be resisted to the end by moral agents.2 Moreover, the subjective motives which determine finite wflls are not fixed ab initio in the direction of righteousness; and they are contingent in moral result upon the reflex effect of free choices and of the habits which these choices create. This is but another way of saying that human character is to a degree the fruit of self-determined moral develop ment, requiring time to complete. And our experi ence affords no basis for imagining any other method of God's fulfilment of His purpose for man than one which involves, a period of probation and the possi bility of sin, and which includes moral as weU as objective means for its remedy. § 2. But, although man is a free agent, and made capable of being developed after the divine likeness, 1 Cf. Creation and Man, ch. vi. §§ 1-2; Evolution and the Fall, pp. 95-108; H. Calderwood, Evolution and Man's Place in Nature. 2 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 327-328. ANTHROPOLOGICAL 87 he is not self-sufficient for such development; but is naturaUy dependent upon present relations with God, and upon divine assistance. There are obvious reasons for this. In the first place, • the relations with God for which we are made do not, and cannot, place us on equal terms with Him. They are based upon our conformity to Him, not less so because this conformity must be free on our part. And no such conformity is possible, unless our development is guided by that knowledge of Him which is derived from personal relations with Him. Again, the con ditions of human probation are liable to draw us away from God, unless our very nature gives us a sense of dependence upon His presence and assistance. Fi naUy, our moral and spiritual development is part of our making, and God is our Maker — not less so be cause He wiUs to enHst our participation in the later stages of His work.1 So it is that man is by nature a rehgious being. This means that he naturaUy depends upon and aspires after relations with God, wherein refigion consists. In his more degraded states, he aspires blindly and tries to satisfy his religious cravings by "gods many," and by other misguided attempts to adjust himself to the unseen. But his moral and spiritual advancement is signaHzed, and made successful as well, by more and more determinate and authentic relations with his Maker, the one true God for whom he is made.2 1 Creation and Man, pp. 253-255, 263-264, 267-270; Evolution and the Fall, pp. 167-172. 2 Creation and Man, ch. vii. §§ 1-4. 88 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT This law dominates aU human history, and ex plains why it is, as Christian doctrine teaches, that the divine factor must operate not only in the original and sinless stage of human existence, constituting a primitive state of grace, but also in the interrupting conditions of human sin. Sin has indeed set back human development, and its utter removal is for each and every man a sine qua non of his success in reaching his appointed destiny. Sin not only sets back human development, but disturbs the relations with God upon which its continuance depends. Re figion is therefore modified by sin; that is, has come to be conditioned by special mercies of God, such as are afforded by the entrance into history of God- incarnate, by His redeeming death and victory over death, and by the Christian dispensation of saving grace. § 3. Human nature is composite, made up of mat ter and spirit, and human spirits can neither act nor experience anything in this world except under con ditions afforded by the bodily organism. This or ganism is in turn part of a larger realm of matter, between which and our spirits it is the connecting link. When the human spirit is out of gear with its bodily organism, and with the material world to which this organism belongs, we describe the situation by saying that the man is ill. And when the spirit's connection with the body is ruptured we describe the man as dead. Experience reveals no instance in which this dependence of our spirits upon matter for ANTHROPOLOGICAL 89 receiving impressions and for expressing themselves is transcended.1 Such is human nature so far as we know it, and we are driven to the conclusion that the spiritual aspects of man's life, and therefore of its Godward relations, are to be found not in the banish ment of the external and material, but in their sub jection to spiritual uses and purposes. The whole meaning of matter would seem to be that it is made for spirit,2 and is therefore not contrary to it, unless our spirits fail to use it rightly. This failure occurs whenever we sin, and sin is the true explanation of the existing fact that the flesh lusteth contrary to the spirit. Moreover, this function of matter is not, according to Christian doctrine, confined to the earthly and probationary stage of human existence. Human im mortality is realized by a restoration of the connec tion between the spirit and its body; and in this restoration, accompanied as it is by a mysterious change and development of the body for more perfect spiritual use, the resurrection of the dead consists. The resurrection of the body is the condition of Christian immortality, and of the larger life of our spirits in the world to come.3 It is thus that God made us, and His dealings with us are necessarily determined in method by 1 Creation and Man, pp. 190-193. 2 See J. R. Illingworth, Divine Immanence, chh. i— ii. 3 See ch. vii. || 9-12, below. The subject will recur in our concluding volume on Eschatology. go. THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT what He made us to be. Inasmuch as our spirits can experience nothing except through objective movements of the external and material, it is through external historical events that God reveals Himself to us. And His operations upon our spirits, which we caU divine grace, are always mediated in this Hfe through our organisms. When our conscious laying hold of grace is required, He makes use of external media, such as human spirits can apprehend. The same law holds in our response to divine grace. The brain, at least, conditions all our thoughts and all our prayers; and we cannot adequately express ourselves whether to God or to man, except through bodily actions and external demonstrations. This is the principle which explains sacramental elements of re- ligion, and it cannot be disregarded without religious disaster.1 The whole drama of redemption and salvation is controUed by this irreversible law of human experi ence and self-expression. Redemption is revealed and mediated through historic actions, externally observable by men and verifiable by the historical method — these actions including chiefly the Incar nation, the death of Christ, His resurrection from the grave and bodily ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in cloven tongues of fire. The mystical 1 Cf. p. 296, below. The sacramental principle will be con sidered in our next volume. But see Morgan Dix, Sacramental System, Lees, i-ii; A. J. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, ch. ix. | 3; J. R. Illingworth, op. cit., ch. vi; P. B. Bull, The Sacramental Principle. ANTHROPOLOGICAL 91 Body of Christ has been constituted as a visible Church and the raUying place for the redeemed;1 and the sacramental system of the Church affords au thentic and apprehensible media through which the benefits of redemption are appropriated and saving grace is imparted to us. § 4. FinaUy, man is by nature a social being. In no department of his life and conduct is it good for him to be alone. Solitary confinement is the road to insanity, and even voluntary isolation reduces a man's efficiency and capacity for development. We are made social by nature because we are made for feUowship with God, in whose tri-personal fife the absolute norm and perfection of feUowship is eternally actuaHzed. Being made one and aU for such fel lowship, we are necessarily made for feUowship with each other, and. our social development here is a necessary part of our preparation for the social Hfe yonder, apart from which human persons can neither fuUy actualize their potential capacities nor entirely satisfy their natural cravings.2 This is why love is the controlfing and perfecting element of righteousness; and this explains the ec static joy which attends the love of man and maid, before the imperfections of earthly congenialities have had time to reveal their presence under the testing conditions of married life. That this ecstasy should be felt is part of a divine dispensation which makes marriage attractive, and constitutes the 1 See § 11 of this chapter. 2 Creation and Man, ch. vii. § 7. 92 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT family to be the earthly social unit. It is, indeed, the appointed means not only of protecting our present social Hfe from subversion, but also of pro moting the earthly side of our social development. Men's social destiny also accounts for the fact that God deals with them under social conditions and re quirements. No man's relations with God are per mitted to become a purely private affair. Every divine covenant is made with a people or congrega tion, the internal harmony and social unity of which is protected by organization and institutions of divine appointment. In the covenant, the relations of in dividuals to God are fostered and developed in and through the social arrangements and relations of the people or Church with which the covenant is made. The working of such a dispensation may be hindered by the shortcomings of those to whom its earthly ordering is delegated, but no substitute for God's social instrument can avail. The remedy Hes through reformatory movements within the Church, not through man-made substitutes. How vital this doctrine is appears when we con sider that God has united in one dispensation the Church's organization and the sacramental ministra tions of grace and Eucharistic worship. He has done so because our social nature and destiny necessarily determine the manner in which our relations to Him can be secured and developed. It is a branch of this social method that God makes every man dependent upon the ministrations of CHRISTOLOGICAL 93 others in things divine. There is but one Mediator in whose Person God and man are united; but the mediation of Christ has always utiHzed the ministra tions of men in His name; and the orderly working of this method has been secured by ministerial or ganization of the Church, begun by Christ and com pleted by His apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Redeemer came to the existing Church of God. And out of Jewry He selected the nucleus of the Church which He purchased with His own blood, and to which He draws those who submit to be saved by His life. It is through this Church, which the Holy Spirit has made to be Christ's mystical Body, that men become mystically identified with the Re deemer, and under its sociaUy ordered conditions enjoy the benefits of His death and resurrection.1 II. Christological § 5. We cannot rightly understand the doctrine of Christ's death if we fail to reckon either with the Person of the Redeemer, with His earthly life, with His resurrection, or with His heavenly priesthood. The doctrine of Christ's Person has been treated of in the next previous volume of this series. The par ticulars which bear on our present subject are es peciaUy two: (a) Jesus Christ is the eternal Son and Word of God, coessential and coequal with the 1 These subjects will be more fully treated in the next volume. 94 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Father, and possessed of the fulness of the Godhead, so that aU which He taught and did and suffered, was taught and done and endured by very God;1 (b) This divine Person assumed a human nature fike ours, although sinless, making His own eternal Self to be its Ego and individuating principle, and thus enabling it to transcend the limitations of human individuals, without preventing it from being truly human and subject to the laws of human experience and growth.2 It was this union in His Person of divine agency with human methods of action and experience that enabled Him to teach in human terms, but with divine authority; to set a human example, which would none the less be that of God, and would reveal His moral and spiritual character; and to endure human agony with redemptive effects, exceeding the power of creatures to achieve. The human side of our Lord's self-manifestation and experience is not to-day seriously questioned; but in "liberal" circles there has for some time been an increasing tendency either to deny, or to disre gard the practical bearing of, the doctrme of His fuU Godhead. The result has been to reduce the ac knowledged significance of His death to that of an individual man. This in turn has acceptuated the modern reaction from befief in objective atonement, since it leaves no reasonably credible basis for the vicarious element in that doctrine. 1 The Incarnation, ch. iv. 2 Op. cit., ch. v. CHRISTOLOGICAL 95 The bearings of the ecclesiastical and biblical doc trine of our Lord's Person on the doctrine of redemp tion and salvation 1 are chiefly the following: (a) In general the entire redemptive work of Christ is, personaUy speaking, the work of God, and has values, meanings and effects which divine agency alone can explain. (b) The Incarnation enabled God to endure human suffering and death, and thus to experience human difficulties and to carry human sorrows. This is so because the Godhead is not susceptible of human suf fering; and our Lord's passion was endured in His Manhood alone. Yet what He thus endured was en dured by God, because His Person was not less divine by reason of His assumption of our nature, and His experiences in His Manhood were not less truly His by reason of His being personaUy divine. The doctrine of divine impassibility has sometimes been denied under misapprehension of its meaning. It does not mean that there is no basis for the bibli cal ascriptions to God of love and anger, of joy and grieving, and the like.2 It means that these terms, 1 On which, see The Incarnation, pp. 120-124; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 480-487; H. V. S. Eck, Incarnation, ch. x; R. L. Ottley, Incarnation, pp. 314-315; H. R. Mackintosh, Doctr. of the Person of Jesus Christ, pp. 329-333; J. S. Lidgett, ch. viii. 2 Cf. the unguarded protests against excluding God Himself from feehng made by H. Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice, Vol. I. pp. 223 et seq.; G. B. Stevens, pp. 443-446. For a traditional state ment, also incomplete, see Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, fol. 187-188. Cf. R. L. Ottley, op. cit., Vol. n. p. 85; H. M. Relton, in Ch. Qly. Review, July, 191 7, art. on "Patripassianism." 96 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT borrowed as they are from the analogies of finite and temporal experience, are symbolical, and describe af fections (sic) in God which transcend in mode every temporal process and experience. If God was to suffer after the human manner, He had to make human nature His own. (c) The obedience of Christ was that of a divine Person, and had the meritorious value which divine agency imparts to it. Consequently the merit of His passion was also divine, and infinitely higher in quality than that of any human person, however perfect. In saying this, however, we need to elimi nate quantitative descriptions, for it was not the quantitative aspects of His works and sufferings that gave them their supereminent value, but their per fect moral quality and their divine agency. If we speak of His merits as superabundant we should not mean that they outmeasure in quantity the requirements of reparation for human sin, but that their moral and qualitative value transcends that of all purely human actions and experiences whatsoever.1 (d) The objective efficacy of our Lord's death and victory is also divine, and what He did and suffered is sufficient both for its Godward purpose and for its universal human application. Tfie Father will cer tainly accept what the eternal Son has achieved in obedience to His will, and the eternal nature of the 1 Cf. p. 48, above. On the value of Christ's death, see J. S. Lidgett, pp. 38S-386, 393-397- CHRISTOLOGICAL 97 wiU thus fulfilled brings every generation of our race within the range of its benefits. (e) The fact that the Manhood in which Christ suffered is that of a divine Person emancipates it from the limitations of human individualization, and makes it catholic in experience and capacity to be communicated to men at large. Upon this fact is based the quickening and saving possibilities which are actualized in the mystical Body of Christ, of which something more is to be said in this chapter.1 A realization of these possibifities is needed to protect the vicarious aspect of our Lord's death from substi tutional caricature. § 6. The death of Christ cannot be correctly un derstood apart from the earthly life which led up to it; and forgetfulness of this is one of the factors which have imparted to the so caUed "orthodox" doctrine of post-reformation days its repeUent onesidedness. The present danger, however, Ues in the opposite direction, in the tendency to reduce the significance of Christ's death as itseff constituting the . formal method of redemption. The fimction of our Lord's fife in relation to redemption was twofold.2 It sup- pHed the human side of His equipment as Redeemer, and it afforded a needed opportunity for Him to fulfil certain ends that are contributory to our salvation. (a) Our Lord's human equipment as Redeemer 1 In § 11. Cf. The Incarnation, pp. 134-137. 2 On the redemptive aspects of our Lord's earthly life, see A. J. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, ch. vi. || 12-17. 98 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT was acquired partly by His becoming Man, and partly by His successful endurance of temptation. The Incarnation, as we have seen, enabled our Lord to endure the human death wherein His act of re demption historicaUy consists, and also to practice obedience to the law for man. This obedience con tributed to His equipment by making Him a merito rious sufferer, in whom the devil could find nothing whereby either to enslave Him or to divert Him from His redemptive mission. The suffering by which He was made perfect Redeemer, and after His victory over death became Author of our salvation, included the actualization, in terms of human experience, and under the conditions of painful temptation, of the moral perfections which were already latent in Him. They were latent in Him, for God-incarnate could not fail to practice righteousness at whatever cost of human effort on His part; but their actuafization re quired, none the less, the temptations and difficulties by which He was tested and approved.1 (6) Our Lord's earthly Hfe afforded Him the op portunity of accompHshing things which had to be done, if the benefits of His redemptive work were to be successfully communicated, and if men's salva tion was to be facilitated. i. In the first place, He was able to teach, by word of mouth, by significant works, and by example, the mysteries of His kingdom, the fundamental 1 See The Incarnation, pp. 246-259, 340-342. H. R. Mackintosh, op. cit., pp. 400-406; J. S. Lidgett, ch. vi. CHRISTOLOGICAL 99 meaning of His death in relation thereto, and the moral conditions which must be fulfiUed by those who would be saved. It is true that, until His death and resurrection had afforded an illuminating stand point for His disciples, He could not teach all that He had to say, and that His teaching was fiUed out by the Holy Spirit. But what He did say to them constituted, in the Hght of accompHshed redemption, a basis of their growth in knowledge which was both necessary and sufficient. 2. In the second place, He selected, trained and commissioned His apostles, as the nucleus and first ministers of the Church,1 which the Holy Spirit was to quicken and to make to be His mystical body. And He instituted its primary sacraments at least, thus providing the means by which the quickening and saving grace of His body was to be imparted to and developed in His members. 3. Finally, He gave the kind of example which is required for the ultimate guidance of Christian con duct and growth.2 It was not an exclusively human example, but also divine; for human destiny, as has been shown in this chapter,3 requires our imitation of God. It was not an example to which we can immediately rise, but exhibits the goal of human development, a goal which we can attain only by 1 The Incarnation, pp. 342-343; A. B. Bruce, Training of the Twelve; Hastings, Die. of Christ, s. v. "Apostles." 2 The Incarnation, ch. viii (where other refs. are given on p. 260); Kenotic Theory, ch. vi. 3 In § 1. ioo THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT life-long growth and stumbling practice in the use of the mighty power by which He won His moral victories. But it is not a purely external example, nor a baffling one; for His redemption and saving priesthood issue in a union between Him and us which makes His moral strength available to us, that is, as rapidly as we learn by self-discipline to use it. The conclusion which needs again to be asserted is that, while our Lord's earthly fife was a needed pre amble to and preparation for His achievement of redemption, the formal and historical method of redemption was His death and victory over death. § 7. The resurrection of our Lord wfll be con sidered in several later chapters of this volume; but this chapter wiU not be formaUy complete unless the dependence of the doctrine of Christ's death upon that of the resurrection is at least indicated and emphasized. There is a pecuHarly close connection between these two mysteries, and in turn between them and the antecedent mystery of the Incarnation. If our Lord had not become incarnate, He could not have died for us; and if He had not really died, His resur rection from the dead could not have taken place. On the other hand, His resurrection had to take place, if the purpose for which He became incarnate was to be advanced towards its fulfilment; and if He had not risen, the despair which the apostles felt after His crucifixion would have been justified by the CHRISTOLOGICAL 101 event, for redemption would not have been achieved. As St. Paul declares, we should have been dead in our sins. Such a fatal termination of our Lord's mission was, indeed, incredible; for the eternal Son of God could not be holden of death.1 The sum of what is here said is that, although it is customary and justifiable to speak of Christ's death as the means of our redemption, since it is the determinative aspect of that mystery, His victory over death was the sine qua non of its being redemp tive. His resurrection completed redemption, and is always to be presupposed when we speak of our having been redeemed by His death.2 It is through the resurrection that the death of Christ becomes the basis and consecration of His ever Hving priesthood, through which in turn its benefits become available to us in the dispensation of salvation. § 8. The heavenly priesthood of Christ wfll also be dealt with in the last chapter of this volume; but, as in the case of the resurrection, it also needs to be referred to here as being a vital part of the interpreta tive context of the doctrine of His death. The Epistle of the Hebrews bears ample witness to the dependence of our Lord's heavenly priesthood upon His death, but is equally emphatic in exhibiting the necessity of His ever-continuing priesthood for the fiving value of His death for sinners. It is through 1 Acts ii. 24. 2 Cf. ch. viii. | 7. See L. Pullan, ch. viii. | 3 and pp. 203-204; B. F. Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, pp. 122-129. 102 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT the fiving and glorified Lord that the time which separates us from His death is bridged; and it is through His present ministry in the heavens that His death lives on, as it were, and transcends in its abid ing effect the limitations under which passing events of by-gone ages have to be regarded in historical science. Christ's present appearing for us and heavenly intercession constitute the means by which His death continues to avail with God for sinners; and the dispensation of salvation which His death makes possible depends for its abiding efficacy upon His present heavenly work as the Author of salvation. What we are asserting is of the utmost importance in maintaining the credibility of the objective aspects of the doctrine of the atonement. A mere historic event can hardly be thought to have the effects ascribed in the New Testament to the death of Christ; and the neglect of continuing priesthood, which has characterized protestant theology, has much to do with the discredit into which its doctrine of objective atonement has fallen.1 While befief in ministerial priesthood in the Church has been carefuUy retained by cathoHc theologians, they too, in many instances, have reduced the credibihty both of this doctrine and of the doctrine of objective atonement by failing to exhibit their necessary connecting link, which is 1 W. Milligan, Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood, Note B, pp. 340-366, seems to realize this. Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, pp. 143- 155; P. B. Bull, pp. 80-83. SOTERIOLOGICAL 103 our Lord's heavenly priesthood. This defect is especiaUy apparent in many treatises on the Eucha ristic sacrifice. III. Soteriological § 9. The New Testament teaches that, although Christ gave His fife "a ransom for many," and "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son," x His death did not then and there save us. It was after His death that Christ "became unto aU them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation," and we are "saved by His fife."2 Moreover, our salvation is neither an instantaneous event, nor a process which is completed independently of our co operation; for we have to work out our own salva tion with fear and trembling, although we cannot do this except God also worketh in us "both to wiU and to work, for His good pleasure." 3 Our salvation, then, is a present work of grace. It is, of course, based upon Christ's death; but it is accomplished in a dispensation which is clearly dis tinct from that mystery, and which requires for its success the believing cooperation of men. The dis tinction between redemption and salvation, between what was accompHshed by our Lord's death and resurrection and the dispensation of salvation which these events validate without making unnecessary, this distinction is of the utmost importance for a cor rect understanding of the doctrine of the atonement. 1 St. Matt, xxviii. 20; St. Mark x. 45; Rom. v. 10-n. 2 Heb. v. 9; Rom. v. 10. 3 Phil. ii. 12-13. 104 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Unfortunately it has been very widely overlooked and disregarded; and the result has been a tendency to make the doctrine of the atonement do duty for that of salvation. This has led many theologians to ascribe excessive effects to Christ's death, and seri ously to reduce the credibility of their theology of it. To interpret the death of Christ as accomplishing aU that certain "orthodox" writers ascribe to it, and to maintain that salvation is once for all achieved for each individual by his divinely engendered faith in the Cross, is to make the doctrine of the atonement appear justly open to the charge now frequently made against it — of exhibiting the death of Christ as a non-moral and automatic- species of magic, more stultifying to human intelHgence than helpful to those who need guidance in turning to God and sav ing their souls. § 10. Redemption, here used as signifying the ob jective effects of Christ's death and resurrection, is not salvation, but removes certain barriers to it, and is the antecedent condition of it. The doctrine of the Cross presupposes, as part of its context, the dis pensation of saving grace; but as subsequently to be actualized and not as part of itself. As interpreted in tfie New Testament, the death of Christ has to do in its objective aspects with vicarious fulfilment of the expiatory conditions of salvation, and with per fecting the medium of saving grace, — this medium being the glorified body of the risen Lord. The fol lowing New Testament symbols, or sound words, SOTERIOLOGICAL i°5 represent leading particulars, the formal exposition of which belongs to the next chapter. (a) By His death the Redeemer gave His life a ransom for many, wfiereby He purchased the Church with His blood, and redeemed us from slavery to sin and from the power of its author, the devil. (b) He made the one fuU, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for sin, whereby His ever-Hving priesthood and oblation for us in the heavens is consecrated, and made to be the permanent basis and medium of ac ceptable human approach and self-oblation to God. (c) He shed His. blood for the remission of sins, thereby providing a means of cleansing, and consti tuting Himself to be the propitiation for our sins. id) He also died that He might overcome death, and through death become the source of fife for His redeemed. Death is for contrite sinners the way to immortality, but it is His victory over death, and our union with Him, that makes it this; and He has be come "the Firstfruits of them that are asleep." (e) By doing aU this He achieved our reconcilia tion to God, or the establishment of a basis on which, while by grace we work out our salvation, we are justified by faith, that is, we are accepted for what by faith we yield ourselves to become.1 § n. The death of Christ is the historic basis of a new covenant between God and man, sealed in blood. This covenant is embodied in a dispensation of grace, the completion of which required our Lord's resur- 1 References are postponed to .the next chapter. 106 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT rection and ascension, His heavenly priesthood, and the establishment and equipment, by His Holy Spirit, of the mystical Body, which is the visible Catholic Church. In this Church men are united with the glorified Saviour; and through its divinely instituted sacraments the quickening, cleansing and sanctifying grace, with which the Saviour's Manhood is endowed, is imparted to His members. It is thus imparted for their salvation from sin, and for their attainment "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." By reason of the Church's organic relation to Christ, and its divine creation, its ministry is functionally organized from above. And this organization determines the corporate relations > of its members to its Head in the heavens, "from whom aU the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love." x Such is the living machinery of salvation, and of the kingdom of God, a Church which our Lord's death purchased, and which His resurrection enabled Him to make a thing of fife in Himself. To its es tabfishment and saving function the death of Christ looks forward, and its place in the new covenant is part of the context which enables us rightly to under stand the doctrine of the atonement. In particular, a realization of the mystical identification of sinners 1 Eph. iv. 13, 15-16. Cf. Col. ii. 19. SOTERIOLOGICAL 107 with Christ, for the accomplishment of which the Church was from eternity designed, wfll save us from viewing onesidedly the vicarious aspect of our Lord's death, and from adopting certain reaUy immoral sub- stitutionist ideas.1 § 12. Our knowledge that salvation is not an auto matic result of Christ's death, although conditioned by it, but is accompHshed in a dispensation wherein the saving grace of Christ is made effective by our moral response, enables us to do justice to the moral aspects of the passion without neglecting its objective side. The appealing chaUenge of love which the Cross embodies, the influence which it exerts in drawing men to repentance, and the unique example which it completes, have adequate place for recognition in a doctrine which makes Christ's death the initial condi tion only of salvation.2 Speaking in the rough, the New Testament treats the Cross as the birthpang of saving grace. And in its doctrine the necessity that salvation from sin should include men's own moral recovery is adequately reckoned with and successfully met. But this aspect of the New Testament doctrine has been hidden from view by the sixteenth-century protestant theory of justification by faith only. Into its more subtle details we cannot enter, but its most dangerous element is the idea that our justi fication is a purely forensic transaction, in which our 1 Creation and Man, pp. 337-338; R. C. Moberly, ch. x; P. B. Bull, pp. 82-91; R. W. Dale, Lee. x. 2 On the moral aspects, see ch. iv. |§ 9-12, below. 108 THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT sins are imputed to Christ, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and made to serve as a kind of cover of sin, and as a substitute for even the beginning of true righteousness in us. This theory represents a reaction from mechanical conceptions of the merit and effects of good works, but it is both immoral in its logic and contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, upon which it is ostensibly based.1 St. Paul does not teach that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, but that our faith in Him is imputed to us for righteousness.2 Thus it is some thing in us, our own faith in Christ, that is the basis of the imputation, which is a judgment that our faith is righteousness. The sense in which it is truly so estimated appears in the context, in which St. Paul treats our faith as the initial work of sanctifying grace in us, and as the inception of our growth in the full righteousness of Christ. Accordingly, he teaches that we are justified, that is, accounted righteous, by faith, because faith is the childhood stage of our growth in righteousness, and God is pleased to estimate the child of grace at the value of the fuUgrown man which he is in the way of becom ing. There is no unreaHty here, nor is there any re laxation of moral requirement. If the child of grace fails to grow, the condition postulated in justification is unfulfilled, justifying grace ceases to operate, and justification comes to an end. St. Paul denies our ability to attain to righteous- 1 Cf. ch. ii. § i, above. 2 Rom. iv. 5. SOTERIOLOGICAL 109 ness by obedience to the law, on the ground that no one can perfectly fulfil its requirements, the law re vealing our unrighteousness rather than making us righteous. But he does not infer from this that salvation can be attained without our becoming right eous. Rather he teaches that, in spite of our present inability to fulfil the eternal laws of God, we are given opportunity through faith in Christ to lay hold of and grow in His grace, and ultimately to be come perfect after the pattern of His righteousness. So far from considering that Christ saves us inde pendently of any real righteousness to be developed in us, he describes the ultimate effect of Christ's obedience as making many righteous.1 The sum of the matter is that we may not disre gard the modern protest in behalf of the moral aspects of salvation. We are indeed bound to reject current Pelagianism, with its optimistic befief in the power of men to save themselves from sin without super natural aid. We also have to maintain the objec tive and Godward aspects of the biblical and catholic doctrine of the atonement. But our attention to these necessities ought not to hinder us from per ceiving that soteriological doctrine is fatally per verted when the need of moral response by men is overlooked, and the requirement that they should work out their own salvation is disregarded. 1 Rom. v. 19. On justification, see Creation and Man, pp. 343- 347, where other refs. are given on p. 343; also as ad rem here, G. B. Stevens, Pt. IH. ch. xi. CHAPTER IV THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH I. Introductory Truths § i. The doctrine of our Lord's death, considered as an article of saving faith, has the simplicity of terms which it must have in order to be rightly apprehended and believed in by unlearned and un trained minds. It is that Christ died to redeem man kind; and that because of this fact, through a contrite and living faith in His death and resurrection, and through union with Him, we are enabled to work out our own salvation. This is what we need to believe; and its meaning is radically perverted, if we think that any other basis of salvation than that of His death and victory is afforded to men. Many problems are suggested by this doctrine, and our theology of it becomes complex in propor tion to the progress of our thinking.1 But three steadying thoughts are to be remembered: (a) Al though we cannot expect to profit by any doctrine unless we seriously exercise upon it what mental capacity we have, it is not our success as theologians, but our docile acceptance and practical application 1 For bibliography on the theology of Christ's death, see p. i, n. i, above. INTRODUCTORY TRUTHS in of truth that enables us to be saved by it; (b) The importance of a theological development of this and other Christian doctrines is partly individual, as representing the earnest thought concerning saving truth which trained minds ought to exercise, and partly general, as serving to give to what has been revealed a rational and credible place in human knowledge and beHef at large; (c) It is not to be re quired of theology that it shall completely solve the problems suggested by revealed doctrine, because their fuU solution depends upon greater knowledge and higher mental powers than men either possess or can acquire. Theology makes progress in part by correcting its own crudities; and the only legitimate tests of its propositions are that they clearly pre suppose the truth of revealed doctrine, and that they minister to such reasonable exposition of it as the existing stage of inteUectual and theological develop ment in the Church makes possible. In no doctrine is the symbolical nature of its terms more necessary to remember than in that of the atonement. This has been touched upon already, but needs emphasis at this point. The fact that New Testament terms have divinely inspired authority does not remove their human limitations. In par ticular, they are necessarily borrowed from human analogies, which at best are inadequate when ap plied to the deafings of the Infinite with His creatures. None the less their authority is final for us, and we ought to accept them as "sound words" — that is, 112 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH as affording divinely inspired beginnings of such true exposition of the doctrines of redemption and salvation as we may hope to make in this world.1 We also need at this point to remind ourselves summarily of the doctrinal context which determines the significance of Christ's death. Since man is made for divine feUowship, and since the mutual congeniality and love required for its enjoyment depend upon our development in the righteousness of God, therefore an entire removal of sinfulness, and a mode of reconcifiation to God which shaU afford real reparation for sin, are indispensable. Persua sion also is necessary, if men are to turn from sin, including their conviction of need and their spiritual preparation for apprehending and accepting salva tion. And this necessity has been met by the long preparation of Israel, by the morally appeaHng as pects of redemption, and by the conditions under which saving grace is afforded. These conditions are graciously adapted to the sacramental and social, as weU as the moral, elements of human nature. Inasmuch as redemption could only be achieved by a Person who united in Himself the power and status of God with human nature, experience and vicarship, the eternal Son of God took what is ours into personal union with what was His, and completed His human equipment as our Redeemer by a Ufe of painful and 1 R. W. Dale, pp. 355-359, says that the terms in question are not the basis of a true theory, but tests of it. The basis is the fact of Christ's death. INTRODUCTORY TRUTHS 113 exemplary obedience to the Father's will. Thus equipped, He redeemed mankind by His death and resurrection, and was thereby consecrated for a heavenly priesthood, in which He has become the Author of salvation. This salvation is accomplished through His mystical body, to which His Holy Spirit has imparted life, and in which He operates so as to enable men to work out their salvation. § 2. Whether the death of Christ was necessary 1 or not should be considered in several relations. On man's side, it is to be maintained that he could not accomplish what Christ's death achieved for him; 2 and if this had not been achieved in some manner, he could not have been saved either from sin or from its fatal consequences. This is so because Christ's death rectifies relations between God and man which fie beyond human power to rectify, but which have to be rectified before any thing that man can do by way of repentance and fulfilment of righteousness can avail for the attainment of fife with God. We cannot, however, maintain that God could not have provided any other manner of redemption than that of Christ's death. But we can imagine no method which could so fully satisfy the conditions involved in reparation for sin and at the same time 1 On the necessity and convenience of Christ's death, see St. Thomas, HI. xlvi. 1-4, 9-1 1; A. J. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, ch. vi. 3, 11; T. J. Crawford, pp. 421-440; R. W. Dale, Lee. ix.; Jas. Denney, Atonement and the Modern Mind, ch. iii. 2 Cf. Psa. xlix. 7-15; Isa. lix. 16; lxiii. 5. 114 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH so powerfully influence men to accept it and work out their salvation on the basis of it. The appeahng power of the Cross constitutes the basis of the so caUed moral theories of the atonement — theories which err in their denials rather than in their affirmations. It is most earnestly to be maintained in this con nection that something far deeper than a pure fiat of God lies behind the death of Christ.1 We may infer from its fitness for human needs that it was determined by divine wisdom, and some objective drama of reparation to God for sin was plainly re quired. The thought that God could have pardoned sin without exacting reparation cannot be reconciled with an adequate conception of the requirements of divine love and righteousness, as they have been im perfectly set forth in the second chapter. It may be maintained as a purely abstract proposi tion that God could have allowed mankind to perish, and that He did not have to provide the means of redemption and salvation. But all that this can rightly mean is that He was driven by no external necessity. Redemption was voluntary, both on the part of the Father who sent His Son into the world, and on the part of the. Redeemer Himself. The moving cause of divine mercy is His love, a love which, by reason of its eternal nature, necessarily extends to all who in any age can be enabled to re spond to its demands. The possibility that sinners might be delivered from sin, and thus enabled to 1 Cf. pp. 29, 55-56, above. INTRODUCTORY TRUTHS 115 enjoy His love, would seem to imply an impossibiUty that He would refuse to provide the means of de liverance. This kind of necessity is internal and moral. It is not contrary to divine voluntariness of action, but is a branch of the truth that the will of God is the expression of His nature and attributes, and cannot fail to express them. This argument is fortified by the thought that if the whole human race had been suffered to perish, the purpose of its creation would have been defeated. Such a result is incredible, whether we view it in relation to divine foreknowledge, or to the established possibifity of saving mankind. Once determined upon by God, and it was wiUed from eternity, the death of Christ had to be. Al though God can wfll contingent events, He cannot reverse His will. Accordingly, all previous human history was providentiaUy controUed with reference to Calvary; and Old Testament prophecy registered an inviolable pledge from God to men, which the Redeemer had to fulfil.1 § 3. In order rightly to understand the vicarious aspect of our Lord's death, it is necessary to reckon with His mediatorial office at large,2 of which His work as Redeemer and Saviour is a branch. The ante cedent basis of His being the one Mediator between God and man is twofold: (a) His eternal relation to 1 Cf. St. Matt. xxvi. 53-54, 56; St. Luke xxii. 22; xxiv. 44, 46. 2 On which, see The Incarnation, chh. ix (other refs. on pp. 268- 269); iv. § 10; vi. § 9. 116 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH the Father, as Son, Image and Word; (6) the rela tion of creatures to Him, as the Agent through whom they were made and in whom they consist.1 To Him properly belonged the office, therefore, of intervening when the relations of mankind had been disturbed by sin. The first step was to identify Himself with those whom He sought to save. And since they were "sharers of flesh and blood, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same," 2 making His own eternal Self, however, to be the Self of "the form of a servant" which He assumed.3 Thus He made aU men to be His brethren, and was perfected as their Example and Redeemer by temptation and suffering.4 Moreover, because He took no human ego, the sep arative fimitations of human persons which interfere with their effective mutual coinherence do not hinder His union with His brethren. His divine Person, while it does not nullify the reafity of His human nature and experience, does transcend the barriers between human selves.5 And this advantage en ables Him not only to identify us with Himself in a relation which is even closer than that of brother hood, but also, through this union with Him, to unite us with each other in more intimate relations and in teractions than our unassisted nature enables us to enjoy. 1 See R. W. Dale, Lee. x; J. S. Lidgett, ch. vii. 2 Heb. ii. 14. 3 Phil. ii. 7. 4 Heb. ii. 10-18. 6 The Incarnation, chh. v. § 2; vi. §§ 1, 11-12. INTRODUCTORY TRUTHS 117 The manner in which He has consummated this identification is the establishment of His Church, and His making it, by the operation of His Holy Spirit, to be His Body. By Baptism we are incor porated into His Body; and this event not only re generates us by making us sharers in His resurrection life, but also achieves a union between us and Him by reason of which whatever He has done for us is virtually done by us through our true Head and representative. Thus He is our Vicar, and His death is effectively vicarious in meaning and value.1 It is on such grounds as these that St. Paul de clares that it has been the wiU of God in the fulness of the times "to sum up aU things in Christ" 2 — aU things, because the relations between God and man have the whole creation within their reference. And on the same grounds, he describes Christ as the "Second Adam," a new Head of our race,3 in whom we have redemption through His blood,4 and who therefore has become "in us the hope of glory." 5 The penal substitution theory could never have been developed in its post-reformation form, if St. Paul's doctrine of the mystical Body had been reckoned with; and the modern recoil against this theory has gone astray because of similar obliviousness to the mystical identification between Christ and the sub- 1 Our union with Christ in His Church is to be considered in the next volume. 2 Eph. i. 10. 3 Rom. v. 14-15; 1 Cor. xv. 20-23; Eph. i. 3-5, 10, 22-23; iv. 15-16; Col. i. 18. 4 Col. i. 14. 6 Col. i. 27. 118 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH jects of salvation.1 A caricature of vicariousness, which has externaUzed Christ's sacrifice for sin, has been followed by an utter denial of the mystery thus misconceived. § 4. The words and phrases in the New Testament which have been used in support of substitutionist conceptions ought to be interpreted with regard not only to their immediate context, but also to the facts with which they have to do; and these facts are plainly inconsistent with penal substitution.2 In the first place, our Lord's death was not penal, but was a voluntary and meritorious sacrifice of Himself for the sins of others. Secondly, the endless punish ment of sin from which we escape by reason of His passion He did not endure either in duration or in kind, and the attempt to show that He bore the guilty pangs of the damned is hopeless. FinaUy, the suf ferings which He did endure are sufferings in which we have to share, even to the point of physical death. His sufferings, in brief, do not take the place of ours, but consecrate them, give them purificatory value, and thus make them, in this respect fike His own, transitory. Nor do the facts justify our regarding the Re deemer as a moral substitute. In the first place, the 1 W. A. Wright, Problem of Atonement, pp. 167-169, 209-214, repudiates the doctrine of mystical identification, substituting for it (pp. 230-233) the contagion of influence. Cf. G. B. Stevens, pp. 361-376. z Ground has been broken on this subject in ch. i. | 8 and ch. ii. | 2, above. See L. Ragg, pp. 13-14, 100-121; L. Pullan, PP- 93~94 (but cf . p. 187) ; W. Milligan, Ascension, pp. 341-343. INTRODUCTORY TRUTHS 119 sins from which He came to redeem us were not transferred to. Him, for there was no sin in Him, ex cept in the wholly false opinion of His persecutors. In brief, He did not become a sinner in our stead. In the second place, He was not righteous in our stead, for the righteousness which He practiced constitutes Him our example, the imitation of which is the sine qua non of our salvation. What element of substitution is left? Surely only relative aspects, which should be called by a less ab solute and misleading name. These aspects are partly redemptive and partly temporal. His suffer ings stand alone in their redemptive value; and while they do not exempt us, His redeemed, from the ob ligation of taking up His Cross and suffering with Him, they do achieve a result which we could by no manner of means accomplish. Being unable to re deem ourselves, He redeemed us in our stead, and the bibfical terms which seem to connote substitution are related not to His suffering in our stead, but to the unique and redemptive value of His passion. He shared in our sufferings,1 but His sharing makes a difference which is incalculable. Then there is the temporal aspect. At the time of doing it, what Christ did for us He did alone.2 Our identification with Him and our full assimilation to 1 Heb. ii. 10-11, 17-18; iv. 15; St. Matt. viii. 17; 2 Cor. i. 5-7; Col. i. 24; 2 Tim. ii. 10-12. 2 Isa. lix. 16; Rom. v. 8-10. Cf. A. M. Fairbairn, Philos. of the Christ. Religion, p. 411. 120 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH Him are subsequent events, pending which He stands between us and God, as representing what we have not yet become, although as the surety of our becom ing like Him by His grace. Thus for the time being, and provisionally, God accepts Him in our stead, thereby giving us a footing which we have to make good by attaining to "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 1 In brief, because of what Christ is, our faith — a mere inception of righteous ness — is provisionally imputed to us for the fuU- grown righteousness which we have yet to attain.2 A detailed examination of relevant passages in the New Testament will show that such words as dvrC3 and avTCkwpov4 cannot be translated in terms of Hteral substitution without in each case converting a rhetorical figure of speech into a more formal con ception than the context reaUy warrants.5 Vicari ous is a safer term than substitutional, since it agrees ' Eph. iv. 13. 2 Cf. ch. iii. § 12, above. On Christ being our Surety and not our Substitute, see J. P. Norris, p. 222. s St. Matt. xx. 28; St. Mark x. 45. 4 1 Tim. ii. 6. The ransom, described indifferently as His life and Himself, is not offered to God as a substitute for us, but as a thing with which we are to be united and offered likewise. Cf. St. John xvii. 9-12. 6 The arguments for substitutional interpretation of &vH, and also of inrip, are given by T. J. Crawford, pp. 20-26. Per contra, see G. B. Stevens, pp. 45-47. An attempt to save the term "sub stitution" without adopting its immoral implications is made by J. G. Simpson, What is the Gospel, ch. vii. R. W. Dale, pp. 475- 478, concedes that the numerous iwkp passages do not in them selves necessarily signify substitution. OBJECTIVE ASPECTS 121 more closely with the thought of New Testament writers, and is free from the moraUy objectionable connotations which have gathered around substitu tional terminology. In any case it is of vital impor tance to remember that what Christ did for us can never take the place of what by His grace we have to do in imitation of Him and in working out our own salvation. Salvation is a moral drama, which cannot be preached in terms of a non-moral transaction without disastrous results. n. Objective Aspects § 5. By objective aspects of Christ's death we mean those aspects which describe it as itself bringing about once for aU results which constitute it a suf ficient historical basis of the dispensation of saving grace. They may be conveniently considered under four heads: (a) concrete descriptions of the passion — redemption and sacrifice for sin: (b) in relation to the remedy of sin — remission and cleansing; (c) in relation to the remedy of corruption — ¦ fife; (d) in re lation to God — propitiation and reconciliation. In Scripture redemption, 7X3, Xyrpaxrcs, airdkv- T/Jwcrts, describes deliverance, sometimes by power,1 and sometimes by purchase or exchange.2 In the latter case, the price is caUed a ransom, \vrpov, avrikorpov. 1 Exod. vi. 6; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Isa. 1. 2; St. Luke xxi. 28. " Exod. xiii. 13; Psa. xlix. 8; Eph. i. 14; 1 St. Pet. i. 18. On Redemption, see Hastings, Die. of Bib. and Die. of Christ, and Cath. Encyc, q. w.; J. P. Norris, pp. 81-84; S. J. Lidgett, pp. 299-300. 122 THE DOCTRINE OF (CHRIST'S DEATH The verbs chiefly used to describe the act of redeem ing are \vrp6o),1 to deHver by payment of ransom; ayopd^a),2 to purchase; and ite.pvrtoi4.oi, (middle) to purchase.3 A leading appHcation of these words is to deliverance from servitude; and this is the basis, apparently, of their use in relation to the death of Christ, in which He gave His life-blood in order that human servitude to sin and its author, the devil, might be broken 4 — the process of our individual salvation from sin remaining to be accompHshed, on the basis of this redemption, by a subsequently es tabUshed dispensation of grace. Such a description is obviously borrowed from purely human analogies; and its divine sanction does not remove the intrinsic limitations of such analogies when appHed to relations in which God is con cerned and in which the eternal moral order is in volved. But a comparison of the New Testament passages in which redemptive terms are employed in describing Christ's death and its results, shows that that death is regarded by the sacred writers as the means of delivering mankind from the shackles which prevent us from escaping the power of sin and its author, and from becoming reconciled to God. This redemption is a work of divine power, but was achieved at the cost of the life-blood 'of Christ, this life-blood being described as price and ransom.' 1 Tit. ii. 13-14. 2 1 Cor. vi. 20. 8 Acts xx. 28. 4 St. Luke x. 17-20; St. John xii. 31-32 (cf. xiv. 30); Col. ii. 15; Heb. ii. 14-15; 1 St. John iii. 8. OBJECTIVE ASPECTS 123 Beyond this broad interpretation we cannot go, without risk of pressing the details of New Testa ment symbolism beyond warrant. The devil, no doubt, was the instigator of those who inflicted death upon Christ. The serpent bruised His heel.1 But to interpret this as payment by Christ of a ransom to the devil is quite unwarranted.2 The only payment made is described in terms of sacrifice, offered to God. The terminology of redemption describes our Lord's death in relation to the evil from which it delivers us. In relation to God, on the other hand, it is described as the one effective sacrifice for sin.3 — a description which connects it with an obligation which sin did not originate. Sacrifice has long been defined by most writers exclusively in terms of sacrifice for sin,4 and much serious error has resulted. In its elemen tary nature sacrifice signifies the formal offering of some external gift to God as the appropriate and for mal expression of our internal self-oblation and will- surrender to Him.5 1 Gen. iii. 15. 2 The so called patristic theory, on which, see ch. i. | 6, above. 3 Heb. ix. 22-28; x. n-14. Cf. Isa. liii. 10; 1 Cor. v. 7; Eph. v. 2; 1 St. Pet. i. 19. On the sacrificial interpretation of Christ's death, see Cath. Encyc, Hastings, Die of Bib., and Die. of Christ, s.w. "Sacrifice"; L. Ragg, passim; J. P. Norris, pp. 174-182, 199- 204, 235-249; Alfred Cave, Bk. II. ch. ii; S. J. Lidgett, pp. 106- 120; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 91-94. 4 So St. Thomas defines it, HI. xlviii. 3. See B. J. Eidd, Later Mediaval Doctr. of the Euch. Sacrifice, pp. 49 et seq. 6 Cf. Lux Mundi, pp. 279-282; H. N. Oxenham, Excursus VIII; W. Milligan, Ascension, pp. 116-119. 124 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH To make such self-oblation to God is an ele mentary function of refigion, quite apart from sin; and the obligation to make it is grounded in our nature and in fundamental relations existing between us and our Maker.1 This can be seen when we ana lyze the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Their propitiatory aspects do not at all exhaust their mean ing, for these rites were designed not only to procure acceptable approval to God for sinners, but also to express a formal seff-oblation, and a grateful com munion with God,2 which are plainly obUgatory to creatures as such. And the obHgation is not only antecedent to the need of propitiation, but is of a nature which makes it permanent. The achievement once for all of a fuU and perfect sacrifice for sin on the Cross does not, therefore, remove the necessity of the formal seff-oblation which sacrifice embodies; nor does it obviate the necessity of representing and pleading Christ's sacrificial death as the basis of the acceptance of our self-oblations.3 The death of Christ is our sacrifice for sin because it satisfies the mysterious requirement that sinners must sanctify their approach to God not only by repentance, but also by death. Without shedding of blood is no remission. The wages of sin is death.4 1 Creation and Man, pp. 219-220. 2 The burnt offerings and peace offerings respectively. Cf. pp. 6-8, above. 3 1 Cor. xi. 26. * Heb. ix. 22; Rom. vi. 23. OBJECTIVE ASPECTS 125 Man is not able by his own power to fulfil this re quirement without perishing; and because Christ's death and victory successfuUy did so, and that vicariously, it is described as a sufficient sacrifice for sin, and as needing no repetition.1 Although this sacrifice was historicaUy achieved at a certain temporal date, its Consummator was the Eternal; and thus it constitutes the basis of acceptance of our self-oblations at aU times, and is the unitive principle of aU sacrifice.2 To it the in effective rites of the Old Law pointed; and, as rep resenting pleading and applying it, the Christian Eucharist is an effectual and acceptable sacrifice to God.3 But since the sacrifice of the Cross is the validating principle in every Eucharist, there is in reality but one sacrifice, made once for aU on Cal vary, and fiving on in the Eucharistic oblations of every succeeding generation of men. The connect ing link between the Cross and Eucharistic repre sentations of it is the heavenly priesthood of Christ, a mystery which is to be considered in our last chapter.4 § 6. The fact that the death of Christ is a sacrifice for sin affords evidence tfiat it has to do with remis- 1 Heb. ix. 11-12, 25-28; x. 10-14, 18. 2 Heb. x. 19-22; xiii. 10-15. 3 When Jewish sacrifices ceased to be offered, Christians began to emphasize the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, as being the offering of Old Testament prophecy. Mai. i. 11. Cf. Jerem. xxxiii. 18. 4 Cf . also ch. iii. § 8, above. 126 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH sion of sin, a subject to which we now come. The relevant teaching of the New Testament includes the foUowing particulars: (a) that Christ suffered for sinners and for their sins; 1 Q>) that He bore our sins on the tree, He who knew no sin being made sin for us; 2 (c) that Christ became a curse for us, that is, in human eyes, by hanging on the tree;8 (d) that He shed His blood for the remission or for giveness of sins;4 (e) that His blood, thus shed, washes us and cleanses us from sin; 5 (/) that the meritorious value of His death for removing sin is due to His obedience to the will of the Father.6 The problem as to how the physical death of Christ and His poured-out blood can bring about the moral result thus ascribed to it is nowhere directly considered in Scripture. But certain data are given which indicate the direction in which the answer Ues. There is the broad fact that because of sin human Ufe is forfeited, and the Hfe is in the blood, so that the manner of reparation for sin is the shed ding of man's Hfe-blood,7 an event which causes men 1 Rom. iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 3; Gal. i. 4; 1 St. Pet. iii. 18. Cf. Isa. liii. 5, 8. 2 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. ix. 28; 1 St. Pet. iii. 24. Cf. Isa. liii. 6, 11-12. 3 Gal. iii. 13. Cf. Isa. liii. 6. 4 St. Matt. xxvi. 28; St. Luke xxiv. 46-47; St. John i. 29; Eph. i. 7; Heb. x. 16-18. 6 Tit. iii. 5; 1 St. John i. 7; Revel, i. 5; vii. 14. Cf. Zech. xii. 1. Forgiveness precedes cleansing, but presupposes that it will be accomplished. 6 Heb. x. 5-9. ' Levit. xvii. 11-14; Heb. x. 22. OBJECTIVE ASPECTS 127 to perish. Christ, however, shed His blood without being overcome of death; and, through our identi fication with Him in His body, we die in Him and rise again to a Hfe in which no taint of sin remains. The reason why sin causes our Hves to be forfeited is not because God is pleased with the death of the wicked,1 but, apparently, because, from the nature of things, no other effective reparation and remedy for sin can be afforded. The moral and physical parts of our nature are inseparable and mutuaUy interact, so that moral corruption carries with it physical corruption. Human nature, in brief, is thrown into radical disorder by sin and cannot be cured, apparently, except by being reconstituted. And for this reconstitution there is required not only the infusion of the regenerative life of Christ's Manhood, but also the sloughing off of the old cor ruption through physical death.2 It is perhaps correct to describe death as a surgical operation, in which the corrupted elements of our nature are dissected and cleansed, our union with Christ pre venting a fatal issue. In any case the righteousness of God cannot be safeguarded, which is another way of saying that the wrath of the loving Father cannot be finaUy removed, unless something is done that wul entirely remove the seeds of sin from our nature. 1 Ezek. xviii. 23, 32; xxxiii. 11; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 St. Pet. iii. 9. 2 Rom. vi. 5-7, 10-11. On remission of sins by Christ's death, see R. W. Dale, pp. 19-26 and Lees, ix-x; T. J. Crawford, Pt. I. | iv; St. Thomas, m. xlix. 1. 128 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH § 7. The paragraph just written breaks ground for the general subject of the relation of Christ's death to Hfe1 — what may be described in modern terms as its biological and evolutionary aspect. In so far as sin has interrupted man's development after the likeness of God,2 the remedy for sin which Christ's death provides, has the effect of renewing his development. There is an involution, so to speak, of a regenerative and sanctifying germ, which the Incarnation made available, which the death of the Incarnate has perfected, and which His resur rection has immortalized and endowed with revivi fying power. It is by the life of the Redeemer that we are saved.3 This aspect of the mystery brings the Incarnation to the fore, as the conditioning factor of aU that foUows; and certain of the ancients were led by their -emphasis upon it to ascribe to the Incarnation, 1 On which, see Schaff-Herzog Encyc, s. v. "Atonement,'' § 2; Hastings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "Life and Death"; Die. of Christ, s. v. "Life"; B. F. Westcott, Epp. of St. John, pp. 214-218; A. Moore, Some Aspects of Sin, pp. 71-77. The patristic classic on this sub ject is St. Athanasius, De Incarn., |§ 4 et seg. For patristic thought at large in this direction, see J. Riviere, Vol. I. pp. 138-188. 2 On the effect of sin in interrupting and retarding human devel opment, see Evolution and the Fall, Lees, v-vi; A. Moore, Essays Scientific and Phil. pp. 61-66; J. Orr, God's Image in Man, pp. 201- 212. Related matter can be found in S. A. McDowall's Evolution and the Need of Atonement; P. N. Waggett's criticism of this, in Ch. Qly. Review, for Apr., 1914, art. VIH; and McDowall's rejoinder, in the July number, art. VI. • Rom. v. 10. OBJECTIVE ASPECTS 129 without immediate qualification, the effects which in formal reference should be ascribed, as they are in the New Testament, to our Lord's death and victory over death. The fathers referred to did, in other connections, show their acceptance of the traditional and New Testament doctrine that Christ's death is the formal method of redemption; 2 and the theory of certain moderns, that the Incarna tion rather than the passion is the cause of redemp tion, is not only erroneous, but caricatures the position of the fathers who are appealed to for its support.2 The truth which these fathers emphasized, some times in unguarded terms, is that the life which Christ came to bring, upon our reception of which depends the value of Christ's death for us, is His because He is God, and is brought into this world by God becoming incarnate. If, by a common figure of speech, we ascribe to the initial and ena bling factor in a process tfie effects which the fuU process brings about, we may say that God became man with the result of making us partakers of the divine nature 3 — that is, of the immortal life which 1 See, J. RiviSre, as cited. St. Athanasius, c Apoll., n. 5, says, God "was pleased by the fulness of His Godhead to set up again for Himself, from the Virgin's womb, through a natural birth and an indissoluble union, the originally formed man, and (to make) a new handiwork, that He might perform the business of salvation of men by suffering and death and resurrection." ' On the part in salvation of our Lord's Incarnation and earthly life, see ch. iii. § 6, above. 3 2 St. Pet. i. 4. 130 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH is seated in God; — and it is in this sense that the ancients seem to have used the startling phrase, God became man that man might become God.1 Of New Testament writers it is St. John who most characteristicaUy, although not exclusively, sets forth this aspect of redemption. According to him, (a) the purpose for which Christ came was to give us eter nal Ufe;2 (b) this Hfe is in Christ Himself, who is the life;3 (c) we gain Hfe from Him, and through union with Him; 4 that is, (d) if we beHeve in Him and keep His commandments.6 Yet he plainly teaches that, in order to fulfil His life-giving mission, Christ died for us;6 that our sins are cleansed by His blood; 7 and that He is the propitiation for our sins.8 The relation of Christ's death to Hfe and to the renewal of human development, when thoughtfully considered, reminds us that the Incarnation min isters to a larger purpose than that of mere salva tion from sin.9 But we need most carefully to 1 Cf. pp. 23-24, above. 2 St. John iii. 16; vi. 40; x. 10; 1 St. John iv. 9. Cf. Rom. vi. 23; Eph. ii. 5-6; Tit. iii. 5-6. 3 St. John i. 4; v. 26; vi. 27 et seq.; xiv. 6; 1 St. John v. 11. 4 St. John vi. 27 et seq.; x. 28; xvii. 2; 1 St. John v. 12. Cf. Rom. v. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 20-22; Gal. ii. 20; Col. ii. 12-13; in- 35 and the doctrine of the mystical Body of Christ, Eph. iv. 4-16, etc. 6 St. John iii. 36; v. 24; vi. 40, 47; 1 St. John v. 1. 6 St. John iii. 14. » 1 St. John i. 7. 8 1 St. John ii. 1-2; iv. 10. ¦ Cf. The Incarnation, pp. 81-89. 0BJECTD7E ASPECTS 131 remember that, apart from redemption, that is, from the mystery of the Cross, the race must have been lost and the purpose of the Incarnation could not have been fulfiUed. § 8. Propitiation and reconcfliation, iXaa/ids1 and KaTakkayrj ; 2 express closely connected ideas which in themselves require no profound analysis to understand. To propitiate, IXcicr/co/uai,3 is to remove wrath, and to reconcfle 4 is to restore broken relations; and it is thus that the words are used in the New Testament.6 The previously existing wrath of God towards sinners, on the one hand, and afiena- tion of sinners from God, on the other hand, are in every instance impHed, and are themselves asserted in several places.6 No theory of Christ's death which evades this description of its occasion and purpose does justice to New Testament doctrine. It has abeady been shown that the wrath of God is not to be regarded as characterized by the pas sionate and vindictive quaHties of human anger, but that it does represent a real attitude of the 1 1 St. John ii. 2; iv. 10. 2 Rom. v. 11; xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18-19. * Heb. ii. 17. Cf. St. Luke xviii. 18, "God be merciful, l\a in Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 20-21. 6 On propitiation and reconciliation, see Hastings, Die of Bible and Die. of Christ, g. w.; S. J. Lidgett, ch. v; R. W. Dale, pp. 161- 168; J. P. Norris, pp. 66-81; T. J. Crawford, pp. 65-83. 6 Rom. i. 18; ii. 5, 8; ix. 22, on the one hand, and Rom. v. 10; Eph. ii. 12; iv. 18; Col. i. 21; St. Jas. iv. 4, on the other hand. 132 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH moral Governor of the universe, and one with which sinners have to reckon. It is not a private matter, expressive of what we usuaUy mean by personal resentment; but describes the attitude of one whose self-vindication and judicial treatment of sin are necessary for the maintenance of the moral order, and — a point very widely overlooked — for the triumph of love.1 On the human side, the fact that sin is rebeUion against God, and represents subjec tive aUenation from Him, although sufficiently witnessed to in the New Testament, is in itself too obvious to be sincerely denied by intelligent men. Repentance does not of itself heal this breach; nor is true repentance naturaUy possible for sinners, because of the blinding, hardening and weakening effect of sin upon our minds, hearts and wills. The New Testament teaches that the death of Christ procures for us the grace of repentance; 2 and that, as a representative sacrifice for sin, it affords the historic basis of the effect of repentance in securing pardon from God. Because it does afford such a basis, Christ's death is said to reconcile us to God, and to set forth the Redeemer to be a propitiation for us. In this teaching, we find an unmistakable warrant for the doctrme previously maintained in these pages,3 that by His death the Son of God made a representative reparation for human sin — a reparation not less clearly taught because we 1 Ch. ii. || 9-12, above. 2 Acts v. 31; xi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 3 In ch. ii. || 11-12. OBJECTIVE ASPECTS 133 find no biblical evidence that Christ's death was penal to Him. An incidental question ought to be dealt with at this point. Are we justified in saying that God is reconciled to us by Christ's death? ' In a sense, Yes, although the phrase needs guarding from a common misinterpretation. If it means, as fre quently understood, that God is made loving towards mankind by what Christ did, such a notion is abhor rent and unscriptural; for God's love for sinners was the moving cause of His sending the Redeemer into the world.2 The only tolerable sense of the phrase in question is this, that the wrath of God — shown elsewhere in this volume to be a branch of His love — is satisfied by Christ's death, that is for aU who properly identify themselves with Him. Reconcfliation has to do with a mutual relation, one in which both parties to the breach are con cerned. But the New Testament seems, none the less, to avoid the phrase; and frequent misinter pretation of it teaches us to be very cautious in its use. In the New Testament the terms "reconcfliation" and "propitiation," especially the latter, are not in variably confined in application to the immediate effects of Christ's death, and failure to notice this 1 The second of our Articles of Religion says, "Who truly suffered ... to reconcile His Father to us." Cf. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 129-130. 2 St. John iii. 16-17. 134 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH is connected with the "orthodox" protestant ten dency to eliminate from consideration the part which men fulfil in working out their salvation. By the death of Christ God set Him forth to be a propitia tion, that is, to be a continuing means of propitiation,1 by which sinners in every generation can reconcile themselves to God. Christ is to-day our peace, and our mercy seat, so to speak, through which by His blood we gain access to, and acceptance with, God.2 The blood of Christ is the blood of a new covenant,3 the terms of which, when fulfiUed by us, secure pardon, cleansing, reconcfliation and peace.4 In brief, it is Christ's death that removes for our race as a whole the initial barrier to the flow of saving grace. Yet personal salvation is a twofold work of divine grace and human cooperation, made possible by Christ's death, but not achieved without our moral effort. III. Moral Aspects § 9. If we have not made clear in previous chapters our fuU sympathy with the modern insistence that redemption and salvation shaU be moraUy inter- 1 In Rom. iii. 25 Christ is said to have been set forth by God "to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." The word used is VKourrtipwv, meaning a propitiatory instrument. 2 In Heb. ix. 5, the same word iXcurriiptop, is used to denote the mercy seat of the Tabernacle, obviously as being the place of propitiation in the ritual of the Day of Atonement. 8 1 Cor. xi. 25; St. Matt. xxvi. 28; St. Mark xiv. 24; St. Luke xxii. 20. Cf. Heb. ix. 16-26. 4 Isa. liii. 5; St. Lukeii. 14; Acts x. 36; Rom. v. 1; Eph. ii. 13-14. MORAL ASPECTS 135 preted, we have failed in a leading purpose. Sin is a moral evfl, the remedy for which, from the very nature of the case, is a moral salvation. Conse quently everything that ministers to this remedy, however external and physical may be its immediate form and description, takes on the moral significance of the purpose to which it ministers, and with refer ence to which it has to be interpreted, if it is rightly to be understood. But, as has been shown, the moral and the physical, sin and death, are inseparably interrelated, both in our nature and in our actions and their consequences. It foUows that they are also thus interrelated in the reversal of sin and its consequences.1 The physical concomitants and conditions of moral actions and changes, in so far as they are their con comitants and conditions, take on the moral quaUties of the actions and changes which they condition. So it is with objective factors, factors which have im mediate effects of their own, as distinguished from re moter effects which they are intended to make possible. If, and in so far as, they are designed to afford con ditions of moral change, they have moral reference, and are to be described and interpreted moraUy. According to the New Testament the death of Christ, physical though it was in itself, had a moral purpose, and was determined in form and circum stance by the design that its results should minister to that purpose. 1 Ch. ii. | 7, above. 136 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH Its so called objective aspects — that is, its im mediate effects — were intensely moral, because they conditioned, 'and were designed with reference to, the moral drama of human recovery from sin. If by distinguishing the objective and moral aspects of the atonement we signify their mutual opposition, or even their separabflity, we most grievously err.1 Comprehensively regarded, the moral aspects of our Lord's death are twofold: (a) the broad fact that its purpose was to achieve results which make possible the moral recovery of man from sin; (b) the congruity of His death, regarded in the Hght of His Person and character and of its historical con text, with this moral purpose — that is, the moral fitness of the method by which God wflled to re deem mankind.2 In deaHng with the objective aspects of Christ's death we have at the same time been setting forth its moral aspects in the first sense above defined; and that they are moral as weU as objective cannot reasonably be denied. But in modern use the phrase "moral aspects" has come to denote the aspects which are empha sized, somewhat exclusively, in the so-caUed "moral 1 There is indeed some truth in the contention of G. B. Stevens, pp. 256-260 (cf. R. C. Moberly, pp. 140-141), that the distinction, when stressed too far, conceals "a good deal of word-jugglery." The danger is met by remembering that we are considering "aspects" — not separable elements. 2 This is dealt with in scholastic theology under the heading, The Convenience of Christ's Death; e.g. see St. Thomas, HI. xlvi. 3-4, 9-1 1. MORAL ASPECTS 137 theories " x — those which immediately lend them selves to moral description, and reveal the moral fitness of the method of redemption. It is these aspects to which we devote the rest of this chapter. § 10. Christ's death, and the drama in which it is the crisis, was a convenient method of redeeming mankind, because it revealed in unmistakable terms what we need to know in order to realize its sig nificance and to profit by it. It was an effective revelation because given in objective terms of human experience. And these terms were calculated to bring to a focus and articulate all that mankind had previously, although gropingly and imperfectly, learned through experience of sin and its conse quences. They were also in line with prophecy, and with the external ritual whereby God had taught His chosen people of old to express their relations to Him as sinners.2 But both the meaning and the effectiveness of this revelation depend upon the fact that He who died in flesh was personaUy divine. If He had been 1 Among those who more or less completely put aside the "ob jective" aspects in favour of the "moral" or "subjective" aspects are G. B. Stevens (Pt. IH) and the writers considered by him in Pt. II. ch. v — especially Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Auguste Sabatier, Benjamin Jowett and Horace Bushnell. To these should be added W. A. Wright, Problem of the Atonement, who displays a remarkable combination of acute logic and incapacity to under stand the objective aspects. Both he and G. B. Stevens decline to accept wholly the authority of St. Paul's doctrine — a signifi cant fact. 2 This has been shown in ch. i. || 2-3, above. 138 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH a mere man, His moral perfection and heroism could not have imparted to His death the redemptive significance and value which it has; and we cannot rightly understand the Cross, unless we reckon with our Lord's teaching concerning Himself, as vindi cated by His resurrection from the grave. Even a prophet's death could not have signified, as the Cross does signify, a divine intervention, upon the results of which our hope of deliverance from sin de pends. It is because we have learned that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,1 that we recognize in His death the redemption of mankind.2 Our Lord's obedience unto .death, when inter preted in its background and context, reveals, in particular, (a) the true, nature and malignity of sin, (6) the righteousness to which we have to turn, if we would escape from sin, and (c) the basis upon which alone salvation from sin is possible. (a) It reveals the moral significance of sin, because it objectifies God's condemnation of it in terms which we can correctly, even though inadequately, understand from the outset, and which we are able progressively to comprehend and ratify, as we grow in the grace of repentance derived from Christ. It reveals also the malignity of sin, because in it is exemplified the attitude of sinners toward one whose 1 2 Cor. v. 19. 2 Cf. ch. iii. | 5, above. Also R. W. Dale, pp. xlvii-lii, on the fact that moral theories depend for value on the objective aspects which they deny. MORAL ASPECTS 139 life was righteous, and whose caU to repentance they scorned. FinaUy, it reveals the moral conse quences of sin not only as converting the world into a place of suffering for the righteous, but as costing for its remedy the death of God's own beloved Son. The persuasiveness of this revelation is derived from the display of divine love and sympathy embodied in it, a subject to be taken up in the next section. (b) The Gospel drama also reveals Jesus Christ as the pattern of our righteousness. The detached centurion was persuaded by the manner of Christ in His death that He was righteous,1 for in it was ex emplified perfect charity and patience. But this exhibition was the concluding chapter of a sinless life, in which ideal righteousness was completely actualized under the trying conditions of human experience in a sinful world. Yet, as has been shown in a previous volume, the significance of our Lord's example does not fie whoUy in its flawless splendour; for had His perfection been that of a mere man, it would have appeared as simply an abnormal exception, which could neither bind our consciences nor encourage befief in the possibility of foUowing Him.2 But His Hfe, human though it was, was that of God-incarnate. His righteous ness is that of God, whom it is our duty to imitate,3 1 St. Luke xxiii. 47. 2 The Incarnation, pp. 124-128, 263-265. It would be what evolutionists call a "sport." 3 He is not only righteous, but is "THE LORD OUR RIGHT EOUSNESS." Jerem. xxiii. 6. 140 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH and from whom we receive grace to grow after His likeness. (c) The revelation of Christ's passion must be accepted, if at aU, in its own context, rather than in the terms of modern speculation. It teaches us that on the Cross one who claimed to be the sole means of approach to the Father gave His Hfe a ransom for many, and that His blood was shed for the remission of sins. If the Cross does not reveal this, which it does not unless He overcame death and rose from the grave, it is nothing more than a unique sample of martyrdom, differing only in de gree from many other samples; and the world has not been redeemed.1 § n. The love revealed by the Cross constitutes its most attractive and appeaHng aspect, and affords material for large exposition and enthusiastic rhet oric. But the temptation involved must be resisted — not only because of limitations of space, but because the thesis of redeeming love is a truism among those for whom this volume is written, and the writer's expository and constructive purpose will be confused by dwelling at length upon it.2 1 On the Cross as a revelation and example, see The Incarnation, pp. 257-261, 274-276; R. C. Moberly, ch. v; T. J. Crawford, pp. 161-165; G. B. Stevens, pp. 40-41. Emphasis upon the exem plary aspect characterized the Socinian theory. 2 On the Cross as a challenge of love, see R. C. Moberly, pp. 146- 153; R. W. Dale, pp. xlv-lv (who shows that the moral appeal of the Cross depends upon its objective aspects); T. J. Crawford, pp. 158-161. Onesided stress on the love of the Cross characterized MORAL ASPECTS 141 Our thesis is that the death of Christ is a revela tion of the love of God for sinners which embodies a powerful appeal — a chaUenge, calculated to induce loving response from sinners and repentance for sin.1 Repentance alone cannot, indeed, save men; nor is true repentance possible except by the grace which the death of Christ makes available. But it is the first step on man's side in salvation; and the fact that the method of redemption is calculated to persuade men to repent demonstrates its moral fitness. The love which is displayed is that of God, and if we could not identify it as His, the Cross would not have the meaning and appealing power which we find therein. But how can it be divine unless the cost of Christ's death is divine? What makes that death the most appeahng manifestation of love which mankind has experienced is the truth that in it God purchased the Church and redeemed us with His own blood.2 Jesus Christ is divine, and while we were yet sinners He died for us. He was God's eternal Son, and God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.3 It was God who Abelard's theory, and is found notably in H. Bushnell's Vicarious Sacrifice. 1 St. John xii. 32. The lifting up refers immediately to the Cross, but also to His heavenly exaltation. 2 Acts xx. 28; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14. The Person of the Redeemer in the last two passages is obviously He who is identified with God in the first passage. " Rom. v. 8; St. John iii. 16. 142 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEATH in Christ bore our sins, and on whom fell the chastise ment of our peace.1 Accordingly we find in Christ's death a significance and effect which no human martyr's death can have. This cost to God shows not only the greatness of His love for sinners, but also its exacting quafity. It is not characteristic of God to waste His resources, and He would not have sent His Son to die, if a less costly way could have been adopted of reconciling sinners to Himself. Divine love and human sin are mutual incompatibles; and the barriers to that righteousness in us upon which the fruition of divine love depends had to be removed before the demands of love could be satisfied. The fact that Christ's death was the method of making this consumma tion possible seems to show that no less costly method was available.2 § 12. Our Lord Himself predicted the unique influence which His death was to exercise when He said, "And I, if I be lifted up, wfll draw aU' men unto Me." 3 Men have too often resisted this drawing, but it has been felt, even among the most obstinate, by aU to whom a true knowledge of the Gospel has come. The abiding power of the Church is explained by the influence of the Cross; and whenever its witness to the Redeemer's atoning death has given way to other interests and to other 1 i St. Pet. ii. 24; Isa. liii. 5-6. 2 Cf. ch. ii. | 12, above. 3 St. John xii. 32. MORAL ASPECTS 143 truths, however precious, its power has been threat ened and for the time being reduced.1 This influence cannot be described adequately in any terms except its own. CaU it personal influ ence, call it moral contagion, or call it by any other terms which apply to other examples of influence, and its mystery is very far from being explained. The only possible explanation Hes in the Cross being what the New Testament teaches it to be — the objective means by which God has redeemed man kind, a means made effective for personal salvation through the dispensation of grace in the mystical Body of Christ, in which men are cleansed by the blood of Christ, and are enabled to overcome the wicked one.2 "In the Cross of Christ I glory, Towering o'er the wrecks of time. AU the Ught of sacred story Gathers round its head sublime." 1 When the Church seems most dead to her spiritual nature, the revival takes an evangehcal form. The evangelical movement of the close of the eighteenth century was the necessary antecedent of the later catholic movement; and the catholic movement depends for continued vitality upon its evangehcal element. 2 1 St. John i. 7; ii. 13-14; v. 18. CHAPTER V AMONG THE DEAD I. Our Lord's Death § i. Crying with a loud voice, we are told, Jesus gave up the ghost,1 that is, He died. This has been denied in the desire to overthrow the evidence of His resurrection.2 It is urged that crucifixion does not as a rule result fataUy so soon, as is borne out by the fact that the thieves who were crucified with Him were stfll aHve when the soldiers came to remove the bodies, and also by the surprise of PUate when informed that He was already dead. We should remember, however, that our Lord had been exhausted by much suffering before He was crucified; and the double flow of blood and water — apparently a separation of the red and white corpuscles — which resulted from the piercing of His side by the soldiers, is said to prove not only the fact that He had already died, but that the im mediate cause of His death was the breaking of His heart. Even if He were not already dead, the piercing of His side would have killed Him. 1 St. Matt, xxvii. 50; St. Mark xv. 37. Cf. St. Luke xxiii. 46; St. John xix. 30. 2 The theory is that He merely swooned; on which, see ch. vii. | 1, below, where refs. are given on the reality of His death. OUR LORD'S DEATH 145 He had to die, for the reparation which He came to offer for sin included death, and unless He had truly died He could not have overcome death in our behalf.1 AU that the resurrection means for us hinges on the reaHty of His death, the testimony to which is conclusive from every standpoint except that of an utter denial of the historical value and credibility of the Gospels. To a believer in the Scriptures the fact of His death gains confirmation — we are not here speaking of historical evidence and formal proof — • by the remarkable agreement of the circumstances of His death and burial with Old Testament prophecies.2 § 2. The Apostles' Creed ascribes to our Lord's Person both the burial of His body and the descent of His spirit into Hades, and this agrees with the New Testament. St. Paul says that He was buried, and St. Peter speaks of His being "quickened in the spirit; in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison." 3 In brief, the several things 1 See Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, art. iv. fol. 209-217; St. Thomas, m. 1. 2 E.g., compare (1) Psa. xxii. 7-8 with St. Matt, xxvii. 39-43; (2) Psa. xxii. 16 with St. Luke xxiv. 39 and St. John xx. 27; (3) Psa. xxxiv. 10 with St. John xix. 33, 36; (4) Psa. lxix. 21 with St. Matt, xxvii. 34 and St. Mark xv. 23; (5) Isa. liii. 7 with St. Matt. xxvii. 12 and 1 St. Pet. ii. 23; (6) Isa. liii. 8 with St. Mark xv. 16, 20; (7) Isa liii. 12 with St. Luke xxiii. 32-33; (8) Isa. 1. 6 with St. Matt. xxvi. 67-68; (9) Dan. ix. 26 with St. Matt. xx. 28; (10) Zech. xii. 10 with St. John xix. 34, 37; (11) Isa. liii. 9 with St. Matt. xxvii. 57-60, etc. 3 1 Cor. xv. 4; 1 St. Pet. iii.. 18-20. 146 AMONG THE DEAD which happened to His flesh and spirit after His death happened to Him. The body in the grave was stfll His own, and the spirit in Hades was also His. One of the indications that death did not separate His body from Himself is the fact that His flesh saw no corruption,1 a fact most reasonably explained by its continued possession by the Prince of Hfe.2 In theological terms these facts are gathered up in the proposition that the hypostatic union of Godhead and Manhood in the one Person of ' the eternal Son of God 3 — the union which was brought about by the Incarnation — was not broken by His death. There was the rupture of relations between His body and His human spirit which death causes or represents, but this rupture did not sunder the relations of either the fleshly or the spiritual part of His Manhood to Himself. They continued to share with His Godhead in the unity of one divine and personal Subject.4 If our Lord was to accompHsh what He came to do, this was clearly necessary; for it was an indis pensable part of His mission that He should per sonaUy experience the conditions of death, and this He could not have done if the burial had not 1 Acts ii. 27. Cf. Psa. xvi. 9-10. 2 Acts hi. 15. 3 Cf . The Incarnation, pp. 102-104. 4 St. Thomas, IH. 1. 2-3; Rich. Hooker, Eccles. Polity, V. Iii. 4; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 223-224; W. Bright, Serms. of St. Leo, n. 96. OUR LORD'S DEATH 147 been His burial, and if the experiences of His spirit in Hades had not been His own. Moreover, the significance for us of His victory over death would have been fataUy reduced if there had been a breach of continuity, a change of identity, in any part of the nature in which He suffered and in which He was raised and glorified. § 3. Our Lord's body did not see corruption.1 This does not mean that it was either by nature incorruptible 2 or exempt in the grave from the initial effects of death, but that its corruption was pre vented by its reanimation on the third day. The fact remains that in the usual sense of terms His flesh was dead while in the tomb. It was no longer animated by its spirit, and no longer in that kind of "correspondence with environment" by which the life of the body declares itself.3 As a true corpse it was wrapped in the customary clothes employed by the Jews, was at least partiaUy embalmed, and was laid to rest in a tomb before which a heavy stone was roUed for its security.4 1 Acts ii. 27. Cf. Psa. xvi. 9-10. 2 A theory maintained by the monophysite Aphthartodocetce. See q. v. in Blunt, Die of Sects and Heresies and the Die of Christ. Biog. 3 See St. Thomas, HI. 1. 5; li. 3; St. John Damasc. Orth. Fid., IH. xxviii. There was a traditional idea among the Jews that the human spirit hovered over the corpse until the third day, and that dissolution then began. Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modem Thought, pp. 57-58. 4 St. Matt, xxvii. 57-66; St. Mark xv. 42-47; St. Luke xxiii. 50-56; St. John xix. 38-42. 148 AMONG THE DEAD Whatever else may be said of His spirit, it under went the conditions to which human spirits are subject after death, descending to Hades, the place of departed spirits,1 and remaining there from Friday evening until the dawn of the foUowing Sunday. But His Godhead did not die, nor did His death in the Manhood in any way alter or reduce His divine fulness and power.2 He was still the Lord of glory, in spite of His submission in the Manhood to the conditions of mortality to which our nature is subject. The descent into Hades is to be asserted of Christ, therefore, in relation to His human spirit, and not in relation to His Godhead, which is omnipresent and not subject to the conditions and changes of local presence.3 The doctrine here maintained was used by the ancient fathers as evidence that ApolHnaris was wrong in saying that the Word took the place of a rational soul in Christ; 4 and this shows conclusively that the descent of our Lord's human spirit into Hades was then an accepted cathoHc doctrine.5 1 Eph. iv. 9; 1 St. Pet. iii. 19; Acts ii. 27, 31. 2 That no real kendsis occurred to our Lord at any time during His self-effacement in the Manhood has been shown in The Incar nation, ch. vii, and at greater length in The Kenotic Theory. 8 See Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 286-289. 4 See Bp. Pearson, fol. 237, who refers to St. Athanasius, e Apoll. i. 13, etc. 6 On this doctrine, see Hastings, Die of Christ, s. v. "Hell, Descent into"; St. Thomas, III. Ui; D. Stone, pp. 300-304; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 224-226; Bp. Pearson, on art. V.; F. Huidekoper, Concerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld, pp. 48- 54, 66-78; 164-171; E. H. Plumptre, Spirits in Prison, passim. IN HADES 140 II. In Hades § 4. The Scriptures do not definitely answer the question as to whether our Lord entered the place of the damned, and the opinion that He did not has widely prevailed among Christian writers. But the view that He did enter that place, for the purpose of leading captivity captive, and of triumphing over the powers of darkness,1 is a permissible one. Much controversy has occurred in relation to the question, but to review its details is both useless and Hable to disturb the perspectives in which we should contemplate revealed certainties. For this reason, and because of the lack of determinative data, no opinion as to whether our Lord descended into the lowest HeU is here ventured.2 But the opinion of the reformers that the Re deemer underwent the sufferings of the damned in HeU3 is certainly to be rejected. It is not only unsupported by scriptural evidence, but is inconsistent with our Lord's entire freedom from any sense of guilt, and therefore from the despairing remorse which characterizes the misery of the lost. Ob viously He could not have suffered physical torments, because His body was in the condition of insensi- bflity which belongs to the state of death. 1 Cf. Eph. iv. 8-9 (with Psa. lxviii. 18); i. 20-22; Col. i. 13, 15; Heb. ii. 14-15; 1 St. Pet. iii. 22. 2 Bp. Pearson says No, op. cit., art. v. Cf. Bp. Forbes, op. cit., P- 225. 3 So Calvin, Institutes, Bk. n. ch. xvi. || 3-4. ISO AMONG THE DEAD The opinion which we are repudiating is connected with the penal substitution theory of the atonement, that Christ endured in our stead the punishment due to human sinners. It has been shown in this volume that the sufferings of Christ were not penal, but constituted a voluntary and redemptive sacri fice for sin which was finished once for aU by His death on the Cross. The conditions of death which pertain to our mortaHty He did undergo, because He truly endured human death; but that He should be tormented after death was both abhorrent to His character and unnecessary for His achievement of redemption. § 5. St. Peter writes that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in which He also went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing." x The natu ral sense of this is that when Christ descended into Hades He proclaimed the Gospel to the departed, in particular to certain who disobeyed the caU of God on the eve of the deluge. No sufficient rea son has been given for rejecting this interpreta tion, and no reasonable alternative for it has been discovered.2 1 1 St. Pet. hi. 18-20. Cf. iv. 6. 2 Patristic interpretation is given by Cornel. A. Lapide, in loc. Huidekoper, op. cit., pp. 48-49, 164-171, gives a historical survey. E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., pp. 17 et seq., 93 et seq., 111-121, affirms IN HADES 151 That Christ preached to the disobedient has been explained in several ways. It has been viewed as a judicial revelation to them of their forfeiture of salvation — an unlikely supposition. It has also been thought that the disobedient ones in question repented before passing from this world, and that on this basis Christ proclaimed salvation to them. It seems strange, however, on this supposition, that St. Peter should have mentioned their disobedi ence without hinting at their repentance. The passage is difficult because of its brevity, but the most reasonable interpretation seems to be that the antedeluvians referred to continued in their disobedience, yet that the preaching of the Gospel to them was not useless. The reason would appear to be that their former disobedience was due to what was then invincible ignorance. If this interpretation is correct, the passage would seem to be an inspired warning against our assuming that the benefits of Christ's death are limited to those who accept the Gospel in this life. This subject will be taken up again in a later section.1 In any case St. Peter clearly witnesses to the fact that our Lord in some manner2 proclaimed the Gospel to a preaching, and Bp. Pearson, art. V., fol. 228-229, 241-242, denies it. Cf. R. H. Charles, Crit. Hist, of the Doctr. of a Put. Life, pp. 376-378; S. D. F. Salmond, Christian Doctr. of Immortality, pp. 456-488. 1 In § 9 of this chapter. 2 In a manner determined by His not then appearing or acting in the flesh, this lying in the tomb. 152 AMONG THE DEAD the dead during the interval between His death and resurrection. § 6. Whether at this time Christ descended into the lowest HeU, the place of the damned, we have left an open question. It does not need to be an swered, in order to determine whether He then did anything in the way of spoiling the powers of darkness who dweU there. As St. Thomas shows,1 our Lord did not have to enter locaUy the lowest HeU in order to extend His conquering power to that region. The power by which He worked was that of His pas sion, the virtue of which is not restricted to the place of His local presence. But whatever He did then He did for the dead; that is, for their deliverance by His passion from the power of Satan over them — in particular, from the power impfied by their being caUed the "spirits in prison." This deHverance was necessarily confined to those who were still susceptible of salvation. It could not benefit the finaUy lost, because the virtue of His passion could not be extended to them.2 The mysterious appearance of many bodies of the saints in the holy city after our Lord's resurrec tion, described in the first Gospel,3 would seem to show this at least, that when our Lord withdrew from HeU, He also deUvered some at least of the 1 Summa Theol., III. hi. 2. 2 St. Thomas, op. cit., III. Iii. 6. 3 St. Matt, xxvii. 52-53. See A. Plummer and Dean Alford, in loc. IN HADES 153 spirits in prison. But this proves nothing as to what He did while He was in Hell, beyond preach ing. As to the immediate effect of His preaching on those who accepted it, nothing can be said with certainty, except that they must have been reHeved by His redemptive passion from effects of satanic power they had previously endured. Presumably this deUverance was not the same in immediate form for aU. It seems unlikely that Abraham and other faithful patriarchs were then in a state of misery, whether penal or purgatorial, for our Lord ap pears to have accepted the current ideas involved in describing the place of the blessed dead as Abraham's bosom1 and as a place of comfort. The traditional conviction that since our Lord's death those who die in a state of salvation remain in an intermediate place of purification until made perfect, but that when perfected they enter into so much of the bliss of heaven as is mvolved in enjoy ment of the beatific vision, has strong probability in its favour.2 If this conviction is in accord with fact, our Lord's preaching must have brought hope to aU who were not beyond the reach of saving grace, but for the time being must have left all of these, except perfected saints, in the intermediate place or state between Heaven and HeU. 1 St. Luke xvi. 22. ! It has been the opinion of the bulk of catholic writers in all ages. St. Thomas, op. cit., III. Suppl. lxix. 2; xciii. 1. The sub ject will be taken uo in our last volume; but cf. Theol. Outlines, Q. 160. 2. 154 AMONG THE DEAD Apart from aU these problems, the determination of which cannot be absolute in this world, it is certain that our Lord's descent into Hades, when consid ered along with His subsequent exaltation, reduced the power of Satan, led captivity captive and pro cured gifts for men.1 His descent and ascent have therefore altered for the better the conditions of aU who enter Hades in a state of salvation. Hades is thereby robbed of its terrors for them. III. Special Questions § 7. Where is HeU? This question did not trouble Christian beUevers so long as the earth was regarded as a flat plane, having vast regions beneath; but the teaching of modern astronomy concerning the terrestrial sphere has disturbed many who wish to receive the teaching of Scripture and cling to its older or literal interpretation. Such interpretation involves us in patent difficulties; and the aUeged lack of a suitable place in the universe, as we now know it, for either Heaven or HeU has thrown the question of their locahty into solution. It has come to be generally acknowledged that the scriptural descriptions of Heaven as up, and of HeU as down, or under the earth, are not to be pressed in their Hteral meaning. It is also recognized that, 1 Eph. iv. 8-10. See E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., pp. 75 et seq.; F. Huidekoper, op. cit. pp. 49-54, 66-78; R. E. Hutton, Soul in the Unseen World, pp. 161-168; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Ignatius, Vol. H. pp. 131-133, note. SPECIAL QUESTIONS 155 if figurative terms of direction are to be used for the purpose of denoting places of happiness and misery respectively, "up" is a suitable indication of Heaven and "down" fittingly indicates HeU. And since the convenience of these figures of speech is derived in each case from the state of happiness or misery which is involved, the inference has been made that scriptural teaching does not commit us to beUef in a local Heaven and a local HeU.1 The modern denial that Heaven and HeU are local is also intensified by the unconsciously Manichaean prejudice, now widely prevailing, against the ancient catholic doc trine of the resurrectio carnis and of the part which our bodies play in the life of the world to come. The lack of adequate basis for this prejudice wfll appear when we come to deal with the resurrection of our Lord. It is to be acknowledged that we cannot rightly interpret Scripture as revealing where Heaven and HeU are; but several reasons compel us to hold that our Lord and His Apostles taught a local Heaven and a local HeU, without defining where they are. The figures "up" and "down" do not stand alone, and the various modes of indicating Heaven and HeU in the New Testament agree in implying their local delimitation. The narrative of the rich man 1 Such a generally sound writer as W. Milligan, Ascension, pp. 20-27, describes Heaven as a state rather than a locahty. We do not deny that the change of state is the more prominent aspect of Heaven in many biblical references to it. 156 AMONG THE DEAD and Lazarus is a case in point.1 There is also the teaching that Christ descended into Hades after His death. This descent is not naturaUy to be interpreted as a mere entrance into a lower state — the state of the departed. Still less can we inter pret our Lord's bodily ascension and disappearance in a cloud 2 as a going nowhere. That His body was real, that locaUty is a necessary condition of body, and that our Lord plainly meant to indicate by His visible movement a local withdrawal to some in visible region, seems too clear for dispute except by those who deny the facts given in the Gospel narra tives of our Lord's post-resurrection appearances. If Heaven and HeU are merely states of happiness and misery, it is hard to understand the consistent adherence of the New Testament to local terms of identification. The idea of states is not an obscure one, not one which requires local figures for its ex pression. Any adequate conception of our Lord's Person requires us to befieve that He would not have resorted to such descriptions if they were false and calculated to create carnal notions. The fact is that the pure state theory is contrary to any known creaturely possibilities. Neither experience nor reflection on the essentially finite limitations of human nature permit us to suppose that we shall hereafter transcend the law of spatial or local pres- 1 St. Luke xvi. 22-26. 2 St. Luke xxiv. 51; Acts i. 9-11. Cf. St. Mark app. xvi. 19. See ch. ix. || 5-6, below. SPECIAL QUESTIONS 157 ence. To be somewhere appears to be an unescapable condition of existence for both our bodies and our spirits; and there is no reason to suppose that any change which leaves us finite can reverse this law. Where, then, is Heaven, and where is HeU? We do not need to know, and we are not told. It is undoubtedly best that we should not know while confronted by present probationary ' responsibiHties. They may be close at hand, and they may be distant. But if distant beyond our extremest range of com puting, the problem of time and of speed in reaching them need not trouble us; for these are relative measures, which need not be restricted to terms of our present experience and imagination. For aU we know, a billion Hght years of space can be trav ersed in the twinkling of an eye under the condi tions of life beyond the grave. We can indeed determine where Heaven and HeU are in relative terms. Heaven is where our Lord's glorified body is, and HeU is where the devil and lost spirits are. Beyond this we cannot go.1 § 8. A second question is concerned with the meaning of Christ when He said to the penitent thief, "To-day shalt thou be with Me, in Paradise." 2 Is Paradise equivalent to Hades, or, as a vast major ity of Christians have always believed, to Heaven? If Paradise properly denotes Heaven, why should Christ 1 See Hastings, Die of Bible, s. v. "Heaven," p. 323; Die of Christ, q. v. p. 712; Blunt, Die of Theol., q. v., III. 2 St. Luke xxiii. 43. 158 AMONG THE DEAD have described the place of the thief's presence with Him as Paradise, in view of His descent into HeU? These questions are not difficult to answer. The term "Paradise" is not one that has always had a fixed reference, except in the one particular that it connotes pleasure, and the enjoyment of divine blessing.1 It has signified the garden of Eden, and Abraham's bosom. To Christians it signifies where Christ is, and that is now Heaven. This it must have signified to the penitent thief — with the Lord to whom he had turned for help in the hour of death. The meaning of Christ can be paraphrased, "To-day shalt thou be with Me, and therefore in Paradise." To be with Him was the greatest joy then possible for the penitent thief, and to be there, even though in HeU, was to be in Paradise.2 § 9. Finally, there is a question suggested by our Lord's preaching to the spirits in prison: How far does our Lord's death avail to make possible the salvation of those who are not in this Hfe afforded the knowledge of redemption and grace?3 What- 1 2 Cor. xii. 4; Revel, ii. 7. Cf. Gen. ii. 8. The word means a park or pleasure ground. 2 On paradise and related questions, see R. E. Hutton, Soul in the Unseen World, ch. ix; Bp. Pearson, fol. 357, 359; Trid. Catech., ch. x. q. 5; Westminster Confess., ch. xxxiii; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 269-271, 314, 328-331; Blunt, Theol. Dic.,s. v. "Beatific Vision." * Discussed usually in connection with limbus puerorum. See Cath. Encyc, s. v. "Limbo," I; St. Thomas, III. Suppl. lxxi; E. B. Pusey, What is of Faith, pp. 8-1 1; P. J. Toner, "Lot of Those Dying in Original Sin," in Irish Theol. Qly., July, 1909. SPECIAL QUESTIONS 159 ever answer is given to this question must be in harmony with what is clearly revealed — in par ticular, (a) that no salvation can be had except through Jesus Christ,1 and on the basis of His death; and (b) that no hope of salvation remains for those who in this Hfe wilfully reject the means of salvation when effectively made known to them.2 The Scriptures are given for the guidance of those who have received the Gospel message, and both their promises and their warnings are determined in form by this fact. They do not therefore afford any direct and specific teaching on this subject. The rebuke with which our Lord met St. Peter's question about St. John's manner of death 3 implies this at least, that our own following of Christ is a task of too absorbing requirements to leave room for useless curiosity about the future of those whose conditions differ from our own. To us the vital question must always be, How shall we most fully respond to our own Christian calling? Yet the question before us cannot be totaUy ignored under modern conditions, for while it cannot be answered more definitely than Holy Scripture answers it, we have to formulate the principles which are involved in its solution, lest we seem to acquiesce in the popular notion that our faith commits us to 1 St. John xiv. 6; Acts iv. 12. 2 St. John xii. 48. Cf. Heb. vi. 4-0; x. 26-31. • St. John xxi. 20-22. 160 AMONG THE DEAD a hopeless view of the future of the heathen and of infants who die unbaptized.1 That our Lord should have preached to ignorant spirits beyond the grave seems to imply that divine resources for the enlightenment and salvation of men are not restricted in their benefits to the fiving; and this surely opens a door of hope which we may not close. The gracious truth that God wflleth all men to be saved,2 a truth which we might infer from what we know of the divine character even if it were not expressly declared, also justifies the conviction that nothing short of wilful rejection of salvation can bar out all the benefits of Christ's death. Then, too, we know that "particular redemption," or the notion that Christ died only for the elect, is a wretched travesty of New Testament doctrine.3 Again, we are assured that the Judge of aU the earth wiU do right; and it does not seem right to us that partiaHty should Unfit divine mercy, or that God should condemn to everlasting punishment those to whom He has given no chance of salvation. Fi naUy, we are assured that the judgment according to the deeds done in the body is a discriminating judgment, which aUows for the comparative degrees 1 On infants dying unbaptized, see D. Stone, Holy Baptism, pp. 111-112, 115-116. He also gives the views of ancient and scholastic writers, with refs., in note on p. 260. Cf. Cath. Encyc, s. v. "Baptism," XI. 2 1 Tim. ii. 4. 3 Cf. ch. ii. | 4, above. SPECIAL QUESTIONS 161 of knowledge and "talents" providentially afforded to each.1 In view of these fundamental facts and truths of Scripture, we are driven to beUeve that aU men wfll be afforded, either in this Hfe or in the next, an opportunity of benefiting by Christ's death, and that none will be lost except through wilful misuse or rejection of such opportunity. But this conclusion is less determinate as to the nature of opportunities and of the benefits made available than is sometimes supposed; and it does not imply probation after death, in the proper sense of that word, that is, a chance to reverse the effects of probation in this world. Probation 2 involves opportunity to form and reveal one's attitude towards such light and grace as is en joyed in this life, and every human agent does enjoy some Hght, and presumably some elementary form of prevenient grace. To 'many the opportunities are very smaU indeed, but aU races have conceptions, however grotesque, of right and wrong; and therefore aU have a real probation — a real test of their dis position to respond to moral and spiritual chaUenges as they understand them.3 The supposition that the 1 Cf. St. Matt. xxv. 14-30; Heb. iv. 15-16. * Probation after death will be considered in our last volume. Cf. however, Theol. Outlines, Q. 159; D. Stone, pp. 241-243; D. W. Forrest, Authority of Christ, pp. 323-331; Jas. Denney, Studies in Theol., pp. 241-246; Jas. Orr, Christ. View of God, pp. 343-346; Cath. Encyc, s. v. "Judgment," III. 3 The description of the judgment reported as given by Christ in St. Matt. xxv. 32-46, imphes that men may be working out their 1 62 AMONG THE DEAD fundamental disposition thus developed and brought to Hght would be reversed under Christian conditions is not susceptible of proof. The most that can be said is that larger opportunities will secure the re versal of the unwitting mistakes of those rightly dis posed towards truth; that is, they wfll benefit those who did what they could be expected to do with their smaU opportunities. The New Testament plainly impHes that the final judgment will be concerned with the deeds done in the body.1 This teaching seems to show that death ends every man's opportunity to become salvable; and oppor tunities after death, whatever they may be, seem to be limited in their scope to fuUer erflightenment, correction of mistakes and the growth in grace of those who have already shown moral susceptibiHty to its saving benefits. In this connection we have to remember that the Judge is omniscient and aU-wise; and He is far more capable of allowing for things that should be aUowed for, and of discerning the real bent of souls under aU circumstances, than we can imagine. The supposition that He wfll condemn those who might have been saved under more favorable oppor- salvation by lines of action the Christian significance of which is unknown to them. 1 Cf. 2 Cor. v. io; vi. 2; St. Matt. xvi. 27; St. Luke xii. 47-48; xix. 12-26; St. John ix. 4; Heb. ix. 27; 1 St. Pet. i. 17; Revel. ii. 23; xx. 12; xxii. 12. The case of those dying in infancy requires special consideration. They have no experience which can be called probational, but their innocence, fixed by death, may have more value than we know and may secure their salvability. SPECIAL QUESTIONS 163 tunities in this Hfe is incredible — as much so to one who rejects the theory of a probation after death as to one who accepts it. This theory is quite unneces sary for the vindication of either the justice or the love of our divine Judge. It is widely assumed that the form of beatification promised to faithful Christians is for aU men the sole alternative to everlasting punishment. This as sumption cannot be proved. There may be, so far as we know, other Heavens open for those who are not elected to life in this world. The view that there is a future middle state of permanent nature has given comfort to many.1 And it is possible that the inequaHty of opportunities in this world is related to difference of vocations appointed for the world to come. At aU events, if the missionary task is to complete the number of the "elect," we need not in fer that "non-elect" signifies lack of any divine pro vision and vocation, of any possibility of reward calculated to satisfy its recipients, and of any fitting home and function in the future realms of divine goodness. 1 Cath. Encyc, s. v. "Limbo," H; P. J. Toner, "Lot of Those Dying in Original Sin," Irish Theol. Qly., July, 1909. CHAPTER VI THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION I. Standpoints and Approaches § i. The fact of the resurrection, as traditionally viewed,1 is that on the third day, Jewish reckoning, after a true death and burial, our Lord rose again in the flesh, and on various occasions during the ensuing forty days appeared afive to His foUowers. That His resurrection body displayed new and strange 1 On the general subject, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III. liii-lvi; W. Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord; W. J. S. Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection; and The Resurrection and Modern Thought; Hastings, Die of Christ, and Blunt, Die of Theol., s. w. "Resur rection of Christ"; Cath. Encyc, s. v. "Resurrection," I; Bp. Pear son, Apos. Creed, art. v. On the facts and evidence, see Church Qly. Review, Jan., 1906, art. IV; McC. Edgar, Gospel of a Risen Saviour; John Kennedy, Resurrection of Jesus Christ; Chas. Gore, New Theol. and the Old Relig., pp. 118-125; E. H. Day, Evid. for the Resurrection; Jas. Orr, Resurrection of Jesus; G. P. Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christ. Belief, ch. ix; A. C. Headlam, Miracles of the N. Test., Lee. vi; Chas. Harris, Pro Fide, ch. xxu; T. Christheb, Modern Doubt, Lee. vii; T. J. Thorburn, The Resurrection Narratives; H. B. Swete, Appearances of Our Lord after the Passion; H. Latham, Risen Master; Max Meinertz, "The Fact of the Resurrection," Constructive Quarterly, Mch. 1915. Authors only will ordinarily be given in references to the above mentioned works. STANDPOINTS AND APPROACHES 165 properties and capacities is clearly shown in the Gospel descriptions of His appearances, but that it was identical in substance with the body which hung on the Cross is a vital part of the traditional interpre tation of the Gospel narratives.1 The rational credibility of these narratives as thus interpreted depends, of course, upon the standpoint from which the subject is considered, and upon the method of our approach to the question. In this, as in several other connections previously dealt with in this series of volumes, the standpoint of naturalism is encountered. Accordingly, although we have more than once criticized this theory — it has no higher claim to acceptance than that of extra- scientific speculation — the necessity of comprehen sive treatment of so central a mystery as that of the resurrection constrains us once more to summarize our reasons for rejecting it.2 Its acceptance is ob viously fatal to befief in our Lord's bodily resurrec tion. This is so because naturalism denies that 1 Cf. the Apostles' Creed, "The third day He rose again from the dead"; the Nicene Creed, "And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures"; and Articles of Religion, iv, "Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature, wherewith He ascended," etc. That the primitive Christians beheved in such a resurrection, see J. Orr, pp. 33-42. He gives a clear description of present forms of attack in ch. i. 2 On naturalism, see Creation and Man, pp. 109-112; The In carnation, pp. 9-11, 320-326; Evolution and the Fall, pp. 21-36; Jas. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism; A. J. Balfour, Foundations of Belief; R. Otto, Naturalism and Religion. Cf . J. Orr, pp. 44~53- 1 66 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION human experience can include any event that cannot be explained by the factors and laws which the physi cal and mechanical sciences are able to explore and describe. That these sciences cannot consistently with their scope and methods take cognizance of such phenom ena as are recorded in the resurrection narratives is obvious. But this arises from the limitations of these sciences, which have to do with such phenomena only as are susceptible of physical and mechanical generali zation. AU other phenomena are necessarily ex cluded from consideration so long as the avowed aim of physical scientists is pursued. When these scien tists, however, declare that no phenomena can come within human observation except those which He within the scope of physical generaHzations, they venture into an extra-scientific field and indulge in an a priori dogmatism for which their specialized methods of inquiry afford no basis. Just such dog matism is the distinguishing mark of naturaHsm, which is therefore an a priori philosophy, having no right to be described as scientific. Moreover, it is inconsistent with that large group of daily observed phenomena into which personal factors enter. That physical events are altered in their course by superphysical and personal inter vention and manipulation of physical things and forces, is too patent to be reasonably denied. To give an example, whfle physical laws are utilized in printing a book they are also transcended, and the STANDPOINTS AND APPROACHES 167 product cannot be adequately described and inter preted by the methods of physical science. A higher factor than the physical sciences can bring within the range of their generaHzations is needed to explain the phenomenon. There survives among many who occupy the naturalistic standpoint the deistic conception of the universe as a complex and self-sufficient mechanism, which even its Creator cannot manipulate without violating its laws and upsetting its harmonious order.1 This conception is also purely d priori, and rests upon no scientific evidence. The universe is more than a physical cosmos. It is also the mani festation of an immanent personal Worker,2 and may be likened to the scenery of a drama in which there is an evolving plot to which occasional shiftings of the physical scenery suitably minister. As the stage- manager is the aU-wise God, these shiftings neces sarily reflect His wisdom. They fit in with the drama as a whole; and, so far from disturbing its sequences, they facilitate and interpret them. But the deistic conception is inconsistent with belief in a reaUy Hving and personal God, with divine immanence, and with the possibflity that the history of the universe should mean anything or minister to anything. 1 On deism, see A. S. Farrar, Hist, of Free Thought, Lee. iv; H. P. Liddon, Some Elements of Religion, pp. 55-59; Hastings, Encyc of Religion, q. v., where bibliog. is given. 2 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 69-72; Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 263-264, 286-288 (other refs. on p. 286, n. 2). 168 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION The principle of continuity is determined in appH- cation by the nature of that to which it is applied. In a deistic and naturalistic universe, every miracle would constitute a breach of continuity; and so would instances of personal control of events therein — such, for example, as the history of human inven tion and applied science brings to light. But in a world-drama, a breach of continuity means an event which has no rational place in the progressive work ing out of the plot. Men can cause such breaches of continuity, for they can act capriciously, and human sin is their irrational caprice. But one who attains to the Christian conception of God naturaUy believes Him to be incapable of caprice. And his befief in the fact of the resurrection, based in the first instance upon the contents of apostofic testimony, is given its vital strength by the determinative place and iUuminative value which he perceives that event to have in the world-drama.1 § 2. A somewhat subtle form of the naturalistic standpoint is adopted by those who depend exclu sively upon what is caUed the historical method in investigating the narratives of the resurrection. The importance of this method in the study of New Testament documents is now too weU estabUshed to be disregarded.2 And it has to be utilized to a de- 1 On which, see ch. viii. || 5-8, below. * On this, see Robert Mackintosh, in Hastings, Die of Christ, s. v. "Historical"; K. Lake, Hist. Evid. for the Resurrection, pp. 5-7 (with naturalistic bias). Cf. J. Kennedy, pp. 11-24. STANDPOINTS AND APPROACHES 169 gree in any thorough scrutiny of the resurrection narratives. But these narratives obtrude problems and factors which do not He within the scope of the generalizations of historical science, and which can not be fully dealt with by its methods, for these methods are based upon generalizations in which natural events alone are reckoned with. To insist that such generalizations can be depended upon to determine aU that can be determined as to any aUeged event whatsoever, obviously involves the assumption that an event which cannot be brought within the range of natural occurrences, with which historical science exclusively concerns itself, cannot happen. In brief, one who depends exclusively upon the historical method in investigating the fact of the resurrection starts with a postulate which begs the question at issue — the postulate that nothing hap pens which transcends the generalizations of historical science. The bodily resurrection of Christ involves factors, and appeals to reasons for behef, which He outside the purview of historical science, as ordinarily under stood. Accordingly, whfle the historical method is rightly employed for throwing Hght on certain branches of the problem, other lines of inquiry are also necessary for adequate investigation. And the fact that the bodily resurrection of Christ cannot be established by an exclusive use of the historical method does not of itself prove the lack of sufficient reasons for befief in it. 170 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION Dr. Lake rightly maintains the need of having re gard for intrinsic probabilities in inquiries of this kind.1 But estimates of intrinsic probabflity are necessarily controUed by the standpoint of the in quirer. If this standpoint is whoUy that of historical science in its accepted sense, that is, if the so caUed historical method is regarded as alone to be utilized, the intrinsic probabflity that certain elements of the Gospel narratives agree with the experiences from which they were ultimately derived is very sUght, for the special limitations of historical science make for incredulity in the presence of such narratives. But if the traditional Christian standpoint is as sumed, the intrinsic probabifities will be quite dif ferently estimated; for Christian believers aUow for factors and reasons of which historical science cannot take account without departing from its chosen province.2 If St. Luke's narrative, for example, is substantiaUy true to fact, the resurrection was an absolutely unique event, and one which enHsted factors that have in no other instance come within human experience. There fore the generaHzations and rules of historical inquiry cannot, when exclusively employed, enable us either to demonstrate its reality or to overthrow its credibflity. § 3. Another standpoint which determines men's estimates of the resurrection narratives is the Mani- 1 The Hist. Evid. for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 167-169. 2 See W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The Resurrection and Modem , ch. xxx. Cf . § 4, below. STANDPOINTS AND APPROACHES 171 chasan.1 This standpoint is rarely retained in its unqualified form among modern thinkers, and it would be difficult to find to-d&y a defender of the proposition that matter or flesh is intrinsically evil. But the idea that there is some kind of incongruity between matter and spirit, and a certain incurable opposition between flesh and spirit in human nature, continues to exercise a strong influence over many minds. This influence is felt even by thinkers who would hesitate to acknowledge it, who would at least shrink from accepting the impUed postulate that the fines on which the Creator has built human nature are wrong, and that they need to be reversed in a vital particular before our nature can become what it ought to be. The omnipresent fact of human sin has caused a universal conflict in this world between the human flesh and spirit, which because of its uni- versaHty is hastily assumed to be intrinsic, and to require the spirit's permanent escape from its physical organism, if it is to attain to its appointed perfection and destiny. Some of those who make this inference are willing to acknowledge that the body does in certain ways serve the purposes of its animating spirit, but they maintain that this service is temporary and confined to this world, matter being unsuited for the full 1 On Manichaeism, see J. F. Bethune-Baker, pp. 93-95; Cath. Encyc, s.vv. "Manichaeism"; and "Evil," II; Die of Christ. Biog., s. v. "Manichaeans"; A. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, Vol. III. pp. 316- 336. 172 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION functioning and self-expression of personality. By those who thus view the body it is sometimes likened to scaffolding, which ministers to the raising of the edifice which it envelops, but cannot be allowed to remain if the finished building is to be conveniently employed and to exhibit its form and beauty. This line of argument undoubtedly leaves room for ac knowledging the goodness of God in creating the body, but is utterly inadequate to the honourable place and functions assigned to the body in New Testament doctrine. There remains the assump tion that matter is incongruous with the spirit in its perfection. The significant fact that, in this fife at least, the advance of our spirits towards perfection draws with it a more and more harmonious relation between the flesh and the spirit is disregarded, as is also the increasing success with which the visage of an aged saint reveals even to imperfect earthly ob servers the sanctified spirit within. As we hope to show later on,1 various lines of in quiry afford reasons for caution in limiting the de gree of service to spirit, and to its self-expression, of which the body is capable when human nature has reached its heavenly perfection. The point to which we now draw attention is that to assume at the outset — no one can prove it — that a material body can not become fitted for the spirit's use under the per fected conditions of the world to come is to beg the question as to the truth of the resurrection narratives. 1 In ch. vii. || 11-12. STANDPOINTS AND APPROACHES 173 Except in the one particular of His flesh having seen no corruption, our Lord's resurrection is plainly treated in Scripture as the pattern of ours, and more than one of His post-resurrection appearances is de clared to have been attended by incidents to show that He had been raised in real flesh. The alterna tive remains, therefore, of either reconsidering the disparaging view above described of the possibifities of flesh in the service of glorified spirit, or of being unable to take seriously the evidence of the nature of our Lord's resurrection which the Gospels afford. § 4. From the nature of the case no evidence of the reafity of a past event can be obtained, or even imagined, that wfll convince one who retains a point of view which precludes the possibifity of its occur rence. But the difficulty is due to the handicap of aUen standpoints, rather than to an insufficiency of reasons for the traditional Christian beUef. The formal or external evidences of the fact are available to aU readers of the New Testament, but their suf ficiency appears only when considerations are reckoned with which the standpoints above described drive out of sight.1 The Christian standpoint permits one to do entire justice to those aspects of the universe or world- process which natural science describes in terms of law, uniformity and continuity; but it is determined 1 Considerations which convert intrinsic improbability into in trinsic probabihty, and thus enable us to perceive the force of the evidence. 174 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION by befief in the higher and dramatic aspect of world- history, as the working out of a divine plot or plan — a plan which involves occasional innovations upon the normal course of phenomena, due to the entrance of higher factors than can be reckoned with in the generaHzations of natural science. When regarded from such a standpoint, the credibflity of the miracle of the resurrection, and the sufficiency of the evidence given for it, is estimated in the fight of the significant place and ifliiminative value which that event ap pears to have in the world-drama or divine plan. Its relatedness to history at large, as thus regarded, gives it a credibihty which it could not have if it were simply a meaningless prodigy. The Christian view of history affords an iUuminat- ing background to the evidence for the resurrection; and this background imparts to this evidence a con vincing value that is sufficient to overcome the natural unreadiness of men to beUeve in so stupendous a miracle. In saying this, we assume, of course, that the inquirer approaches the subject in a spiritual frame of mind. The credibflity of the resurrection is to a high degree spiritual; and without the gift of spiritual discernment no one, however acute his scholarly gifts may be, can rightly expect to be able accurately to weigh the value of its evidence.1 The Christian view makes Jesus Christ to be truly divine, the Mediator between God and man, whose 1 Cf. Introd. to Dogm. Theol., ch. ix. Pt. Ill; B. F. Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, ch. i. STANDPOINTS AND APPROACHES 175 manifestation in human history is the chief crisis in the whole world-drama, and the most significant shifting of the scenery thereof that has come within human experience. It elevates Christ's death into a redemptive mystery, which requires for completion His fuU victory over the grave.1 It interprets this redemption in the Hght of revelation at large, as designed ultimately to recover our entire nature from corruption, — no element therein being superfluous to the purpose of the immortaHty which Jesus Christ brought to Hght,2 and to the future human function ing whereby the incarnate Son of God is to be glori fied and to be forever preeminent in and over all creation, visible and invisible.3 The immortaHty re vealed by Christ is a richer thing than a mere sur vival of the human ego, and is not to be lowered to the level of the continuance in existence of disem bodied souls which the pagan Plato tried to prove.4 Accordingly, the bodily resurrection of Christ, so far from looking like a contra-natural breach in the continuity of the visible order, brings with it such a splendid vindication of that order, and such an il luminating conception of the entire world-process, that it seems, as it were, to prove itself as an inevi table crisis in the world-movement, and as the most rational and significant event known to man. 1 Cf. ch. hi. | 7, above; ch. viii. | 7, below; and passim. 2 2 Tim. i. 10. 3 Cf. Eph. i. 10, 20-22; Col. i. 18-20. ' Creation and Man, pp. 209-212. 176 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION II. The Evidence § 5. The considerations which impart credibflity to the evidence for the resurrection do not displace the need of that evidence. They indeed prove nothing apart from it; and the necessity of exhibit ing real evidence is clear, if the traditional befief in the resurrection is to be reasonably justified.1 The testimony of St. Paul 2 takes the first place in this evidence, partly because it is earliest, being generaUy acknowledged to have been given about 55 a.d., and partly because it embodies knowledge which is stiU nearer to the event with which it is concerned. St. Paul declares that he had already preached to them, and they had beheved in his testimony, an obvious reference to his visit in Corinth, 50 a.d. He also speaks of having "re ceived" what he was testifying,3 and in another epistle he writes of having verified the agreement of the Gospel which he had for many years been preach ing with that of the Apostles in Jerusalem,4 whose knowledge was obviously of earlier origin than his. He asserts to the Corinthians the apostofic authority 1 For bibliography on the evidence for the resurrection, see p. 164. n. 1, above. 2 Found chiefly in i Cor. xv. See W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modern Thought, chh. viii-xiii; Our Lord's Resurrection, pp. 106-143; W. Milligan, pp. 39-45; John Kennedy, ch. iii; Chas. Harris, pp. 464-480; T. Christheb, pp. 476-490; B. W. Randolph, The Empty Tomb. 3 1 Cor. xv. 1-3. 4 Gal. ii. 1-2. THE EVIDENCE 177 and representative value of his testimony to them, saying, "Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye beheved." J His testimony faUs weU within the Ufe-time of those whom he declared to have seen the risen Lord, over two hundred and fifty of them being asserted to be still afive; 2 and no sufficient time had elapsed for the development of either myth 3 or legend. His testimony is in full accord with what St. Luke describes as the pentecostal preaching of St. Peter.4 And the younger Saul cannot have been ignorant of the nature of this preaching when he persecuted the Church of God, certainly within six years of the crucifixion.5 The event of Easter morn, whatever it was, did not happen in a corner,6 and the apostolic description of it must have been known to a wide circle very soon after St. Peter's pentecostal sermon.7 The testimony of St. Paul contains two main branches: (a) that after dying and being buried, 1 1 Cor. xv. n. 2 Verse 6. 3 The myth theory of Strauss, first Life of Jesus, is now anti quated. There is another form of it in Jas. Martineau's Seat of Authority, pp. 358-377. The current attempt to prove that Jesus Christ never hved, of J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith, A. Drews, etc., is hardly worth serious attention; but see T. J. Thorbum, Jesus the Christ: Historical or Mythical; S. J. Case, The Historicity of Jesus. 4 Acts ii. 23-32. Cf. iii. 14-15; iv. 2, 10. 6 Acts vii. 58; viii. 1, 3. 6 Acts xxvi. 22-26. 7 Cf. the conversion of 3000 souls by that sermon, Acts ii. 41. See Jas. Orr, pp. 84-86. 178 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION Christ "hath been raised on the third 'day"; (&) that He appeared several times to various followers, on one occasion to above five hundred at once, — the greater part of them remaining "until now," — and last of all to St. Paul himself.1 The event is described as an event of "the third day," and as a resurrection — not as a manifesta tion of mere personal survival after death. The previous mention of the burial also suggests that the resurrection referred to is from the tomb from which He was buried, a resurrection in terms of body and of both time and space. The Hst of appearances is not given as exhaustive, but is obviously selected with reference to their convincing value to the Corinthians. Accordingly they are limited to ap pearances to the apostoHc leaders, to the multitude and to himself. Their order seems to be chronologi cal, but it is not said to be so, and the testimony is not weakened, therefore, by failure to demonstrate its accuracy in this regard. The assertion that over two hundred and fifty of those who had seen the risen Lord were stfll Hving was a, daring one, if St. Paul was not convinced of its truth. It is objected that St. Paul is silent as to the empty grave, a very necessary link in the evidence of a bodily resurrection. The reply is that St. Paul gives a rapid reminder of what he declared that he had already preached to the Corinthians, and does not offer an exhaustive survey of the evidence. But, 1 i Cor. xv. 4-8. THE EVIDENCE 179 as has already been indicated, the series of assertions, "died," "buried" and "hath been raised on the third day," plainly impUes an emptying of the grave on the third day. It is also objected that St. Paul makes no distinc tion between the appearances to the others and that to himself, and this shows that aU of them were visions rather than objective appearances. But St. Paul evidently did not regard the appearance to him self as a mere vision, and elsewhere shows his abihty to distinguish between an objective appearance and a vision.1 His Greek word for appeared, axjydr), is nor maUy employed in the New Testament for objective manifestations.2 Moreover, the physical and blinding effect of his experience points to a real manifestation.3 § 6. A third objection concerns the nature of the bodily resurrection which St. Paul intended to af firm, and also raises the question as to whether the Gospel narratives agree with St. Paul's testimony. Briefly stated, it is that the kind of resurrection to which St. Paul bears witness in Christ's case must agree with that which, in the same connection, he asserts to be in store for us; because he bases the assurance of our resurrection upon the certainty of His, and upon Christ's having become "the First- 1 Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Acts xviii. 0-10. 2 When a vision is referred to it is somehow indicated by the con text. E.g. St. Luke i. 22. 3 It is described by St. Luke in Acts ix. 3-8, who reports St. Paul's own description in chh. xxii. 7-1 1; xxvi. 12-15. 180 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION fruits of them that are asleep." But he teaches, it is urged, that our resurrection is to be purely spirit ual, acknowledging that "flesh and blood cannot in herit the kingdom of God." 1 Dr. Lake . seems to recognize that St. Paul ascribes the death and resur rection to the same body, crcop,a, numerically speak ing, but interprets him as teaching what is in effect a transubstantiation of the material body into spirit.2 Such a conclusion, if vahd, puts St. Paul in opposi tion both to certain elements in the Gospel narra tives,3 and to the traditional doctrine of the Church in subsequent centuries — a somewhat radical re sult; but, as we shall see, it is reaUy non-relevant to St. Paul's argument. St. Paul certainly says that "flesh and blood can not inherit," 4 but in itself the phrase cannot be shown to mean more than that flesh and blood have no power in themselves — no natural power — to inherit. Whether this acknowledgment was part of a more comprehensive assertion that they will not even be enabled to inherit, must be determined by the context. The determinative elements of the context are a previous antithesis between the pre- resurrection acofia \\iv)(ik6v and the post-resurrection o-(Sju,a irvevpaTLKOv,5 and a subsequent statement that 1 So Kirsopp Lake, The Hist. Evid. for the Resurrection, pp. 20-23. 2 As cited. 3 Cf. St. Matt, xxviii. 9; St. Luke xxiv. 16, 30-31, 39-43; St. John xx. 20, 27, 29. Also Acts x. 41. 4 1 Cor. xv. 50. 6 Verse 44. THE EVIDENCE 181 this mortal and corruptible shall put on immortaHty and incorruption by a sudden change at the last trump.1 In the Hght of this subsequent statement, the thought of St. Paul seems to be that, although flesh and blood, being mortal and corruptible, have no natural power to inherit the kingdom of God, the body containing these elements wfll none the less be enabled thus to inherit by a change, impliedly from above, wherein it wfll put on immortaHty and incorruption. Moreover, the nature of this change from mortaHty to immortaHty, so far as St. Paul undertakes to de scribe it at aU, is signified by his antithesis between crcofia xjjv^lkov and cwfia irvevfiaTLicov. It is a pity that the first of these phrases is translated "natural body," even in the. Revised Version; for this transla tion has perpetuated the mistaken idea that it signifies a body made up of matter, as opposed to one consist ing of spirit. Dr. Lake appears to take this for granted, and does not give to the antithesis the de liberate examination which its critical place in St. Paul's argument requires. St. Paul here contrasts a psychic body and a pneumatic body — one domi nated by the psyche or animal soul and the other con trolled by the higher pneuma or spirit. He is not at all contrasting bodies in relation to the nature of their substance, but in relation to their dominating principle, whether the xlwxV or ^e 'nvevp.a. Inasmuch as neither \jrux*] nor irvevp.a denote material substance, 1 Verses 51-54. Cf. verse 43. 182 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION xjnrxiKov and irvevp.aTi.K6v may not be taken to in dicate a contrast between matter and spirit. St. Paul's real thought, therefore, appears to be that whereas the p,a in this Ufe is controUed by the lower animal soul, it will be brought by the resurrec tion under the control of man's higher rational spirit, and that this change wfll also endow the awp,a with immortaHty and incorruptibflity, imparting to it the power which flesh and blood does not naturally pos sess, the power to inherit the kingdom of God. At all events, there is no trace in St. Paul of the idea that the resurrection transubstantiates our material bodies into spirit. Such a conception of our resur rection seems remote from his sequence of descrip tive terms, "buried" and "raised," or "sown" and "raised"; and his retention, of the term cnvp^a in both branches of his antithesis, above discussed, appears incongruous with the supposition that he had in mind a mode of post-resurrection existence in which a genuine cr5>pa could have no part. Elsewhere, writ ing to the same Corinthians, he describes his hope: "not for that we would be unclothed, but that we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swaUowed up of Ufe";1 and such language fits fll with the thought of the transubstantiation of our bodies into spirit. The sum of the argument of this section is that the modern scholars who have adopted the inter- 1 2 Cor. v. 4. It is the body's mortality, not the body itself, that is swallowed up of life. THE EVIDENCE 183 pretation of St. Paul which we have been criticizing and have depended upon it as affording reason for rejecting the evidence in the Gospels that Christ's resurrection body contained flesh and bones, have reason for reconsidering their interpretation. St. Paul's testimony cannot be shown to disagree in this regard with the Gospel narratives of the resurrection.1 § 7. Whatever may be the general conclusion which one adopts with regard to the synoptic prob lem, the variations between the several accounts of the resurrection contained in the synoptic Gospels are too numerous and too significant to permit their being regarded as merely variants of one tradition or of one documentary source.2 In particular, if nega tive critics are led to hypothecate two independent traditions concerning our Lord's post-resurrection appearances to the Apostles, the Galflaean and the Judaean, they are precluded from treating the agree ments between the synoptic Gospels as having no corroborative value. They certainly should be taken to have such value, unless their mutual divergences are such as to discredit them — a matter which wfll be considered in due order. The fourth Gospel has suffered much disparagement in modern days, but its historical value is coming to be more adequately 1 A resum6 of St. Paul's teaching is given in another connection in ch. vii. | 10, below. 2 The writer accepts, not without hesitation, the view of the synoptic problem given by L. Pullan, The Gospels, ch. hi, as the most defensible under present conditions of knowledge. But cf. Jas. Orr, pp. 61-79. 184 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION realized. It embodies independent testimony, as does also its appended chapter. We have neither space nor caU to analyze the Gospel testimonies critically in aU their details. We content ourselves with outlining the events to which they testify.1 They all testify to the reaHty of Christ's death by crucifixion, and of His burial in a tomb, before which a stone was roUed.2 St. Matthew speaks of a soldier's guard being set.3 Their accounts of the resurrection morning differ in details selected for mention, and do not afford sufficient data for de termining with certainty the precise sequence of events. But if the several Gospel accounts are all accepted, the events to be reckoned with include the foUowing: 4 i. The women carried spices to the tomb quite early on the resurrection morning; 5 2. An earthquake took place, and an angel descended, roUed away the stone, and sat on it. The soldiers appointed to guard the tomb were greatly frightened;6 1 Some modern scholars seek to base their conclusions touching the resurrection on what they call the primitive traditions and sources lying behind the Gospels: these are at best conjectural. Our argument is based upon existing documents, known to have been produced in the apostofic age and among those who had wit nessed the post-resurrection appearances. Cf. Jas. Orr, pp. 84-86. 2 St. John's witness as to the stone is indirect, in ch. xx. 20. Cf. Jas. Orr, ch. iv. 3 Ch. xxvii. 62-66. 4 No attempt is made to determine their precise temporal sequence. 6 St. Matt, xviii. 1; St. Mark xvi. 1-2. St. Matthew does not mention the spices. 6 St. Matt, xxviii. 2-4. THE EVIDENCE 185 3. The women found the tomb open1 and a young man sitting,2 who announced that Christ was not there but was risen, and bade them teU the Apostles that they would see Him in Galilee; 3 4. Christ appeared to the women after they had left the tomb and reiterated the message to the disciples.4 They then went and told the disciples,5 who disbeheved;6 5. The soldiers reported what they had seen to the chief priests, and were bribed to spread the story that the disciples stole their Master's body while they themselves slept; 7 6. Mary Magdalene, after finding the tomb empty, told Peter and John, who ran to the tomb and found the body gone, but the clothes lying there.8 John beheved; 9 7. Mary Magdalene, lingering at the tomb, saw two angels; 1 St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 5; St. Mark xvi. 5. St. Luke (xxiv. 1-3) adds that they found not the body. 2 So St. Mark xvi. 5. St. Matt, (xxviii. 2) says "the Angel of the Lord"; and St. Luke (xxiv. 4) speaks of two men standing in shining garments. 3 St. Matt, xxviii. 5-7; St. Mark xvi. 6-7. St. Luke xxiv. 5-8 changes this message to a reference to Christ's prediction of His resurrection when He was yet in Galilee. 4 St. Matt, xxviii. 9-10. 6 St. Mark's unfinished closing passage (xvi. 8) says that they told nothing to any man because they were afraid. That they did tell some one is implied, however, in the fact that their experi ence is given in this Gospel. The meaning may be that they told no one while going to the disciples. 6 St. Matt, xxviii. 8; St. Luke xxiv. 8-n. St. Matt, omits mention of disbelief. ' St. Matt, xxviii. 11-15. 8 Cf. p. 202, and n. 1, below. 9 St. John xx. 1-10. 186 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION and then Christ, at first mistaken for a gardener, ap peared to her. She went and told the disciples;1 8. Christ appeared to two disciples walking to Em- maus late that afternoon, and talked with them. They did not recognize Him until He broke bread with them. They went back to Jerusalem with their news, and learned that Christ had appeared to Simon;2 9. Christ appeared that evening to ten Apostles at Jerusalem, when He said "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye behold Me having," and ate before them;3 10. He appeared to the eleven, and convinced Thomas by showing him His wounds. Thomas acknowledged Him in consequence as his Lord and God;4 n. He appeared to seven disciples and conversed with them by the sea of Tiberias; 5 12. He appeared to the eleven in Galilee; 6 13. He appeared finaUy to the Apostles, and ascended into a cloud in their sight near Jerusalem, forty days after His resurrection.7 1 St. John xx. 11-18. Cf. S. Mark, app. xvi. 9-11. In St. Luke xxiv. 10, Mary Magdalene's experience seems to be merged in that of the other women. 2 St. Luke xxiv. 13-35. Cf. St. Mark, app. xvi. 12. 3 St. Luke xxiv. 36-43. Cf. St. John xx. 19-20, who does not mention the words quoted here, nor the eating, but says that the doors were shut when He appeared. 4 St. John xx. 26-29. Cf. St. Mark, app. xvi. 14. 6 St. John, app. xxi. 1-23. 8 St. Matt, xxviii. 16-17. Perhaps this corresponds with the appearance to five hundred at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. 7 St. Luke xxiv. 50-51; St. Mark, app. xvi. 19. Cf. Acts i. 6-11, in which St. Luke mentions the forty days — not elsewhere given. On the appearances in general, see B. F. Westcott, Revelation of THE EVIDENCE 187 § 8. If we receive these testimonies as worthy of credit, we shall readily deduce from them the con clusion that, on the third day after our Lord's death and burial, something happened which enabled Him to appear afive in flesh and bones to His dis ciples, and which involved the disappearance of His body from the tomb. No tenable inference can be made except that which the Apostles adopted and pro claimed, that on the third day our Lord rose in flesh from the dead. Postponing for the present the dis cussion of objections to this testimony, we proceed to mention certain confirmatory considerations. They do not constitute evidence, but they rightly deepen the confidence with which Christians accept the evidence as sufficient. The resurrection, as traditionally understood and described, fits in with other particulars of Christian beUef concerning God, concerning His purpose in creation and redemption, concerning the world- movement as subserving this purpose, and concern ing the present dispensation of saving grace. More than this, it throws a flood of light on aU these things, and seems to afford the keystone to the arch of truth over which we travel to God.1 In particular, its bodily aspect interprets and thus justifies the creation of matter, the spiritual purpose the Risen Lord; Henry Latham, chh. iv-xii; W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modern Thought, chh. vi-viii; H. B. Swete, op. cit.; E. Mangenot, La Resurrection de Jesus, Pt. II. ch. ii; Jas. Orr, pp. 86-92 and chh. v-vi. * Cf. ch. viii. || 5-8, below. 188 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION of which has been delayed in fulfilment by the weak ness of our spirits, induced by sin. It does this be cause it achieves the redemption of the body,1 and therefore is the pledge that our mishandled flesh wiU at last be renovated, transfigured and equipped for its eternaUy destined service in glory.2 It elevates the Manhood which the eternal Son assumed to the state which properly belongs to human nature when appropriated by Him, an exaltation which was de layed only in order that in the flesh He might ex perience our sorrows and redeem us by His death. And it completes the Redeemer's victory over death, a victory which was indispensable for the attainment of His purpose, but which would have been imperfect if the effects of death on the body had not been undone.3 It is also an indispensable introduction to the priesthood and saving work which our Lord's death had once for all made possible and consecrated. This is so because His priesthood, being designed for the benefit of creatures whose spiritual growth is conditioned by use of the flesh, depends for adapta tion to our needs upon His continued possession of the fulness of our nature. And the fulness of His glorified Manhood connects redemption with the sacramental dispensation, in which saving grace is imparted to us as mediated through His flesh and blood. Even if this language is figurative, the figure 1 Rom. viii. 23. 2 Cf. ch. vii. || n-12, below. 3 Cf. ch. hi. | 7, above. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE 189 is scriptural, and depends for suitableness upon the truth of its implied postulate, which is that the Be- stower of sacramental grace possesses that on which we are in some sense to feed, if we would have fife in ourselves.1 The belief in the resurrection is also justified by its observable effect upon the Apostles, who could hardly have exhibited the triumph of grace over weakness which they did display in their fives, if the belief upon which they ostensibly based their conduct was either insincere or the outcome of illusion. When we consider also that the doctrine of a bodily resur rection of the Lord has always been the nerve of the Christian propaganda, the supposition that this doctrine is not in accord with the event which it is declared to describe appears exceedingly unlikely. Such a supposition converts the success of Christian ity into an enigma, of which no solution can be im agined which a behever in divine providence can accept.2 III. Objections to the Evidence § 9. The Gospel narratives, we have seen, agree in the vital particulars that the body of Christ disap peared from the grave early in the morning of the third day, and that He appeared aHve in bodily 1 St. John vi. 48-58. Cf. ch. x. || 4, 8, below. Also H. L. Goudge, in Ch. Qly. Review, Jan., 1914, art. II. 2 See C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, IV; Malcolm MacColl, Christianity in Relation to Science and Morals, pp. 207-214. 190 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION form on various subsequent occasions. But these narratives vary in details,1 and it is objected that their variations destroy their evidential value. The time indications in certain cases are either too ob scure to interpret with certainty or insusceptible of mutual reconcfliation. The events of Easter morn ing, in particular, cannot be arranged in a harmony which can stand serious criticism; and the narrative of the third Gospel, if it stood alone, would lead us to suppose, it is said, that the ascension occurred on the day of the resurrection — a conclusion which is out of accord with several of the documents. Finally, according to certain of our witnesses, our Lord's post-resurrection appearances occurred chiefly, if not exclusively, in and near Jerusalem; but according to others, the Apostles did not see Him until, in obedi ence to His instructions, they had followed Him into Galilee. The mutual inconsistencies of detail are found chiefly in the accounts of the events of Easter morn ing, and this is perfectly natural. The ultimate sources of information concerning these events were testimonies from women who told their story under the stress of very great excitement. Each woman undoubtedly spread her own version of what hap pened; and that the traditions thus created, and at 1 The nature of these variations has been indicated in foot-notes in § 7, above. On how they are to be regarded, see W. Milhgan, pp. 56-62; Chas. Harris, pp. 490-492; J. Kennedy, pp. 131-133; T. Christheb, pp. 468-474; Jas. Orr, chh. v-vi. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE 191 last made use of by the Gospel writers, should vary in details was to be expected. But these variations are not greater than are often found in comparing sincere concurrent testimonies on the witness-stand. Amid them all there emerges a substantial agreement as to the reaUy significant particulars of the empty tomb, of an angelic message that Christ had risen, and of the Lord having been seen ahve. It is hyper critical to require more. These considerations also go far to explain the obscurity which hangs over the precise sequence of events. And it is to be remembered that the Gospels were not written as contributions to historical science. They are Gospels, designed to serve as memorials for the edification of believers. If they had been com posed for unbelievers, they would no doubt have been written differently; but even so, we should be foohsh, if we expected to find in them the kind of documents that modern negative critics desiderate. The statement that St. Luke makes the ascension to occur at the close of the day of the resurrection cannot be made good. The concluding part of his narrative bears aU the marks of a rapid survey of events in and near Jerusalem, from which time in dications are omitted.1 If aU the post-resurrection events there given had occurred within the same day, the ascension would have taken place long after dark — an absurdity. 1 See W. J. S. Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection, pp. 189-190; T. Christheb, pp. 470-471; J- Kennedy, pp. 79-80, 192 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION § 10. There remains to be considered the aUeged mutual opposition of traditions as to the locahty of our Lord's appearances to His disciples. It is main tained that the accounts given in the original Markan Gospel, and in St. Matthew, not only give no appear ances in Jerusalem after that to the women on Easter morning, but plainly imply that the disciples saw the risen Lord only in GaUlee. On the other hand, St. Luke and St. John describe several appearances in and near Jerusalem, and St. Luke, it is said, leaves no time for appearances in Galilee.1 That two mutually independent traditions, the Galflaean and Judaean, He behind these variations is a credible supposition, we admit. The original ex istence of such traditions seems very likely, for the Galflaean beHevers outside the apostolic band may for some time have had no knowledge of the Jerusa lem appearances, and the non-apostolic believers at Jerusalem may have been at first ignorant of the ap pearances in Galilee. In this case each tradition would quickly be crystalized on its own limited fines and, when reduced to writing, would seem to leave no place for the other. It is a reasonable hypothesis that each Gospel writer took over one or other of these traditions in its crystalized form; and that in the spirit of faithfulness to his source he preserved even those elements which impUed ignorance of any 1 This difficulty is ventilated by Stapfer, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and discussed by E. H. Day, pp. 9-16; W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., ch. ii; T. J. Thorburn, ch. ix. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE 193 other appearances than those given in the particular tradition made use of. If so, we have here one of several indications of the care which the Gospel writers usuaUy took to preserve in their integrity the earUest accounts of the events which they described. It does not foUow, however, that the substantial truth of one of these traditions involves a rejection of the other as unhistorical. At least it does not, un less the events aUeged in one tradition are demon strably inconsistent with those aUeged in the other. Granting that St. Luke's .report of the angelic mes sage is inconsistent with that of the other documents, this is a minor detail which does not at all close the question as to whether the two traditions can be reconciled in their fundamental particulars. Unless we disregard St. Luke's known habit of assembling in one uninterrupted narrative, and without a hint of time intervals, events which belonged to separate times and occasions, we are free to accept his exphcit testimony in the Acts, that forty days intervened between the resurrection and the ascension. This leaves over thirty days after the appearances in Jerusalem for the journey to Galilee and back to Jerusalem, and for the Galflaean appearances — an ample period of time for these events. The possibifity that both traditions are true is therefore evident. The only real problem that re mains is this: How can we reconcile the message to the disciples to meet the Lord in GaHlee, where it is impUed that they would first see Him, with His sub- 194 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION sequently appearing to them in Jerusalem, without waiting for their obedience to His directions? Surely the problem is not difficult. We are told that the disciples were incredulous. It is clear that they could not be persuaded that the message from Christ was genuine, and that their Master would meet them afive in GaHlee, until they had seen Him with their own eyes. Accordingly, the Lord condescended to their Hmitations, and convinced them by several appearances. Such an explanation is true to life; and it at once accounts for the Judaean appearances, and leaves sufficient time for those in Galilee. § n. A very different objection is that the aUeged appearances of our Lord were confined to His im mediate foUowers, whose interest in the vindication of His mission which His resurrection would afford was very strong. If Christ reaUy rose from the grave and desired to estabhsh the fact of this resur rection, which we are told was the purpose of His appearances, He would naturaUy have shown Him self, it is urged, to the people at large and to the rulers. But according to the Gospels He carefuUy kept Himself out of sight of the crowd, and neglected the most obvious means of estabHshing His claims. The result is that we have no disinterested testimony to the facts upon the reality of which befief in the resurrection depends.1 1 Discussed by B. F. Westcott, Revel, of the Risen Lord, pp. 10- 12; W. Milhgan, pp. 32-38; J. Kennedy, pp. 134-138; W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modern Thought, pp. 91-92. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE 195 If this objection is vahd, it leads to one or other of two conclusions: either that the disciples gave mendacious testimony, or that the so caUed appearances were illu sions — the vision theory. The former supposition is no longer seriously urged, because of its obvious inconsis tency with the lofty characters of the Apostles, now generaUy acknowledged. As to the vision theory, rea sons will be given in the next chapter for rejecting it as incredible. Both alternatives being rejected, therefore, we are led to the conviction that the objection upon which they are based is more specious than vaHd. Its appearance of vaHdity is due to the supposition that His showing Himself to His enemies would in His own judgment have convinced them, and would have been consistent with divine methods of self- revelation. Neither supposition can be estabUshed. The words which our Lord puts into the mouth of Abraham in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither wfll they be persuaded, if one rose from the dead," x clearly reveals His mind as to the utiUty of such a showing of Himself to His enemies as the objection under consideration looks to. Such a fact as the resurrection cannot by any manner of means be made apparent in its true nature and bearings except to those who are responding to the spiritual leading that has aheady been given them; and the evidence of the resurrection which has actuaUy been afforded has repeatedly, and in every age, exhibited its suf- 1 St. Luke xvi. 31. 196 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION ficiency for the persuasion of those who are spiritually susceptible to its appeal. There is an element of reserve in divine revelation, which determines the method of divine self-mani festation, and which forbids the casting of pearls of spiritual truth before carnaUy minded swine. This explains why our Lord could walk freely and openly among His enemies so long as He wore the humble guise pertaining to earthly human Ufe, but could not do so when His very appearance had become a chal lenge to spiritual discernment. It is by no means certain that His enemies could have seen the Lord, even if they had been in the upper room with the disciples when He appeared to them. We have yet to discuss the change which His body had undergone, and content ourselves at this point with the suggestion that it had become invisible to earthly eyes, except when such vision was aided by His grace; and His enemies were not then receptive of such aid. The conclusion of the matter is that the evidence of His resurrection which Jesus Christ afforded has proved sufficient for those who are open to persuasion as to its meaning, and could not from the nature of things have been adapted to really aUen minds. We cannot hope to-day, therefore, to convince the un- spiritual that the Lord rose hi flesh from the dead; but we need not on this account suspect the suf ficiency of the evidence that He did so.1 1 The recipients of the resurrection-testimony are on trial, rather than apostolic witnesses. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE 197 § 12. What has been said above, as to the un likelihood that our Lord's body could have been seen without spiritual aid after its resurrection change, bears also on an objection based upon the difficulty with which His own disciples recognized Him. It is urged that this difficulty throws suspicion on the cor rectness of their impression that they saw Him, and not a mere vision, or even some one else. For ex ample, if in spite of her previous intimacy with Christ the Magdalene could mistake Him for a gardener, is it not possible that her subsequent recognition of Him was equaUy at fault, the illusion being caused by some resemblance of voice and by the gardener happening to be one who knew her name? The two disciples who engaged in a long conversation with Christ, it is argued, must have been abnormally stupid to have failed to recognize Him until the moment of His disappearance, and such a disappear ance as they are said to have witnessed cannot be explained by any known physical laws.1 This last statement is certainly true. Purely physical laws do not account for certain phenomena connected with our Lord's appearances; and the readiness of the disciples to report them, in spite of the doubts which were sure to be created in the minds of others by the presence of such inexpHcable elements in their stories, points to the honesty of their testimony. The question at issue is the con- 1 On the difficulty of recognition, see W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 85-89. 198 THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION sistency of such abnormal phenomena with the in terpretation put upon them by those who witnessed them. That is, did the Lord reaUy appear in flesh? In facing this question we must reckon with all parts of the Gospel testimonies. We have no right to discuss the abnormal elements without their con text. Accordingly, if we accept the truthfulness of the witnesses when they teU of phenomena which transcend physical laws, we should do Hkewise when they describe the risen Christ as offering His body to be examined and touched, and as eating before them, in order to convince them that He had risen in real flesh and bones, recognizable as the same in which He was crucified. In brief, the testimony is equally positive as to two things: (a) that our Lord ap peared afive in ways that showed His possession of real flesh; (&) that His flesh had undergone mysteri ous changes which revealed themselves in abnormal phenomena, not susceptible of explanation by physi cal laws. The question, we repeat, is, Can these two things be reconciled? From the standpoint of naturafism, and of its conception of world-history, they obviously cannot; and we do not cherish the delusion that those who occupy such a standpoint can be convinced, so long as they retain it, by any evidence which can be presented. But the difficulty lies with the standpoint, and with the purely specula tive dogmatism which limits aU possible phenomena to what is explainable by purely physical laws. That this dogmatism begs the question at issue is perfectly clear. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE 199 The fact of the resurrection and the Christian doctrine of it stand or faU together. That is, the conception of history which caused the fact in ques tion to receive the interpretation which it has received in Christian doctrme, and which makes this doctrine credible, suppUes a standpoint from which justice can be done both to the physical and to the supernatural aspects of our Lord's resurrection. It does more. It enables us to perceive not only that the resurrec tion has a place in the world-drama which is su premely fitting and ifluminative of the whole, but also that the manner of its revelation to the disciples is in the truest harmony with the nature of the resur rection itself. That event was no mere resuscitation of flesh, al though the flesh was indeed raised from death. It was the exaltation of flesh to the state and power for which it was destined from the beginning — the earnest, the pledge and the enabling prius of what is to come. By the event of that Easter morn Jesus Christ became "the Firstfruits of them that are asleep." The credibflity of such an event is of the highest, not less so because it cannot be estabUshed by the methods of an agnostic naturalism. CHAPTER VII RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES I. Theories § i. We now come to the theories by which ra- tionaHsts have sought to explain away the evidence of the resurrection. And first of aU we consider the swoon theory, originaUy adopted by Paulus and the older rationaHsts, refuted by Strauss, and after a period of neglect revived again in our day. Accord ing to this theory, our Lord did not really die, but went into a protracted swoon, from which He was revived by the combined effect of the cool air of the tomb and the aromatic spices employed in His burial. It is urged that crucifixion would not nor maUy cause death so soon as is reported in His case, and that instances are known in which victims of crucifixion have been revived after supposed death.1 The answer is threefold. In the first place, the evidence of our Lord's death seemed sufficient to His 1 Cf. ch. v. § i, above. The swoon theory was advanced by Paulus, Exegetisches Handbuch, iii. It was urged by Thos. Huxley also. See Christianity and Agnosticism, pp. 76-80 (cf. pp. 147 ff.). It is criticised by T. Christheb, pp. 455-457; E. H. Day, pp. 45-50; W. Milhgan, pp. 76-80; T. J. Thorbum, pp. 183-185; W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 43-44. THEORIES 20 1 watchful enemies, in spite of the quickness of it, and was made sure by the piercing of His side. The en suing flow of blood and water from the wound is taken by medical authorities to prove death by broken heart.1 It was not surprising that He died so soon, in view of His having been without food from the previous evening, and having undergone so much mental as well as physical suffering in the interval. We have to remember also that it was His will to die for mankind; so that the wfll to Hve, which explains the lingering quaHty of many deaths, was not op erative in Him after He had finisfied drinking His appointed cup of pain. In the second place, assuming for argument's sake that He did not die on the Cross, the supposition that He was sufficiently revived by the cool air and spices to roU away the stone and depart is highly incredible, in view of aU He had suffered. The cases of recovery appealed to are explained by the careful nursing of friends, whereas He was left to Himself. Moreover, under the most favourable conditions, such recovery as was needed in His case before He could leave the tomb would require more time than was available — a scant forty hours — between His removal from the Cross and His disappearance from the tomb. Finally, the events and appearances which followed His departure from the tomb cannot be explained by 1 See Wm. Stroud, Physical Cause of the Death of Christ; R. W. Dale, Atonement, pp. 462-465 (note D); Alex. R. Simpson, in Ex positor, Oct. 1911, art. II. 202 RPVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES the swoon theory. His clothes were found in the tomb, lying in positions suggestive of His body hav ing exhaled through them, as it were, a fact which appears to have convinced St. John of a miraculous resurrection.1 The idea that one recovering from a deep swoon caused by protracted suffering and severe wounds could extricate Himself from His wrappings and, if He could, would wander forth naked, is not tenable. Then we find Him undertaking a considerable journey on foot to Emmaus, and appearing to His disciples the same evening in Jerusalem again. Those who saw Him on that day seemed to find evidences of supernatural power in His bearing and actions, rather than the ghastly state and weakness of one who had just emerged from a frightful swoon and who retained the limitations of mortaHty and cor- ruptibiHty. FinaUy, we have the observed fact of His ascension. If the swoon theory were true, His final disappearance must have been very different — by natural death, either among His disciples or in some place of retirement. It is clear that the Gospel narratives forbid the acceptance of the swoon theory, which can be made to seem credible only on the supposition that these narratives are false in fundamental particulars. § 2. We come to the theft theory, which, according to the first Gospel, was spread abroad by the soldiers at the bidding of the Jewish chief priests and elders, 1 St. John xx. 6-8. Cf. H. Latham, chh. i-iii, THEORIES 203 It is said that our Lord's body was stolen from the tomb by His disciples, whfle the soldiers slept.1 Even if we assume that the soldiers beheved this, their own testimony shows that they did not see the disciples remove the body. Finding the tomb empty, they made the unsupported inference that the disciples were responsible for the disappearance. Against their inference we have the lofty character of the Apostles, who would have been incapable of basing their whole ministry on a He. And the sup position that the moral and spiritual triumphs of Christianity are based upon falsehood is incredible. The emptiness of the tomb has sometimes been explained by suggesting that the Jews removed the body. This supposition raises grave difficulties in the sphere of bibfical criticism; but the conclusive answer to it is that, if it were true, the Jews would have produced the body as an effectual confutation of the apostolic assertion of the resurrection.2 The supposition that Joseph of Arimathea removed it3 does not chaUenge serious consideration. The same is to be said of the theory that the soldiers removed the body.4 No adequate motive can be suggested. 1 St. Matt, xxviii. 11-15. See E. H. Day, pp. 25-29; W. Mil-. hgan, pp. 80-81; T. J. Thorbum, pp. 191-199; W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modem Thought, pp. 40-43. 2 SeeC.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ,pp. 69-71. 3 So Arnold Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, p. 118; and O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, according to W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 42-43. 4 Offered by Mr. Rolleston, in Hibbert Journal, Apr., 1906. 204 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES Finally, there is the idea that the women came to the wrong tomb, and in their excitement miscon strued the young man's attempt to explain, "He is not here. . . . See the place where they laid Him," pointing to another tomb.1 In suggesting this, Dr. Lake is obviously governed by a doctrinal precon ception as to the non-physical nature of the resur rection. He does not pretend that his suggestion is supported by evidence, and it violates intrinsic prob abilities. The women were not in a frame of mind to jump at the conclusion that Christ had risen from the dead, and would not have done so, if the mes sage had not been too clear to be misunderstood. Moreover, we have to reckon with the subsequent finding of our Lord's clothes in the tomb. § 3. The theory that the appearances of our Lord represent so many visions conjured up by the highly wrought feelings of the disciples has been too thoroughly discussed in current Hterature to require more than the briefest attention here.2 It is said to be supported by the fact that St. Paul coordinates the appearances before the ascension with his own experience on the road to Damascus; and this, it 1 So Kirsopp Lake,.Hist. Evid. for the Resurrection, pp. 246-253. Answered by W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 45-46; Jas. Orr, pp. 129-131. 2 Discussed by T. Christheb, pp. 457-503; C. A. Row, Christian Evidences, Lee. vii; W. Milhgan, pp. 81-114; W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 100-115; E. H. Day, pp. 51-58; T. J. Thorburn, pp. 128-136, 185-188; Jas. Orr, pp. 219-226. This theory was supported by Strauss, Renan and Jas. Martineau. THEORIES 205 is urged, was a vision.1 The disciples are also said to have been influenced by their reading of Old Testament prophecy and by Christ's own prediction that He would rise again on the third day.2 The contention that St. Paul saw only a vision on his way to Damascus cannot be made good. He clearly distinguishes between this experience and certain other experiences which he recognizes to be visions, and of his competence to discriminate between visions and real appearances there can be no rea sonable doubt. Moreover, the physical effect of the appearance, — blindness, — while explainable by his having actuaUy seen the glory of the Lord, cannot be accounted for by a mere subjective vision. The supposition that the disciples could have been led to expect then Master's resurrection from the tomb by the study of Old Testament prophecy, before the estabhshed fact of this resurrection had given them the clue, is incredible in view of the mental revolution required for such insight under the then conditions of Jewish thought. Old Testament proph ecy on this subject derives what clearness it now seems to some to have from its fulfilment,3 and the 1 Cf. ch. vi. | 5, fin., above. 2 Certainly in St. Mark viii. 31; ix. 9. 30-31; x. 32-34; and parallels. Other instances are disputed by modern critics. Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., ch. i. 3 Neither the story of Jonah nor Hos. vi. 2, — "After two days He wih revive us; In the third day He will raise us up, and we shall hve in His sight" — would have been thus understood before the resurrection. Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 53-57. 206 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES disciples were not expecting the resurrection, the Gospels being witness. The state of mind to which the Apostles were reduced by our Lord's crucifixion was not that which is productive of ready befief in resurrection appear ances. They had not seriously considered Christ's own predictions of His resurrection because they were preoccupied with the difficulty of relating His death to the idea of the Messiah's triumph; and therefore they could see no way out from the despondency into which they were thrown by the crucifixion.1 The obstinate increduhty with which they received the women's testimony is entirely inconsistent with susceptibility to visions of the Lord Himself. Then, too, they were hard-headed peasants, whose imaginations were limited to the normal events of natural experience. Again, there is a particularity and coherence in the narratives of the appearances which is not to be found in accounts of visions. The touch, the eating and drinking, and the protracted conversations, all suggest objective appearances. Furthermore, visions are not normaUy experienced coincidently and on the same lines by gatherings of people. The appearance to five hundred at once stands whoUy outside the known compass of visions. FinaUy, there is the definite cessation of the appearances at the end of forty days, with the withdrawal of Christ into Heaven. The appearance to St. Paul was as 1 Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 8-n. THEORIES 207 from Heaven, and constitutes an event which is entirely consistent with this final withdrawal from the world. § 4. The theory of Keim, that the appearances were objective visions "granted directly by God and by the glorified Christ," and designed to convince the disciples that then Master was fiving on in the spirit world, but not in their apparent materiality agreeing with the glorified Lord's actual state, is hopelessly discredited by the divine deceit which it involves.1 Our Lord's appeal to His possession of flesh and bones was either based upon His then having the flesh in which He died, or was deceptive. It was calculated to persuade, and did persuade, the disciples that He had reafly risen in flesh from the tomb; and the faith of the Church from that day to this is grounded in the assertion that such a resurrection took place. If Keim is right, the basis of the Church's faith and triumphs is a blunder, and one of divine causation. Surely, if God's purpose was to convince the disciples that their Master Hved on in a non- bodily state, a more iUuminating and less mislead ing method of revealing this could have been 1 See W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., pp. 115-122; E. D. la Touche, Person of Christ, pp. 314, 321-323; W. Milhgan, pp. 114-119; E. H. Day, pp. 44-45; T. J. Thorbum, pp. 136-140, 189-191; Jas. Orr, pp. 226-231. The theory is supported in modified form by B. H. Streeter, Foundations, pp. 127-141; and K. Lake, Hist. Evid. for the Resurrection, pp. 270-272. Other refs. to its sup porters are given by Simpson, p. 115. 208 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES employed.1 Moreover, the empty grave has to be accounted for; and no credible explanation of it has been given except the apostoHc doctrine of our Lord's resurrection in flesh on the third day. II. Some Difficulties § 5. Natural science is supposed by many to have established the impossibflity of renewal of Hfe in a human body after it has once been extinguished by death. This supposition, however, is based upon misapprehension. Natural science is not concerned with defining possibilities, but with describing the phenomena of normal experience — such phenom ena, that is, as can be generalized in terms of natural law. And a natural law is merely a descrip tion of how things are observed to happen under the operation of given natural factors and conditions. 1 Sir Oliver Lodge, in his Raymond, F. W. H. Myers, in Person ality, and others regard the phenomena of spiritism as proofs of survival after death. Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., ch. xxxi; Jas. Orr, pp. 28-30. The subject cannot be discussed here, except to say that mere personal survival falls far short of the requirements of Christian immortality. Attempts have also been made to in terpret the resurrection appearances as spiritistic manifestations. But such phantom-like appearances neither agree with the Gospel narratives nor are of the kind which can explain the wonderful change in apostolic minds and characters of which the New Testa ment gives evidence. See T. J. Thorbum, pp. 188-189, who refers to Dr. Crowell's Primitive Christianity and Modern Spiritualism. For the spiritistic point of view, see E. M. Duff and T. G. Allen, Psychic Research and Gospel Miracles, esp. pp. 280-289. Cf. also C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, VIII. SOME DIFFICULTIES 209 Whether or no these factors and conditions make up the sum total of possible determinants of events in the physical sphere under consideration, is a ques tion which cannot be answered by natural science; for its self-chosen function is simply to give a general ized description of observed natural tendencies. If the accepted scientific postulate is valid, that the same unhindered causes always produce the same effects, natural science can indeed say this much, that the renewal of the fife of a human body after death does not happen under the causal conditions, exclusively considered, with which its generaHza tions are concerned. In brief, it can say that such an event as our Lord's resurrection in flesh cannot be accounted for by normal or natural causes. In other words, it constitutes a miracle, or an event the cause of which transcends the physical factors which natural science can scrutinize and describe. This witness of science supplements in a valuable way the evidence for the fact of the resurrection. It does so because it supports the apostolic teaching that the event in question was due to divine inter vention, and therefore has a unique spiritual signifi cance for human history. The denial that the resurrection could have hap pened, as elsewhere shown in these pages, is not scientific, but has its source in the a priori and specu lative philosophy called naturafism.1 And such plausibifity as the denial seems to have is derived 1 In ch. vi. | 1. 210 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES whoUy from the mechanical conception of world- history to which naturahsm is committed. When the bibHcal and Christian conception of the world as ministering to a larger divine drama is accepted, miracles are seen to be inevitable, although exceptional, events in human history, and the Incarnation and resurrection become the most significant and rational events of aU. It should be observed that the appeal here made is not to sheer omnipotence, divorced from the reason of things, but to a more adequate conception of history than naturahsm can afford. An exclusively mechanical sequence of world-events can have no meaning, and must nuUify every worthy aspiration of human nature. On the other hand, the conception of history in which the resurrection finds place imparts to fife a meaning which makes it worth fiving, and enables us better to understand the place and fimction of the present physical order in the larger plan of God. § 6. Some people, who find no difficulty in accept ing the evidence that our Lord rose from the dead, are baffled by the account of an appearance of Christ to His disciples when the doors of the room in which they were assembled were shut. The impHcation that His body gained entrance by passing through soUd matter seems to them to be hopelessly incon sistent with the nature, of matter. They are there fore led to deny the material nature of our Lord's resurrection body, in spite of His own recorded words, SOME DIFFICULTIES 211 "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye behold Me having." 1 The impenetrabflity of matter is assumed to be a scientific axiom which is not open to ques tion; and its violation is thought to be outside the range of possibiHties to which omnipotence is rationaUy appUcable. It should be acknowledged that omnipotence has no meaning except in relation to the possible — to effects which come within the compass of power as such.2 But there are two ways of meeting the difficulty under consideration: (a) by facing the real meaning of impenetrability as ascribed to mat ter; and (b) by reckoning with recent discoveries and speculations concerning the constitution of matter. The matter which is declared by the older physical scientists to be impenetrable is solid matter. Prop erly understood, the doctrine is that one solid body cannot penetrate another solid body. But it has long been known to scientists that the bodies which we see are not sofid. They are to be likened to planetary systems, containing an immense number of small atoms in constant movement, the spaces between these atoms being much larger than the spaces which they occupy. Moreover, the inter vening spaces can be enlarged by heat, so as to break up even the appearance of solidity, and to permit the mutual permeation of bodies once apparently 1 St. Luke xxiv. 39. 2 Cf. Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 277-279. 212 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES solid in liquid and gaseous states. And every time a chemist combines two so called sofids of different kinds so as to produce a new substance he causes them to penetrate each other. Whatever may be the truth of the contention that the ultimate con stituents of matter are impenetrable — a question to be dealt with soon — so far from visible bodies like human flesh, wooden doors and stone walls being essentially impenetrable, even human power is equal to the task of manipulating them into mutu aUy penetrable states. And nature is doing the same thing whenever the corpuscles thrown off by radio-active substances penetrate the soUd (?) bodies with which they seem to colfide. It wfll perhaps be urged that to change the state and form of two bodies and then to bring about mutual penetration is one thing, whereas to cause one body to pass through another without altering the form .and constitution of either is another and more difficult thing.1 So far as our power is con cerned this is undoubtedly so; but when once it is acknowledged that visible bodies are not really solid, and that under observable conditions they become mutually penetrable, we can no longer urge the im- penetrabifity of matter as a reason for saying that the Lord of matter could not carry human flesh through closed doors. 1 It should be remembered that our Lord's body had been changed, although not necessarily in the manner meant in the argu ment under consideration. SOME DIFFICULTIES 213 If the resurrection narrative is true, our Lord's entrance into the closed room was the passage of one system of eddying particles through another system of the same kind. It was the writer's privi lege some years ago to see two military companies march through each other at right angles, without disturbance of ranks in either company. This was made possible by masterly control of soldierly move ments. There was no collision, and no mutual penetration of solids. Could not God, if there were sufficient reason, in the exercise of His aU-sovereign control, cause one planetary system to pass through another without confusing either system? If so, why could He not for sufficient reason cause two systems of atoms, such as a human body and a closed door, to pass through each other? He is central to every atom, and aU motion is caused and controUed by Him. The miracle in question, therefore, Hes within the compass of His power; and sufficient reason alone is needed to make its occurrence credible. The question remains as to whether the ultimate constituents of matter are essentiaUy impenetrable. If they are so, this is either because they are really soUd substances or because, like points, they have no dimensions within which penetration could be achieved. If the latter hypothesis be adopted, are we not reducing matter to spirit? Is a body without dimensions material? Furthermore, are not both penetrabflity and impenetrability as inappHcable to such a substance as large and smaU are to spirit? 214 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES The former hypothesis would seem to be the only reasonable one, but it is made doubtful by recent investigations and speculations connected with radio active substances. Whether the ultimate constit uents of matter are soUds, or mere strains in asther, is now a problem. If they are the latter, they may be mutuaUy penetrable in a manner analogous to the mutual pentration of crossing waves at sea — an event which leaves each sea distinct.1 These considerations are not advanced as an at tempt to define how our Lord could bring a real human body into a closed room. Of this we are ignorant. Our purpose is to show how unwarranted are the assertions concerning the intractibility and impenetrability of material bodies upon which dis belief in the physical resurrection of Christ is often based. 'And what we have shown in this section has important bearing on the question of the fitness of a material body for our personal functioning and self-expression in the life of the world to come.2 § 7. St. Luke testifies that our Lord ate before His disciples after the resurrection, and reports St. Peter as saying in his sermon before Cornelius that our Lord's disciples "did eat and drink with 1 See J. Orr, pp. 197-202, who refers to Stallo, Concepts of Mod em Physics, pp. 91-92, 178-182. On recent investigations into the constitution of matter, see Creation and Man, pp. 91-94; R. K. Duncan, The New Knowledge; W. C. D. Whetham, Recent development of Phys. Science, ch. vii. 2 Considered in || 11-12 of this chapter. SOME DIFFICULTIES 215 Him after He rose from the dead." x It is objected that such an action would be incongruous with the incorruptible and immortal state into which our Lord is supposed to have entered, a state in which material sustenance would be unnecessary, and in which there would no longer be any place for nutri tive functioning. The inference is made that either St. Luke's record is erroneous or the eating was an ob jective vision, such as is hypothecated by Keim in his theory of the post-resurrection appearances in general. The impossibility of accepting Keim's theory without ascribing deceit to the Lord of truth — an incredible hypothesis — has aheady been shown; 2 and the trustworthiness of St. Luke's narratives in general is now weU estabUshed.3 Only an a priori standpoint which begs the question can afford even a show of excuse for rejecting the part of his testi mony which is under consideration. That our Lord was no longer dependent upon physical nourishment certainly appears to be true; and the purpose of His eating was undoubtedly evidential. But what He sought to prove was expressed in His words, "It is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye behold Me having." 4 In brief, He offered the 1 St. Luke xxiv. 41-43; Acts x. 41. 2 In | 4 of this chapter. 3 W. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller; Was Christ Born in Beth lehem? Cath. Encyc, s. v. "Luke," VI; Hastings, Die of Bible, s. v. " Acts of the Apostles," ix; R. J. Knowling, Acts (Expositor's Greek Test.). 4 St. Luke xxiv. 39. 216 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES reahty of His flesh, shown by appeal to their senses and by His eating, as evidence that their crucified Master was alive before them. If what was shown was either an unreal phantom, or not truly His own flesh, — not the flesh by which they had been accustomed to identify Him, — Christ could not have acted sincerely in offering it as proof of His identity and of His resurrection from the tomb. It is clearly illogical for one who accepts the Gospel narrative to infer that, because our Lord's body had become independent of physical nourishment, it had also become incapable of receiving material food when its Owner so willed. Our knowledge of resurrection life, and of the functions of the glorified body therein, is too shght for us to dogmatize as to the part which our bodily organs may or may not be able to fulfil in the world to come. The fact that the resurrection body is incorruptible seems to point to some changes in organic functioning, but that these changes involve absolute atrophy, and the loss of previous bodily organs, we have no warrant for asserting. It is possible, so far as anything can be advanced to the contrary, that our bodily organisms have been developed by God with as much reference to heavenly functions as to earthly ones. To suggest one among other possibilities in this direction, so far as we know, the mutual recognition of human spirits is invariably conditioned by their bodily frames; and no reason, other than an unwarranted denial of the SOME DIFFICULTIES 217 fitness of matter for spiritual use, can be given for supposing that this law wfll not hold good hereafter. But if the bodily frame needs to be retained in the future world, its organized parts appear also to have abiding value. An entire atrophy of bodily organs seems to be inconsistent with maintenance of a recognizable bodily frame. Our argument does not, however, depend upon speculative conjectures as to the way in which our bodies may be useful to us hereafter. What we are maintaining is this. The frequent assertion that our bodily organism is unsuited to the changed conditions of heavenly Hfe, and therefore not divinely intended to have part therein, is based, so far as there is any other basis than a priori dogmatism, upon a precarious and unverified inference from the limitations which attend, and are appropriate to, this earthly and transitional stage in the develop ment of human nature. As against the positive evidence that Christ revealed Himself as "having" flesh and bones after His resurrection, such an infer ence should be rejected by aU who seriously accept the resurrection narratives. § 8. The problem of our Lord's post-resurrection clothing has been handled by certain writers as if its solution involved inferences contrary to our Lord's possession of His crucified flesh after the res urrection.1 According to the Gospel evidence, the 1 E.g. Robert Vaughan, in Church Quarterly Review, Jan., 1916, pp. 352 et seq. 218 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES clothes in which the body of Christ was buried were left in the tomb by Him. That He appeared to have clothing after the resurrection will be disputed by no one. Whence, then, did He obtain this clothing? And was it a real and abiding apparel, or was it a passing projection from His Person, an objective vision, appropriate in each several case to the particular circumstances of His self-manifestation? The latter supposition has been ventilated, and made the basis of the conjecture that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene as wearing a gardener's apparel, and to others under changed circumstances as differ ently clothed. The general conclusion has been adopted that the appearances, both of His body and of His clothing, were economic, having evidential purpose only. The reafity was in the manifestation, apart from which Christ was invisible spirit. And this conclusion is thought to be supported by the difficulty with which the disciples recognized their risen Master — as if, for example, the form of mani festation to the disciples on the road to Emmaus was different from that in which they finally recog nized Him. The proposition is laid down that our Lord possessed no static form,1 but that His self- visualization in external form was a passing act of His Person. This position has been maintained in a reverent spirit, and with commendable desire to avoid mate- 1 E.g. by B. F. Westcott, in Gospel of the Resurrection, pp. 144- 146. SOME DIFFICULTIES 219 riafistic conceptions. But it is not essentiaUy different from Keim's objective vision theory,1 and its logic is not less fatal in the end to reverence for the char acter of the risen Lord because of the spirit and motive with which it has been set forth. Our Lord appeared to His disciples in a manner calculated to persuade them that He possessed real flesh, the flesh in which He was crucified, although manifestly changed so as to be brought into entire subjection to His spirit. His body had also disappeared from the tomb. And he confirmed the impression which such a mode of self-manifestation, and the emptiness of the tomb, were likely to produce by expressly emphasizing the reality of His flesh and of the scars which His wounds had left in it. On the assurance of a physical resurrection thus inevitably created the Church has ever since grounded her faith. Surely the Lord foresaw this result; and if the impression which determined the Apostles' faith was mistaken, He wittingly caused the mistake. In plain terms, He deceived them — an impossible supposition for those who befieve in His Person. The difficulty of recognition was not due to a dematerialization of His body, but to its glorifica tion and to the subjection of its conditions of visi bility to His masterful will. This sovereignty over the flesh is one in which our own glorified spirits are destined to have subordinate share. Under its glorified or pneumatical conditions, flesh is not 1 Discussed in § 4 of this chapter. 220 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES normaUy visible to those who are stfll subject to earthly limitations of vision; but the Lord of glory was able to overcome this difficulty in the case of His spirituaUy trained disciples. The appearances, in brief, were miraculous manifestations of trans figured flesh to those who were stfll Hmited by the laws of earthly vision. But they were real manifesta tions of real flesh, if the testimony of the Lord Himself is to be accepted. The problem of His clothes is a curious question, which need not trouble us. Whether He created new clothing, borrowed it, or even caused an objec tive vision of clothing, is not vital to determine. Either supposition might be true. But in neither case could the element of deception enter; for the subject-matter of His manifestation was not clothing but His risen bo,dy, the fleshly nature and identity of which was expHcitly set forth by Him as evidence for the beUef which He aimed to estabhsh. And this behef was not that He had survived death in the realm of spirit, but that He had conquered death by reanimating His flesh and by exalting it to con ditions appropriate to His possession and subsequent use of it. III. Flesh and Spirit § 9. The rest of the chapter will be devoted to the general problem of the fitness of flesh for the future life and functioning of human spirits in glory. The relevance of such a discussion to the subject FLESH AND SPIRIT 221 arises from the fact that, apart from certain unique aspects of His resurrection, He has thereby become "The Firstfruits of them that are asleep." It is obvious that our ideas of the possibilities of our own future life will have determinative influence upon our interpretation of our Lord's self-manifesta tion after His resurrection. Two obstacles to this discussion have to be faced and removed, however, before its data can be correctly mterpreted. The first of these is the oft-repeated assertion that behef in our possession of real flesh hereafter is materiahstic. It is made in some cases by writers who are too lofty minded to be guilty of intentional resort to an appeal to popular prejudice. But more frequently it represents an argumentum ad invidiam; and the assertion is almost invariably made without sufficient examination of its grounds and impHcations. Materiafism has for its definitive mark a denial of the reafity and function of spirit, and the assertion that all things and events are aspects and manifestations of matter and motion. The term "materialistic" is also extended in applica tion to describe any philosophy, opinion or working principle of conduct which either excludes spiritual realities and factors or in logical effect dethrones the spiritual from the determinative place and function which it ought to have in the universe and in human life. Presumably the contention that behef in our re covery and use of flesh in the world to come is mate- 222 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES riafistic rests upon the supposition that such a beHef, if true, enthrones matter in the place which should be occupied by spirit — at least reduces that triumph of spirit, the expectation of which gives Christians their courage to bear the sufferings and limitations of this Ufe. No Christian behever infers from the indisputable fact that our spirits now exist in the flesh, and that then personal functioning and self- expression is organically conditioned, that therefore the doctrine of creation and providence by which these conditions are theologically accounted for is materialistic. Even the observed subservience of human spirits to the flesh does not lead us to such a conclusion. What saves us from being thus misled is the gen erally available and sufficient evidence that, even in this stage of the world-drama, the true purpose of things in general, and the trend of events as a whole, is spiritual. We are learning more conclu sively every day that matter and material forces are created for the use of spirit, and are, in fact, spirit ually useful when rightly regarded and employed.1 Man's progress lies in learning how to use matter for the purposes of spirit, and in practising the art of such use with divine assistance and holy self- discipline. The spiritual nature of Christianity Ues neither in the elimination of the material and exter nal nor in an asceticism which treats the flesh as 1 Creation and Man, pp. 83-84; J. R. Dhngworth, Divine Immanence, ch. i. FLESH AND SPIRIT 223 evil in se, but in the progress which it makes possible in utflizing the flesh and aU material things and forces for spiritual ends. These things being so, and spiritual interests being fostered by our divinely intended and assisted sub jection of matter and flesh to the spirit, we may not consider beHef in the personal union of flesh and spirit hereafter to be materiahstic. We may not do so, unless it can be shown that the subjection of flesh to the spirit in a personal Hfe determined and controUed by the spirit is merely a passing ideal, the continuance of which in the world to come would mean the triumph of flesh instead of the sovereignty of spirit. This has never been shown. In fact, the need of showing it is usuaUy overlooked by those who describe the traditional Christian doctrine of resurrectio carnis as materialistic. We are justified in adding that the accusation of materialistic con ceptions is more applicable to those who ascribe to the flesh an intractible might that precludes the completion under higher conditions of that subjec tion of it to the spirit to which creation points and which Christians are learning even in this world partly to achieve. According to Christian doctrme, we are now fitting ourselves for a life in which the redemption of the body, and its endowment with incorruption and glory, will make possible our perfect spiritual utiliza tion of the flesh for personal ends. It is true that we cannot adequately imagine the manner in which 224 RIVAL THEORIES AND DIFFICULTIES glorified spirits will employ the flesh in the world to come; but, as we shall try to show, we have sufficient indications that the tie which unites flesh and spirit in personal functioning is neither anti- spiritual in itself nor of merely passing purpose and value. § 10. The second obstacle to a correct interpre tation of the appearances of our Lord's risen body is the supposition that St. Paul excludes flesh from having part in the resurrection. That this supposi tion is erroneous has been shown in the previous chapter.1 And we are inclined to think that the notion which we have just been combating — that the doctrine of a resurrection of real flesh is material istic — largely explains the readiness of certain writers who have no sympathy with rationalistic criticism to ascribe a contrary view to St. Paul. We venture to give again the determinative elements of his argument, so far as germane to the question before us. These elements are three, (a) The first is his distinction between the body as we now have it, cr5>pa tyvxiKov, and the body as it will be in glory, p.a i/wxikoV to a trcopa m>evp,a.TiK6v, to a body brought into entire subjection to its inhabiting irvevp.a or spirit. It was changed, again, from a state of dishonour, weakness, corruptibility and mortality to one of glory, power, incorruption and immortality, death being swallowed up in endless Ufe.2 These changes are conventionaUy summed up under four heads: (a) subtlety, or entire subjection 1 Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 20-23. 2 Cf. 2 Cor. v. 4. 240 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION to, and facile and plastic utility for, its inhabiting spirit; x (b) agility, or unwearied energy or activity; 2 (c) impassibility, or exemption from every form of pain and from death;3 (d) glory, or transfiguration and external fitness for the functions of personal self-expression.4 In this state of our Lord's risen body, the eternally intended dignity and spiritual purpose of the human body is first fuUy actuaUzed and fulfilled; and the primary significance of the creation of matter is thereby revealed.5 § 3. The event of our Lord's resurrection and glorification signified for him (a) His justification and (b) His reward. When considered in connection with other relevant circumstances, the resurrection can be seen to vin dicate the claim and mission of Christ, and therefore His character and teaching. The mere fact of resurrection from the dead, when considered by itself, cannot prove that the one who rises is all that Christ is believed to be; but the factual and didactic context of His resurrection gives it a definitive and evidential value which is far greater than that of 1 1 Cor. xv. 44. 2 1 Cor. xv. 43, It is raised in power. 3 1 Cor. xv. 42, 52-53; Revel, xxi. 4. 4 St. Matt. xiii. 43; Dan. xii. 3. On these changes and proper ties, see St. Thomas, III. liv.-lv. 2 (cf. III. suppl. Ixxxhi-lxxxvhi); W. Milhgan, Resurrection of our Lord, pp. 7-14; Ascension, pp. 15-20; H. P. Liddon, Easter in St. Paul's, pp. 80-83; D- Stone, pp. 101-102; B. F. Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, pp. 156- 164. 6 Cf. Col. i. 15-17. Creation and Man, pp. 83-84. IN RELATION TO CHRIST HIMSELF 241 any other miracle. It is a miracle the lack of which would not only nullify beHef in His having achieved redemption by His death on the Cross, but would have reduced His whole manifestation to a baffling enigma — as indeed His own disciples found it to be after His crucifixion, until the resurrection supphed the needed 'key to its solution.1 The relevant circumstances which impart to the resurrection its flluminative and evidential value faU under three heads: (a) His prima facie moral perfection; (b) His claims; (c) His teaching. (a) That He impressed His foUowers as both free from sin and possessed of a combination of moral and spiritual perfections never previously witnessed among men, is apparent to every serious reader of the Gospels.2 Of the union in Him of entire sincerity and unique sanity and wisdom aU were convinced who came into reaUy intimate contact with Him; so that His most difficult sayings, while dumfounding the understanding of His disciples, did not destroy 1 Cf. St. Luke xxiv. 18-24. Modernists who seek to interpret the hfe of Christ without taking account of the resurrection, and to divorce the Easter message from the Easter fact (cf. Harnack, What is Christianity? with A. E. J. Rawlinson, Dogma, Fact and Experience, pp. 22-32) can escape the same confusion of mind only by mutilating the Gospel records, and by reducing the meaning of the Easter message. See Jas. Orr, pp. 23-26. 2 On His sinless perfection, see The Incarnation, ch. viii. || 4-8; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 163-198; D. Stone, pp. 77-81; E. D. la Touche, op. cit., pp. 232-248; Hastings, Die of Christ, s. v. "Character of Christ"; Chas. Harris, Pro Fide, pp. 359-366, 388-400. 242 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION their conviction that His words were in any case words of life.1 (b) These words included assertions concerning Himself that would have come unnaturaUy from any mere man, and would therefore have appeared inconsistent with moral perfection even in a prophet, unless He were more than a prophet. Yet they seemed to be perfectly natural to Him, and did not upset the confidence of His disciples in His truthful humility. But it was a vital part of the impression which His character and claims produced upon their minds that as the promised Messiah and Redeemer He should triumph gloriously. His crucifixion, there fore, seemed to be a stultifying sequel to their pre vious experience of Him,2 and they were reduced by it to the extremest confusion of mind and despond ency, until the event of His resurrection at once vindicated His claim and revealed the redemptive meaning of His death. (c) The resurrection recalled to their minds the predictions of it which Christ had made before His death — predictions which they had neither under stood nor even attended to, because of their inability to take seriously His prediction of the crucifixion.3 Once recaUed, these predictions now became clear 1 St. John vi. 68. 2 Cf. Peter's recoil from Christ's prediction of His death, St. Matt. xvi. 21-22. Also St. Mark x. 32-34. 6 Their memories were assisted by Christ Himself. St. Luke xxiv. 44-46. Cf. verses 6-8, the accuracy of which, however, is rejected by some critics. IN RELATION TO CHRIST HIMSELF 243 evidences that then Friend had been pursuing a coherent purpose from the outset, and that this purpose — first made intelligible to them by His victory over death — was grander and more signifi cant of His rank in being than they had previously been able to imagine. AU these things taken together led inevitably to the conclusion that His resurrection had declared Him to be "the Son of God with power," one whom they might adore as Lord and God without abandon ment of beUef in the unity of God.1 Thus each element of His teaching that had seemed a "hard saying" when uttered by Him,2 was afforded a back ground which vindicated its truth and threw dazzling Hght upon its meaning. Thenceforth Jesus Christ was confessed as Lord in a sense not susceptible of enhancement,3 in a sense which inspired the dis ciples to dare aU things and to die with a courageous confidence which has been communicated to suc ceeding generations, and which is stfll the basis of hope for aU the ends of the earth. The modernist regards the miracle of the resurrec tion as an obstacle to faith, because he regards it exclusively in relation to the natural course of events. The traditional Christian, on the other hand, finds it to be the primary support of his befief in Jesus Christ, because he views it in relation to the redemptive drama and self-manifestation of the eternal Son of 1 Rom. i. 4; St. John xx. 28. 2 E.g. cf. St. John vi. 60. 3 The Incarnation, pp. 42-46. 244 ' THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION God, of which it is a vital part and the iUuminative cUmax.1 Because, and in so far as, it is the latter, it affords evidence of the very highest order.2 § 4. The exaltation of Jesus Christ in His human nature, of which the resurrection and ascension were stages and evidences, constituted, among other things, the reward which had been won by His vol untary humiliation and perfect obedience unto death.3 "Being in the form of God, He did not reckon his being on an equahty with God to consist in grasping, but effaced Himself. That is, He took the form of a servant and was made in the hkeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the Cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave unto Him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, . . . and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." 4 In the interpretation of this classic passage, the stages of the mystery should receive careful atten tion. First of aU came the Incarnation, an act of 1 Cf. ch. vi. §§ 1, 2, 4, above. 2 That is, to all who occupy the standpoint from which alone the evidence for the resurrection can be successfully estimated. Cf. ch. vi. | n, above. 3 On which subject, see W. Milligan, Ascension, pp. 35-57. Cf. W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modern Thought, ch. xix. 4 Phil. ii. 6-1 1. On this rendering, see The Incarnation, pp. 229-235. Cf. an earher study in The Kenotic Theory, pp. 57-70. IN RELATION TO CHRIST HIMSELF 245 condescending love wherein the eternal Son willed to earn the glory justly due to Him by human obedience and death rather than by grasping it through an over powering flashing forth of His Person. This act was divine, a wondrous exhibition of love and condescen sion, but not itself the winning of His reward. The winning was human, although achieved by a divine Person and by the grace of union; x and both the merit and the reward of His incarnate life and work pertained to Him as Man, in His human nature. The causes of His human merit were two, His humilia tion, or acceptance of dishonour instead of the esteem from men to which His character entitled Him, and His patient obedience to His Father's will — an obedience that involved a death which, aU things considered, was personaUy the most painful ever en dured by man. The reward culminated in an honour given to Him in His Manhood, to His human name, which in finitely overshadows the disparagement that He underwent. That is, His resurrection and ascension have exalted His Manhood to the glory which prop erly pertains to it as the Manhood of the eternal Son of God, but which also is a proper sequel to the unique perfection and representative significance of His human obedience and death. Thenceforth He is Lord over all in the nature wherein He was rejected of men, and that nature be comes the medium of our approach to the Father 1 The Incarnation, p. 155. 246 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION through Him.1 His glory is identified with that of the Father, and to glorify Him is to glorify the Father as well. The honour paid to His human name is in reality paid to His Person; and this is consistent with exclusive worship of the one true God, because His self-manifestation has shown Him to be of one essence with the Father, the very image of the Father's substance.2 II. In Relation to the Plan of God § 5. All temporal events have an eternal back ground, being the working out, and manifestation in temporal and humanly intelhgible terms, of a wfll and purpose which is eternal and changeless. And the divine will is not less changeless, because the things willed are willed to take the form of a tem poral and contingent drama. It is because of this nature of the effects by which God's eternal purpose is fulfiUed that we speak of a divine plan, describing the will of God in terms of its effects and temporal manifestation.3 As St. Paul says, "the invisible things" of God "since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made." 4 1 Cf. ch. x. § 8, below. 2 XapaKrijp rrjs iToo-Tbo-eas ivrov, Heb. i. 3. Cf. Col. ii. 9, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 8 Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 253-256, 280-282; Creation and Man, pp. 5-13. * Rom. i. 20. IN RELATION TO THE PLAN OF GOD 247- The eternal is reflected, not less really because in part only, in the mirror of what we see; x and things visible, contingent and temporal make known to us, in trustworthy terms of our own experience, a will and plan which in its source and compass transcends our power adequately to describe. But this revela tion has two branches.2 The natural phenomena of the physical and moral order teach us that there is a God whose wfll explains all things, that His will is righteous, and that the course of this world is the working out of a plan in which our own growth in righteousness and our future destiny are central elements. But this branch of revelation, teaching though it does the fact that there is a divine plan, and that our own future is involved, does not define the plan ex cept to declare its moral quality and our vital interest in it. If we are to gain knowledge of whither we are tending, and of the provisions which God has af forded for our coming into authentic relations with Him and for an inteUigent fulfilment by us of our part in promoting His plan, God must show His hand in a more definitive way. The supernatural and miracu lous elements of human experience articulate and in terpret the more general teaching of nature, without in the least nullifying its truth and value. The two revelations which we are distinguishing both come 1 1 Cor. xiii. 9-12. 2 Being and Attrib. cf God, pp. 225-226; Introd. to Dogm. Theol., pp. 72-78. 248 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION from God, and together constitute a drama the meaning of which determines our relation to Him, our true ideal of Hfe, and the destiny for which we are set to prepare ourselves. The resurrection of our Lord from the tomb,. when regarded in its context of antecedent and subsequent events and of inspired teaching, can be seen to be the most iUuminative and definitive revelation of God's plan that has ever been given. It is this be cause it is more. It is a shifting of scenery in the divine drama, a movement in the working out of the whole world-plan of God which conditions, and de termines the bearing of, all subsequent events. To perceive the place of the resurrection in the course of things at large is therefore to perceive its theologi cal or divine meaning, so far as it can be understood by those who can know divine things only in part.1 § 6. The resurrection is related to the Incarnation as its appropriate sequel and complement; and taken together these two mysteries bring to the surface, and minister to, the eternal purpose of creation. This purpose is centred in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son and "Image of the invisible God." Accordingly "aU things were created by Him and for Him." The reasons and patterns of things preexisted in Him, so that He is "the Firstborn in relation to all creation," and "in Him all things cohere." 2 God willed "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might 1 Cf. ch. vi. | 4, above. 2 Col. i. 15-18. Cf. 2. Cor. iv. 4; Heb. i. 3. IN RELATION TO THE PLAN OF GOD 249 gather together in one aU things in Christ." x To this end the visible creation has been recapitulated in, and subordinated to, man. And man has been made participant to a degree in divine reason, being thereby constituted a finite image of God, with a certain af finity to Him who is God's eternal Image and Logos.2 AU this was preparatory, and led on in the divine purpose to the further movement which is historically revealed in the double mystery of the Incarnation and the resurrection. This further step has open reference to the summing up of all things in Christ, who is the eternal Logos. He became incarnate in order that, in accordance with the Father's will, He might in aU things have the preeminence, and that through Him God might be aU in aU.3 By taking our nature the Logos made His own that which re capitulates the whole visible order, thereby becoming the Head of the human race, the Second Adam, and estabHshing a vital relationship and subordination of aU creation to Himself.4 The Manhood which He took becomes in turn the medium through which men, and the visible order in relation to them, are to be brought to a higher level in their long develop ment, and are finally to be endowed with incorruption and glory in a new or renovated Heaven and earth.5 1 Eph. i. 10. 2 Gen. i. 26-28. Cf. Psa. viii. 4-6 (with Heb. ii. 6-1 1); Acts xxvi. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 7; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10; St. Jas. hi. 9. 3 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. 4 1 Cor. xv. 20-23. Cf. Rom. v. 15-19; St. John xv. 1-6; xvii. 21-23. " Revel- **•• 5- 250 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION The resurrection is a necessary movement in the working out of this purpose. It represents an initial victory of our nature over corruption, a victory which not only revealed that Jesus Christ was one who could not be holden of death, but also elevated our nature in Him so that it should become the source and vehicle of incorruption to the human race.1 Thus the resurrection made it possible that His body, thereby made immortal and life-giving, should be come, by the Holy Spirit's operation, the nucleus of the Church, which has become "His body, the ful ness of Him that fiUeth aU in aU." 2 In the Church the eternal purpose of God is carried through to its fruition; and the "creative push,"3 which moderns are wont to describe in evolutionary terms, justifies itseU by evolving an imperishable kingdom of God, to the development of which the most diverse forms of life are made to minister.4 § 7. The place of the death of Christ in history has been dealt with in several previous chapters. The fact of sin has disturbed the plan of God in relation to mankind, as above described; and this disturbance has retarded the development of the kingdom of God, to which all things were designed to minister. It has done more than this. It has made the fulfilment of 1 Acts ii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 20-23; Phil- in. 21. Cf. pp. 23-24, above, on the view of Irenaeus and St. Athanasius. 2 Eph. i. 23. Cf. Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12-13, 27> Eph. iv. 4, 12-13, 15-16; v. 30; Col. i. 18. 3 The allusion is, of course, to H. Bergson, Creative Evolution. 4 Creation and Man, pp. 82-84. IN RELATION TO THE PLAN OF GOD 251 the purpose of creation impossible except by divine intervention for the achievement of redemption and salvation from sin. Redemption brings the power of salvation in and through Christ, and is a divine work, although one that had to be achieved in human nature. Salvation, thereby made possible, is also a divine work in part, but requires for its fruition our response to, and cooperation with, divine grace in the Body of Christ. The death of Christ constituted the historic form and means of redemption, but did this only as issuing in victory over death by His resurrection in the ful ness of our nature from the tomb. The resurrection, then, is the mystery by which our Lord's redemptive death is made effective. And the victory over death which it completes also transfigures the human in strument of our Lord's sacrifice for sin, and converts it into a fiving, sacramental and abiding memorial of this sacrifice. Thus the resurrection enables the sacrifice which was made on the Cross to five on in a permanent and saving priesthood, and to serve as its abiding consecration.1 § 8. The death of Christ, as made effective by His resurrection, redeems mankind, and affords the per manent historic basis of a dispensation of grace whereby two comprehensive benefits are brought within human reach. These benefits are: (a) salva- 1 On the relation of Christ's resurrection to His death, see ch. iii. § 7, above; and W. Milhgan, pp. 136-152; W. J. S. Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection, pp. 215-222; L. Pullan, pp. 203-205. 252 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION tion from sin and reconciliation to God; (b) renewal of the spiritual development by which men are fitted for their destiny in the kingdom of God. The resurrection not only completes the work of redemption; but, as explained in the previous sec tion, it also transforms the Manhood in which re demption was accomplished into an abiding, Hving and objective memorial of its accompHshment. By appearing for us in it, our risen and ascended Re deemer perpetually and effectively intercedes for us, and becomes our Hving Saviour.1 But the resurrec tion does more than this. It makes the Saviour's Manhood incorruptible and immortal, and consti tutes it to be the source and medium of quickening, saving and sanctifying grace to those for whom He died. Salvation is mediated to us by Jesus Christ, but in and through the Manhood which He offered up for us on Calvary. This Manhood is fitted for such use by the perfecting mystery of suffering,2 and by its victory over death and acquisition of quickening power. In it the Holy Spirit abides, and from it He sheds forth the hfe and grace of Christ. For the accompHshment of this work the Spirit mysticaUy extends the Body of Christ to this world; and by incorporating the subjects of salvation into it, He makes them regenerate participants in the grace which Christ merited for us by His death. Thus the 1 On the heavenly priesthood, see ch. x, below. 2 Heb. ii. 9-18. IN RELATION TO THE PLAN OF GOD 253 Manhood of Christ becomes a leaven, an infusion, imparted to our wounded nature, in the working of which all possibiHties of recovery and renewed prog ress are assured to us.1 There is no magic in this, but a dispensation in which potentialities are created in us that have to be actualized by our own moral response, and by our working out our salvation with fear and trembling. It can be seen that the whole plan of our recovery and advance is accommodated to human nature. Be ing constituted in Hfe by the union of body and spirit, our spirits are conditioned in all functioning and ex perience by the sacramental principle — by external media and temporal operations. Therefore the bene fits of saving and sanctifying grace are made available through the historic events of the Incarnation, death and resurrection of our Saviour, and are mediated to us through an infusion which we can effectively as similate, since it is a substance Hke our own, perfected and made life-giving to us.2 We can also perceive that in this plan of salvation the resurrection is far more than an evidential miracle.3 It is a divinely accomplished movement upon which all that foUows and aU our hopes depend. 1 A subject which is to be developed in the next volume. But cf. ch. hi. || 9-12, above. 2 Cf. ch. hi. §§ 3-4, above. 3 It is evidential to those who have assimilated Christian veri ties; and its failure to convince others does not arise from intrinsic defects, but from their alien standpoint, which blinds them to its credibihty and implications. Cf. ch. vi. | 4. 254 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION III. In Relation to Us § 9. Resuming what has just been said, whatever Christ has done for us and is doing for us and in us flows from the relation in which He stands to us as the new Head of our race, the Second Adam. By taking our nature He identified Himself with us, and by His redemptive sufferings He earned the lordship with which His resurrection and ascension at the Father's right hand endows Him. But His lordship is not external. The nature which He assumed, and in which He now reigns, is our nature; and in its exalted state it is susceptible of mystical extension. This extension is the work of the Holy Spirit, who in corporates us by Baptism into the Body of Christ, and thus creates an interior relationship through which our identification with Him becomes organic and fife-giving to us, as weU as moral. In the physical order, the result of this relationship is that our bodies are charged, so to speak, with a new principle of hfe. They become susceptible of change from the trwpa \\rv)(iK6v to the crapa. ttvev- p.aTLKov, and of final resurrection to incorruption and immortality at the second coming of Christ. The infusion of this vital principle is accompHshed by our baptismal incorporation into the Body of Christ; and the spiritual body then begins to grow in us. It is nourished by the sacramental food of our Lord's flesh and blood, and achieves its triumphant trans formation of our corruptible flesh into the body of our IN RELATION TO US 255 resurrection Ufe under the moral and spiritual con ditions of our growth in grace after the Hkeness of Jesus Christ.1 This growth continues after death, and is the mystery which assures us that this corrupt ible is not annihilated by its carnal dissolution, but in the last day is to put on incorruption.2 By His resurrection our Lord became "the First- fruits of them that are asleep," because that event accompHshed for His Manhood the exaltation to im mortaHty which, through our union therewith, be comes potential to us. It is as members of His Body that we partake of His hfe; and through this partici pation we become subjects of the change at the last day from that which" is merely animal, tyvyinov, to that which is spiritual, itvevp.ci.TiK.ov, after His Hkeness. That there is also a resurrection of the wicked is unmistakably revealed,3 but of its nature and results we know Httle. Its explanation can be nothing else than the power of God.4 We do know this, however, that the kind of resurrection that is promised to the 1 Cf. St. John vi. 50-58; 1 St. John v. 11-12; Ephes. iv. 15-16. See W. Milhgan, pp. 183-188. 2 1 Cor. xv. 53-54. Cf. Rom. vi. 5. Obviously a body which has ceased to exist cannot even be enabled to put on incorruption. On the relation of Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of our bodies, see St. Thomas, III. lvi. 1; W. J. S. Simpson, Resurrection and Modern Thought, ch. xxu; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, p. 235. 3 St. John v. 28-29; Acts xxiv. 15; St. Matt. xxv. 31-35, 41; Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10. Cf. Dan. xii. 2. See Bp. Pearson, fol. 384-385- 4 Connected, however, in some way with our Lord's work, 1 Cor. xv. 22; and for judgment, 2 Cor. v. 10. 256 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION faithful is exhibited in our Lord's own resurrection. The afterfruits must be Hke the Firstfruits. We also know that our participation in His resurrection is based upon the interior relationship to Him which we enjoy through our incorporation into His body.1 Herein Hes the reaUzation of the redemption of the body, and Jesus Christ in us is the hope of glory.2 § 10. Human nature is substantially constituted by the union of flesh and spirit; and the full function ing and development of human persons is conditioned by this union. The fall of mankind, the redemption and the subsequent mysteries of grace are determined in their effects upon us by this constitution of our nature. In particular, the redemption of the body, above described, is the redemption of the human spirit as well; and apart from the latter, the former is an idle tale. If the resurrection of Christ makes possible the conversion of our corruptible bodies into spiritual ones, it does so because it enables our spirits to transcend their earthly weaknesses, and to subject their bodies to the uses for which they have learned through holy disciphne to employ them.3 The effects of the resurrection in relation to the body and the spirit of man are branches of one mystery of glorification. In relation to our spirits, the initial effects of our Lord's resurrection— mediated through the Body of 1 Cf. St. John vi. 39, 51, 54; 1 Cor. xv. 23. 2 Rom. viii. 23; 1 Cor. vi. 13-20; Col. i. 27. 8 Cf. ch. vii. | n, above. IN RELATION TO US 257 Christ, by our incorporation therein — is our justifica tion.1 And our justification is the inception of our sanctification and entire transformation in disposi tion and character, after the pattern of the right eousness of God in Christ. This whole mystery of justification and sanctification is made possible, both in inception and in progress, by Christ's meritorious redemption, and by the dispensation of grace which His resurrection opened up. But because of the pecuharly immediate causal relation in which the resurrection stands to the sacramental dispensation of grace, flowing from His glorified Manhood, Scrip ture connects justification primarily with that fact. In technical parlance the meritorious cause of justi fication is the death of Christ, but its direct causal antecedent is the resurrection.2 In view of the confusion of thought on this subject which sixteenth-century controversies have engen dered, it is desirable here, as elsewhere,3 to remind ourselves of the moral aspects of justification. It is a work of God, but it is neither a species of non- moral omnipotence nor a forensic fiction. The merits 1 On which, see J. H. Newman, Lees, on Justification, ix; H. P. Liddon, Easter in St. Paul's, xi. II; W. Milhgan, pp. 153-159; W. J. S. Simpson, op. cit., ch. xviii; St. Thomas, III. lvi. 2; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 116-118; M. F. Sadler, Justification of Life, ch. i. | II. 2 Rom. iv. 25, "Who was dehvered for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification." 3 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 343-347; and in this volume, ch. 258 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION of Christ, and His redemptive death, afford the nec essary historic basis of our being accounted righteous; but we are not accounted righteous by a purely fo rensic imputation of His righteousness to us. No such imputation is hinted at in the New Testament. It is our own faith that is imputed to us for righteous ness, and it is so imputed because it is the actual inception in us of the righteousness which, when full- grown, conforms us to the righteousness of Christ. That which has begun to grow in us is reckoned for what it will be when fullgrown. The child of God is valued for the Christhke man that the double mystery of regenerating grace and Hving faith has brought to birth. Thus we are given the footing of children, to whom growth in righteousness is possible; and the grace of Christ's glorified Manhood flows into our souls to use in holy self-discipHne and daily progress, until we attain "unto a fuUgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Two things, the grace of Christ enabling us, and our own response and cooperation begun by faith, these together con stitute the mode of our personal salvation and spirit ual advance toward the destiny for which we were created. This destiny is Hfe with God, made joyous by the assimilation of our characters to the righteous ness of God.1 "For as through the one man's dis obedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One shall the many be 1 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 206-208; and in this volume, p. 73. IN RELATION TO US 259 made righteous;" J and to make righteous means in finitely more than acquittal. It means a process by which we are graduaUy enabled to become successful imitators of Christ and possessors of His righteousness. § n. This righteousness has come to mankind as a new thing — that is, as something which changes the meaning and the perspectives of human conduct and character. The transition from natural moraUty to Christian righteousness is a revolution rather than a reformation, although the reformation of whatever is amiss in human Hfe is involved. It is conversion to a new and supernatural standpoint, from which we are enabled to perceive the true goal of righteousness, . and to reorganize our moral aims in abiding harmony with the eternal plan of God. In the new righteous ness, Jesus Christ is central. That is, very God- incarnate is at once the Lord of our Hfe, the goal of our growth and the key to the meaning of every action and virtue in this Ufe and in the Ufe to come.2 Non-Christian morahty is primarily, often wholly, humanitarian; and in it the mundane welfare of man, individual and social, is supremely determina tive.3 The morahty which Christ reveals, and by His 1 Rom. v. 19. 2 On which see St. Thomas, III. liii. 3; lvi. 1-2; H. P. Liddon, Easter in St. Paul's, xi. HI; xx; xxiii; xxv. II; xviii; Univ. Sermons, 1st Series, pp. 192-215; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 231-235; W. Milhgan, pp. 18-24, 160-170, 183-195. 3 Utilitarianism is essentially pagan, but revives among pro fessing Christians whenever the supernatural side of then religion is obscured. 260 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION resurrection estabhshes and interprets, has God for its determinative summum bonum, and makes the practice of true rehgion the organizing element of righteousness.1 Human welfare is not thereby sacri ficed; but it is shown to be dependent upon some thing more fundamental than itself, and not to be attained by giving it the primary place in our ideal of this fife. Man is made for God, and cannot attain to full seH-actualization except in God, the way to whom is Jesus Christ. The new law is one of love; 2 and although no one can love God who hates his brethren, it is the love of God which is primary.3 It is primary because it de termines the Hnes of conduct which brotherly love ought to dictate, and alone affords adequate basis and motive for such love. The new law is also one of imitation,4 rather than of obedience to external re quirements, and of Hberty 5 rather than of puritanical legaHsm. This does not mean that obedience has been aboHshed; 6 but that enhghtened discretion en ables the converted Christian to find in the example of Jesus Christ a more powerful motive and a fuller 1 Creation and Man, pp. 229-232, 243-246. 2 St. Matt. v. 43-48; xxii. 36-40 (with St. Mark xii. 30; St. Luke xx. 25-28); St. John xiii. 34-35- Cf. Rom. xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. xiii; Eph. v. 1-2; 1 St. John iv. 7-8, 12, 16, 20-21. 3 "This is the first and great commandment," St. Matt. xxu. 37-38. 4 Eph. v. 1-2. Cf. St. Matt. v. 48. 6 Rom. iii. 23-28; vii. 5-6; viii. 1-2; 1 Cor. vi. 12; Gal. iv. 6 Rom. iii. 31; vi. 1-2, 12-15; vii. 12-14; viii. 4-5; Gal. v. 13-16. IN RELATION TO US 261 guidance than any code of precepts alone can afford.1 Laws have still to be obeyed; but to a perfected Christian they have become helpful guide-posts on a road which he is eager to foUow, rather than restric tions which are felt as such. The imitation of Christ is the imitation of God, whose character has been exhibited by Christ in the terms of human conduct and character. And be cause to imitate Christ is to imitate God, His example is the standard of Christian righteousness, the very essence of which is godUkeness.2 Man is made for feUowship with God, and such feUowship can neither be pleasing to God nor joyous to man, except on the basis of man's assimilation in character to God. § 12. The resurrection assures us that the long evolution of man will issue at length in our becoming "partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust." 3 We have been made in the image of God and after His likeness; and what that means for us is that, when we are fuUgrown, human nature in us wiU attain to the stature to which it has attained in Christ.4 "For if we have become united with Him by the likeness of His death, we shaU be also by the Hkeness of His resurrection."5 Through our baptismal union with 1 Cf. Gal. v. 18, 24-25; St. Matt. xi. 28-30. 2 The Incarnation, pp. 259-267. 3 2 St. Pet. i. 4. 4 Eph. iv. 13. There are obvious limitations to this but not such as nullify the proposition. Our perfection is individual, His is catholic. 6 Rom. vi. 5. Cf. 1 St. John hi. 2; Psa. xvii. 15. 262 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION Him even "now are we the children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be; but we know that ... we shaU be Uke Him." Awaking at last after His Hkeness, we shall be satisfied with it.1 This goal of human development was eternaUy purposed by the Creator, whose love for man signifies His will that we should be with Him forever. God is not dependent upon us for His fulness ; but because . He is love, the spontaneous expression of His fulness is creative.2 It brings forth and develops personal beings, capable of enjoying Him forever. The joy of love is mutual; and this mutuaUty impHes some thing in common, something which enables each to recognize what is lovable in the other as in some sense a reflection of himself. And so God wills that human development shall produce a race of beings who shall be in a very real sense partakers of His own nature. To this end, in the fulness of time, He sent His eternal Son to become Man, in order that through union with Him we might, in the rhetorical language of the ancients, become God;3 and the resurrection reveals what we are to become, and makes the con summation possible. We shall not indeed be Hterally deified, for the finite cannot become infinite, and whatever we be come we continue to be creatures, evermore depend ent upon our Maker for aU that we are and enjoy. 1 i St. John hi. 2; Psa. xvii. 16 (Prayer Book version). 2 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 63-64. ' Cf. pp. 23-24, above, where refs. are given. IN RELATION TO US 263 Nor shaU we be merged and lost in God. The glory of our future life in Him is love; and the very nature of love shows that its continuance implies mutuality and an abiding distinction between persons.1 None the less our enjoyment of God, and our perfect en joyment of the communion of saints as well, wiU be based upon real participation in the divine. The lines of this participation, as revealed in the second Head of our race, are chiefly three: (a) incorruption and immortality; (b) glorification; (c) character, patterned after that of Jesus Christ. When we shall have attained to all this, the king dom of God wfll be fuUy actuaHzed; and the long- continued creative push of Hfe will have accompHshed the mystery which evolutionary science has dimly detected to be working in the organic world. What science detects and generalizes the resurrection ar ticulates and interprets by exhibiting the Firstfruits of the Hfe of the world to come. But this interpre tation is given in terms which, from the nature of the ' case, are intelHgible only to those who have learned to understand Jesus Christ, in whom all that is proper to God is personally united with all that is proper to man when he is fullgrown.2 1 The error here combated is often found in connection with a spurious mysticism. Cf. W. K. Fleming, Mysticism in Christianity, p. 14; Cath. Encyc, q. v., fin. On pantheism, see Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 220-224. 2 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 82-84; Incarnation, pp. 83-84. CHAPTER IX THE ASCENSION I. The Forty Days § i. The ascension of our Lord was the inevitable sequel of His resurrection.1 He thereby completed His earthly manifestation, and assumed the place at the Father's right hand, which was proper to Him. But this withdrawal was delayed for forty days, be cause He still had things to do on earth which He could not do effectively until after His resurrection.2 His first post-resurrection work was to convince His disciples that He had indeed overcome death, and to enable them to adjust their mental and practi cal attitude towards Him in the fight of this illumi nating event. To this end He repeatedly appeared to them; and the manner of His appearances not only afforded adequate evidence that His whole Manhood 1 On the Ascension at large and the mysteries which it initiated, see W. Milligan, Ascen. and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III. lvii-lviii; Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, art. vi; H. P. Liddon, Univ. Sermons, ist Series, xi; Geo. Milhgan, Theol. of the Ep. to the Hebrews; M. F. Sadler, One Offering, chh. vii-ix; J. Grimal, Priesthood and Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, Pt. III. Only the authors will be given in refs. to these works. 2 On His forty days' work, see Geo. Moberly, Great Forty Days; P. G. Medd, One Mediator, Lee. vii; St. Thomas, III. Iv. THE FORTY DAYS 265 had been recovered from the power of death, but also revealed changes which His disciples needed to ap prehend if they were rightly to understand the mean ing of His resurrection and His future relationship to them. The relations engendered by their previous contact with Him had now to be absorbed in higher ones — relations which the disciples were not able to grasp until His verbal claims were interpreted to them by the objective manifestations of His post-resurrec tion state. Moreover, one manifestation was not enough; and by repeating His appearances to the disciples our Lord accommodated Himself to their slow understandings. They had accepted Him as master,1 and had even acknowledged His messianic claim.2 But their acknowledgement had been quafified in value by messianic conceptions which they had to outgrow be fore they could understand Him. The resurrection taught them for the first time that to suffer cruci fixion was consistent with, was part of, the Mes siah's work; and in teaching this it taught more. It imparted a previously unsuspected meaning to the many intimations of His Person which Christ had aU along been giving them; and now, as they saw their risen Master, they began to adjust their relations to Him as to then Lord and God.3 This 1 St. John xiii. 13. 2 St. Matt. xvi. 16. Cf. St. Mark viii. 29; St. Luke ix. 20. 3 Thomas' exclamation, St. John xx. 28, need not, however, be regarded as made with fuh realization of its apparent meaning and implications. 266 THE ASCENSION adjustment was stupendous, and could not be ac complished at once. Therefore the fifty days which elapsed after the resurrection before the Holy Spirit came afforded none too long a period of preparation for the propaganda which the Apostles had to under take. § 2. The question as to whether Christ intended to found a Church has been much discussed of late.1 The Church of God in its more comprehensive sense did not originate in apostoHc days. Rather it then received its final earthly form and endowment with the Holy Spirit, becoming thereby the Body of Christ and the earthly source of truth and grace to all the nations. In a sense, therefore, Christ did not found the Church. But He reconstituted it, and did found the organization of it which, we call apostoUc.2 In this sense He founded the Christian Church, which is "built upon the foundation of the' Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being its chief corner stone." 3 The fact that He came as the promised Messiah to preach and estabHsh the kingdom of God seems to carry with it the purpose of creating some machinery 1 It was questioned by E. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Chris tian Church. 2 On which, see Chas. Gore, Church and the Ministry, ch. i; H. B. Swete, Holy Cath. Church, pp. 5-8; W. J. S. Simpson, Cath. Conception of the Church, ch. ii; D. Stone, Christian Church, ch. hi; E. T. Green, Church of Christ, pp. 16-23. 3 Eph. ii. 20. Cf. St. Matt. xxi. 42 and parallels; Acts iv. 11; 1 St. Pet. ii. 7. THE FORTY DAYS 267 by which its interests should be fostered and its members should be brought into effective mutual relationship and cooperation. He instituted Bap tism as the means of entrance into the kingdom,1 and thus created a visible ecclesia. He impfied that this Church was to have some corporate method of judging its members, when He declared that those who refused to hear the Church were to be treated "as the Gentile and the publican." 2 He instituted the Holy Eucharist as a social sacrament, one which, in fact, became the central corporate function by which the rehgious Ufe of the Christian Church was unified.3 The training and commissioning of the twelve, of which we shaU speak in our next section, the pains which He took to differentiate them from the rest of His disciples, and His giving them the keys of the kingdom,4 show that the ecclesia was to have an identifiable organization. This, the natural interpretation of Christ's actions and teachings, is borne out by the fact that when the promised descent of the Holy Spirit took place, the foUowers of Christ constituted a society under ap ostoHc government. And this society is treated by New Testament writers as the Body of Christ,5 in habited by the Spirit,6 to which men were added daily 1 St. Matt, xxviii. 19. Cf. St. John hi. 5. 2 St. Matt, xviii. 17. 3 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. Cf. a. 16-17. 4 St. Matt. xvi. 18-19; St. John xx. 22-23. Cf. St. Matt. xix. 28. 6 Eph. i. 22-23. etc. 8 1 Cor. xii. 12-13; Eph. iv. 4, 16. 268 THE ASCENSION who were being saved.1 In the face of all these patent facts, the denial that Christ intended to or ganize a Church cannot be made good. § 3. Our Lord gave to the Apostles their final and formal commission after His resurrection. He had trained them under Jewish conditions, and the pass ing mission on which He had sent them for their training was confined to Jewry.2 There were obvi ous reasons for this limitation. The Jewish Church was the Christian Church in the making, a prepara tory dispensation in one divine plan, the limitations of which had to be observed until all things were ready and the descent of the Spirit had completed the establishment of the new order. Moreover, as subsequent events were to show, the wider and cathoHc scope of the new dispensation could not be fully grasped by the Apostles until post-pentecostal developments, as interpreted by the Spirit, had enlarged their vision. Then the cathohcity of the terms of then final commission from Christ began to be realized. "All authority hath been given unto Me in Heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teach- 1 Acts ii. 47. Cf. verse 42. 2 St. Matt. x. 5 ff. and parallels. On the training of the twelve, see The Incarnation, pp. 342-343; H. Latham, Pastor Pastorum; Hastings, Die of Christ, s. v. "Apostles"; A. B. Bruce, Training of the Twelve. THE FORTY DAYS 269 ing them to observe all things whatsoever I com manded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 1 We are driven by the evidence as a whole to beUeve that the words in the fourth Gospel as uttered by Christ on another oc casion were also addressed to His Apostles, or if to the disciples in general, to them as constituting an ecclesia of which the Apostles were the official repre sentatives. "As My Father has sent Me, even so send I you. And ... He breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."2 St. Luke, who does not give the precise terms of the apostofic commission, describes in the Acts its catho lic scope, and mentions the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit, whereby the Apostles were to receive power.3 When we analyze the language of the commission, and connect it with certain elements of Christ's pre vious teaching, we find sufficient confirmation of the doctrine concerning the apostolate which has de termined the policy of the Catholic Church from New Testament days to the present time. We find 1 St. Matt, xxviii. 18-20. Cf. St. Mark xvi. 15. 2 St. John xx. 21-23. 3 Acts i. 2-8. The breathing on them of Christ, and His words connected therewith, must surely be regarded as signifying what was to be fulfilled by the Spirit's descent in tongues of fire. In addition to the refs. on Christ founding the Church given above, see Geo. Moberly, Sayings of the Great Forty Days, III. 270 THE ASCENSION such confirmation, that is, when we take our Lord's words naturally, and in the fight of their practi cal effect upon the pentecostal Church. That the Church should have erred from the beginning in so vital a matter, and have ascribed divine authority to arrangements which were merely human accidents of ecclesiastical development, is a conclusion so in credible that nothing short of full demonstration can justify its adoption. To discuss at large the con troversies which have in our day confused many minds with regard to this subject, would carry us too far afield from the subject of this volume.1 We can only summarize here the chief elements of Christ's teaching concerning the apostolate, as they have all along been understood by the Church. (a) The apostolate was not a passing mission, but an abiding office designed to continue until the end of the Christian dispensation.2 And the members of it were clearly differentiated from the rest of the Church by functions and prerogatives in which the faithful at large had no formal or official share. We do not reduce the significance of this conclusion when we also insist, as we must, that their functions were organic functions of the whole Christian body, of the Body of Christ — a relation of things which is in- 1 The ministry of the Church wih be treated more fully in the next volume. Among the best works are R. C. Moberly, Minis terial Priesthood; Chas. Gore, The Church and the Ministry; and Orders and Unity. 2 "Lo I am with you always," etc., St. Matt, xxviii. 20. THE FORTY DAYS 271 consistent with anything like an external lordship or an independent superior caste.1 (b) The appointed functions of the apostolate were those of Jesus Christ, in so far as they were to be perpetuated in this world,2 whether prophetic, priestly or kingly; and they constituted a steward ship which was to be exercised until Christ's second coming in glory.3 This does not mean that the Apostles were to be additional mediators between God and man, but that they were to be ministers of Christ and functional organs of His Body.4 (c) When it became clear to the original Apostles that our Lord's second coming was not to take place in then day, it also became apparent to them — and they were guided in this by the Holy Spirit — that they must provide for a continuance of their min istry after their departure.5 And the threefold min istry which originated in apostofic days, and which has been continued ever since in the Church, is rightly regarded as the divinely intended perpetua tion of the original apostolate.6 1 On this organic aspect, see Geo. Moberly, Administration of the Holy Spirit, pp. 47 ff. 2 St. John xx. 21. 3 Cf. St. Luke xii. 41-43. 4 Cf. Eph. iv. 11-16; Col. ii. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 13-30. 6 According to St. Clement, writing about 95 A.D., ad Corinth., ch. 44, they were forewarned with reference to this by Christ Himself. 6 That is, so far as its normal or ministerial functions were con cerned. The functions of the Apostles as co-founders with Christ of the Christian ecclesia were, of course, peculiar and passing. 272 THE ASCENSION § 4. St. Luke tells us that after His resurrection our Lord spoke to His disciples "the things concern ing the kingdom of God," x and He must have said many things of which we have no record. Conjec ture has been busy with this subject, and what men have thought He ought to have said has been put forward as if He had been proved to have said it. There is no reason to suppose that our Lord then en larged the substantial range of His previous teaching. He seems to have contented Himself with helping the disciples, in the Hght of His resurrection, better to understand the bearing of His teaching, and to face the great work which His commission imposed on them. We are tempted, in particular, to think that Christ must have explained details of ecclesiastical organi zation and sacramental institutions. There is no evidence of this, nor was it necessary. He had ex pressly postponed teaching many things until the Spirit should come; and what the Spirit guided the Apostles to estabhsh, in the Hght of practical emergen cies when they actually arose, we beUeve to have the authority of Jesus Christ. Our Lord confined His legislation to a very few central things, things which had to be estabhshed in order that His Church might be ready for the descent of the Spirit. His teaching was habitually concerned with principles rather than rules.2 1 Acts i. 3. 2 See Henry Cotterill,. Gereesis of the Church. THE FORTY DAYS 273 In helping his disciples to adjust their minds to the new conditions, our Lord appropriated the Old Testa ment to Christian use and interpreted it in a new and higher meaning — a meaning transcending what we have reason to think the Old Testament writers had in mind, but one which was not less the meaning which the Scriptures were intended of God to un fold when the Messiah should come. "And beginning from Moses and from aU the prophets, He interpreted to them in aU the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." 1 He who did this had been the divine Revealer in every stage of previous history; 2 and the meaning which He unfolded in Scripture must be its true and final spiritual meaning, whether contained in the conscious thought of the writers or not. It is as if workmen of unequal intelligence had built the nave of a Church, and then the completion and un veiling of the sanctuary had made clear the archi tect's meaning, intended all along, and determining once for aU the significance of every part.3 And our Lord's teaching in this direction not only uncovered the teaching of the Old Testament con cerning Himself, but sanctioned a method of inter pretation which is observed by New Testament writers, and which must be observed, if we would 1 St. Luke xxiv. 27. 2 The Revealer is the eternal Word; the Inspirer of the writers, and of the Bible, is the Holy Spirit. See The Incarnation, pp. 272- 273; Wm. Lee, Inspiration, pp. 22 ff. 3 This idea is developed in the writer's pamphlet, The Bible and Modern Criticism. 274 THE ASCENSION retain the Old Testament as Scripture.1 The value of what is caUed critical exegesis, which seeks to ascertain the exact thought of the writer in each scriptural passage, is not destroyed by the principle we are defining. For we cannot adequately under stand the bearing of what Old Testament writers wrote upon what was yet to be revealed, unless we understand what they wrote and meant. But that the Old Testament has acquired a higher meaning in the Hght of the New, and that this meaning is divine, there can be no serious question among consistent be lievers in Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of messianic prophecy. In the Hght of this fulfilment the Old Testament is no longer a mere series of memorials of Israel's rehgious development. It has become a register of divine training of the Jews to receive Christ, and to convey the knowledge of His salvation to the whole world.2 II. The Withdrawal § 5. The direct testimony concerning the fact of the ascension is confined to the supplement of St. Mark's Gospel, the date and source of which is un certain, and to St. Luke's descriptions in his Gospel and in the Acts. The first of these testimonies is very brief, giving neither the time nor the circum stances. "So then the Lord Jesus, after He had 1 Its use is especiaUy prominent in The Epis. to the Hebrews. 2 See Authority, Eccles. and Biblical, pp. 246-249, 251-254. THE WITHDRAWAL 275 spoken unto them, was received up into Heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." St. Luke is more fuU. In his Gospel he says, "And He led them out until they were over against Bethany: and He lifted up His hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass while He blessed them, He parted from them and was carried up into Heaven." Again, in the Acts, he mentions our Lord's appearances after the resurrection as "by the space of forty days." When Christ had been speaking, "as they were looking, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they were looking steadfastly into Heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, ye men of GaUlee, why stand ye looking up into Heaven? This Jesus, which was received up from you into Heaven, shall so come in fike maimer as ye beheld Him going into Heaven."1 But if only St. Luke gives a descriptive account, there are enough afiusions to the ascension in the New Testament to show that the fact was generaUy accepted by the Apostles and their foUowers. We also have our Lord's own veiled prophecy, as re ported by St. John. "What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where He was be fore?" 2 A few of the allusions should be mentioned. St. Paul describes Heaven as a place "from whence 1 St. Mark xvi. 19; St. Luke xxiv. 50-51; Acts i. 3, 9-11. 2 St. John vi. 62. Cf. St. Matt. xxvi. 64 and His saying several times that He was going away to the Father, St. John xiv. 28; xvi. 5, 10, 17, 28. Cf. St. John xx. 17. 276 THE ASCENSION ... we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." r Among leading elements of the "great mystery of godhness" he mentions our Lord as being "received up in glory." 2 Elsewhere he says, "He that de scended is the same also that ascended far above aU the heavens, that He might fiU aU things."3 St. Peter describes Christ as "on the right hand of God, having gone into Heaven." 4 Another writer de scribes Christ as having "sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." 5 In the Apocalypse our Lord is described as enthroned in the heavens.6 Unless we are prepared altogether to reject the apostoHc beHef in the ascension, we have no reason for not accepting St. Luke's account of the event. Recent investigations have confirmed the general credibihty of his narratives, and there is nothing sus picious in his description of the ascension except to those whose naturahstic bias precludes beHef in the fact. In his description the essential points are: (a) that our Lord was taken up towards the sky; (b) that He disappeared in a cloud; (c) that this was His final withdrawal into Heaven until He should come again at the end of the world.7 1 Phil. hi. 20. 4 1 St. Pet. iii. 22. Cf. Acts ii. 33. 2 1 Tim. hi. 16. 6 Heb. xii. 2. Cf. ii. 9. 3 Eph. iv. 10. 6 Revel, i. 13; v. 11-13; vi. 9-17; xiv. 1-5. * On the fact of the ascension, see W. MiUigan, Lee. i; W. J. S. Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection, ch. ix; E. D. la Touche, Person of Christ, pp. 323-325; R. J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, PP- 397-414; H. B. Swete, Apostles' Creed, pp. 64-70; Hastings, Die of Bible, q. v.; Die of Christ, q. v., 3-4. THE WITHDRAWAL 277 § 6. It has been shown in this volume, in connec tion with the subject of Christ's descent into Hell,1 that the popular hypothesis that Heaven and HeU are not local, but represent states respectively of happiness and misery, is not in accord with either the teaching of Scripture or the possibiHties of human nature. The notion grows out of what is reaUy a Manichaean prejudice against the body, and inability to realize the abiding usefulness of matter to our spirits, even in the world to come.2 No doubt our Lord's flesh ceased after His resurrection to be hampered by space relations, and gained a facility of movement which is greater than we can imagine. But as real body it was necessarily still dimensional and locaUy present somewhere at aU times. The language of the fourth Article of ReHgion may seem to need expansion in order to avoid onesided ness; but as a correct statement of the lower side of the mystery — a side which is of vital significance — ¦ we may not reject its teaching. "Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh, bones and all things pertaining to man's nature; wherewith He ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until He return to judge all men at the last day." In short, the ascension signifies a transfer of our Lord's physical and local presence from earth to Heaven. It is entirely consistent with this affirmation to acknowledge that the movement of His body which 1 In ch. v. | 7. 2 Cf. ch. vii. || n-12, above. 278 THE ASCENSION the Apostles witnessed, the fact of which is an article of the cathoHc faith, was symboHcal.1 That is, while His upward movement into a cloud fittingly indicated His withdrawal into Heaven, and did so in the only available way, it did not reveal where Heaven is. What the Apostles saw was a manner of departure from this world which indicated Heaven as the goal of His movement; but they saw only the withdrawal, not the goal of His journey. The vital importance of the movement which they did see Hes in its con stituting Christ's revelation of His going to Heaven, and of the manner of His return at the end of the world; 2 and upon our assurance of the fact depends our faith in the completion of the exaltation of His Manhood, and in His present work for our salvation as heavenly Prophet, Priest and King. It is useless for us to endeavour to discover where Heaven is until, if God so please, we come to it. Ex pressed in the terms of our earthly spatial measures, it may be remote beyond imagination. In which case we have need to remember the relativity of space, and the possibihty that in heavenly measures the distance may be small. It is also possible that Heaven is immediately around us, and that, even in the physical sense, the ascended Lord is nearer than we think. He is somewhere in the body, and where He is constitutes the locaUzing centre of Heaven. 1 It is symbolical in the fact that it did not fully reveal the mystery; but it is not less a fact, falling within apostolic experience. 2 Acts i. n. THE WITHDRAWAL 279 § 7. The ascension was completed by the mystery of our Lord's session or enthronement at the right hand of the Father, whereby was consummated the ex altation in His Manhood, which He merited through His self-effacing and obedient humihation and death.1 The phrase "right hand of the Father" is obviously figurative, for the Father is infinite Spirit and has no physical members. The figure has never proved mis leading, and is readily understood as signifying ex altation to divine glory and power, above even the angehc hosts.2 Scripture describes our Lord in glory in various ways, each description being suggested by some as pect of His heavenly state and work. He is the one Mediator between God and man in a new covenant,3 the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him, the Prince of Hfe and the Firstbegotten from the dead.4 His prophetic office appears in His being caUed the faithful and true Witness.5 As Priest,6 He is our Passover, sacrificed for us,7 a Lamb standing as though it had been slain,8 who appears before the face of God for us, ever living to make in tercession for us,9 and being our Advocate with the 1 Either direct or indirect witness to the session occurs in St. Mark app. xvi. 19; Acts vii. 55; Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20; Col. hi. 1; Heb. i. 3, 13; viii. 1; xii. 2; 1 St. Pet. ih. 22; Revel, v. 6. See St. Thomas, HI. lvii; Bp. Pearson, fol. 275 et seq. 2 Heb. i. 4-14. 8 1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. xii. 24. 4 Heb. v. 9; Acts hi. 15; Revel, i. 5. 6 Revel, hi. 14. Cf. i. 5. 6 Heb. v. 6 et passim. 7 1 Cor. v. 7. 8 Revel, v. 6. Cf. v. 9, 12; xiii. 8. • Heb. ix. 24; vii. 25. 280 THE ASCENSION Father, the Propitiation for our sins,1 and the Be- stower of gifts upon men.2 As King, He is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,3 the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the Lord of glory.4 With aU these high quahties and functions, He is stfll Shepherd of the sheep, the same yesterday, to-day and forever.5 Nothing of His human experience and suffering is forgotten by Him; but retaining the nature in which He was made per fect by suffering, He continues to identify Himself with us as His brethren. For He was "made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God. . . . For in that He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." 6 § 8. St. Luke teUs us that while the disciples "were looking steadfastly into Heaven as He went, behold two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, ye men of GaHlee, why stand ye looking into Heaven? This Jesus, which was re ceived up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld Him going into Heaven." 7 These words reechoed a prediction made by our Lord Himself on various occasions, once under solemn 1 i St. John ii. 1-2. 2 Eph. iv. 8. 3 1 Tim. vi. 15. Cf. Revel, xvii. 14; xix. 16. " Revel, v. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 8. 5 Heb. xiii. 20, 8. Cf. St. John x. n; 1 St. Pet. ii. 25. ¦ Heb. ii. 10-11, 17-18. 7 Acts i. 10-11. THE WITHDRAWAL. 281 circumstances when adjured by the high priest to de clare whether He was the Christ or not.1 His em phasis caused the prediction to sink deeply into the consciousness of the Church, and the expectation of His second coming gains expression in various parts of the apostolic writings.2 It is enshrined in the catholic creeds as an article of the Christian faith, necessary to be believed, because of the judgment which it is also predicted the Lord wfll then render on aU men, according to their deeds done in the body.3 Modern rationaUsm discovers in the eschatological teaching of Christ a mere reflection of current Jewish ideas, and rejects both the second advent and the general judgment. RationaHsts seize on what they believe to be evidence that Christ erred in any case as to the nearness of His second coming, and in this find justification for thinking that He was at fault in His teaching as to a future cataclysm and general judgment. This attack is formally based upon grounds of critical inquiry into our Lord's words, and something must be said as to these grounds; but the clearest possible refutation of the critical argument would not convince those who make the 1 St. Matt. xxvi. 64; St. Mark xiv. 62. Cf. St. Matt. xvi. 27; xxiv. 30; xxv. 31; St. Luke xxi. 27; St. John i. 51. 2 E.g. 1 Cor. i. 7; xv. 23; Phil. hi. 20; 1 Thess. i. 10; iii. 13; iv. 16-17; 2 Thess. i. 10; Tit. ii. 13; St. Jas. v. 7; 1 St. Pet. i. 7; St. Jude 14; Revel, i. 7. 3 St. Matt. xiii. 40-43, 49-50; xvi. 27; xxv. 31-46; Acts xvii. 31; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Thess. i. 7-8; 2 Tim. iv. 1; St. Jude 14-15; Revel, vi. 15-17; xx. 11-15. 282 THE ASCENSION attack, for their naturalistic standpoint would re main as a fatal hindrance to faith in this direction. That our Lord made use of Jewish imagery in His eschatological discourses is true, but this imagery grew out of Old Testament prophecy1 and was on correct general fines. In order to vindicate our Lord's teaching we do not need to prove its freedom from symboHcal elements of description; but amid the figures employed by Him, three elements of positive teaching are unmistakable: (a) that the present world will give way in some kind of cataclysm to a new world; (&) that when this occurs Christ will come in the clouds of Heaven; (c) that He will then judge mankind, and determine the future place and state of every man. It is useless to deny that a critical consideration of our Lord's eschatological discourses brings serious problems to Hght. As given in the Gospels, these discourses are thought by many careful scholars to contain definite teaching that the end of the world and the Lord's second coming were to occur before the existing generation of men had passed away.2 There are, indeed, elements in the Gospel accounts which leave room for a different conclusion. In particular, our Lord's profession of ignorance as to the day and hour,3 and His intermingling in one perspec tive several subject-matters of prediction. But if we 1 Cf. Dan. vii. 10, 13; Zech. xiv. 5. 2 E.g. A. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, ch. xix. 3 St. Matt. xxiv. 36; St. Mark xiii. 32. THE WITHDRAWAL 283 depend solely upon Gospel data,1 we cannot disprove the contention that Christ used language concerning the nearness of the final cataclysm which the event failed to confirm. We have ourselves offered a tentative solution of the problem in the next previous volume,2 a solution which need not be repeated here. A very competent critic among the writer's friends finds it open to serious objection, and time for further reflection has not afforded the writer any assurance as to its finafity. But whatever solution is adopted, it can conceivably lead only to one of two alternative conclusions: (a) that our Lord taught erroneously on an important spiritual subject; (&) that His disciples did not fully grasp His time references, and this has affected the Gospel accounts at least in making them obscure.3 The first of these conclusions, easy for a rationalist to adopt, is impossible for one to accept who believes in the divine Person and final teaching authority of Jesus Christ. The only credible conclusion, therefore, is that the Gospel accounts do not enable us to as certain with certainty aU that our Lord said and meant as to the time of His second coming. He undoubtedly taught that He would come again 1 That is, without considering the Person of Him who taught. 2 The Incarnation, pp. 297-303, where refs. are given. 3 It appears as if Christ intended to be obscure. Cf. Acts i. 6-7. We need not suppose that the apostohc accounts are essentially incorrect. It is significant that the early Church seems to have suffered no shock in adjusting its interpretation of Christ's words to the delay of His return. 284 THE ASCENSION in the clouds of Heaven at the end of the world, and would then judge mankind. Thus the Christian Church has beUeved and taught, and so we are bound to beHeve. III. Reasons for the Withdrawal § 9. Our Lord's work for mankind was not finished when He redeemed the world by His death and victory over death; but what remained for Him to do could not be accomplished under earthly conditions.1 The first and most obvious reason for His withdrawal into Heaven was that He might assume a position and standpoint from which He could exercise functions of world-wide scope. He could fittingly die and rise again in provincial Judaea; but apparently He could not suitably relate Himself to multitudes in every nation under Heaven as their fiving Mediator and Saviour except from the transcendent and central izing standpoint of the common goal of human journeyings Godward. This appears in the relations both of space and time. Even in purely mundane affairs provincial limitations reduce what can be done successfuUy in transacting world business from one earthly centre. But the business of Christ's Kingdom is heavenly as weU as earthly, and its heavenly reference is most determina- 1 On the necessity of His withdrawal, see H. P. Liddon, as cited; W. J. S. Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection, pp. 193-201; W. Mil ligan, pp. 27-60, 204-216; St. Thomas, III. Ivh. 1, 6; Bp. Pearson, fol. 273-275. REASONS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL 285 tive and most permanent. It is His work to appear for us before the Father, and to unite men of every nation in Himself in their approaches to the Father. His court is therefore in Heaven, and His Church is built so as to have its centre there. The major por tion of its membership is in the unseen world; but all are unified in the Body of Christ, and gather around one great throne of Him, its one true Head. AU this is represented in the apocalyptic vision of St. John. In the midst of the throne is the Lamb. Around Him are gathered the four mysterious beasts, the four and twenty elders and myriads of angels; and beyond these appears a rnultitude which no man can number of every nation under Heaven, and every created thing.1 The question of our Lord's human presence with His people is involved. While on earth this presence was physical only, and therefore limited to the place of His visible sojourn. It could reach only those who could get physically near Him. Such limitations are inconsistent with His present work and relation to us, but they inhere in earthly residence. By the double mystery of His ascension and of the change which His body has undergone these limitations have been transcended. He is still physically present in one place only, and visible in the physical sense only to those who have gone where He is; but there is also a mysticaUy extended presence of His Body in the whole Church, and a special sacramental presence of 1 Revel, v. 6-14; vii. 9-1 1. 286 THE ASCENSION His Body and Blood in the Eucharistic mystery.1 As a consequence, He is with us in a more compre hensively effective way than He could be if His presence were earthly; and as Man He is in His members, the hope of glory. From every part of the world men are enabled to see Him by faith, and are comforted thereby.2 Moreover, the ascension enthrones our Lord in the centre of time as well as of space. His human Hfe is, indeed, stfll subject to time relations, for other wise it would not be truly human. But these rela tions are modified and enlarged. There is an endless and abiding quafity of His present state and activ ity which is characteristic of the heavenly. Time. measures are there focused in then eternal centre; and the eternal background of our Lord's Person reveals itself more clearly through His glorified Manhood, so that all the ages are, as it were, brought to focus and acted upon by His eternal priesthood. His heavenly functioning is not revealed as a series of actions occurring in successive moments of time, so much as an abiding mystery3 which is equaUy operative and effective in and for aU times. § 10. The work of Christ which has thus been 1 St. John xiv. 18-20, 28. The present tense of "I come unto you" is significant of a continuing mystery rather than of a single event. 2 St. John xvi. 19. 3 Note the descriptive phrases, "Now to appear ... for us," Heb. ix. 24, and "In the midst of the throne ... a Lamb standing as though it had been slain," Revel, v. 6. REASONS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL 287 centralized in space and time, comprehensively speaking, is mediatorial. He is the one Mediator between God and man, upon whose work depends the maintenance of the relations between us and God wherein true rehgion consists.1 And since we were made for God — to glorify and enjoy Him — our need of God, and of personal and social or filial relations with Him, is an inevitable manifestation of our nature.2 Human nature is designedly con stituted to make us dependent upon God, lest we should make ourselves independent of Him, and miss the line of spiritual development whereby alone we can actualize and exercise the capacities and functions wherein our life is intended to reach its satisfying completeness and abiding value. Human nature depends upon supernatural grace in order to become what it is designed to become.3 In this world we are in the making, and in rehgion the conditions of our making, both divine and human, are united in a mystery of which the mediation of Jesus Christ is the effectuating principle. What might have been the history of true rehgion if man had not sinned, we have no means of knowing beyond the broad fact that some species of mediation by the eternal Son would have been needed in any case. Our dependence upon such mediation is an 1 Cf. The Incarnation, ch. ix. | 1. 2 Cf. Creation and Man, pp. 64, 82-84, 206-212, 217-218, 254- 255- 3 The Incarnation, ch. hi. | 2; Creation and Man, pp. 217-218. 288 THE ASCENSION abiding fact, pertaining not only to our initial access to God, but to the continuance of such access and to the enjoyment of eternal hfe.1 Under the actual conditions of human history, every stage of the devel opment of true rehgion represents a step in the preparation for, the upbuilding of, and the final establishment in the heavens of, the conditions under which men can escape from sin, develop after the likeness of God, and, through the grace of Jesus Christ, can enter at last into the fuU enjoyment of the relations with God for which they were created.2 The heavenly state and work of Jesus Christ con summates the development of true rehgion, and guarantees to those who faithfuUy practise it the fuU enjoyment of Hfe forever. The Hving and ascended Lord is our Mediator and Saviour. And this is not less the case because it is a past achievement, our Lord's death and victory over death, that conditions what He is now doing for us. He redeemed us once for aU, but He is sav ing us now.3 And He saves us under the moral and sacramental conditions which are afforded in His Church. He is saving us, but in a manner which enUsts our own wills and energies. We also have to work out our own salvation 4 in dependence upon, and in concurrence with, the present and effectual 1 The Incarnation, pp. 83-89. 2 In brief, redemption has a historical context extending" through aU time. Cf. ch. hi, above. 3 Heb. vii. 25. 4 Phil. h. 12-13. REASONS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL 289 working of the Hving Christ and Saviour, in His Body, the Church on earth. The heavenly work whereby He effectuates all that is wrought out in His members is prophetic, priestly and kingly. As Prophet, He guides His Church by His Holy Spirit into aU truth,1 as the cir cumstances of its life permit and require. As Priest, He maintains open relations between God and the members of His mystical Body, representing them before the Father's throne in an abiding self-obla tion,2 and bestowing upon them, through His Spirit, the blessings of quickening, cleansing and sanctifying grace. As King, He is the Head of the Body and rules the faithful through the- ministry which He has appointed.3 So it is that the whole economy of truth and grace is focused in the heavens, and the conversation of the redeemed is there centred.4 From Heaven we look for the Saviour at His second coming to gather His faithful ones to Himself. § 11. As reported in the fourth Gospel, our Lord said to His Apostles, "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. ... I come again, and will receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." 5 What kind of man- 1 St. John xvi. 13. 3 Eph. iv. 7-16. 2 On which see ch. x. Pt. IH, below. 4 Phil. iii. 20. 6 St. John xiv. 2-3. The subject has received scant treatment. In Hastings, Die. of Christ, s. v. "Mansions," the word is taken as a figure for rest. Some treat the many mansions as many kinds and degrees of glory. 290 THE ASCENSION sions and places He meant, and the manner of His preparing a place for His disciples, He did not explain; but that the preparation of places for His faithful ones is part of His present work is clearly laid down and in terms which seem emphatic. It seems to be implied that each member of Christ is to have a place or mansion of his own, a place which Christ prepares specificaUy for him; and this suggests a form of thought concerning human destiny which is of some importance. The destiny of indi viduals is not to be described in terms of uniformity. No two persons are naturaUy alike in all respects, and the gifts of grace are distributed by the Spirit in different measures and proportions to each re cipient.1 St. Paul was thinking of something else, but his phrase, "One star differeth from another in glory," 2 is true when used to signify abiding differ ences in the personal capacities, gifts and virtues of the subjects of salvation, and in the several des tinies for which they are fitted in the world to come. "To him that overcometh ... I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth it."3 This new name perhaps signifies the individuality or characteristic personahty of the recipient as registered in Heaven. Christ prepares for each one his appropriate place in the heavenly city, a place suited to what he has grown to be through the development of his personal 1 i Cor. xii. 4-11. 2 i Cor. xv. 41. " Revel, ii. 17. REASONS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL 291 gifts, whether natural or supernatural. To put this in other terms, the elect are predestined to baptis mal life, but each in his own vocation and with his own possible line of development and final destiny. And in the heavenly city these several individualities, vocations and destinies are brought into a celestial unity. The city of God draws to itself a multitude of individuals, each having his own characteristics, but aU concurring in harmonious Hfe and glory before the throne of God. § 12. Our Lord also said, "It is expedient for you that I go away: for ff I go not away, the Comforter wfll not come unto you; but if I go, I will send Him unto you." x In brief, the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was conditioned by our Lord's previous withdrawal from this world.2 In other words, the dispensation of the Spirit is not an independent work, but follows upon, and is bound up with, Christ's sending Him from the Father. The Spirit who descended upon the Church was not only the third Person of the Godhead, but was the Spirit of Christ, coming to perfect the Redeemer's work in us, on the basis of His arrangements. He could not come, therefore, until Christ should send Him, and the place from which Christ could send Him was that highest Heaven to which He 1 St. John xvi. 7. 2 On this, see W. Milhgan, pp. 204-216; W. H. Hutchings, Person and Work of the Holy Ghost, pp. 96-99; H. B. Swete, Holy Spirit in the N. Test., pp. 373-375; H. P. Liddon, pp. 226-229. 292 THE ASCENSION departed at His ascension. Nor was this aU. It was part of the divine economy that the Spirit should make the Manhood of Christ, into which He entered at the Incarnation, to be the abiding centre of His work and the medium of His entrance into human hearts for then salvation and sanctification. The grace of God comes to us from Jesus Christ, through His glorified Body, and by the operation of the Spirit in and from that Body. One divine Person, the eternal Son, alone took our nature. The Holy Spirit is not incarnate. But the Incarnation estabHshes the conditions under which the dispensation of grace is accommodated to our nature. Therefore these conditions determine the manner in which the Holy Spirit operates in this world for human benefit. He operates as the Spirit who dweUs in the nature which our Lord assumed, and as carrying on to fruition the lines of saving work which the Incarnation made possible and initiated. He could not do this, however, until Christ had enthroned His Manhood in Heaven and had given it the place and glory whereupon its becoming the source of grace to us depends. This being accom pHshed, the Spirit descended in the Body of Christ, and initiated His earthly work by uniting the ecclesia with the Body in glory, thus making it to be the mystical Body of Christ and the home of saving and sanctifying grace.1 1 We return to this in the next volume. REASONS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL 293 There is no separation between the work of the Son and that of the Spirit. There cannot be, since these Persons are of one Godhead, and work indi- visibly in all things.1 The Spirit does not come to take the place of an absent Lord, but to unite Christ with His disciples, and thus to make Him effectively present with them. The dispensation of the Spirit is thus a perfecting of the work of Jesus Christ, and makes Him in us to be the hope of glory. Every manner of grace which the Spirit imparts to us He imparts from Christ, and our relations to God which He perfects are relations mediated through Christ. 1 The Trinity, pp. 251-252. CHAPTER X THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD I. Introductory § i. In a previous volume the priestly office was described as one "in which the function of media tion obtains formal and transactional effect. It is concerned with estabfishing and perpetuating the relations which ought to be maintained between God and man." x The need of maintaining such relations is based upon human nature and destiny. Man is made for God, and his development or prep aration for his final estate depends upon, and includes, the cultivation of the relations with his Maker which it is his privelege to enjoy in the life to come. Ac cordingly, the need of priesthood, whereby these relations are maintained and developed, is elemen tary, and was not caused in the first instance by human sin. The effect of sin was to complicate the priestly office with the mystery of redemptive suf fering, rather than to originate its necessity. The need which priesthood is designed to satisfy is twofold: (a) of divine assistance, or supernatural 1 The Incarnation, p. 281. On priesthood at large, see Cath. Encyc, and Schaff-Herzog Encyc, q. vv.; J. Grimal, Pt. I. ch. v. INTRODUCTORY 295 grace, for the spiritual growth of men after the like ness of God; (b) of an effective and divinely accept able means of approach to God. Accordingly, the priestly office is twofold: (a) to dispense the grace of God to men; (b) to bring men to God. In both particulars true priesthood is essentiaUy super natural, and is dependent for vaHdity upon divine sanction. Properly speaking, no mere man can mediate between God and men, and even in the lower sense of ministration under the one true Medi ator, no man can take to himself the office of priest hood except he be caUed of God as was Aaron.1 § 2. The history of rehgion shows that wherever the characteristic function of rehgion — the main tenance of acceptable relations with God (or "the gods") — is had in view, priesthood is given a cen tral place. And wherever rehgion is lacking in priesthood we find either that personal relations with God have no place,2 or that an intense desire to get rid of mediaeval accretions has led to indiscriminating rejection of the primitive Christian doctrine of Eu charistic sacrifice and of ministerial priesthood. We also find that the modern rejection in Christian circles of priesthood and sacrifice is being foUowed by an increasing neglect of the Godward aspects of religion, in the interests of exclusively humanitarian endeavour. That this should happen is perfectly natural, for 1 Heb. v. 4-6. 2 E.g. in the Buddhism of Gautama and in Confucianism. 296 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD human nature is sacramentaUy constituted. In aU human affairs the invisible and ideal expresses itself in some outward way; and anything which fafls to obtain such expression also fafls to retain a vital place in men's thoughts and feelings.1 Moreover, the value of external expression in this regard depends upon its fulness and formality. This is especiaUy apparent where personal relations are involved. Language is required, but unless our words are accentuated by action, and by action which is dic tated by recognized formal conventions, they not only fail to impress others, but gradually cease also to have vital significance for ourselves. They cease to sustain and develop the feelings grammatically expressed by them. If I habituaUy content myself with words in greeting those whom I meet, neglecting the customary actions of courtesy, I show myself to be a boor, and my external boorishness has sub jective effect in reducing the strength of my kindly feelings towards others. Our relations to God are personal relations and require adequate expression, if they are to be suffi ciently developed. They are also human — that is, they are relations which human beings have to cultivate, and which such beings can neither express nor cultivate except under the laws that govern human self-expression. Accordingly, as the history of rehgion, already appealed to, shows, the value of our recognition of our Godward relations depends 1 Cf. pp. 88-90, where refs. are given. INTRODUCTORY 297 upon the fulness of our external expression and acknowledgment of them. The fact that God knows our hearts independently of such expression is non-relevant to this argument, because our hearts soon cease to feel what is left unexpressed, and human self-expression is governed by human laws. Moreover, God demands that we shaU express our relations to Him, and that we shaU do this adequately.1 Sacrificial worship is the conventional and accepted method of such expression, one which God Himself has sanctioned. It is true that, like aU things per formed by human beings, such worship has been subject to corruptions that have drawn forth pro phetic rebuke. But this is offset by the circumstance that, whfle such worship has been profoundly modified by the death of Christ, it has never been aboHshed by God.2 Human nature is not only sacramental, but also social; and our relations to God are social as weU as personal. They are not matters of exclusively individual and private concern. Human analogies support this thought. No man can adequately cultivate his relations to his feUow-men on lines of private friendship only. I am related to my best friend not only as an individual, but as a member of society. Personal exclusiveness in this matter 1 Isa. Iv. 6; St. Matt. vi. 9-13; xxvi. 41; St. Luke xviii. 1; Rom. xii. 12; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 1-3, 8; Heb. iv. 16, etc. Cf. H. P. Liddon, Some Elements of Religion, Lee. v. esp. pp. 165-166. 2 Cf. pp. 124-125, above. 298 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD may develop a certain intensity of feeling, but it does so at the cost of a social impoverishment which reduces the value of feUowship. > Our relations to God, being also social, require social and corporate methods of expression. Ac cordingly, we find public worship to be a normal and central characteristic of religion in every age.1 And, aUowing for the exceptions aheady hinted at, we find this worship to be sacrificial. That is, men, express then relations to God (or "the gods") by some external gift, thereby rendering homage and entering into a divine communion and feUowship.2 Closely connected with the sacrificial ritual are rites of cleansing or sanctification, and both are performed and administered by men set apart to represent the rest; that is, by priests. The ideas thus institution- aUy expressed are elementary, and seem to require external embodiment, if reHgion is to fulfil its* char acteristic function of fostering and expressing the relations of men to God. § 3. The priestly ritual of the Old Testament, whatever may have been the precise nature and history of its development among the Israelites, was more ancient than the Mosaic covenant. What happened to Israel was a reformation of inherited usages, and a divine sanction of the results as ele- 1 Creation and Man, pp. 219-220, 232-235. 2 The propitiatory element is a later development. The order in which the elements of external gift and communion were devel oped, is immaterial to their being divinely sanctioned and vital. INTRODUCTORY 299 ments in a covenant estabhshed between Jahveh and His chosen people. Whether this adjustment and divine sanction was accompHshed once for all in the Mosaic age, or was not completed until a much later period, is immaterial.1 In any case, when our Lord came the Jews possessed a divinely sanctioned priestly ritual, the authority of which was plainly, although indirectly, recognized by Him.2 Its limitations were patent, and had been sharply set forth by the prophets, sometimes in terms which, when isolated from then bibUcal context, are easily understood to impugn its divine appointment.3 The Old Testament sacrifices, to borrow a later method of statement, did not effect what they figured, although they did prefigure in several aspects the effective sacrifice of Jesus Christ.4 And because they did this, they constituted a present means by which the IsraeHtes could acceptably appear before God and express relations to Him which were to be made good when the Redeemer should come. These methods of expression were needed, although, as "the prophets took pains to teach, they were valueless to those who made use of them without repenting of their sins.5 1 On the history of O. Test, sacrifice, see E. F. Willis, Worship of the Old Covenant; J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the O. Test.; Hastings, Die of Bible, q. v., A.; Schaff-Herzog Encyc, q. v.; W. R. Smith, Relig. of the Semites. 2 Cf. St. Matt. v. 23-24; xxi. 12-13; xxiii. 1-2, 16-19. 3 See pp. 7-8, above. 4 Heb. viii. 4-7; x. 1. Cf. Col. ii. 17. 6 Cf. Psa. Ii. 16-19. 300 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD The Old Testament ritual constituted a kinder garten school — not less significant because its pupils could not interpret its ceremonies adequately, their full meaning not becoming apparent until they were fulfilled by Christ. As pertaining to such a school, the Aaronic priesthood was a transitory institution,1 but ministered to the expression of Godward relations which would stfll need to be expressed on earth after it had given way to the abiding priesthood of Christ. To fllustrate this by leading examples, the ritual of the Day of Atonement could not remove sin, but it prefigured an effective sacrifice for sin; and for this reason its performance was acceptable to God as a provisional and ceremonial cleansing of Israel's worship. The Burnt Offering, by which the Israelites expressed their self-oblation to God, was in itself also ineffective; but it gave sanctioned ex pression to a dutiful attitude towards God. There fore it was accepted; and it became a sign and pledge of an effectual means of self-oblation, one which Christ's priesthood should provide in the fulness of time. FinaUy, the paschal Peace Offer ing, in which the IsraeHtes sat at God's board, as it were, and sought to enjoy grateful communion with their Maker, was prefigurative only. But it ex pressed in the most acceptable way then possible the holy communion and feUowship which Christ was 1 Heb. viii. 6-8; x. 1-2, 8-9. INTRODUCTORY 301 to obtain by His death, and was to place within human reach in His Church.1 § 4. In its sacrificial aspect our Lord's death ac compHshed three things: (a) It fulfiUed the propi tiatory elements which had been prefigured in the ritual of the Old Testament sacrifices; (b) It conse crated His abiding priesthood in Heaven; 2 (c) It afforded a sufficient, permanent and meritorious basis upon which men can now acceptably and effectively offer themselves through Christ to God. As the ritual of the Day of Atonement ceremoni- aUy cleansed the holy place made with hands, and symbohcaUy sanctified the sacrifices of Israel for the whole year, so the death of Christ cleansed — not in mere figure, but reaUy — the heavenly holy place, and sanctified for all time the Eucharistic self-obla tions of His redeemed. In the old ritual the High Priest entered into the Holy of Hohes once a year, sprinkling the mercy seat with animal blood; but our Lord has entered Heaven once for afl through His own blood, and there remaining, makes His flesh the veil through which we also can enter and gain acceptance by His blood.3 The death of Christ did not overcome Him, but consecrated Him to an ever-living priesthood, in which the sacrificial mystery is perpetuated by His effective appearance before the Father for us.4 And this may be prefigured in the Old Testament cere- 1 For refs. on the meanings of O. T. sacrifices, see p. 6, n. 3, above. 2 Heb. ix. 12-28. 3 Heb. ix; x. 19-22. 4 Heb. ix. 24. 302 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD mony of sending the Hving scape-goat to an unin habited place — that is, figuratively speaking, to the heavenly place to which Israel had not yet come.1 The Burnt Offerings and Peace Offerings were shadows of this continuing element of the sacrificial mystery. They were connected with the atonement ritual by the pouring of blood at the base of the altar; but they symbolized additional things, things to which priesthood was to minister effectively and permanently when reconcfliation to the Father had been achieved by the blood of Christ. The Cross sanctifies the Christian Burnt Offering or Eucharist, in which the appointed memorial of Christ's death enables us to appear in Him before the Father and to offer ourselves as "a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice."2 And this Eucharist, thus sanctified by the Cross, is also our Peace Offering. It is the Holy Table at which we feast on divine food, on the Hving Bread which in the Sacrament cometh down from Heaven. Thus we become identified with Christ, and our oblation is accepted for the value which this identification imparts to it.3 1 Levit. xvi. 7-10, 20-22, 26. This interpretation is not the usual one. The ritual has been taken to represent our Lord's sub stitutionary punishment, the goat perishing in the wilderness. The accepted interpretation to-day treats it as figuring simply the re moval of sin from Israel. See S. R. Driver, in Expositor for 1885, pp. 214-217; G. B. Stevens, p. 11; Hastings, Die of Bible, and Schaff-Herzog Encyc.,, s. w. "Azazel"; J. K. Mozley, pp. 17-23. 2 Prayer of Oblation in the Liturgy. 3 St. John vi. 48-51. INTRODUCTORY 303 It is to be observed that although what Christ's death accompHshed was accompHshed once for all, and neither may nor can be repeated, the mystery of sacrifice was thereby perfected and made effective rather than ended. The bibhcal description of what it achieved is "sacrifice for sin," but in bibfical use this phrase is not equivalent to the whole drama of sacrifice.1 It stands for that aspect of sacrifice, that branch of sacrificial ritual, which the ceremony of the Day of Atonement exhibited — the sancti fying, consecrating and vahdating aspect. In a more comprehensive use of terms, the sacrificial mystery which the so caUed "sacrifice for sin" con secrates lives on in an abiding sacrificial self-obla tion of men through Christ to God. In the Jewish ritual the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement, once offered, was not repeated during the whole year; but sacrifice, none the less, went on. And it went on not only because the more perfect sacrifice of Christ had not yet been offered, but because the self-oblation and communion with God which it expressed needs to be expressed by men under all conditions, even after they have been reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The sins ¦ of men did not create the need of sacrifice, although they comphcated it with the element of blood. Similarly, the remedy for sin, called "sacrifice for sin," does 1 So that the teaching that Christ has "offered one sacrifice for sins forever" (Heb. x. 12) does not show that He then brought all true sacrifice to an end. 304 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD not do away with sacrifice in its other aspects, but makes it acceptable by affording to it a sanctifying basis. Furthermore, even this "sacrifice for sin" needs to be applied and pleaded in every generation by a suitable memorial of it; and the memorial which Christ appointed, the Holy Eucharist,1 in so far as it represents and applies the "sacrifice for sin," has the status of a representative and appficatory sacrifice. II. Christ'' s Priestly Office § 5. The death of Christ consecrated Him to be Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.2 But the fact that He and no other was caUed of God to this priesthood is based upon both eternal and his torical relations. His priesthood, as we have said, is the transactional element of His mediation between God and man, and His being a true Mediator is due to His uniting in His own Person the eternal and the historical, the nature of God and the nature of man. Unless He had been very God, He could not have been the fuU Representative of God to men that He claimed to be; and unless He had identified Himself with us by taking our nature, He apparently 1 1 Cor. xi. 26. The word "show" (A. V.) should be "proclaim" or "celebrate." Cf. | 11, below. 2 Heb. v. 5-6, 10, etc. Cf. Psa. ex. 4. On the priestly office of Christ, see The Incarnation, pp. 281-293; Wm. Milligan, Ascen sion and Heavenly Priesthood; Geo. Milhgan, Theol. of the Ep. to the Heb., chh. vi-vii; R. C. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, pp. 244- 249; M. F. Sadler, One Offering, chh. vii-ix; St. Thomas, HI. xxu; P. G. Medd, One Mediator, || 40-43. CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE 305 could not have been recognized by men as the Head of then race, and as their proper Representative before God. It is because He adequately fulfils the need which is expressed in the Book of Job, of a daysman who can lay his hand on both,1 that He is the one Mediator between God and man, the one Priest whose priesthood is inherent, and from which every vahd priesthood among men is derived. The Aaronic priesthood- constituted His human agency in pre paring the way for His own manifestation; and the Christian priesthood is His agency for enabling us to participate in the mysteries which His personal mediation alone makes vahd. AH true priesthood is His priesthood, and earthly priests are purely ministerial, deriving then functions whoUy from His One thing more needs to be said in treating of the mediatorial basis of our Lord's priesthood. If His equipment for mediation on the divine side is found in His possession of the fulness of the Godhead, His personal fitness for these functions is to be explained by His eternal status and relation in the divine Trinity. This is a matter concerning which our knowledge is very limited and highly symbolical. Yet we are able to discern a peculiar fitness in the 1 Job ix. 33. 2 See R. C. Moberly, op. cit., ch. vii. II; D. Stone, Christian Church, pp. 251-252; M. F. Sadler, ch. viii; P. G. Medd, op. cit., || 184-185. 306 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD fact that the Son, rather than either the Father or the Holy Spirit should assume our nature, and should perfect Himself for the priesthood on its human side by suffering and death. The filial rela tion to God which it is the work of the Mediator to secure and perfect in our behalf was obviously more fittingly participated in by Him who is the proper Son of God, than by any other divine Person. Fur thermore, He who is the Image of the invisible God, and the Word of God, most conveniently fulfils the divinely representative and revelational aspects of mediation between God and man.1 Accordingly, the limitations of our knowledge and descriptions of the relations subsisting between the divine Persons, do not prevent us from perceiv ing a patent reasonableness in the designation of the Son of God to be our Priest before the Father's throne. Conforming to His mission, and obeying the Father's wfll, He came into the world. And "glorified not Himself to be made a high priest, but He that spake unto Him, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,' as He saith also in an other place, 'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'" 2 Thus appointed, He took our nature, being made "like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God." 3 1 St. Thomas, III. hi; Rich. Hooker, Eccles. Polity, V. h. 2-3; A. J. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, ch. vi. § 1. 2 Heb. x. 5-10; v. 5-6. 3 Heb. ii. 17. CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE 307 § 6. Guided by divine inspiration, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews selects certain accidents of the Old Testament narrative concerning Mel- chizedek, and gives them symbofic [reference to Christ's priesthood.1 From the fact that Levi, from whom the Aaronic priesthood sprang, was in the loins of Abraham when he gave tithes to Mel- chizedek, and was blessed by him, the superiority of the order of Melchizedek to that of Aaron is in ferred. The further fact that no beginning or end of days is ascribed to Melchizedek — he simply appears — is treated symbohcaUy as signifying the endlessness of the priesthood of Christ, who "be cause He abideth forever hath an unchangeable priesthood." Only the eternal is in the proper sense of terms unchangeable or "inviolable." 2 If, therefore, the priesthood of Christ is thus to be described, it is eternal. It is this because it is the priesthood of an eternal Person, of the one who amid aU the changes of time remains the same, whose years cannot fail;3 that is, of Him in whom aU temporal things cohere. Just as the centre of a chcle is in the midst of the whole circumference, however vast the circle may be, and is its determining principle, so the eternal Son is central to the whole circumference of time, and what He is and does determines its historical 1 Heb. vii. 1-24. Cf. Gen. xiv. 18-20. 2 Heb. vii. 24 (R. V.), margin. » Heb. i. 8-12. 308 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD curve — the significance and value of its every part and movement.1 It is precarious to base any argument upon the exegesis which makes the Apocalypse assert that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.2 But such an assertion, if it were made, would embody an important truth — the truth that what ever the eternal Son achieves for mankind is achieved from the centre of aU time, and is effectual for all the ages. The death of Christ, considered as an event, was subject to the laws of time, and did not happen — was not an event — until a certain human date. But the event was more than an event. It was the emergence in history of an eternal purpose and movement, which has determined the curve or course of history from the beginning. The death of Christ has had effect in every age, although its retroactive effects require a different manner of description from that which we use in speaking of its subsequent effects.3 We shaU miss vital aspects of the mystery if we reduce the retroactive aspects of the Cross, and of the priesthood which it consecrates, to mere fore- ordination. The "fore" in this case does not refer to priority in time, but to the eternal nature and vahdity of the ordination, which is central to every 1 Cf. Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 253-256; Creation and Man, PP- 5-7- 2 Revel, xiii. 8. Cf. xvii. 8. 8 Cf. ch. ii. | 5, above. CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE 309 moment of time because transcending aU times.1 The cause of redemption, historicaUy described, is the death of Christ, which occurred at a certain temporal moment. But the cause is also an eternal one, revealing its working in every dispensation, although revealing it differently in each and in con formity to the laws of history and of human progress. Behind the primitive possibiHties of human sin lay the corrective mystery of redemption.2 This was effectual from the moment of man's fafl in pre serving the race from total depravity and ruin. It imparted vafidity to each successive covenant, and to the sacrificial approach to God which was provided for in each. The prefigurative aspects of Old Testament ritual, in particular, connect that ritual with the Cross, and teach us that the Cross lay behind it and made it acceptable, when con tritely performed, in spite of the fact that redemption had not yet been historicaUy achieved. It is comparatively easy for our imagination to grasp the truth that the death of Christ has redemp tive effect in subsequent ages, for we are wont to describe the relations of cause and effect in terms of temporal antecedence and consequence. But this very facility of apprehension may hinder us from realizing that the temporal gap between Christ's death and the appHcation of redemption to men in 1 Being and Attrib. of God, pp. 281-282. Cf. p. 284. 2 A fact to be reckoned with in facing the problem of evfl. See Creation and Man, pp. 134-135. 310 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD later ages cannot be bridged, so as to make one the effectual cause of the other, unless there be an eternal nexus, an abiding mystery in which the Cross Hves on as a never ending and ever operative principle. The required nexus is found in the Person and priesthood of Jesus Christ. This priesthood is exercised from an eternal standpoint, and is effec tively vaHd for every age, for the whole chcumference of time. But, historicaUy described, it is the sequel of our Lord's death, by which it is consecrated, and from which its validity in historical and human application is derived.1 § 7. In two respects we may describe our Lord's death as accomplishing effects once for aU, effects which we may not seek to accomphsh again without falling into very serious error. In the first place, His death has achieved fuU and perfect redemption for aU mankind,2 and upon this redemption is based the whole dispensation of salvation — salvation which redemption of itself does not achieve, but which in every age and race must be worked out through personal appHcation of the merits of the Cross. In the second place, and in more direct connection with our immediate subject, Christ's death once for aU consecrates His priesthood, and makes it effectual for the acceptance of men by God where- 1 The relation of the Eucharist to the Cross becomes an external one, engendering a tendency to make the Eucharist an additional sacrifice, when the connecting link of Christ's existing heavenly priesthood is ignored. 2 Cf. pp. 121-122, above. CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE 311 ever and whenever they approach Him in contrite union with Christ. It does so because it imparts to the "somewhat" that Christ has "to offer"1 in our behalf the propitiatory value which our sins require that it shaU possess. To put this in another way, a "sacrifice for sin" has been made which is so sufficient that no more sacrifice of this description is needed. The Day of Atonement ritual has expired by fulfilment in Christ's death. This fact has profoundly modified priesthood and sacrifice at large. If previous to accomplished redemption it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens, the things of Israel's Taber nacle, should be cleansed with the bloody sacrifices which were then offered, the achievement of redemp tion has changed the whole situation. The things now to be cleansed are heavenly things; and they are cleansed with better sacrifices than these, that is, by Christ now appearing before the face of God for us.2 Sacrificial ritual on earth has been reconstituted, therefore, to agree with the new conditions.. We no longer connect our self-oblations and communions with an ineffective Day of Atonement ritual by shedding of blood, as was done in the Jewish Burnt Offerings and Paschal Feasts; but we make a bloodless memorial of the death of Christ; and through sacra mental feeding on the Body and Blood of the Hving Christ we identify ourselves with Him in appearing 1 Heb. viii. 3. 2 Heb. ix. 23-24. 312 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD before the Father. We continue to offer sacrifice, for to do so is the acceptable mode of rendering creaturely homage to God; but we do not repeat the "sacrifice for sin," nor do we make bloody offer ings at aU. We celebrate the Lord's death until He comes again,1 and in doing so we offer ourselves in Jesus Christ as "a reasonable, holy and Hving sacri fice," to God the Father. If our offering of the sacrifice is repeated, the sacrifice which we offer is not. It is that which the Cross made and perfected, and which lives on forever.2 § 8. In its temporal aspects the priesthood of Christ is necessarily fulfilled in His human nature. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, it is obviously convenient that an office which has been consecrated by what our Lord suffered in His Manhood should be exercised in the nature in which He was thus consecrated. Moreover, His passion itself was human not only because His Godhead was insusceptible of such an experience, but also because He suffered as our Vicar and Representative; and, as we have seen, if He was to be a true Mediator between God and man, He had to bring Himself into -effective iden tification with mankind in His mediatorial work. This He did by taking our nature, and by submitting to the conditions of human experience.3 His passion was the perfecting of His Manhood for the priestly 1 i Cor. xi. 26. z Cf. | n, below. 3 Heb. ii. 16-18. CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE 313 use to which He was to put it,1 when He had carried it successfully through death and had enabled it to participate in His incorruption and immortaUty. The Manhood which was thus perfected included the body, which became the external medium and instrument of His heavenly priesthood. The con venience of this method can be seen when we reckon with the laws that govern human receptivity and expression — laws which explain the necessity of the sacramental order. We are so constituted that aU our apprehensions, subjective acts of assimilation, and efforts to express the spirit that is in us, depend upon enHstment of corporal conditions and functions.2 Therefore our Mediator has adapted His priestly functioning to these conditions. His saving grace is made to flow into us from His glorified Body, and His Flesh is the veil through which, by His Blood, we gain access to God, and are enabled to offer ourselves to Him in the selfsame Body of Christ. It is under these conditions that the Holy Spirit works.3 Indeed it is His work to make them effectual for our regeneration, cleansing, perfecting and re covery from death to incorruption and immortality. His descent upon the first Christians in the upper room united them with Christ's glorified Manhood, and thus constituted of them that extension of 1 Heb. ii. 10-11; iv. 15. 2 Cf. ch. vii. | 11; and pp. 88-89, 296, above. 3 Cf. pp. 291-292, above. On the subject of this section, see Geo. Milhgan, pp. 78-84; J. Grimal, pp. 73-81. 314 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD Christ's Body in this world which is called the mys tical Body. In and from this Body, which is the visible Church of Christ, the spirit operates in the dispensation of grace from Christ. ILL The Heavenly Oblation § 9. As has been said elsewhere, priesthood has the twofold function of bestowing grace from God on creatures, and of effecting their sacrifice or self- oblation to God. Both functions are of permanent necessity, for man is evermore dependent upon divine grace, and never ceases to be under obfigation to offer himself in sacrificial homage to God. But sacrifice is not summed up in the immolation of a victim; and the death of Christ, while it perfects and consecrates the sinner's self-oblation, does not bring to an end the necessity of offering the sacrifice. The sacrifice is made — constituted — by the Cross, but fives on in a perpetual heavenly oblation.1 Therefore it is necessary that the High Priest, in whose priestly functioning the sacrifice fives on, should "have somewhat to offer." The sacred writer who thus teaches points to the fact that the priest hood to which this necessity pertains is not fulfiUed on earth.2 We are therefore precluded from taking 1 On the heavenly oblation, see J. J. I. von Doelhnger, First Age of the Church, pp. 45-60; W. Milligan, pp. 114-149; Geo. Milhgan, ch. vii, esp. pp. 139 et seq.; M. F. Sadler, ch. vii; A. P. Forbes, Thirty-Nine Arts., pp. 607-611; S. C. Gayford, in Joum. of Theol. Studies, Apr. 1913, pp. 458-467. » Heb. viii. 3-4. THE HEAVENLY OBLATION 315 him to mean that the oblation which he declares to be involved in Christ's priesthood was His death on earth, conceived of as ending the necessity of having somewhat to offer. The thought is that so long as He is priest He must have somewhat to offer. On the continuing mystery of this heavenly oblation depends the possibility of our active and sacramental participation in the sacrifice, our effec tive oblation of ourselves to God on the basis of the Cross. Only in and through a continuing priest, and an abiding priestly function in the heavens, can we offer what is conventionally de scribed as our "representative and appficatory" sacrifice. What, then, is the manner of our Lord's heavenly oblation? It may easfly be misconceived, as if it were an action conforming externally to earthly analogies. That it cannot be thus described must be clear when we reckon with its continuous nature and with heavenly conditions. The earthly method is determined by our temporal conditions, and is repetitious. We must be renewing our oblations by repeated actions, because not otherwise can we maintain and adequately express the relation and attitude which sacrifice is intended to express. But such a method involves interruptions between acts of oblation, and these cannot be ascribed to the heavenly mystery in which our oblations are unified and obtain acceptance with God. There is truth in the denial that Christ contmues to 316 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD "sacrifice Himself,"1 for what is had in mind by such a form of denial is an external action, which from the nature of things could only endure by repetition. The New Testament describes the mystery in symbolic terms, for no other terms are available. What seems to be the most determinative descrip tion is that "Christ entered . . . into Heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us." 2 Offer ing Himself often or repetitiously is expressly excluded, for the one act on His part which is capable in se of repetition — the act which makes, and abidingly validates, His appearing for us — was His suffering on the Cross, and this was fulfilled once for aU. There is, then, something in His appearance which constitutes His oblation, and this appearance is a continuous mystery. What this is seems to be hinted at elsewhere in the New Testament, where our Lord is described as a Lamb standing in the midst of the heavenly throne, "as though it had been slain."3 The meaning seems to be that the very appearance of the Lamb reveals the fact of its having been slain, while its standing posture sym bolizes Hving functioning of some kind. That the wounds incurred on the Cross remain as "dear tokens 1 A denial that is non-relevant, for those who emphasize our Lord's heavenly oblation do not thus describe it. 2 Heb. ix. 24-26. St. Thomas, HI. Ivh. 6, says, "Ipsa enim reprasentatio sui ex natura humana, quam in ccelum intuht, est quaedam interpellatio pro nobis." 8 Revel, v. 6. THE HEAVENLY OBLATION 317 of His passion" need not be maintained;1 but the thought that somehow our Lord's visible appearance in glory constitutes an abiding memorial of His death, and has functional value in His Hving priest hood before the Father, seems plainly to be implied. § 10. These symbols have to do with the external side of the heavenly oblation. But there is the moral aspect and objective effect; and this is included in what is expressed by the words, "Wherefore also He is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through Him, seeing He ever Hveth to make intercession for them." 2 The word trans lated "to make intercession," evruy^dveLv, does not have the restricted meaning of "to pray for," but signifies to meet and transact with one person in reference to another. As applied to our Lord's heavenly work the phrase refers both to the objec tive and to the moral elements of His priesthood — to His external appearing for us, and to those elements and aspects which make this appearing moraUy significant and effectual. It is with the moral aspects that we are now concerned. They are threefold. (a) In the first place, because the heavenly priest hood is consecrated by, and based upon, our Lord's 1 Yet Christ appears to have retained them after His resurrec tion, when He used them to convince the doubting Thomas. St. John xx. 27-28. 2 Heb. vii. 25. See B. F. Westcott, Ep. to the Heb., in loc; Geo. Milligan, pp. 124-125, note; W. Milhgan, pp. 149-161. 318 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD death, it has all the moral significance and value of that death. Christ's intercession is in this respect a representation before the Father of His meritorious "sacrifice for sin," a transaction which necessarily possesses the merit and appealing power of what it represents. All that has elsewhere been said by way of setting forth the moral value of the passion of Christ, whether in Godward or in manward relations, apphes to the priesthood which it consecrated. The heavenly oblation is the memorial of our Lord's death, whereby its merits and redemptive value for men are represented before the Father. (b) In the second place, in appearing for us our Lord is still offering Himself for us to God. In the "somewhat" which He offers, therefore, the Father recognizes His beloved Son in whom He is weU pleased — well pleased not only because Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of His love, but because of the self-effacing obedience by means of which that Son has humanly increased in His favour.1 Moreover, the members of Christ, for whom He died, are mystically united with and present in Him; and the Father accepts them as thus identified with His Beloved. Speaking symbolicaUy, the Father wflls to look "on His anointed face, and only look on us as found in Him." 2 The value which is dis covered in our great High Priest is imparted to us, and makes us acceptable in Him. 1 St. Luke ii. 52. Cf. Phil. ii. 6-11. 2 Hymn by the late Dr. W. Bright. THE HEAVENLY OBLATION 319 (c) There is no substitution, no unreal imputation or forensic transfer of merits in this; for, in the third place, the mystery of justifying grace is involved. We are accounted righteous by God because through union with Christ his grace is bestowed upon us, and brings about our progressive conformity to Him. Our faith is imputed to us for righteousness because it is the first step in our becoming righteous after the Hkeness of Jesus Christ, by His grace and our cooperation therewith in working out our own salvation. Accordingly, coincidently with our com ing to God in Christ, He is also saving us to the uttermost; and because of this we are accepted by God for the value which is growing in us.1 § n. Christ is not our substitute in self -oblation; and if we are to derive benefit from His offering, we must personaUy share in it by offering ourselves to God in union with Him. There must, therefore, be some earthly action in connection with our Lord's heavenly oblation, by the performance of which we can fulfil this condition and make the sacrifice our own, representing it and applying its benefits to ourselves. In brief, we have to offer a representative and appficatory sacrifice, and this has been made possible for us by our Lord's institution of the Holy Eucharist. In this mystery we are enabled to make a sacra mental identification of ourselves with our heavenly 1 We do not hide behind Christ, but appear in Christ, so related to Him as to be growing in His hkeness. Cf. ch. viii. | 10, above. 320 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD Priest and with what He offers to the Father; 1 and thus united with Him, we offer what He offers, thereby offering ourselves in it effectively and accept ably to God, a "reasonable holy and Hving sacrifice." This presupposes, of course, the subjective condi tions of faith and repentance, apart from the fulfilment of which we cannot gain acceptance. The Eucharistic mystery suppHes the objective factor, the formal transaction, which gives effect in the appointed manner to our self-oblations. It is our sacrifice — not as additional to that of the Cross nor as repeating Christ's death, but derivatively, as the divinely afforded means whereby we celebrate it, plead it, and in the meritorious or sanctifying power of it offer ourselves in the fiving Christ to God. The form of the Eucharistic oblation is determined both by what it represents and enables us to join in offering, and by the necessities which our earthly conditions impose upon us. On the one hand, be cause it is the sacrament and vehicle of the Body and Blood of Christ, our offering it is a true memorial of His death and an effective method of participating in the offering of that sacrifice. Moreover, because the living Christ is the Priest and invisible substance of the sacrament, by offering it we unite our earthly oblation with His heavenly one, in which His death is effectively represented before the Father. 1 This subject wiU be more fully dealt with in our ninth volume. See D. Stone, Holy Communion, chh. v, vii; Chas. Gore, Body of Christ, ch. hi; M. F. Sadler, One Offering. THE HEAVENLY OBLATION 321 On the other hand, although the sacrifice is one, consecrated once for all by Christ's death, and exhibited by a continuous appearance of Christ in Heaven, our participation in it is subject to temporal and physical limitations, and to the necessity of frequent renewals. These limitations are accen tuated by our imperfections, and by the necessity that we should frequently repent and express our repentance by renewing the formal self-oblation which our sins have emptied of moral and personal value. Accordingly, we offer frequent Eucharists, and repeat the action by which our material gifts of bread and wine are consecrated and become the Body and Blood of Christ.1 But it is the creaturely substance that is thus repeatedly consecrated. The sacred thing of which it becomes the sacrament and vehicle is not consecrated again. It was consecrated once for aU when it hung on the Cross. What is repeated is our identification of ourselves with it and the effective seff-oblation which this identification enables us to renew. § 12. There is but one true sacrifice, to wit, the sacrifice which was made on the Cross, which lives on in Christ's appearance for us, and which becomes properly our own sacrifice by our Eucharistic repre sentation of it and participation in it. 1 Not by physical conversion, but in a sense, none the less, that made it true that the bread and the cup, when blessed by the Lord in the night of His betrayal, should be, as He said they were, His Body and His Blood. 322 THE HEAVENLY PRIESTHOOD It is one in time, being effected once for all on the Cross, and having effect in every age of human history through Christ's eternal Person, and through the abiding nature of His heavenly oblation. Under whatever dispensational conditions men approach God in sacrificial ritual, this ritual unites them at least ceremoniaUy — in the Eucharist effectuaUy — with the sacrifice of Christ. Each generation offers sacrifice after its appointed manner, but the sacrifice which is always signified is essentiaUy that of Calvary.1 And it is not less truly this because the manner in which men signify it varies in successive dispensations, and has been changed since its historic accompHshment from prefigurative shedding of blood to unbloody and sacramental representation and application. The sacrificial oblations which men offer in many lands and at many altars are also one in their local and objective reference; for they are aU identified with the heavenly mystery of the Lamb standing in the heavenly throne. They are united with that mystery because what is offered everywhere is sacra- mentaUy identified with'what there appears as having been slain for us. The Holy Place not made with hands is the local centre of aU Eucharists; and the Flesh of Christ, through the veil of which we gain entrance by His Blood,2 is locaUy present in one 1 That is, in Christian interpretation. The meaning of pre- Christian sacrificial ritual was deeper than its users had come to perceive. 2 Heb. x. 19-22. THE HEAVENLY OBLATION 323 throne, around which are gathered multitudes which no man can number in every nation under Heaven.1 The sacrifice is also one because in every offering of it there is one and the same Priest and Victim, and one consecration by His death on the Cross. The heavenly oblation is the abiding token above of what was done on Calvary, and the Eucharistic sacrifice is the recurring earthly celebration of that mystery. Earthly priests minister only as agents of Christ, and He is the real Priest and Oblation in every Eucharist. 1 Revel, vii. 9-15. IH E'P LIMP TOK-PK ESS NORWOOD- MASS-U-S-A By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Pro fessor of Dogmatic Theology in the Gen eral Theological Seminary, New York. THE LONG DESIRED ANGLICAN SUMMA OF DOCTRINE A series of ten volumes in Dogmatic Theology, crown 8vo., each complete in itself, designed to constitute a con nected treatment of the entire range of Catholic Doctrine. Price, each volume, $2.00 net I. Introduction (published in 1907). II. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical (pub lished in 1908). III. The Being and Attributes op God (published in 1909). IV. The Trinity (published in 1910). V. Creation and Man. (published in 1912). VI. The Incarnation. (Published in 1915). .VII. The Redemption and Exaltation op Christ. VIII. The Church and Her Sacraments. IX. The Minor Sacraments. X. Eschatology and Indexes. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. NEW YORK, LONDON, BOMBAY and CALCUTTA HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Occupying a point of view which is Anglican and Catholic, the writer joyfully recognizes the value of modern advances in knowledge and thought, and seeks to coordinate the new with the old. Convinced that the ancient Catholic Faith cannot be imperilled by Truth from any quarter, he also believes that it needs to be exhibited in the terms of modern intelligence, if theology is to retain its place as the queen of sciences. The volumes which have thus far been published have secured a favorable and encouraging reception on both sides of the Atlantic. The learning, skill in argument and clearness of exposition shown in the work; the author's success in trans lating ancient doctrines into modern terms, and his sympa thetic understanding of new knowledge and contemporary thought, have been acknowledged by reviewers of every type — Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant alike; — and his reverent adherence to Catholic doctrine has also been noticed. The following brief extracts are selected from a considerable number of generally favorable reviews. Volume I. INTRODUCTION Pp. xlii-273. Journal op Theological Studies, Oxford and Cambridge: "The author's learning and wide reading are as conspicuous throughout the book as is his fidelity to the point of view. ..." Church Union Gazette, London: . . . "is a compara tively small book into which an immense amount of valuable fact and criticism has been compressed . . . there breathes a spirit of large-mindedness, a refusal to be confined within any groove of prejudice." Church Times, London: "This admirable treatise should be found very useful on both sides of the Atlantic. . . .The book reaches a high level of excellence. ' ' HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY The Living Church, Milwaukee: "It exhibits the qualities which previous books have led us to expect from Dr. Hall, the severely restrained language, the careful accuracy of statement, the equitable judgement, and the background of knowledge. . . .When completed, the series will undoubtedly be a monumental addition to Anglican and indeed to Catholic Theology. It may, indeed, in time be recognized as holding such a place in Anglican theology as is held by the Summa of Thomas Aquinas in the Latin communion." Church Standard, Philadelphia: "Dr. Hall is not Latin. He is Catholic, to be sure, very much so, but in the true Anglican spirit he continues to bring the modern into his Catholicity, and give us a modern while he is giving a Catholic theology." Expository Times: After referring to the writer's briefer outlines, "the fuller scope of the new volume reveals a new writer, a writer with a very extensive knowledge of the litera ture of his subject, to which he makes continual reference, and one who has manifestly mastered its literature and made his subject a real personal possession." Scottish Chronicle: "Its earnestness and learning are admirable." Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin: "Dr. Hall is eminently qualified for the task he has undertaken. . . . Not the least of Dr. Hall's qualifications as a theologian is his extensive acquaintance with our Catholic authors . . . his style may be commended as a model of theological writing in English; it is clear; concise, direct, dignified, and elegant." Pax, England: "That Dr. Hall possesses the necessary qualifications for the task will be apparent to those who know his theological monographs and his book on The Kenotic Theory; and this volume promises well for the success of his undertaking." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume II. AUTHORITY Ecclesiastical and Biblical Pp. xvi— 300. The Guardian, London: "The present volume, which forms a treatise complete in itself, is even abler than the first, and most opportune. . . .The entire book is marked by caution, balance, and restraint, and deserves to be carefully read. A noticeable feature of the book is the immense jiumber of modern writers referred to or discussed." London Quarterly Review: "Dr. Hall uses his space well. . .he writes with candor and ability." Church Times, London: "Everything that is said in this book about oecumenical authority, the authority of Councils, of National Churches, and so forth, is admirable. . .[Referring to the whole series.] That is a great enterprise, worthily begun." Record-Herald, Chicago: "It is refreshing to meet such a book, simple and lucid in style, scholarly, thorough, con servative, but not bigoted, marshalling arguments and meet ing objections after the manner of the masters of theology." The Churchman, New York: "Of special value. . .is the chapter on the Dogmatic Office and Tradition. . . .There is a good analysis of the various theories of inspiration and a cautious discussion of the functions and legitimate scope of Biblical criticism." Scottish Chronicle: "This book. . .will be welcomed by many students of divinity. It is a well thought-out treatise on the meaning of authority in religion, in which are consid ered the three factors of spiritual knowledge. . .viz., eccle- siatical authority, biblical authority, and reason." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Living Church, Milwaukee: "We believe that. . .Dr. Hall states most adequately and most accurately the answer of the Anglican communion to the questions that divide Christians to-day, and that on substantially the lines of his answer must be built up the position that will ultimately prove the factor that will unite Christendom." Sewanee Review, Tennessee: "Prof. Hall has a very dis tinct gift for systematizing." Church Union Gazette, London: "Its chief value lies in the way in which he recognizes and emphasizes all the factors which are Involved in any true knowledge of Divine things, not minimizing any, nor exalting one at the expense of another; but showing how, by the combination of all, we obtain a certitude which nothing can overthrow." Pax, England: "As a really good compendium with valu able references, this book deserves all praise." Volume III. THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD Pp. xvi— 310. Expository Times : "It is the book of a student, the book of a thinker, the book of a believer. There is not a loose sentence in it, and there is no trivial rhetoric. It is above all the book of a student. Professor Hall's knowledge of the subject is an amazement." Living Church, Milwaukee: "Dr. Hall has produced a noble book." Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin: "We. . .are glad to be able to praise the third still more unreservedly than its predecessors. It is an excellent manual of systematic theism, HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY the very best of its kind by an Anglican that we know of, and one of the absolutely best. . .the book has to be read in order to be appreciated." Journal op Theological Studies, London: "No argu ment for the existence of God has escaped his notice, and any one who reads his book must feel that Christian theists have no cause to be ashamed of the intellectual case they can present." The Guardian, London: ". . .the admirable second volume on Authority led us to expect much from the writer. . . . One of the best things between the covers is the discussion of the Ontological Argument. ... It should be needless to add that Professor Hall's work is marked throughout by the firm and reverential adherence to the Catholic religion which character izes all the products of the author's mind." Church Union Gazette, London: "An atmosphere of solid, hard work breathes through this book. The reader is made to feel that every sentence has been deeply weighed, and more than once rewritten. The task. . .is of an intensely difficult nature, but the result. . .can be generally described as successful in the better sense of the word." Church Times, London: "His theology is always thoroughly Catholic and scientific. . .preserving the balance and propor tion of faith. . .is a compendium of sound and luminous the ology, which should be on every student's shelf." Interior, Chicago: "The previous numbers we have heartily commended. . . .Every page bears witness to the learning of the writer and the precision of his mental processes. Such a study so pursued is rare nowadays, but in its matter and its method it justifies itself." Volume IV. THE TRINITY Pp. xix-316. Guardian, London: "The most valuable part of this volume. . .is the chapter on personality and related terms in HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY modern thought. . .we have again to thank him for a learned and useful exposition." Churchman, New York: "It must be reckoned the most important and valuable of the series so far; indeed, the most noteworthy theological treatise of the year. . .one may hope that many clergy and laity. . .will make themselves masters of this admirable volume. American and English Christianity owes a great debt to the learned and devout scholar." Church Times, London: "Professor Hall's excellent and worthy series. . . .But we refer the reader to Dr. Hall's volume, which will be indispensable to every student, elementary or advanced." Record, London: "The student. . .will find in this book a useful and comprehensive survey of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, and its theological significance." Living Church, Milwaukee: "The marvel is how Dr. Hall can so exactly treat in such a brief way the many matters he handles. . . .We have said enough to show how valuable and masterly is this volume." Continent, Chicago: "It cannot be said that the able and learned author avoids any real difficulty, although ¦dealing with a most difficult theme. . . .No one can deny that these lectures are able, clearly stated and imbued with the spirit of a true believer." Church of Ireland Gazette: "Professor Hall. . .has made a decidedly valuable contribution to Dogmatic Theology by his. . .book on the Trinity. . . .The chapter dealing with 'Difficulties' is exceedingly well written. This is a book which should find a place at an early date on every well appointed book-shelf. Its freshness, the straight, clear presentation of its matter, will appeal to everyone." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume V. CREATION AND MAN Pp. xviii-353 The Guardian, London : " We heartily commend this book as a very able introduction to the vast subject of which it treats. . . . The subject-matter is admirably arranged and the main arguments are lucid and satisfying. The references to modern hterature are extensive and supply a very complete course of reading with Dr. Hall as a competent critic and guide." Living Church: "A large number of difficult problems falling within the domain not merely of the theologian, but also within the domain of the philosopher and metaphysician and scientist, are taken in hand by Dr. Hall in his wonted lucid, calm, and balanced way of treating his subjects. . . . We trust that many will procure and carefully read Dr. Hall's able treatise." Southern Churchman: "As a clear statement of the posi tion of the Catholic faith, the young theologian can find no better help than this." Biblical World: ". . . The book should be found in all theo logical libraries. . . . The author has defined with great care his attitude toward the results of modern physical and biological investigation. . . ." Churchman: "The author shows in this, as in the previous volumes of the same series, a wide range of reading, logical thought, clear and convenient arrangement of material, and painstaking scholarship. Beside this, abundant and valuable references to many books and treatises, ancient and modern, may well stimulate the reader to a criticism and amplification of the author's own conclusions. Dr. Hall is a theologian of whom our Church may well be proud. Able, sincere, and scholarly theological work, such as this volume exhibits, is of real service to the Church, and is bound to be useful to serious students of all schools of thought." American Journal of Theology: "The style is simple, vigorous, eminently readable — one might almost add fascinating.. The book is supplied with abundant bibliographical notes. . . ." ' HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume VI. THE INCARNATION Pp. xix-353. Church Times: "Each volume has increased our admiration for his scholarship, wide learning, and amazing industry." Living Church: "It must be said that no point of modern Christological speculation has escaped his notice, and that he endeavors throughout to preserve a sympathetic and open mind, quite as much as to state his own very positive convictions." Churchman, New York: " AU of Dr. Hall's writing is impor tant, and it is gratifying to have such a work as his presented to the world as the characteristic product of the American Episcopal Church. He is one of our few really distinguished ^theologians." Expository Times: "Now Professor Hall is very capable, and even on such a subject as the Person of our Lord he is en titled to write. He is both ancient and modern." The Biblical World: "Dr. Hall's exposition of the tra ditional orthodox view of the incarnation is admirable. . . . Anyone who will study and not merely read his book wih at least respect the traditional view and see that there is still some hving thought in bygone controversies." Holy Cross Magazine: "It is . . . not only a spiritual but an inteUectual treat, to find Dr. Hall moving with such complete ease amid the Incarnation data, yet appreciating at the same time the theologian's moral obligation at least to attempt to express the Faith in 'a language understanded of the people' . . . We commend the book for the clarity with which the Catholic perspective is expressed, and for the reverent agnos ticism which is the inevitable corollary." Southern Churchman: "The result is a work of great value . . . Dr. HaU excels in accuracy of definition and in lucidity of expression, and the reader has no difficulty in grasping his mean ing nor in foUowing the steps of his reasoning." EVOLUTION AND THE FALL By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Author of "Dogmatic Theology," "The Kenotic Theory," etc. Crown 8vo. pp. xviii-f 225. Cloth, net, $1.50 The author's aim is to show that one may frankly and fuUy accept the scientific hypothesis that man is descended on the phys ical side of his nature from the lower species, and may acknowl edge that his natural evolution from brute ancestors constitutes an important factor in causing his existing moral state, without incurring the necessity of qualifying his acceptance of the Cathohc doctrine of man's primitive state and faU. His argument involves an elimination, on the physical side, of the speculative philosophy called naturahsm, and, on the theological side, of speculative conceptions of original sin that are not sup ported by really Cathohc authority. He seeks to do adequate justice to evolutionary science, being convinced that real science must inevitably fortify one's hold upon really Cathohc doctrine. Reviews Christian World, London: "It would be good if aU theolo gians who write on the evolutionary hypothesis manifested the same knowledge and appreciation of its strong and weak points." Churchman, London: Referring to the exposition of the evo lutionary theory: "Nothing could be clearer or more helpful than this part of the treatment, especiaUy in its freedom from technical scientific terminology." Guardian, London: "Like aU the author's work, the book is cautious and careful, strongly conservative, yet sympathetic with modern conceptions." Church Times, London: "We welcome Dr. HaU's book as the work of a man who seems thoroughly abreast of aU that is being done in the field of biological science. . . . His work as a teacher has developed in him the gift of clear exposition, and he moves with apparent mastery in this thorny and difficult field." THE KENOTIC THEORY CONSIDERED WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ITS ANGLICAN FORMS AND ARGUMENTS By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., author of "Dogmatic Theology," etc. Crown 8vo. pp. xviii-l-247. Cloth, net, $1.50. This volume is written in opposition to the theory that, in order to assume a real manhood and submit to human conditions, our Lord emptied Himself of certain divine prerogatives and attributes during the period of His earthly life. The writer endeavors to show that this theory is (a) a modern novelty; (4) contrary to the Church's oecumenical decree of faith; (c) rejected by Cathohc doctors; id) not warranted by the facts contained in the Gospels of the statements of Holy Scripture; (e) faUacious in its reasoning; and (/) perilous in its logical results. Clearness and simphcity of treatment is aimed at, and numerous citations are made from ancient and modern authorities. Reviews Living Church: "It is his thorough grasp of those funda mental principles that has enabled Dr. HaU to give us in his 'Kenotic Theory' a. theological treatise of more than ordinary value. It has the singular charm of being direct, to the point, lucid, and without verbiage from beginning to end. . . . Dr. HaU . . . lays down, with exactness and precision, the question at issue. . . . Dr. HaU has done good work in discriminating as he has done between the views of Kenotic Schools. . . . No where have we seen a better answer to the baseless assumptions which have been made in England and America to formulate a complete doctrine of the Incarnation out of a single passage in St. Paul's writings." Church Times: "The book should be in every circulating library, and should not be merely read, but studied, as a treatise which from its merits is a candidate for a place as a handbook upon an integral question in theology." LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. PUBLICATIONS CHURCH AND STATE IN ENGLAND TO THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE. By HENRY MELVTLL GWATKIN, D.D., Late Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge; etc. With a Preface by the Rev. E. W. WATSON, D.D., Regius Pro fessor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 8vo. Pp. viii+416. $5.00 net. "An informed and intelligent student will find in this book what, so far as I know, has never been published in England on a scale both modest and comprehensive — a survey of our secular and eccle siastical development, in due co-ordination and proportion." — From the Preface. LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS HODGKTN, FeUow of Uni versity CoUege, D.C.L. Oxford and Durham, D.Litt. Dublin. By LOUISE CREIGHTON, author of "Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, D.D.," etc. With Portraits and Other Illus trations. 8vo. Pp. xvi +445. $4.50 net. THE CONVERSION OF EUROPE. By CHARLES HENRY ROBINSON, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon and Editorial Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 8vo. Pp. xxiv+640. $6.00 net. "We may congratulate him on his selection of a branch of mis sionary history so full of opportunity for the valuable work which the missionary world has learned to expect from him. He treats the various countries or races in twenty separate chapters and devotes 33 pages to a bibliography." — The Times (London). THE LIFE AND FRIENDSHIPS OF CATHERINE MARSH. By L. E. O'RORKE. With s Portraits and 6 Other Illustrations. 8vo. '$3.75 net. A biography, illuminated by much correspondence, her own and others, of the author and philanthropist (18x8-1912) — known as an author chiefly by her "Memorials of Capt. Hedley Vicars"; and as a devoted worker in the cause of Missions to Navvies, of the distribution of Bibles to troops in the Crimean, Franco-Prussian, and South African Wars, and of convalescent homes. FATHER STANTON'S SERMON OUTLINES. From his own Manuscript. Edited by E. F. RUSSELL, M.A., S. Alban's, Holborn. Crown 8vo. Pp. xx+236. $1.75 net. PRIMITIVE WORSHIP AND THE PRAYER BOOK: Ra tionale, History, and Doctrine of the English, Irish, Scottish and American Books. By the Rev. WALKER GWYNNE, D.D., author of "The Christian Year: Its Purpose and Its His tory," etc. Crown 8vo. Pp. xxvi+426. $2.50 net. "Just the book needed by theological students and laymen in general, being fully informing and happy in style. . . . Just the one to place in the hands of a non-Church friend who wishes to know the why of the Prayer Book." — The North East.