THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

In crown 8vo, price is. 6d.,
THE BIBLE
AN OUTGROWTH OF THEOCRATIC LIFE.

' Will well repay perusal. It contains a great deal of learning as well as
ingenuity, and the style is clear.' — Guardian.
' A more valuable and suggestive book has not recently come into our
hands.' — British Quarterly Beview.
' The position developed by the author is substantially that the Scriptures
are not to be viewed from the standpoint of traditional dogma, but from
the historical point of view, as the product of a divinely directed develop
ment of Jewish history which had for its end the achievement of a divine
revelation, and the building up among men of * divine and spiritual
kingdom.' — Neu> York Independent.

THE

REDEMPTION OF MAN.

DISCUSSIONS

BEARING ON

THE ATONEMENT

D. W. SIMON, Ph.D. (Tub.),
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE CONGREGATIONAL THEOLOGICAL HALL,
EDINBURGH ;
AUTHOR OF (<THE BIBLE, AN OUTGROWTH OF THEOCRATIC LIFE J "
CO-TRANSLATOR OF DORNER's "HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST,'
ETC. ETC. ETC.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1889.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB,
FOR
T- & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, .... GEORGE HERBERT.
NEW YORK, , . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.

IN MEMORY

F. A. G. THOLUCK, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE ;
L. SCHOBERLEIN, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN I
I. A. DORNER, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN :
TO WHOSE
TEACHINGS, EXAMPLE, AND FRIENDSHIP
I OWE A GREATER DEBT
THAN I AM MYSELF ABLE TO ESTIMATE.

Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh vou a
reason of the hope that is in you. — i Pet. iii. 1 5.

In der christlichen Religion hat Gott sich geoffenbaret, das heisst, er
hat dem Menschen zu erkennen gegeben, was er ist, so dass er nicht
mehr ein Verschlossenes Geheimes ist ; es ist uns mit dieser Moghchkeit,
Gott zu erkennen, die Pflicht dazu auferlegt, und die Entwickelung des
denkenden Geistes, welche aus dieser Grundlage der Offenbarung des
gottlichen Wesens ausgegangen ist, muss dazu endlich gedeihen, das
was dem fuhlenden und vorstellenden Geiste zunachst vorgelegt
worden, auch mit dem Gedanken zu erfassen.
Hegel, Philosophie der Geschichte.

The truth in God's breast
Lies trace for trace upon ours impressed :
Though He is so bright, and we so dim,
We are made in His image to witness Him.
R. Browning, Christmas Eve.

I say that man was made to grow, not stop :
That help, he needed once, and needs no more,
Having grown but an inch by, is withdrawn :
For he hath new needs, and new helps to these.
This imports solely, man should mount on each
New height in view : the help whereby he mounts.
The ladder-rung his foot has left, may fall,
Since all things suffer change, save God the Truth.
Man apprehends Him newly at each stage.
Whereat earth's ladder drops, its service done.
I say the acknowledgment of God in Christ,
Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee
All questions in the earth and out of it.
God's gift was that man should conceive of truth.
And yearn to gain it, catching at mistake
As midway help, till he reach fact indeed.
R. Browning, A Death in the Desert.

PREFACE.

THIS book does not pretend to be a complete
treatise on the doctrine of the Atonement.
It is simply, as the title-page has it, " Discussions
bearing on the Atonement." The subject is rather
approached from various points of view, than rigidly
and systematically expounded. The Introduction is
mainly a series of critical notes, intended partly to
explain, somewhat to justify, a classification and
description of theories that deviate at points con
siderably from the one usually adopted. Various
matters which ought to be included in a systematic
treatment of the subject are left quite untouched.
Amongst them, as will perhaps be noticed, is one
of the three great problems suggested by Christ's
obedience unto death, to which reference is made in
the Introduction, — the problem, namely, as to the
modus operandi of the death of Christ, or how it
brought about the forgiveness of sin. With regard
to the fact, I rejoice to know myself, both on
experimental, Biblical, and rational grounds, in agree
ment with the " Catholic " Church of all times. But
faithfulness to the teachings alike of experience, of
the Scriptures, and of reason, compels me to differ
from many "orthopistic" writers — first, on the nature
of forgiveness ; and secondly, on the mode in which
forgiveness was brought about.
As I have to some extent criticized the views of
others on these two points, it will naturally be thought
that I ought to have discussed the latter as well as

viii PREFACE.
the former. If enough interest should be awakened
by this volume to make it worth while, it is my inten
tion to do so.
It may perhaps be permitted me to add here a few
words on two points which have been alluded to
elsewhere, namely, the meaning of "fact" as dis
tinguished from " theory," in connection with the
atonement ; and the use of the term " orthodox."
It has become in recent years very common, in
particular for preachers, to say, " We accept the
atonement as a fact, though we cannot accept any
explanation or theory hitherto given of it." Looked
at by itself, this is a perfectly legitimate and healthy
position. As Dr. Dale has put it in frequently
quoted words, "It is not the theory of the death
of Christ which constitutes the ground on which sins
are forgiven, but the death itself" The primary
business of the Christian preacher unquestionably is,
to "preach Christ, even the crucified One;" that is
the kernel of the good news of which he professes
to be the witness and messenger ; practically con
sidered, the fact is the good news. When the good
news has done its work, explanation or theorizing
on it may, should begin ; not till then. So far, all
is plain sailing ; as to this, there is no real disagree
ment between the narrowly and the broadly dogmatic :
apparent disagreements are due to misunderstanding
of terms, which, as frequently as not, is as complete
on the " broad " side as on the " narrow."
But a difficulty lies in the word "fact:" it is an
ambiguous word, or may be used ambiguously, — it
may have a broader or narrower, a more or less
complete, denotation. It becomes necessary, there
fore, to ask for a definition of the fact ; to have its
marks properly presented. Let me refer to one or
two of the many modes of describing it.
What, then, is the fact with which we are con
cerned ? The bare fact, accessible to ordinary people
living at Jerusalem, was the crucifixion of Jesus of
Nazareth : — is that all ? Certainly not. What, then,

PREFACE. IX

if we say, Jesus, the perfect man, the wisest teacher, the
clearest revelation of God, died a witness to truth and
goodness ? True, as far as it goes ; but inadequate.
Is it not, then, stated completely when we add to
the last description, The incarnate Logos, the Son of
God, died to commend His own love and the love of
God, besides thus exhibiting the evil of sin? Not
yet the whole fact. Suppose we go a step farther,
and add : for the sins of the world, shall we not have
given an adequate description of the fact ? Possibly,
— possibly not. Even such a definition, full as it is,
omits a feature or mark on which He seems to have
put special emphasis, who of all others might be sup
posed to know whereof He spake. On one of the
most solemn occasions of His earthly life Christ said :
This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of
sins. Judging by the later utterances — varied and
emphatic — of the men whom He Himself had trained,
and who heard this very expression, what He meant
was, that the supreme end of His death was to secure
for men the forgiveness of sin. Have we a right
to ignore, to leave unmentioned the mark — for the
forgiveness of sinsf Unless, indeed, we resort to
the desperate expedient of questioning the accuracy
of this part of the report of the Last Supper.
The fact, then, according to Christ and His apostles,
is only properly stated if, whilst not omitting the
various features successively mentioned above —
possibly also others — due emphasis is laid on this —
that Christ shed His blood to the end that sin might
be forgiven. As forgiveness is the foundation of a
right relation to God, and through that of new life
and blessedness, any Christian Church that does not
jealously watch over this part of its faith is either
wofully ignorant of its duty, or else unfaithful.
In the statement of the fact just given there is
no trace of theory proper. It is true, indeed, that a
divine act, the forgiveness of sin, is represented as
brought about by the death of Christ ; and that in
so far we have gone beyond the mere fact of the

X PREFACE.
death. But so do those who find in it a proof of
divine love. What we have to face is the question —
Is it a fact that Christ shed His blood or died in
order that God might forgive sins ? Theory begins
when we ask, How this took place ? Why the death of
Christ was a necessary condition of divine forgiveness ?
The second matter to which I wish to refer is the
use very frequently made of the term "orthodox."
Alike by those who regard themselves as forming
the "broad," or "liberal," or "advanced" school
of Christian thought, and by those who claim to
"stand in the old path," its employment is marked
by great looseness. Between the two opposed
parties there is, in fact, not a pin to choose as to this
particular point.
If " orthodox " be applied to the faith once
delivered to the saints, to the credenda, — in this
case to the credendum that Christ shed His blood
for the remission of sins, — there is such a thing as
orthodoxy and a standard of orthodoxy ; or rather,
as I have elsewhere termed it, orthopisty. This is
what Paul referred to when he used the words,
Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed. There is such a
thing as a right faith, that is, using faith in its
objective sense ; there is such a thing as the objects of
faith held and presented in their genuine, undiluted,
untwisted form. Those who change, diminish,
mutilate, misrepresent them, Paul anathematizes.
But if by " orthodoxy " be understood, as is only
too frequently the case, a certain right, recognised,
" doctrine," systematic formulation or statement,
explanation or theory of this credendum, there is
not now, and there never was any such thing, at
all events in Protestantism. There may have been,
or even be now, a show of such a thino- in the
Romish Church. But even if men do no more
than go direct to Scripture to learn its teachings 
and Scripture alone gives us definite information

PREFACE. xi
on this credendum, so that if it is untrustworthy we
have no definite knowledge at all about it — the
results of their inquiry in the shape of a classification,
or formulation, or correlation of the material with
which it supplies them will vary : much more will
the men differ from each other when they try to
think out or explain Scripture teachings. No Pro
testant theologian has yet existed who was willing
just to repeat what his teacher taught him. The
Rabbi who boasted that his mind retained and
retailed the teachings of his teacher like a cistern abso
lutely without leak, has had no Protestant imitators.
Even a slight reorganization, or rearrangement ot
the subject-matter, involves changes which render
the idea of a fixed standard in this sense absurd.
I have been anxious to acknowledge my indebted
ness to all and sundry to whom I am indebted ; but
it is only too likely that I have sometimes failed.
To the following books, which I was early led to
study, I owe far more than I am able to acknow
ledge : — M tiller's Christliche Lehre von der Sunde ;
Bahr's Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus ; Dorner's
Geschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi ; Scho-
berlein's Grundlehren des Heils entwickelt aus dem
Princip der Liebe ; M'Leod Campbell's Doctrine
of the Atonement, and one or two of F. D. Maurice's
works, particularly The Prophets and Kings of the
Old Testament.
For the index I am indebted and very grateful
to my friend and former student, the Rev. J. H.
Best, B.Sc, of Hopton, Mirfield. If I mistake not,
it will be found to be marked by the accuracy which
is sure to characterize any work he undertakes.

Congregational Theological Hall,
George Square, Edinburgh.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
If Christ was the Son of God, three special problems suggested by His death, I ;
not if a mere man. Ambiguity of the terms " Son of God," "Divinity,"
" Incarnation," I, 2. The reason : Change of presupposition. Earlieridea
(Symbol of Chalcedon), that deity and humanity are disparate ; — modern
idea : God and man essentially akin, 3. Inference : man as to his idea
being essentially divine ; he who realizes the idea, though only a man, is an
incarnation of God : new form of humanitarianism, 4, 5. The three
problems involved are — (1.) The nature of the passion ; (2.) Its end ; (3.)
The modus operandi, 6. Wherein all theories agree : where differences
arise. Objective-subjective, and subjective or "moral theories," 7-9. I.
Objective theories : (I.) Crypto-dualistic, which represent Christ's work as
related to a power outside God. I. Ransom to the devil ; 2. An
eternal law. (1.) Dr. R. W. Dale's earlier view, 9-16. (2.) The so-
called churchly, orthodox view. Crawford — The Hodges, 16-20. Defence
of criticism. Laws and God. Distinction between God as God and God
as Ruler. Crawford's concession — Turrettine. Crawford's approach to
acceptilation theory, 20-23. Orthodox view of justice: — Crawford — Suum
cuique — Justice done to sinners — Does God get His due ? Every lost sinner
an eternal loss to God. fus talionis — debt — vindication of honour, 23-27.
(II.) Personal (objective) or Godward theories. View of personal : Craw
ford — Burge — Dr. Dale, 27, 28. Mutually complementary. Fear of
Anthropopathism — "Claims of justice," 28-30. I. So much suffering for
so much sin — a possible view. 2. Christ a propitiation of divine anger.
Significance evacuated. Canon Westcott's view of ixxtrpas, 30-33. Anger
real, but ethical : therefore to be ethically propitiated. 3. F. D. Maurice,
33-36. 4. Gess — Dorner. 5. M'Leod Campbell — Newman Smyth, 36-40.
6. Edward White — open to three interpretations, 40-43. II. So-
called "moral" theories. (I.) Moral theories in the stricter sense.
I. Dr. John Young, 43-45. 2. The Governmental Theory : (1.)
Professor Wace, revealing the real nature of sin, etc., 44-49. (2.)
Albert Barnes — New School Presbyterianism, American Congrega
tionalism. (3.) Josiah Gilbert — relates to God solely as Moral Governor.
Identical with " moral " view, notwithstanding phrases like " enable God."
Use of "law," etc. : tendency to crypto-dualism, 49-54. (II.) Organic
or dynamic view. I. Anselm — not satisfaction of honour (Dorner) ; looks
to the cosmos as a whole, 55-58. 2. Bishop Magee— unique, miraculous,
supernatural fact. 3. F. W. Robertson — Sin a "world-spirit" on which
Christ inflicted a deadly blow. 4. Schleiermacher — men taken up into
Christ's life and relation to God through the Church, 5S-62. A third great
class possible— philosophical : a process; first, in God Himself (Bdhme) ;
secondly, in God and the cosmos, including man (Hegel) ; thirdly, in the
human mind (Kant). Hegelianization of Christianity — either expressing
faith in terms of Hegel, or expressing Hegelian ideas in terms of Christianity.
The latter fatal to life, 62-65. The fact of Christ's death for the remission
of sins known from New Testament — Lord's Supper. The rationale sought
by theology. Scientific procedure— if there is a moral order of which God
is the supreme factor, 65-68.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiil

Chapter I. — The Atonement and the Kingdom of God.
I. Christ's earthly mission an episode in the history of the kingdom of God,
69, 70. II. An episode in His relation to the kingdom. III. Intelligible
only in the light of the kingdom. IV. In the history of the kingdom there
is nothing really exceptional — not even miracles — looked at in the light of
the whole plan. V. Christ's language justifies this point of view, 71-75.
VI. The kingdom of God — view of it assumed in this work : 1. The
universe is the kingdom, 76. 2. The territory its physical part — visible,
invisible. 3. The subjects are intelligences, — visible, invisible — the con
stitution, laws, 76-84. 4. Distinction of de jure and de facto — true both of
visible and invisible world ; men are, yet must become, subjects ; this helps
to correlate the various allusions in the Old and New Testaments, 84-88.
5. Kingdom of heaven — de jure and de facto identical. VII. The
immediate aim of Christ — salvation ; Christ's method new — dawned on
highest reformers — reconciliation to God, though not indifferent to men's
sufferings, 90-92. VIII. Establishment of normal relations Christ's end.
Analogy from biology and medicine. Not to make holy, happy, healthy,
save as result. Justification by faith, 92-96. IX. The kingdom of God
never actually existed. The de facto never coincided with the de jure state
save for a brief period, This explains God's treatment, 96, 97.
Chapter II. — The Constitution of Humanity.
I. Man is an individual — something sui generis. Law of differentiation —
Dorner's view. Recognised in Scripture. Individuality of man's relation
to God and of God's relation to man. Old idea of the relation of individual
to nation or society. Still held, 97-101. II. Man an organic whole —
macrocosm. I. Biblical recognition of the fact. Paul and Israel —
believers. Underlies the Biblical system, 101-103. 2. General recogni
tion. Mankind unconsciously swayed by it. Yet limited to kindred —
stranger a hostis. Internationalism. Not yet a complete whole. Dorner's
idea of a fixed number of individuals, each of which is necessary. Christ's
parable of the vine opposed thereto. Humanity not an agglomeration of
atoms, 103-107. 3. Inferences. God and humanity will hold organic or
corporate relations. Solidarity not necessary to the multiplication of men.
Individuality without organic unity, 107, 108. 4. Influence on doctrine of
Christ's work. Hitherto dominated by corporate aspect. Change through
the moral view. Now Christ is too exclusively the Saviour of individuals.
Both must be combined, 108-1 10.
Chapter III. — Relations of Man to God.
I. General considerations as to relations — determined by the nature of the beings
related. Abnormal relations (I.) Uncontrollable and controllable rela
tions. Law used in five senses. Uncontrollable relations involved in the
solidarity of the universe. Some beings able to control them, m-114.
(II.) God and man hold to each other both kinds of relations. I. The
uncontrollable relations defined — (1.) Determination, dependence; (2.)
Thought of man, sense of God. Indifference impossible, 114-116. 2.
The controllable relations. Their law, " God to man as man to God."
Christ's injunction to love our enemies. Limits, 116-118. II. Normal or
de jure individual relations — fixed though violable. Modes of relation —
corporeal ; intellectual — three functions of which one only is morally
pleasing to God; affectional — heart or religious relation, 1 18-123. Chief
stages of normal affectional relation : perfect at each stage, though ever
growing. Reverence or fear, trust, love. Natural for man to render
these. Right relations begin with respect : On its basis alone trust.
Trust in God rooted in creaturehood, 123-127. Love — the ripe blossom —
presupposes reverence and trust. Love is confession of need and assertion

XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.
that we can give. Man's natural belonging to God not enough, 127-130.
III. Normal corporate relations to God. As corporate no self-conscious
ness. Yet dim feeling after something like corporate consciousness.
Experiences in proof — religious, social, national. A *t(ix*fwx possible,
130-134. (I.) Action through representatives. The principle recognised.
How statesmen feel. National life impersonated in them. Scapegoats.
Spirit of an age expressed — Dante, Shakespeare, Milton. No race repre
sentative yet, 134-138. (II.) Nature of the relations. Representatives
focus life. Ideal of completeness. True representative realizes it — rever
ence, etc. Expressed in worship. Israel typical — Moses — David — the_ law
that every Israelite should appear thrice a year — High Priest — his sacrifice.
Worship on national occasions — David — Solomon, 138-146.
Chapter IV. — Hebrew Sin-Offerings, with Ethnic Parallels.
Purpose of the Hebrew organization as a whole. Not an ideal constitution.
The Divine Educator no doctrinaire, 147-148. I. The institutions, etc.,
had three objects. II. No distinction between secular and religious ;
though all acts not equal. Stress on personal offences. Personal relations
fundamental, 148-150. III. Provision for impressing this by sacrifice.
Regulated, not originated — Not de novo legislation. IV. Dim idea of the same
thing in heathenism. Disorder in religion the root of all disorder, 150-153.
V. Sacrifices in general. Corbanim — feudal offerings — altar sacrifices
proper. Classification fourfold. Two great classes — one to express normal,
the other to rectify abnormal, relations. Individual and corporate sacrifices,
153-158. VI. Sin-offerings. (I.) Material. The characteristic marks are — I.
Offerer's own property — in a special sense. Ethnic recognition of the principle.
Chinese — Hindoos — Greek deities. Sacrificial animals, »«!¦' i^oxm, among
Hindoos. Human victims and solidarity. Apparent exceptions. Various
reasons for the Hebrew practice, 158-163. Sirst, most natural ; secondly,
within easy reach ; thirdly, embodied most of offerer's life ; fourthly, truest
sacrifice ; fifthly, service by common things, 163-166. 2. Approved or
prescribed by Jehovah, and rites also. Ethnic recognition of the principle
— Delphi — Romans — Twelve Tables — particularity of rules, 166-171.
3. Spotless. So ethnic religions — Egyptians and others. Phoenicians,
their mystical sacrifice, 171- 176. (II.) Rites observed — I. Hands laid on
the head. Similarly elsewhere. Jewish views. Significance — (1.) Offerer's
own property ; (2.) Rapport ; (3.) Consecration, 176-182. 2. Victim slain.
Universal custom. Why slain ? Various views. Juridical view false.
Death the way to life, 183-190. 3. Blood-sprinkling. This rite observed
elsewhere. Views taken of its significance. The key thereto, 190-199.
4. Burning of sacrifice. Customary in other religions. Different views of
meaning. Its real significance, 199-208. (III.) Function of sin-offerings.
Threefold — specially atoning function. 1. Rooted in consciousness of sin.
High-handed sin. 2. Designed to atone. The term Kipper ; various
views. Effect on God. Divine forgetting. Self- forgetting. How the
difficulty disappears. The relations between God and man elementary.
Conditions of atonement elementary, 208-216.
Chapter V. — The Anger of God.
The treatment of the subject inconsistent. I. Scripture references : (I.) Old
Testament; (II.) New Testament, 216-219. II. Historical notices. Three
classes of views : (I.) Anger as a determination of the life of God. (II.)
Anger a mere anthropopathism, 219-224. (III.) Anger a factor in God.
Bbhme, 224-236. III. Doctrinal exposition. The essential element of
anger found in God. Four aspects of normal relation to sin distinguishable
— each predicated in Scripture of God. 1. Anger as a human phenomenon
genetically considered. The primary impulse of living beings. Results.
Anger in animals. 2. In man: (1.) Differentiated; (2.) Altruistic resent
ments; (3.) Moral resentment; (4.) Preservation of integrity. 3. Exact

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
nature of anger described. Complicated by sin. 4. Anger in God. Its
justification found in the integrity of the divine life. Holiness, 236-250.
IV. Difficulties. I. Scripture condemns anger, yet also approves. 2. In
consistent with divine immutability. 3. With the divine absoluteness.
4. Implies surprise. 5- ^n man depends on circumstances. 6. God is
love, and therefore cannot be angry. Anger not hostility, 250-262.
Chapter VI. — Forgiveness of Sin.
Forgiveness of sin not identical with forgiveness of penalty. Nowhere identified
in Bible. I. References in the Old Testament. II. In the New Testa
ment. III. Views taken by Christian writers. (I.) Pre - Reformation
writers. (II.) Protestant Confessions, 262-274. (HL) Theologians,
274-285. IV. The Biblical meaning of forgiveness : (I.) Forgiveness and
acceptance negative and positive aspects of one act or process. Change of
relation — removal of evils follows. (II.) Rationale of the deviation from
Bible. Significance of the fact that revivals lead to a re-emphasizing of the
personal — anger as well as forgiveness. Externalization of relation of man
to God. Remission of penalty more intelligible. Value of personal rela
tions to God not appreciated, 285-291.
Chapter VII. — Passio Christi.
I. The original relation of Christ to humanity. (I.) Scripture hints. All things
made by Him — the channel between God and man. (II.) God has ever
sought to establish right relations between Himself and man — inward and
outward action. Sacrifices. (III.) The Logos the abiding mediator. Light
from Israel. His work apparently in vain, 292-300. II. The Logos takes
flesh and thus becomes man. The inner needs expression — the acarnate
must become incarnate. Inward action went on. Would the incarnation
have taken place apart from sin ? The Logos the eternally man-like in God
— the archetype of man, 300-305. III. The sufferings of the Logos as in
carnate : (I.) From limitations. (II.) From His fleshly organism. (III.)
Positive bodily sufferings. (IV.) Sympathy with human suffering. (V.) The
evil of sin brought home to Him. (VI.) Organic influences from the race.
(VII.) Assaults of the powers of darkness. (VIII.) As the very root and
life of humanity. (IX.) The contemporaneous divine condemnation,
3°5-325-
Chapter VIII.— The Passion of Christ the Passion of Man.
I. Links between Christ's work and man according to the New Testament.
II. How the result is to be explained. III. The conscious relation of man
to Christ explains it in part — what can be seen in Him. IV. The Logos
thus living and suffering in the flesh was identical with the Logos within.
V. His organic influence. VI. His work complete, yet still being com
pleted — The representative of men— Men rooted in Him — What men thus
are, they are to God. Men are branches, but can cut themselves off— c'est
le premier pas qui coute — necessity of faith, 325-341.
Chapter IX. — The Atonement and Prayer: an " Argumentum
ad Hominem."
Man dependent on his environment. Functions of environment. Our relations
to environment determined by it. So as regards God, its great spiritual
factor. Explicitly recognised in prayer. The principle underlying prayer
and the atonement identical, 342-347- Prayer defined— two main views :—
two aspects of the orthodox view. Atonement defined— two main views.
The objective here in question. Prayer for spiritual blessings alone here in
question. God helps to fulfil His own law— towards Himself, towards man.

xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS.
347-352. We fall short of duty. What do ? Prayer for divine help. God
then obeys His own law in our stead, and that obedience becomes ours.
A mystery. All help is in its measure such, 352-355. The Atonement.
New Testament descriptions. Underlying principle is substitution— as in
prayer. That it is suffering instead of action makes no difference. Vicarious
endurance of penalty easier than vicarious obedience. Objections. Prayers
for support in sorrow. No burden-bearing without sense of burden. So-
called " moral " view open to same objections, 355-361.
Chapter X.— The Historical Influence of the Death of Christ.
A unique phenomenon. I. In what light regarded by contemporaries.
(I.) Romans and Greeks. Pilate and his soldiers counted it insignificant:
so the higher Roman authorities. Roman writers. Terms used about
crucifying as a punishment, 362-368. (II.) Jews. Caiaphas — behaviour
on Calvary. (III.) Christ's friends, 368-375. II. Its position in the
spiritual history of humanity. (I.) View taken by disciples. Within three
months glorying in what had seemed their ruin. (II.) Persuaded numbers
of their countrymen. (III.) Paul. (IV.) During the next 250 years
accepted by all sorts of men, despite all conceivable opposition, 375-384.
(V.) Christianity becomes the religion of the Empire — the cross a part of its
labarum. (VI.) Julian the Apostate. I. No inconsiderable part of human
investigation has been since devoted to the death of Christ ; oft tabooed,
the problem has forced itself ever afresh on attention. 2. Influence on
affections, effects on life — missions — crusades — art — philanthropy — Refor
mation. These are the problems to be solved, 384-394. III. The reason
for this influence. Various explanations. Baur's view. Human mind
eccentric enough and subject to delusions ; but none like this. Keim. One
hypothesis alone sufficient — that man needed a propitiation : that Christ's
death was the propitiation, 394-403.

NOTES. PAGE
I. The idea of Christ s death as a ransom to the devil. Luther's
language, ....... 404-4CS
II. Christ and the law according to Luther, . . . 40S, 409
III. Drs. C. and A. A. Hodge's exposition of the theory of the
Atonement criticized, ..... 409-417
IV. Dr. Shedd on Propitiation, ..... 417-419
V. Mr. Gladstone on the ancient hostility towards strangers, . 419, 420
VI. The personality of societies — Mr. Gladstone, E. Burke,
Coleridge, ....... 420-423
VII. On the law : "I to thee as thou to me," . . . 423-427
VIII. Bersier on the heroes of Biblical story, .... 427
IX. Carlyle on the naturalness of symbolic representations and
grand ceremonial. State Chinches, . . . 428 4">o
X. Mactation not originally a special function of the priesthood, . 429, 430
XI. Mozley on representative national sacrifices, . . . 430 4?t
XII. The Talmud on the objective efficacy of sacrifices. Hindoo
conception,  43 1, 432

INTRODUCTION.

IF Christ was the Son of God, His death, with
the circumstances by which it was preceded,
accompanied, and followed, suggests three special
problems : — I say, if He was the Son of God. If He
were merely a man, it suggests only the problems
which are suggested by the death of other men
eminent for goodness and insight. And when I
use the phrase, " Son of God," I do so in the sense
of assigning to Christ an absolutely unique relation
to God, — a relation such as never did, and never
can belong, save in a purely derivative way, to any
mere man ; which, in fact, so far as it ever belongs to
men at all, belongs to them through Him. He is
the eternal, essential Son of God.
I am the more anxious to lay emphasis on this
presupposition for two reasons : first, because the
implicit or explicit denial of Christ's specific divine
dignity logically involves and necessarily leads to
the denial of His atoning work ; and secondly, because
the words Son of God, Divinity, even Incarnation, are
now being a good deal used by a certain School that
arrogates to itself the title of "Broad," "Liberal,"
"Advanced," and so forth, either consciously or

2 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
unconsciously, in a very ambiguous way. A few
words on the genesis of what is unquestionably a new
form of Humanitarianism — Crypto- Humanitarianism
one might style it — may perhaps be of service,especially
as an appreciation of its genesis will to some extent
explain why some whose spiritual instincts are
stronger than their logic, naturally fall into it without
suspecting the true nature of the step they have taken.
These men do not quite know where they are.
Those who do, can scarcely rebut the charge of being
more or less insincere in their use of the traditional
phraseology. The ambiguities referred to, whether conscious
or unconscious, are explainable, at all events in part,
by the new presuppositions with which the problem
of the person of Christ is at present approached.
For centuries the thought of the Church anent the
person of Christ has been dominated by the pre
supposition which determined the form of the Symbol
of Chalcedon1 — a symbol which still more completely
expresses the faith of Christendom than any other.
It ran — "We teach and confess one and the same
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in deity
and the same perfect in humanity ; of one substance
with the Father according to His deity, and the same
of one substance with us according to His humanity ;
in all things like to us, but without sin; of two
natures unmixed, unchanged, unseparated, so that the
distinction of the natures is not abolished by the
union, the specific nature of each being rather pre
served, and concurring into one person and one
1 Held a.D. 45 f. See Dorner's Christology, vol. ii. 117 ff.

INTRODUCTION.

hypostasis ; not one Son divided into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, who
is God the Logos and the Lord Jesus Christ."1
The presupposition in question was that Deity and
Humanity are related to each other disparately, as
infinite and finite, unconditioned and conditioned,
absolute and relative. This presupposition, as was
observed, to a large extent still dominates Christian
thought and Christian language, alike scientific and
practical. Now, so long as inquiries into the person
of Christ started from this presupposition, ambiguities
were on the whole impossible. If Christ were not
the union of deity and humanity, — though there are,
of course, various ways of conceiving the union, — He
must have been either deity alone or humanity alone;
He could not therefore be spoken of without conscious
insincerity as the " Son of God," in a sense which did
not separate Him toto ccelo from man. Under present
circumstances, however, this has become possible.
During the present century, greatly owing to the
influence of German thinkers, the Church has come,
or is coming, to see that deity and humanity, instead
of being essentially disparate, are essentially akin.
Attention has been called to that corner-stone of the
edifice of Biblical truth, God made man in His own
likeness ; in the image and likeness of God made He
him. But if deity and humanity are essentially akin, a
new turn is at once given to the problem of the person
of Christ. The situation becomes in some respects
less difficult than it was, whilst the old point of view
was maintained ; but the faith is exposed also to new,
1 Dorner, I.e. p. 139 f.

4 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
possibly more subtle dangers. In fact, where it was
once a question of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, it may very
easily and even unwittingly become one of orthopisty
or heteropisty — which is a very different thing.
If deity and humanity are essentially akin, humanity,
it would seem, must be essentially divine : humanity,
that is, according to its true essential idea ; humanity
as it should be. Humanity as it now exists, empirical
humanity, indeed, is far from being what it should be ;
there is a great gulf between its idea and the actuality.
Rarely in body, still more rarely in intellect, most
rarely of all in heart, is any individual man, the man
he himself knows he should be, might be — certainly
not humanity as a whole. But let man be brought
up to the ideal, let him realize the idea of his being,
and what should we have ? surely an embodiment,
nay, an incarnation of God : — the essentially divine,
to wit, the true nature and idea of man would be
realized — realized in human form, in a human intellect
and heart, in a human life. Yet he who thus
manifested and embodied, who thus infleshed or
incarnated, the essential idea of humanity, would be
nothing but a man ; he would, in fact, be the true,
the real man : in a sense, the only man. Just as
one might say of a perfect oak tree or a perfect rose
bush, that is the true, and therefore in a sense the
only oak tree in this forest ; the true, and therefore
in a sense the only rose bush in this garden ; so
would it be permissible to say of Christ, He is the
true man, and therefore in a sense the only real man.
Yet being such — yea, as such ; because He is such —
therefore is He the Son of God, divine — the incarnate

INTRODUCTION. 5
One. It is consequently quite possible now for one
whose doctrine or view of the person of Christ is
nothing but Humanitarian, commonly but inaccurately
termed " Unitarian," — Humanitarian, however, in the
ideal rather than the empirical sense ; to whom Christ
is essentially nothing but what we all of us ought to
be, — and what by coming under his influence we are
destined to become ; to avow his belief in the divinity
of Christ, and in an Incarnation, without seeming to
himself to be guilty of using ambiguous language.
Yet the language assuredly is ambiguous. The
questions which those who hold this position should
face are : Is it involved in the affinity between deity
and humanity that men can become as God ? A
human son, as we know, may attain to the rank and
level of his human father because of the affinity
between the two, — can that be applied to the relation
we are now considering ? Is there anything in Christ
beyond the fact that He realizes the idea of His being
— an idea as to essential features and allowing for
individual differences, the same as the idea of any
man's being — that does not or would not normally
belong to every human being ? Is there anything in
Christ's relation to God that there cannot be in the
relation of men to God ; or is the only difference
between His relation and ours, that His is what ours
should be, whilst ours is not what it should be? If
these last two and similar questions be answered in
the negative, it is a case of Crypto-Humanitarianism,
whatever may be its protests ; nay more, it involves
a heteropisty. So much by the way. A view of the
person of Christ such as I have been noticing

6 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
logically involves an analogous estimate of His work
on behalf of men. A mere man, even if he were a
true man, could only have accomplished a human,
even if it were an ideally human work — not a divine-
human work ; not such a work as the Scripture
represents, and the Christian Church has believed
Christ's work to be.
The three questions which face the theological
inquirer into the atonement are : First, What was
the exact nature of the passion of the Christ, of His
obedience unto death, even the death of the cross t
Secondly, What was the immediate end designed to
be accomplished by Christ's obedience unto death ?
Thirdly, How was Christ's obedience unto death as
means, related to the end to be accomplished — what
was the modus operandi ?
The answer to the second question so largely
determines the answers required by the other two
questions, that it has naturally been used as the chief
principle of classification of theories of the atonement.
If Christ's obedience unto death were designed to
produce an objective as well as a subjective or
" moral " 1 effect, clearly our view of the nature of His
obedience, at all events of the suffering unto death
which it involved, must needs be other than it would
be, if it affected man alone. Still greater must be the
difference in the respective modi operandi.
Each of the three problems would seem to furnish
a principle of classification of theories of the atone
ment. This is, however, really the case only with
1 The correlate to objective should be subjective, but it is scarcely
suitable.

INTRODUCTION. 7
two — with one of the two partially, with only one
fully, namely, with the problem as to the immediate
end of the obedience of Christ unto death.
1. For first of all there is substantial agreement
among all who have discussed the atonement, that
Christ's intervention on our behalf effects reconciliation
or salvation — whatever that may include ; as to which
opinions differ. If this were remembered, disputes
about the words representative, substitute, vicarious,
mediator, might surely cease. He is our substitute,
representative, mediator, whether we take an objective
or a subjective (" moral ") view of the end to be
accomplished. The conceptions of what He did as
our substitute — what He effected, and of the way in
which it was effected — may vary — vary widely ; but in
any case, it is allowed that He undertook for us ; that
He taught us ; that He lived, suffered, died for us ;
not less really by Young and Bushnell, and Robertson
and Martineau, than by Calvin and Luther, Owen
and Gerhard, Grotius and Turrettine, and others,
their followers in our own day, whatever the differences
between them in other respects.
Whether His sufferings were a mere accident, so to
speak, of His real work, like the sufferings of martyrs ;
or subordinate to His resurrection ; or necessary to
the completeness of the example He left us ; or a
part of the manifestation of the divine purity, truth,
rectitude, holiness, love ; or appointed, either on
grounds of fitness and congruity, or of legal or moral
necessity, — all this does not materially concern us :
did He actually speak, work, hunger, thirst ; was He
buffeted, despised, humbled ; did He die on our

8 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
behalf f Then was He in a most true sense our
representative, substitute, mediator, the more so, as
by universal agreement He was and did what He
was, and did of His own loving choice, and absolutely
without ill-desert of His own.
2. Differences arise when we proceed to consider
the end of Christ's work ; though here, too, there is
partial agreement. The so-called orthodox theories
recognise a twofold end — objective and subjective
("moral"); whereas the so-called "moral" theories
eliminate or deny the objective end, and recognise
only the subjective or man ward end.1 All the theories
treated by Dr. Crawford, for example, as "substitutes
for the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement," 2 or by
Dr. C. Hodge as " antagonistic to the common Church
doctrine, and purely philosophical," 3 need not be
treated as either " substitutes " or " antagonistic."
Their advocates may ignorantly regard them as such ;
but the theologian who has learnt in the School of
Paul should see and be eager to say to each of them,
" Yes, you have laid hold of and are asserting a part
of the truth ; here is another part ; let us try to
1 It is unfortunate that so ambiguous a word as "moral" — ambiguous
in this connection— should be still employed to designate the non-
objective theories of the atonement. Not to mention its implication that
the others are either immoral or non-moral, it is alike unfair and
illogical to adopt as a principle of classification that which belongs to all
the things to be classified. All theories are "moral" theories, though
they may be also something more ; that something more not excluding,
but including, or certainly compatible with, the "moral" aspect. I shall
generally use the term subjective as the antithesis to objective.
2 Crawford's The Atonement, Table of Contents.
3 Dr. C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. ii. p. 590. It is a pity that
Dr. Hodge should have been guilty of what is both an injustice and an
absurdity in applying the words "purely philosophical" to such theories
as the governmental, mystical, moral.

INTRODUCTION. 9
confine them into one fair and harmonious whole."
In endeavouring to classify theories, I shall therefore
leave out of consideration this subjective, manward,
world-ward ("moral") element of the objective theories.
They do not all of them include all the aspects on
which the several " moral " theories have laid stress ;
nor indeed has any single one of the non-objective
theories ever embraced all these same aspects ; but,
as was indicated before, the latter are rather supple
mentary than exclusive of each other, and the same
thing may be said of them relatively to objective
theories.1 Considered in relation to the immediate end to be
accomplished, theories of the passion of Christ fall into
two great classes, namely, the objectivo-subjective and
the subjective. As I shall have occasion to observe
later on, a third great class may be formed of those
which are purely philosophical.
I. Objectivo-subjective — or as I am leaving the sub
jective aspect out of consideration, objective theories.
These may again be subdivided as follows : —
(I.) Crypto-dualistic theories, according to which
the work of Christ bore a relation to some power or
authority outside of God. This power or authority is
not, of course, consciously conceived, still less actually
represented, as dualistic ; yet as it savours of inde
pendence of God, I think the theories which employ
it deserve the description crypto-dualistic.
1 I ought to say here that it is altogether beside my intention to notice
every variety of theory that has been advanced. To do that would
require a large volume, even if it were within my power. What follows
claims to be nothing more than a rough, unfinished critical study — a sort
of first sketch from nature.

IO THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
i. The first of the class is that which represents
Christ's death as having been in some sense or other
required as a ransom by, or in order to do justice to,
the devil, who had acquired a certain property in
men, and a certain right to their services, in conse
quence of sin.
Irenceus 1 is credited with being the first to suggest
this explanation of such terms as " ransom " and the
like. There is not a little, too, in his references to the
subject which seems to warrant the bestowal of this
doubtful honour on him. He says, for example,
" Nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if
He did not really become man, restoring to His own
handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning,
that man was made after the image and likeness of
God ; not snatching away by stratagem the property
of another, but taking possession of His own in a
righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerns
the apostasy (devil) indeed, He redeems us righteously
from it by His own blood ; but as regards us who
have been redeemed [He does this] graciously."2 In
the following passage some expressions look one way,
others another : " The mighty Word, also very man,
redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant
to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who
had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy
(devil) tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we
were by nature the property of the omnipotent God,
alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own
disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things and
not defective with regard to His own justice, did
2 Bk. v. ii. i (Clark's translation).

INTRODUCTION. II
righteously turn against that apostasy and redeem
from it His own property, not by violent means as the
[apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the
beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was
not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a
God of counsel, who does not use violent means to
obtain what He desires ; so that neither should justice
be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God
go to destruction. . . . The Lord has thus redeemed
us through His own blood, giving His soul for our
souls, and His flesh for our flesh."1 For my own
part, however, I think with others,2 that a careful study
of the fifth book of Irenseus' work against heresies,
and a connected view of his system of thought as a
whole, will awaken very serious doubts regarding the
correctness of the supposition ; even if it do not fully
convince of its groundlessness.3
Nor does it seem to me as certain, as is commonly
assumed, that the successors of Irenseus are justly
chargeable with soberly and seriously teaching the
view in question. Origen is reckoned amongst those
who worked it out most systematically. Still later
writers often outbid him in the employment of images
and similes that seem to us as offensive in taste as
they are awry in their morality. And yet if we
approach them, after reading the vivid, concrete,
drastic characterization of Christ's relation to the
devil, given by Luther, who can scarcely be supposed
1 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. v. c. i. I.
3 For example, Duncker, des heil. Irenceus Christologie, etc., Gottingen
1843 ! and Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii. p. 220 f.
3 See Duncker's account of the Soteriology of Irenseus in the work
cited above.

12 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
to have believed that God entered into legal transac
tions with him, we shall be inclined to suspect that
even the Fathers of the first six centuries may rather
have been giving the reins to fancy than intending to
reason soberly, when they wrote the offensive passages
in their works.1
If such a theory were really held, it would surely be
justifiable to characterize it as crypto-dualistic ; for a
position of such independence relatively to God is
therein implicitly assigned to the devil, that the
logical issue could be nothing short of dualistic, so
far, that is, as strict dualism has ever been clearly,
deliberately, and fully held at all.
2. The second crypto-dualistic theory is that which
conceives of Christ's obedience unto death as rendered
in conformity with the demands of an eternal law,
having an objective existence independent both of
God and the creature — a law to which God and the
creature are alike subject ; what is often called " the
eternal law of righteousness."
(i.) The only writer who, to my knowledge, has
explicitly expounded this theory is Dr. R. W. Dale.2
1 See Note I., Appendix, for further details both as to the Fathers and
Luther. " Death " and " Hell " are sometimes spoken of as though they were
objectively existing powers with which God entered into a sort of negotia
tion. But this has surely been mere personification. See, however,
Baur, Geschichte der Versbhnungslehre, and Dorner's Glaubenslehre.
2 In an article of the British Quarterly Review for 1867, p. 486 ff. It
is only right to say, however, that in his Congl. Lecture on " The Doctrine
of the Atonement," published 1875, he has completely modified the view
in question — or tried to do so. He says there, " The law does not claim
Him as the most illustrious of its subjects, it is supreme in His supremacy.
His relation is not a relation of subjection, but of identity." I adduce
the theory here, of course, as a matter of history, with no intention either
in Dr. Dale's case, or indeed in the case of any one else whose views I

INTRODUCTION. 1 3
Because of its uniqueness it is worth stating at some
length. Footing on principles of which Ralph Cud-
worth and Samuel Clarke are the best known English
expounders and defenders, the writer just mentioned
has maintained, or seemed to maintain,1 that Christ died
in obedience to a law to which God and the intelligent
creation were alike subject — the eternal law of
righteousness. In answer to the questions, Why am
I bound to obey God ? Is it because, as a creature,
I am naturally subject to God ? he replies, " That
involves the concession of an eternal obligation resting
on the creature to obey the Creator. So far from
the commands of God originating moral obligation,
' duty ' is inconceivable if moral obligation does not
exist antecedently to the divine commands. Deny
the independence and eternity of moral obligation, and
Duty vanishes from the universe." He quotes with
approval from J. S. Mill2 the words: "The only
view of the connection between religion and morality
which does not annihilate the very idea of the latter,
is that which considers the Deity as not making, but
recognising and sanctioning, moral obligation."3 Nor
may we say with " many theologians," that " the origin
of moral distinctions is to be found in the Nature of
may criticize, of saddling them with what I consider the logical conse
quences of their principles.
Luther's personifications of law are very vivid ; but they are mere
personifications. No man ever felt more keenly than he that it was with
God personally we have to do— not with anything outside God. See
Note II., Appendix.
1 Dr. Dale was commonly held to take the view I find expressed by
his words.
2 Dissertations, vol. i. p. 125.
3 Compare the Stoical idea of universal order and Zeus as administrator,
Bain's Handbook of Mental and Moral Science, p. 515.

14 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
God." "The idea of God involves," indeed, "the
affirmation that in Him the Ideal Law of the
Conscience assumes objective Reality." But the
hypothesis that moral distinctions are derived from
the divine nature is as untenable as the hypothesis
which traces them to the divine will. " If the Moral
Law be good and right simply because it is the
expression of the attributes of an omnipotent and
omniscient Being, on what ground are the attributes
themselves to be called good and right ? ... If
the attributes of God are the ultimate and ideal
standard of moral perfections, what meaning can there
be in saying that these attributes are themselves
perfect ? Goodness must be in itself deserving of
honour, or we cannot be required to honour any
being because he is good." "It is God's glory,
not that His will originated the Moral Law, but
that His will has uniformly honoured and asserted
its authority '."
" Implicated in the acknowledgment of the eternal
authority of the law of righteousness is the acknow
ledgment that the violation of that law is justly
followed by suffering. ... If the divine penalty
which follows sin has no other end to answer than
the good of the universe, if it is not a recognition, on
the part of God, of the essential evil of sin, and an
act of divine homage to the eternal law that the wrong
doer deserves to suffer, our scheme of the Divine
Government will rest on no solid foundation, and will
have no place for an expiatory sacrifice."
" Great confusion has arisen from confounding two
very different propositions. Our moral nature is

INTRODUCTION. 1 5
resolute in affirming that it is an absolute and eternal
law that the sinner deserves to suffer. But our moral
nature does not affirm that the Moral Governor
is obliged to inflict all the suffering the sinner
deserves." The fact of the atonement has been revealed as
the objective reason for the remission of sin : what is
its rationale ? If a solution of the problem be possible,
it must be sought in the moral reasons on which
penalties rest. If what has been advanced is true,
the penal legislation of God is the divine recognition
of the law that the sinner deserves to suffer ; it is a
proof that He cannot look on with passive indifference
while men violate the eternal law of righteousness.
The moral value of the infliction of penalties lies here,
that although God has an infinite love for His
creatures, He voluntarily punishes them rather than
permit the eternal law that the sinner deserves to
suffer to be unrecognised and unhonoured. But as a
recognition of the ill-desert of sin, and as an honour
to the eternal law of righteousness, the moral value of
God's act in atoning for sin, He being the moral
Ruler of mankind, to whom it appertained to assert
the law, far transcends the moral value of His act in
punishing it. Still more, the love of the Eternal
Father for the Son whom He surrendered to humilia
tion and death, that the ill-desert of sin might be
recognised before it was pardoned, invests the divine
procedure with infinite sublimity, and makes the
grandest moment in the moral history of God,
This view of the atonement is summed up by its
author in the following propositions : —

1 6 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
"(i.) It is an eternal and absolute law that sin
deserves punishment.
" (2.) It is the function of God as the Creator and
moral Ruler of the universe to recognise this law.
"(3.) The moral significance of punishment inflicted
on the sinful lies in its being the voluntary recognition
by God Himself of the ill-desert of sin.
" (4.) The surrender by the Eternal Father of the
' only-begotten Son to penal suffering, that is specially,
to death, and the Son's voluntary endurance of that
suffering, constitute a divine recognition of the ill-
desert of sin far transcending in moral sublimity the
infliction of punishment on the guilty." *
Though the exposition just adduced contains, as I
believe, the only explicit avowal of the theory under
consideration, the work of Christ has frequently been
reasoned about on principles which logically involve
the same legal crypto-dualism. Dr. Dale has been
consistent where other writers were inconsistent.
(2.) The theories which claim to be par excellence
" Churchly," "Catholic," "orthodox," seem to me to
oscillate between three points of view ; two of which,
with modifications, would supplement each other,
though regarded as antagonistic ; the third is in
compatible with the rest. These three points of view
are the crypto-dualistic, the " personal," and the so-
called "governmental." The attitude they take up,
however, towards what is termed the " personal," and
which I shall further describe under the next head, is
1 There is a curious affinity between the position which " the law "
gradually assumed in Protestant theology and what is said about the Thora
in the Talmud. See the very interesting details about the latter given in
Weber's System der Altsynagogalen Theologie, especially pp. 14-20.

INTRODUCTION. 1 7
such that I am compelled to put them either in the
class now under examination, or in that which their
advocates constantly denounce, namely, the " govern
mental," which, as I shall show, is only another word
for subjective, non-objective, " moral."
In order to substantiate this criticism, I must recall
the chief features of the so-called "catholic" theory
as set forth by two prominent theologians.1
And, first, I may adduce Turrettine, who, though
belonging to the close of the seventeenth century, has
done more to colour and determine the systematic
theology of the Reformed Churches, especially in
Britain, than almost any other writer. He puts the
case in a nutshell as follows : " Agreeably to the
triple nature (o^eo-is) of sin (as payment of a debt,
placation of anger and expiation of guilt), and to the
o"XJ=oi<; of God Himself, to whom satisfaction is due, He
may be regarded either as a creditor, or as a party
offended, or as a judge and ruler. The first two
aspects have their own place and justification ; but
here we have specially to do with the third. God
is not only a creditor who has a right to remit at
pleasure ; not only an offended party, who may do as
He will in case of offence : but He is the Judge and
Ruler of the Universe, to whom alone belongs the
infliction of punishment or dispensation therefrom.
A creditor has the right to claim his debt, and an
offended party restitution and compensation for loss ;
but a judge alone, as the constituted authority, has
the power to compel or enact punishment. . . . The
1 For the views of two other representative divines, the Hodges, see
Note III., Appendix. B

1 8 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
irp&rov i/reuSo? of our adversaries is the notion that sin
is to be regarded here as a simple debt, and God as a
mere creditor, who can at His pleasure either exact
or remit penalty without satisfaction. Whereas it is
certain that God here assumes the axeo-is of the Judge
and Ruler of the world, who sustains the rights of
majesty, and professes Himself the keeper and vindi
cator of its laws." x Elsewhere also he claims it also
as " the unvarying opinion of the orthodox, that Christ
truly and perfectly satisfied divine justice for all our
sins ; that this satisfaction was offered, not merely of
congruity, but of necessity ; that justice absolutely
required it : and that in no other way was forgiveness
possible." He adds, too, that " hatred and anger are
attributed to God anthropopathically (dv0pmwoiradm),
and signify solely supreme displeasure and detesta
tion at sin, conjoined with a fixed and constant will
to punish it."2
I will now quote from another theologian, whose
work on the atonement is probably as representative
of the general British consensus as any I could select
— that of the late Professor Crawford. Replying to
the objection, that if we can forgive an injury without
demanding full reparation, why should not God do the
same ? he says, its " plausibility arises from an over
sight of the very broad distinction between personal
resentment und judicial condemnation. Men may pass
over injuries and indignities the effects of which are
limited to themselves ; but we cannot thence infer that
1 Institutio theologiae elencticae, Geneva? 1682, Loc. xiv. Quasstio x.
ix. (vol. ii. 456). Cf. treatise, De Satisfactions Christi necessitate, Pars
I. xxv.
2 See Dissertation, De Satisfactione, etc., Pars I. xvi.-xx.

INTRODUCTION. 19
' the Judge of all the earth ' must in like manner pass
over transgressions which are committed against those
laws of His universal kingdom which involve the
welfare of the whole intelligent creation. The satis
faction which He requires is not personal ; for He
solemnly declares that He has no pleasure in the
death of the sinner. It is a judicial satisfaction which
He is concerned to exact, not for the gratification of
any wrathful or vindictive feelings ; but for the
vindication of His justice in the forgiveness of sins,
and with the view of maintaining, inviolate and free
from every charge of imperfection or mutability, the
rectitude of His government and the authority of His
statutes." 1 Elsewhere he tells us that " the attribute
of justice is from its very nature a judicial 'or magisterial
attribute : " 2 and that " the phrase satisfaction to divine
justice indicates, not that any feelings of resentment
or vindictiveness on the part of God were gratified by
our Lord's sufferings, but simply that these sufferings
were accepted by the supreme Lawgiver and righteous
moral Governor of the universe as a ground on which
He might show mercy to His sinful creatures, consis
tently with the rectitude of His character and the
authority of those laws which as a just God He is
concerned to uphold."3 In other words, the satisfac
tion is offered to God in His "judicial or magisterial
capacity," and that alone. " Christ's sufferings were
1 The Atonement, p. 407 f. When Dr. Crawford says man may do
this and that ; and proceeds " but, etc.," we should expect a reference to
what God can or cannot do relatively to " injuries and indignities ; "
instead of this he passes over— doubtless quite unwittingly— to the Judge
of all the earth, to God in what he would call " another capacity."
2 Atonement, pp. 372, 403- 3 L-c- P- J76, cf. 178, 179.

20 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
penal in the sense of being judicially inflicted." 1 " If
by an obstacle on the part of God to the forgiveness
of sinners, there be understood anything in the shape
of personal resentment, or implacable vindictiveness, or
ztnwillingness to show mercy, it is perfectly true that
there is no such obstacle. . . . The obstacles are His
aversion to sin, His just condemnation of it, and
His declared purpose as the supreme Lawgiver and
righteous Judge to punish it."2 "The sufferings of
Christ, although they were not the very penalty which
God was entitled to demand from the transgressors of
His law, have yet been appointed and accepted by
Him in place of it."3
How far now is the criticism previously advanced
justified ?
i. It is clear that we are concerned in the atone
ment or the obedience of Christ unto death with a
transaction affecting God as the Judge and Ruler of
the world, and the righteous administrator of its laws :
it is not God in His personal capacity we have to do
with — so we are assured. But here is the dilemma
before which we are placed. The laws which God
has to uphold are either laws independent of Him —
laws which He no less than His subjects are bound
to obey ; or, they are simply the modes of His own
being, life, and activity,— self- prescribed indeed, but
still a part of Himself; as truly a part of Himself as
His honour, or His faithfulness, or His love, or His
feelings. If the latter view be taken of them, it seems
1 L.c. p. 183 f. 2 L.c. p. 405 f.
3 L.c. p. 179 ; cf. quotation from Principal Hill's Theology to the same
effect, which is indorsed. That Drs. C. and A. A. Hodge agree with
Turrettine and Crawford in substance, will appear from the account given
in Note III., Appendix.

INTRODUCTION. 21
to me that to speak of God's laws demanding to be
upheld, requiring penalty, compensation, honour, and
so forth, is only a roundabout way of saying that
God Himself requires all this. God qud Ruler or
Judge is still God and God alone. We cannot
separate the one from the other, save on the sup
position first laid down. We can separate between a
man, and the same man qud king, a man and the
same man qud judge, for various reasons, but specially
because, firstly, he may though a man at any time
cease to occupy the post of judge or ruler ; and
secondly, because the laws he administers were not
enacted by him, nor the kingdom over which he
rules established by him. But as this separation is
impossible in the case of God, — Dr. Crawford im
plicitly confesses this when he tells us that " to satisfy
the justice of God [which is essentially a judicial or
administrative attribute] is to satisfy a. just God, or to
satisfy God in respect of His justice,"1 — then to this
extent his treatment of the atonement falls into what
I shall designate the personal or properly Godward
class. But as he repudiates the idea of a personal
satisfaction, insists on Christ's satisfaction being
exclusively judicial, and strenuously repudiates every
form of subjective theory, the only course left open
is to place his theory in what I have called the
crypto-dualistic class. He, of course, had no intention
of countenancing dualism in any form whatever ; he
takes the precaution, too, of using expressions which,
whilst distinguishing the law or constitution of the
world from God, do not separate the two : but I am
concerned here with logic, not with personal intentions ;
1 Atonement, p. 179,

22 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and I maintain that the theory expounded by Dr.
Crawford, consistently carried out, involves the exist
ence of a system of law dualistically independent of
God, to which He as well as His creatures are bound
to conform : and to which He, being perfectly right
eous, as the supreme Judge does actually seek to
conform His administration.
This criticism applies equally to Turrettine, as
indeed to all who accept what is called the " sententia
orthodoxorum " or the Catholic doctrine.
Some parts of Dr. Crawford's exposition are, I
think, open to the further criticism, that it approaches
dangerously near, if not to the governmental theory,
yet to that most objectionable of all theories, the
acceptilatio theory ; otherwise what is the meaning of
such words as, " The sufferings of Christ, although
they were not the very penalty which God was
entitled to demand from the transgressors of His
'¦ law, have yet been appointed and accepted by Him in
place of it ; " 1 especially if he seriously approve, as he
seems to do, of Dr. C. Hodge's statement, "It would
be no exhibition of justice if it were not an exercise
of justice ; it would not teach that the penalty of the
law must be inflicted, unless it implied that the
penalty of the law was inflicted " ? 2 If justice requires
" the penalty," i.e. surely the very penalty ; and if
another than the very penalty is appointed and
accepted in its place, have we not a case of an
artificial, unreal value being put upon and character
1 L.c. p. 179.
2 Quoted l.c. p. 379. As I have hinted in the criticism of the method
of the two Hodges in Note III., they too approach sufficiently near to
the acceptilatio view.

INTRODUCTION. 23
assigned to something at the good pleasure of Him
to whom it is offered ? And what is this but accepti
latio ? If Christ's sufferings were the very penalty,
there could be no question of their being " appointed
and accepted " by God " in place of" the very penalty..
For what is this theory which goes by the name
of the acceptilation theory ? 1 It signifies that God
accepts the satisfaction of Christ, not because a
strictly infinite value belongs to the sufferings of the
God-man ; but because in His infinite benevolence
He is willing to content Himself with a satisfaction
that is not strictly infinite. Hence the atonement of
Christ is sufficient to satisfy the claims of law, because
God is willing to regard it as such, although in strict
fact it is insufficient. This is justified upon the
principle that any oblation is worth whatever the
Deity is willing to rate it at. Its value is not
intrinsic and real, but acquired and nominal.2
2. But there is another point at which all these
" Catholic " theories are open to objection, — it is
their treatment of the word justice. Crawford assures
us that " the distinction that has been attempted to be
drawn," namely, by advocates of the governmental
theory whom he is confuting, " between God's ' rectoral
justice 'and His 'absolute justice,' is inadmissible."3
1 The acceptilatio theory may be regarded as one of the objective
theories. In the expositions of some of its advocates, expressions
enough occur which savour of crypto-dualism, whatever may have been
the intentions of the writers.
2 See Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, ii. 348. This is his
account of it as laid down by its originator, Duns Scotus. In the
Institutes of Justinian, " acceptilatio " is defined as " solutio imaginaria."
This theory was subsequently revived by Arminian theologians like
Episcopius, Limborch, and Curcellaeus.
3 L.c. p. 373.

24 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
" Distributive justice," which consists in rendering
unto all their dues, is displayed in the administration
of His government. "In the case of human govern
ments, which are fallible and defective, ' rectoral
justice ' may not always be administered according to
the strict principles of real or absolute justice ; but not
so in the case of the perfect and unerring government
of God."1 In a word, as all these writers would
agree, justice is to give smtm cuique : God is absolutely
just in all His relations ; therefore He will give
absolutely suum cuique.
God is absolutely just, and gives every one his due.
To whom is justice shown or done, when Christ
undergoes His sufferings ? For whose sake is the
passion ? We should perhaps receive for answer,
" The law," the law demands justice. But what is
the law ? Is it a law independent of God ? If so,
we fall into the dualism to which I previously referred.
No ; by the law is really understood God Himself,
who is its source, who enacts it, who prescribes it ; of
whose life and action it is a mode. In that case it is
God Himself, and no abstraction substituted for Him,
who demands justice for Himself, who seeks to do
justice to Himself through Christ. In short, the end
of Christ's work was to do justice to God, to meet
God's claims, God's requirements. It is useless here
to say, God's claims and requirements as Judge or
Ruler ; for that, as I showed already, does not affect
the point. It is God, God Himself, who puts in a
claim for Himself. And what is that but the "per
sonal " view which was so decidedly repudiated ?
1 L.c. p. 372.

INTRODUCTION. 2$
Let us further consider in a word or two what is
said to be done in the name of justice ; what is offered
to God as His just due; what God secures for Him
self as His due. That Christ came in order to, do
justice to God, I hold to be certain ; this was one great
end He had in view : through Him, in other words,
God sought to do justice to Himself. But how ? So
far as men were sinful, they received their due when
the sufferings arising out of, and necessarily connected
with sin came, and were brought, upon them ; bodily
sufferings for the violation of bodily laws ; intellectual
sufferings for the violation of intellectual laws ; and
so on, for every aspect of man's complex nature and
its corresponding complex environment. If men's
sin deserved eternal punishment, then they would get
their due by being consigned to the place where the
worm dieth not and the fire is never quenched. So far
God would be just, according to the definition of
justice agreed on, — just, namely, to sinful men. But
does God thus get His due ? The language used,
especially by the forensic theologians, implies that
justice would be done to God also when men were
condemned. God Himself, in other words, — unless
a dualistic position be assigned to the law, — de
mands for Himself so much punishment for so much
sin, — infinite or eternal punishment for sin which,
being committed against Him, the Infinite and Eternal
One, is itself infinite ; and this punishment is repre
sented as His due — His righteous due ; provided the
suffering is endured, whether by those who deserve
it, and whose real due, be it remembered, it is assumed
to be, or by a substitute, is of no real consequence ;

26 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
hence its transference to one who, in virtue of His
divine nature, was able to endure infinite suffering, —
not extensive indeed, yet intensive, not in duration
but in intensity.1 But this seems to me, again, the
despised "personal" view of the end of Christ's
passion, in a most awful and revolting form. Theo
logians have concealed from themselves, uninten
tionally, the true nature of the position they were
taking up, by substituting abstractions like "divine
justice," " the law," and so forth, for God, whenever
they got directly face to face with it ; and, unwittingly,
they often lapsed either into dualism or into subjec
tivism. Not only so, they have themselves always
repudiated, in the strongest terms, the idea that God
demanded suffering, as such, for Himself; that it was
infinite suffering He needed for a satisfaction.
But then the question returns, What about God's
own due ? Giving up the futile or fatal distinction
between Himself and the law, what is His due ?
Every sinner condemned to eternal death is an eternal
1 So Quenstedt, Gerhard, and others. The sufferings of Christ are
regarded from three points of view — that of the jus talionis, that is, the
" eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth " principle ; that of a debt; and that
of vindication of honour from insult. The second point of view still
colours the language used by the less educated preachers and evange
lists, and by the people at large ; and there is not a little in the exposi
tions of the so-called governmental theory to remind us of the third.
As to the amount of suffering endured by Christ, there is a marked
difference between recent divines and those of the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries. The former hold that Christ's sufferings were an
" equivalent ; " the latter, more or less distinctly, that they were intensive
if not extensivi, the exact penalty (as is noted above). Even Turrettine
uses the language : " Qua? passioni temporali pondus addit infinittem"
Loc. xiv. qu. xi. 28 ; see Note III., Appendix. Principal Cunningham
speaks, too, of " the value and efficacy of what Christ did and suffered
as truly infinite" (Histor. Theol. ii. 264) ; but he does not keep consis
tently to the idea.

INTRODUCTION. 2/
loss to God: the loss of a child created in His image,
from whom He expected loving reverence, worship,
service ; with whom He purposed to hold eternal and
ever-growing fellowship. Can that be doing justice
to God ? In point of fact, justice would not be done
to God, full compensation would not be made to Him,
unless every sinful soul were brought back to Him
in penitence and profounder reverence and love.
The truth, therefore, is that justice can be done to
God only by the redemption of man ; and this is
perhaps the true meaning of the expression, that in
Christ mercy and truth kiss each other, righteousness
and grace are one.
(II.) The second class of objective theories might
be termed "personal" — I prefer designating them
Godward. It may be well to avoid the use of the
former term, because rather of what it connotes than
of what it denotes. The ideas which have found
expression in, or have coloured phrases like, " it is a
personal question," "personal considerations," and the
like, show what I mean.
I have quoted above the language of Dr. Crawford
on the subject, with whom others of the same school
agree. Here is what an eminent representative of
the New England " Governmental " School says : " If
sin be injurious to God in a private personal capacity
only,1 and He be not an inexorable but a compas
sionate Being, He might certainly pardon at least as
many sinners as repent, without any atonement what-
1 A strange notion of God surely, that could allow of His even being
spoken of "as standing in a "private personal" relationship, — unmistake-
ably dualistic.

28 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
ever. But sin should not be considered in this light.
It is an offence against God in a public capacity, as
the supreme Governor of the universe." 1
Dr. Dale, too, says : " Personal claims, if they are
exclusively personal, may be waived. If this theory
of sin and its punishment were complete (i.e. the
theory that ' sin is of the nature of a personal offence
against the majesty of God, and that punishment is
the expression of God's just resentment '), God would
be free to inflict or remit punishment at His own
good pleasure."2 In another place, however, he
remarks : " If the punishment of sin is to be defined
as a vindication and assertion of the personal rights
and claims of God against those who have sinned, it
must be remembered that the Divine claims which
sin resists, and the Divine rights which sin refuses to
acknowledge, are essentially different from the claims
and rights which are in such sense personal, that they
can be remitted at pleasure. They are claims and
rights which it is morally necessary that God should
maintain." 3 Exactly so. But surely God can never
advance claims and rights which it is not morally
necessary for Him to maintain. And is it not un
usually gross anthropomorphism to apply to any
divine claims such words as " exclusively personal" ?4
1 Caleb Burge, "Scripture Doctrine of Atonement" in The Atonefiioit.
Discourses and Treatises, etc. With Introductory Essay by Edwards A.
Park, Boston i860.
2 R. W. Dale, Atonement, p. 380. 3 Ibid. p. 382.
* This idea of " personal," as of something having lower value and
validity than the legal, is explicable, of course, by the fact that men are
selfish, warped, blinded, and so forth. But considered in themselves,
personal relationships are surely the most important, the highest, the
most sacred that can be sustained ; and the duties, claims, rights, they

INTRODUCTION. 29
The views taken of the personal or Godward end
of Christ's passion can scarcely be characterized as
so many different theories — they are rather mutually
complementary aspects of one theory, i.e. properly
considered. Indeed, one can scarcely say that the
subject has been looked at enough from this point of
view to allow of the genesis of the variety which
elsewhere prevails. Strangely enough, theologians,
as a rule, have been deterred by the fear of anthro-
popathisms or anthropomorphisms from duly facing
and entering into the many passages of the New
Testament, not to mention the Old, where the idea
of a personal change in God, or a personal action on
God, is more or less distinctly suggested. Preachers,
indeed, have clung to the anthropomorphic ; the
people, too, have never translated the personal lan
guage of Scripture into the forensic terms employed
by theologians ; but these latter, with rare exceptions,
have fought shy of what the common mind and
heart alone appreciated. The theological custom of
speaking of the justice of God having its claims
might suggest the idea that this was one of the
ends of Christ's work which a Godward theory might
have to consider. But the justice of God is merely
an abstract way of speaking of God as just, of the
just God. God is just ; therefore He gives to every
one his due : God is holy ; therefore He seeks to
preserve and secure what is due to Himself. In
involve are no less inviolable, nay, more inviolable, than any others.
Specially true is this of God.
Canon Westcott's discussion of the terms Ikmrfcos, I'ha.aKtada.t, in his
Commentary on St. John's Epistles, is warped by this mistake. Indeed,
it has done untold mischief in connection with this whole subject.

30 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
speaking of rendering justice to God, we use words
of wide scope. What is due to God ? Not, as I have
already remarked, the punishment of sinners : that
is the due of sinners, which God, through the cosmic
order, which is the expression of His mind and will,
renders to them ; but the sinners themselves are His
due, with all their powers of body and mind. His
due is, to be loved with all the heart and mind, and
soul and strength, and to be served through service
rendered to our fellow-creatures, human and non-
human. The limitation of , the scope of justice to
penalty and the like has been a mistake fraught in the
history of the Christian Church down to the present
moment, with the saddest consequences alike to
theology and practice, to intellect and heart.
Every possible legitimate aspect of the Godward
end to be served by Christ's passion may be embraced
under the head of giving God His due, meeting the
claims of justice, and so forth.
i. One form, logically considered, of this per
sonal theory I have already referred to in the course
of my criticism of the juridical theory, — I refer to the
notion — possible though scarcely actual — that God
claimed so much suffering, no matter by whom borne,
for so much sin — claimed it personally ; claimed as
His due, as His compensation or satisfaction. As
this view of the matter is compatible neither with a
true conception of justice, nor with Scripture, nor
with human feeling, I need not further dwell on it :
indeed I refer to it merely because a good deal of
language employed in the discussion of this subject
has unintentionally given rise to the charge that

INTRODUCTION. 3 1
theologians have actually held it. In what sense
this had any foundation I have shown before.
2. The form that first deserves actual consideration
is that which represents Christ as having come to be
or make a propitiation {Zkaaixbi) for the sins of the
world — that is, to propitiate (l\da-ice<70ai) the dis
pleasure, anger, indignation of God ; or rather, God as
displeased, angry, indignant at sin. Luther, Calvin,
and the " Confessions " give great prominence to
this aspect of the matter ; and most of the earlier
Protestant divines refer more or less distinctly to
it. Says Luther : "It was the anger of God itself
that Christ bore — the eternal anger which our sins
had deserved. . . . Sin and the anger of God —
these were the cause of His death. . . . The inner
sufferings of Jesus, His anguish — an anguish in com
parison with which all human anguish and fear are
but a slight matter — was the feeling of the divine
anger." 1 Calvin also : " Man was estranged from
God by sin, an heir of wrath. . . . Christ with His
own blood expiated the sins which rendered Him
hateful to God ; by this expiation satisfied and duly
propitiated God the Father ; by this intercession
appeased His anger ; on this basis founded peace
between God and man." 2 In the Apologia Confes-
sionis Augustance we read : " The anger of God
cannot be stilled by our works ; Christ alone is
mediator and propitiator; and for His sake alone
does the Father become gracious to us." 3 The Con-
fessio Wurtembergica says, too : " The Son of God
1 Kostlin, Theologie Luthers, vol. ii. 411.
2 Institutes, Bk. ii. ch. xvi., 2. 8 Art. iv. (ii.) 80.

32 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
alone is the placator of the anger of God." * The
Confessio Saxonica : " Such is the greatness of the
anger of God, that the Eternal Father cannot be
placated, save by the beseechings and death of His
Son." 2
By degrees, however, the anger of God ceased to
be mentioned, save as a kind of synonym of God's
fixed purpose to punish sin ; or of the threatenings of
the law ; or of the necessity that sin be punished, and
so forth ; and this has continued to be the custom
down to the present day.3 The "propitiatory"
aspect of Christ's work has accordingly been either
neglected or evacuated of its significance. The
modern attitude * towards it is probably expressed
by Canon Westcott when he writes : 5 " The Scrip
tural conception of l\dcnce<r6ai is not that of appeasing
one who is angry, with a personal (!) feeling against
the offender; but of altering the character of that
which from without occasions a necessary alienation
and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship.
Such phrases as ' propitiating God,' and God ' being
reconciled,' are foreign to the language of the New
Testament. Man is reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18 ff. ;
Rom. v. 10 f.). There is a 'propitiation' in the
matter of the sin or of the sinner. The love of God
is the same throughout ; but He cannot in virtue of
His very nature welcome the impenitent and sinful ;
1 See Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus, ii. 182.
2 Heppe, l.c. p. 183.
a Dr. Dale is one of the few exceptions. He lays just stress on the
reality of even divine anger. See his Atonement. But he has scarcely
entered into the true meaning of ihaa/to;, notwithstanding.
4 So far as our dilettanti take the trouble to grapple with the subject.
5 Commentary on the Epistles of St. John.

INTRODUCTION. 33
and more than this, He cannot treat sin as if it were
not sin. This being so, the i\acr/M<s, when it is applied
to the sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin. In
this respect the idea of the efficacy of Christ's pro
pitiation corresponds with one aspect of the Pauline
phrase ' in Christ' The believer, being united with
Christ, enjoys the quickening, purifying action of
Christ's ' Blood,' of the virtue of His life and death,
of His life made available for men through death."
I should be inclined to exclaim with regard to this
exposition —
Veritatem expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.
Canon Westcott is too strongly in the grip of the
Christian faith to be able to be logical in his treat
ment of the question he handles ; such, at all events,
is my impression. Were this the place, I should have
something more to say in support of the remark.
While I thoroughly hold by the reality of the anger
of God and of the relation of Christ's work thereto,1
I certainly do not accept the traditional exposition of
either as adequately Biblical. Formally justifiable, its
content has been wrong. The divine anger is ethical
in quality, is of the nature of that of which even men
have some experience, namely, moral indignation —
burning moral indignation. As such it seems to me
an essential potentiality of the ethical, yea, of the true,
holy, loving God. But mere suffering, that is, penalty,
can never propitiate or remove divine anger. Divine
anger is one of the producing causes of the punish
ment of sin ; as long as sin continues, it goes on
1 See a later chapter on the Anger of God. See also Note IV. in Appx.
C

34 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
producing punishment : how then can it be propitiated
by that which it itself, under given conditions, neces
sarily produces ? Were it a sort of personal vindictive-
ness or blind rage, it might exhaust itself, as human
passions tend to do, by its own activity ; but it is toto
ccelo removed therefrom. As being essentially ethical,
it can only be acted upon by that which is essentially
ethical. This is in harmony with a great cosmic law.
It is the oversight of this that has given rise to the
confusion that has prevailed. God is angry, but His
anger is moral ; God can be propitiated, but the pro
pitiation must be moral. The anger is objective,
though — perhaps because — moral ; the propitiation is
real and objective, though — perhaps because — moral.
Here is one of the keys to the entire problem ; and
the direction in which the solution is to be sought is
nowhere more clearly indicated than in the passage
which Canon Westcott has so strangely tried to empty
of its meaning: "Herein is love: not that we loved
God, but that He loved its, and sent His Son to be the
propitiation for our sins."
3. In the view of Christ's obedience unto death,
expounded by the late E. D. Maurice, there is, as it
seems ' to me, a Godward element, which has been
overlooked by its numerous critics and denunciators,
and for the sake of which it deserves classing as
objective. Starting with the conception of the one
ness of Christ with every man, and of the constitution
of mankind in Christ, from which naturally follows
that what He does on their behalf is their act because
it is His, he says : " The Father's will is a will to all
good. The Son obeys, and fulfils in our flesh that

INTRODUCTION. 35.
will by entering into the lowest condition into which
men had fallen through their sin. For this reason He
is an object of continual complacency to His Father,
and that complacency is fully drawn out by the death
of the cross. His death is a sacrifice — the only com
plete sacrifice ever offered. The cross is thus the
meeting-point between man and man, between man
and God. In it all the wisdom and truth and glory
of God were manifested to the creature, and in it man
is presented as a holy and acceptable sacrifice to God."
As if further to emphasize the objectivity of the trans
action, he says in another place : " Human beings are
redeemed, not in consequence of any act they have
done, or of any faith they have exercised. Their faith
is to be founded on a foregone conclusion. . . . It is
lawful to tell men that they are justified before God
and are the sons of God in the only-begotten Son." x
What is this but another mode of conceiving and
expressing what lies behind that veritable articulus
stantis et cadentis ecclesice, the doctrine of justification
by faith, of the remission of sin through His death,
of our acceptance in and through Him ? I am far
from thinking, for my own part, that Maurice's view
is adequate. In the work of Christ there are elements
which he does not explicitly take into consideration ;
but those others, and the one he presses, are mutually
supplementary, not mutually exclusive. In its measure,
however, there is an objective element, in the idea
that God was well pleased with the sacrifice offered
1 Passages quoted by Dr. Crawford for the purpose of establishing
the charges against Mr. Maurice of deviating from Scripture and Church
doctrine on the subject of the atonement.

36 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
by Christ, — the sacrifice being conceived as offered
by the head and representative of humanity, and as
carrying humanity's own self-sacrifice with it, not in
the way of example only, though, as is required by
the constitution of man, in that way also, but chiefly
in the way of empowerment ; and that because He
was well pleased, the disapproval or anger which dis
turbed the fellowship between Him and sinners is
set aside or counteracted ; in a word, the sacrifice of
Christ is conceived as the means of establishing right
relations between God and man, looked at from both
sides. " Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, an
offering and a sacrifice to God (ets ba^v evcuSta?)." 1
" We are sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus once for all! '2 "I am crucified with Christ;
nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." '"
4. Akin to Maurice's position, though more adequate
to the subject, is the view advanced by Gess : " The
Scriptural idea of the modus of the expiation is this —
(1) Not the mere fact of the surrender of the holy life
of Jesus to death in and by itself; nor indeed at all of
His obedience in and by itself was it that expiated our
sins ; but the same self-surrender to death as the curse
due to sin. (2) Not the mere fact that He bore and
sunk under the curse of sin, considered in and by itself,
but the fact that He, who was thus innocently burdened,
consecrated the life that sank under this burden to the.
Father, was it that caused the Father to be gracious
towards us. Christ glorified God in the suffering of
death, because, whilst laden with the curse of the law
which God had linked to sin, He surrendered Himself
1 Eph. v. 2. 2 Heb. x. 10. s Gal. ii. 20.

INTRODUCTION. 37
to God as a spotless, holy sacrifice : this glorification
God accepts as an acceptable ransom, on the ground
of which men are freed from judgment." x
Still more adequate expression is given to the same
ideas by Dorner. " Of what nature," he asks, " must
the satisfaction or expiation be which shall effect re
conciliation to the very innermost core of conscience,
and establish unhindered vital fellowship between the
Father and men ? [It must be by a mediator,] and the
mediator will need not only to recognise with incom
parable truthfulness that the sin of the world is to be
reprobated and is dishonouring to God, but must also,
in the power of vicarious love, feel with intensest pain
the guilt of the world as something which concerned
him. In loving sympathy, he must feel and bear the
ill-desert of sin, that is, the curse which it brings on us ;
yea, the justice of the divine disfavour and condemna
tion : still more, he must render to the divine righteous
ness in all that it does and may do, the honour which is
its due, so that by his action and passion alike he may
exhibit and confirm its eternal truth and sacred majesty.
" Wherever the divine disfavour is not only recog
nised, but its gravity and justice sincerely confessed,
with an accompanying sense of unblessedness ; where
it is seen that this disfavour is the just source of all
other possible evils ; and where, finally, there is
complete and willing surrender to the divine judgment
— there the righteous displeasure of God is atoned or
expiated, there it has been made possible for God to
forgive and to restore His favour to man ; for then the
1 W. F. Gess, " Zur Lehre v. der Versohnung," published in Jahrbiicher
fur deutsche Theologie, vol. ii. iii. See vol. iii. p. 722 f.

38 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
sanctity of the divine righteousness is shown to be
inviolable, and its just claims are asserted among men.
Such an utter subjection of thought, feeling, and voli
tion to its sentence would be expiatory or atoning
satisfaction. " Humanity alone could not accomplish this : none
but Christ, who was at once Son of God and Son of
man, the eternal Head of humanity, preordained to
appear in the flesh, in order that He might bring
humanity into the relation to God — whether after or
apart from sin— which was necessary to the realiza
tion of the divine idea as well of man as of the world
to which man belongs." 1
Taken in conjunction with assumptions elsewhere
advanced, there is not a little in Dorner's exposition
to suggest classing his theory with the Governmental
view. But I have given him the benefit of the doubt.
5. A further phase of the Godward, personal —
objectivo-realistic-ethical — work of Christ is brought
out in the view set forth by M'Leod Campbell,
and more recently, and though informally yet a
little more fully, expounded by Dr. Newman Smyth.
The words of the former are so well known that I
will only quote from the latter writer. In the sermon
1 Dorner's Christliche Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. 640. Compare the
works of Thomasius, Sartorius, especially Schoberlein's Die Grund-
lehren des Heils entwickelt aus dem Princip der Liebe, article " Versoh-
nung" in Herzog's Real-Encyclop. ist ed., and Princip und System der
Dogmatik. Few men have gained truer insight into the nature and
conditions of personality and personal relationships. The study of
Schoberlein's Grundlehren constituted an epoch in my intellectual and
spiritual development ; and I am myself altogether unable to estimate
the full extent of my indebtedness to him. A soul he was, such as the
world seldom numbers among its sojourners ; — a dialectician of love
after the mind of John. Dr. Dale may be also classed here.

INTRODUCTION. 39
on " God's Forgetfulness of Sin," he says : " God puts
His own knowledge of our sin far from Him as Christ
comes nigh and ascends the throne of His majesty, in
His perfect confession of the sinfulness of our sin, in
His perfect obedience in our nature to God's holy
will, and in His perfect oneness with us in our humilia
tion before God. God in Christ can forgive and
forget sin without denying Himself. Our sin, which
God always would forgive, can be sin forgiven and
forgotten, because it has been at last perfectly con
fessed before God, and God's necessary pain over it
has been realized and revealed in the sufferings in it,
and for it, of the Son of His love ; and its condemna
tion, once for all, has been visited upon it in the death
of Him who prays in God's pure will that His enemies
may be forgiven. In view of Christ and His cross
there remains no moral need that God should remem
ber our sin a second time against us, and He will
remember it no more against us for ever. The
eternal presence of Christ in our nature and for us
before the Father is the sufficient reason for His
eternal forgetfulness of our sin which He would
forgive. God sees us in Christ. God thinks of us
always in Christ. There is henceforth no moral
reason why He should think of us otherwise than in
Christ. He has no divine need to remember us
otherwise than in Christ's oneness with us and our
union with Christ."1
If there is no objectivity apart from legal, forensic,
1 The Reality of Faith. By Newman Smyth. In some respects
Bushnell deserves a place here ; see his Vicarious Sacrifice, in which
he modifies the views expounded in his Life and Light of Men.

40 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
judicial processes, this view, of course, is not objec
tive ; but if there is such a thing as ethical objectivity,
— if ethical relations are changed or established by
the fulfilment of real ethical conditions, — then objec
tivity of the truest kind cannot be denied either to
this position or to that of M'Leod Campbell.
6. One or two peculiar features characteristic of the
mode of presentation, if not of the substance of the
Rev. Edward Whites view, render it worthy of
special notice.1 " So long as any explanation of the
atonement is sought for outside the Godhead, it will be
sought in vain. . . . The doctrine of the Apostles is,
that the Divine Nature is revealed as bi-polar or of
double aspect. They teach that there is in that
Eternal Nature a love of righteousness and righteous
law, necessary and ever-during ; leading to an eternal
resolve to uphold with the Infinite Might the authority
of Right as right, and of God as God, both in His
own mind and in His outward government. They
teach that there is also in God, through the riches of
a gracious Nature, an overflowing love and com
passion, — not for all sinners of all worlds and of all
ranks, but for creatures whose sinfulness is the
result of an original malign interference, which has
prompted the desire to ' save ' man, although a law
breaker. Hence a moral schism in the Divine
Nature." The sinner has thus set in eternal opposi
tion to each other the righteousness which prompts to
swift judgment, and the grace which remembers mercy.
" Can God forgive sin without some outward
demonstration of a nature to show that forgiveness of
1 See his Life in Christ, 3rd ed. pp. 253-255.

INTRODUCTION. 41
law-breaking is not a ' law ' of the Divine Government,
or an ordinary act of the Divine Government ? . . .
Can God extend His mercy without any manifestation
of His righteousness ? . . . There is but one way in
which sinners may obtain life eternal. No innocent
creature must suffer, however willing. God Himself
must suffer, in one exceptional sacrifice, if sinners are
to be saved ; and the stability of the Divine govern
ment within itself and over other minds is to be
preserved." " Here alone we find the revealed reason of the
atonement by the death of Christ considered as an
expiation or ground for pardoning sinners. It is not
a blow falling on an innocent creature outside the
Godhead. It is a blow falling from the sinful creature
on the Godhead itself ^ " The whole Godhead, which
is righteousness and love, sacrifices itself in the agonies
of a human death, that man, though a sinner, may
live for ever." x " The death of Christ, thus regarded,
is the visible reconciliation of the sinful world to God,
because it is the visible reconciliation of the interior
Divine Attributes in the abnormal act of saving sinners."
" The reason is found in the heights and depths of
the Godhead alone — in the holiness which abhors
evil ; in the rectitude which intensely loves the law ;
in the wisdom which must demonstrate that the
salvation of sinners is no easy process ; and in the
boundless grace which resolves to endure all that sin
and sinners can inflict, as a demonstration of the
impossibility there is, even for Omnipotence, to save,
by an arbitrary act, without a ransom and a sacrifice." :
1 Life in Christ, p. 259. 2 L.c. p. 260.

42 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Mr. White's exposition seems to me to be open to
three interpretations : first, that the moral schism in
God caused by human sin was veritably healed by a
divine self-sacrifice eternally, and that the historical
sufferings and death of Christ were but the visible
manifestation thereof in time ; secondly, that the
historical sufferings and death of Christ were the
fulfilment of a divine purpose of self-sacrifice, and,
having both an inward and outward aspect, were the
actual means of healing the schism ; thirdly, that the
"schism," being solely a question of how to offer
forgiveness without encouraging law-breaking, the
immediate end of the sufferings and death of Christ
was solely to demonstrate at once the mercy and
righteousness of God.
If the second be the correct interpretation, Mr.
White's view of the work of Christ should be placed
in the objective class.
If the third be the correct interpretation, his view
is nothing but a rearrangement of the so-called
Governmental theory which I have felt compelled to
characterize as essentially subjective.
If the first interpretation be correct, I should have
to raise a very serious objection to it, — the objection,
namely, that the historical is reduced to a mere
exhibition of what had already eternal reality. In
making this criticism, I should add that I neither
object to the idea of a " moral schism," which in one
form or another must be recognised by all who believe
in the " forgiveness of sins," nor, in speaking of the
historical, do I mean exclusively the carnally visible.
But it seems to me that there is considerable danger

INTRODUCTION. 43
in any form or degree of the resolution of what has
been believed to be a divine transaction — with, of
course, an inner and outer, an invisible and a visible
side — in time and space, into an eternal, intra-divine
transaction, whether of purpose or actuality, which
preceded, and was merely displayed to view in the
outward incarnation and death of Christ.
On the whole, however, notwithstanding the am
biguities which mark his presentation of the subject,
he deserves to have the benefit of the doubt. I have
accordingly classed him amongst those who hold to
an objective effect of the passion of Christ, that is, an
effect on God Himself, — the effect being in this case
the reconciliation of conflicting attributes, the healing
of a " moral schism."
II. We now come, to the second great class of
theories — those, namely, which deny the objective,
especially the Godward, aspect of the passion of
Christ ; and hold that it was designed solely to
produce an effect on man, that is, a moral effect,
hence the designation " moral " theories. These
again may be subdivided as follows : —
(I.) Attention is first claimed by the views which
are in the more strict and proper sense describable as
"moral" — those, namely, which represent the design
of Christ, especially in His sufferings and death, to
have been to bring considerations and influences to
bear on men's minds, fitted to prepare and induce
them to return to God. " God was in Christ recon
ciling the world to Himself" — not being reconciled to
the world.

44 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
i. The most popular phase of the "moral" view
of the atonement, or at all events the one best known
as such, is that which represents Christ's obedience
unto death as a manifestation of divine self-sacrificing
love. Though this view has had, and still has, many
advocates, no writer has given it more striking
expression than Dr. John Young : " The divinest
work of God on this earth is the destroying of evil.
By the one true sacrifice of Christ — an act of divine
self-sacrifice ¦ — He aims a blow at the root of evil
within man's heart. The subsequent process is
endlessly diverse and is tedious and slow, but the
issue is certain — the death of sin. God touches the
deadly disease at its foul source, and heals it. He
breaks the hard heart by the overwhelming pressure
of pure and almighty mercy in our Lord Jesus Christ.
He kindles a new divine life, which is holiness, —
the resolute free, glad choice of truth and good." l
" From the beginning and through many agencies
and influences mercy has wondrously interposed, not
to defraud justice, but to destroy sin, which is death,
and to create holiness, which is life. At last by one
amazing intervention God's uttermost was put forth
to secure the double effect by love, whose breadth,
and length, and depth, and height no mind can com
pass." " The sacrifice of Christ was not required to
appease God's anger or to satisfy His justice. . . .
It was wholly and solely made by God for men and
for sin, in order that sin might be for ever put down
and rooted out of human nature. This stupendous
1 Life and Light of Men, pp. 74, 101, quoted in Crawford, p. 353.
Abelard was the first to take up this position.

INTRODUCTION. 45
act of divine sacrifice was God's instrument of recon
ciliation and redemption, — God's method of conquering
the human heart and of subduing a revolted world
and attaching it to His throne, — pure love, self-sacri
ficing love, crucified, dying love." 1
Various reasons are given by those who take this
view why Christ should have suffered and died in
revealing God's love. Young says : " He fell a
sacrifice to jealousy and rage ; and without question,
the offerers of the sacrifice — the only offerers — were
the Jews." 2 Suppose the Jews had left Christ alone
— what then ?
2. In the second class of so-called "moral" views
I must range the various forms of what is commonly
designated the " Governmental Theory." As the
numerous expounders and advocates of this theory
have been accustomed to regard it as one of the
objective class — as one that retained the essential
features of the " Catholic " doctrine without its harsh
ness, and combined the advantages of the "objective"
and "subjective" theories; and as they have pretty
generally been taken at their own estimate, at all
events as far as objectivity is concerned, it will be
necessary for me to go into some defence of this
deviation from the ordinary course.
First, however, let me lay before my readers
material for the formation and substantiation of a
judgment, in the shape of brief summaries of state
ments of some prominent representatives.
(i.) I will begin with one whose exposition is in
1 Life and Light of Men, pp. 74, 101, quoted by Crawford, p. 353 f.
2 L.c. pp. 286, 291. Crawford, p. 344.

46 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
some respects inchoate — at all events not systematic
in the sense in which all theological writers outside
the Episcopal Church understand that word, though
probably very representative of the thinking of Epis
copalians — namely, Professor Wace.
After referring to the disorder introduced by sin
and the antagonism between sin and God's righteous
ness, he says : —
" Unless all the principles of God's moral govern
ment were to be undermined, and the whole analogy
of His dealings were to be falsified — if His moral
laws were to possess any real and effectual sanction,
some vindication they must have, one which should
be at least as conspicuous as awful and prominent
in the moral sphere, as is the constant vindication
of His other laws in the physical and social uni
verse. " Now, the chief truth embodied in the doctrine of
the atonement is that this vindication has been afforded
by the passion and death of our Lord ; and although,
as has been already said, no theory on this subject
has fathomed, or is likely to fathom, its deep mysteries,
we can hardly be wrong in observing, as a matter of
fact, one important respect in which that vindication
was exhibited by the awful events we have been
considering. We have seen that our Lord's death
was the natural consequence, the inevitable working
out of human evil when brought into contact with
truth, righteousness, and purity. Had men been left
to themselves, this is the result to which they would
have come ; they would have trampled out the truth
and goodness which is the life of their souls, and

INTRODUCTION. 47
God must needs have abandoned them, in the
necessary vindication of His laws, to all the misery
which they inflicted on our Saviour. But in enduring
that misery our Lord has exhibited once for all, to
earth and heaven, to time and to eternity, what is
the natural consequence of the violation of God's
moral laws. By suffering the extremity of misery, in
soul and body, on the tree, He has manifested to the
world the consequences of human sin — the con
sequences which in God's justice it must produce, if
left to itself — as fully, as terribly, as vividly, as if the
human race as a whole had themselves suffered such
extremities. Nothing could be more horrible, nothing
could be a more fearful manifestation of the deadly evil
of sin, than that the holy, and perfect, and gentle
Lord Jesus, who did no sin, neither was guile found
in His mouth, should be betrayed, and insulted, and
tortured, and crucified, and cast out of the world as one
of its malefactors. It is sin which on the cross is
crucified and exposed to the scorn and hatred of men
and angels. Nay, surely it is a more awful exhibition
of the evil of sin, that it should bring this suffering
upon one so holy and innocent, that it should simply
have been left to work out the just judgment of
those who were guilty. . . . God left men for a
while to the consequences of their own evil acts,
and permitted His Son to appear among them, and
the moral laws He had established vindicated them
selves by their violation, working itself out into
this fearful crime and cruelty. ... If we could
suppose God interposing by some act of arbitrary
power to create men afresh as it were, and to blot

48 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
out the consequences of their sin, it would have
amounted to a practical declaration that the moral law
could be readily dispensed with, and the eternal
supremacy of righteousness would have been super
seded. But, on the other hand, if that eternal law had
been left to work itself out, we see by its operation in
bringing about the death of Christ that it must have
wrought out the death of all righteousness and peace
among mankind. . . .
" The Son of God by taking human flesh allowed
that inevitable consequence of the operation of the
law of righteousness to be wrought on Himself. . . .
He revealed to men in His sufferings what was the
real nature of sin and its consequences ; and then
having thus satisfied the law of God by allowing it to
work itself out to the full, He interceded with the
Father for mercy towards us, and returned among us
to save us, having obtained for us the remission of
sins. " But this having been done, and done once for all,
that vindication stands for ever, and we can at least
see that it goes far to answer the main purposes of
the actual infliction of punishment on the sinner.
God willed not the death of the sinner, but rather
that he should return and repent. Provided His law
is vindicated in such a way as to declare His right
eousness, to make it manifest to the whole world that
He cannot be reconciled to evil, and at the same
time to arouse in men a due hatred of evil and love
of righteousness, He has no pleasure, but the contrary,
in exacting the ultimate penalty of sin from every
one of His feeble creatures, and He offers them

INTRODUCTION. 49
forgiveness on condition that they submit themselves
to His justice and mercy, by seeking that forgiveness
solely on the ground of the satisfaction which has'
been offered by our Lord." x
(2.) The next to be considered is the view presented
by the late Albert Barnes.2
The position which the Atonement is designed to
meet is the following : — Man is and knows himself to
be guilty of violating the law — a fact which cannot be
unmade ; he cannot repair the wrong done to himself,
to society, to his Maker, to the law; nor can he
remove the penalty or lay claim to pardon. What
does the Atonement effect ? Consider, first, what it is
not intended to do. It is not intended to make God
more benevolent or just than He was before, or to buy
Him over to mercy; nor did Christ endure the strict
and proper penalty of the law, — either remorse or
eternal death, — for this can only be borne by the
offender. Consider, secondly, what it is intended to
effect. It is an expression of God's willingness to
forgive — a willingness which, had He so chosen,
might have been shown by a simple declaration. It
is, further, a device or scheme on God's part for
removing the obstacle, under a moral government, to
the exercise of pardon, and for making the forgive
ness of the sinner consistent with the maintenance of
1 Wace, The Gospel and its Witnesses, 1883; lecture on "The
Passion and Death of our Lord," p. 137 ff. A work some parts of
which reminded me of Schbberlein.
2 The well - known commentator. I have been given to understand
by an eminent American theologian that Albert Barnes' view fairly
represents the average New School Presbyterianism and Congregation
alism of America. The following is an abstract of his two sermons
(xvi. xvii.) on the "Atonement." D

50 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the honour of the law, and with justice and truth.
With regard to the hindrances in question, He re
marks, that in all governments there are such difficulties,
especially the difficulty that pardon tends to lessen
the moral power of law and to diminish respect for
its sanctions. What is needed, therefore, if pardon is
to be practicable and proper, is an arrangement to
prevent the effect mentioned. The cases in which
human governments pardon, namely, when the
sentence of the law is too severe, or when the
executive uses its liberty to pardon, do not apply
here. The difficulty, however, would be met if the
end contemplated in appointing penalty and inflicting
punishment were met — which end was to express the
view taken by the lawgiver of the sanctity and value
of law, and of the evil and desert of sin ; to supply a
measure of its enormity, and to furnish a deterrent
from its committal. As a matter of fact, the evil of
sin is often seen most clearly in the sufferings of the
innocent. Now, the sufferings of Christ, who volun
tarily took our place, especially because of His exalted
dignity as the Son of God, show forth all these things
even more impressively than would the punishment
of the guilty. In addition, He commends the infinite
love of God by His death. Consequently, to forgive
the sinner who believes in Christ is now perfectly
compatible with the honour and majesty of the divine
law, with the safety of the divine government, and
with the dignity and consistency of God the great
moral Governor.
Such is, in substance, the Governmental view ex
pounded by Albert Barnes.

INTRODUCTION. ' 5 I
(3-)Josiah Gilbert is another who deserves attention.1
There is so much agreement between him and
Albert Barnes that a detailed account of his view
will not be necessary. He lays down even more
explicitly and generally than Barnes, that God being
unchangeable, the atonement could not be meant to
affect His mind ; least of all, to inspire Him with
respect for His own law : 2 and says that " the aspect
of the atonement is towards creatures, working effects
on them, not on God : " 3 which of itself is almost
sufficient to justify my classification as far as he is
concerned. Men hold a twofold relation to God —
individual and official ; and God has corresponding
claims on them. The former, however, He might
forego if He chose ; the latter He cannot forego ;
failures to meet individual claims might be foregone,
not offences against official claims ; for His duty as a
moral Governor is to uphold the law and wellbeing of
the world, whose stability is threatened by sin.4 In
fact, God shows His goodness by being ready to
forego personal rights or claims; and illustrates His
justice by so modifying His administration of mercy,
at great cost to Himself, that the protective power of
moral sanctions shall be invigorated.5 The function
intended to be discharged by penal sanctions, namely,
that of " securing due respect for law and guarding
against temptation," is now discharged by the atone
ment, which was a public declaration of the nature
1 Author of Congregational Lecture on the Atonement, delivered in
1836. His work, too, is highly esteemed in America ; and Dr. Dale
remarks of it that it always seemed to him " singularly judicious and
able." 2 L.c. p. 223. 3 P. 230. * P. 240. s P. 229.

52 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and righteousness of God, the moral Governor of the
universe.1 Such is its real end ; such is its sole end.
It has to do with God exclusively in His official
character. Only as a moral Governor — controlling
men by influencing knowledge, reasoning, free volition 2
— can He accept substituted suffering. It neither
has nor can have a personal relation.3 In short,
penalties and atonement have one and the same
design, namely, to exercise over men a moral sway,
in the direction of conformity to the will and mind of
God, and of obedience to the law and order of His
universe. I might quote to the same effect from the writings
of Principal Hill, Drs. Pye Smith, George Payne,
Ralph Wardlaw, W. L. Alexander,4 and others. These
writers differ from each other in minor details ; but, so
far as I am able to judge, their premises, methods of
reasoning, and conclusions are substantially the same.
Stahl, Hofmann, and others in Germany may also be
classed here.
So far as I can gather from the various expositions
of this theory which I have examined, the immediate
end 6 of the passion of Christ was to produce on men
the impression which the sanctions of law were de
signed to produce, and when completely carried out,
would have produced, whilst opening the way for a
1 L.c. p. 242. 2 Pp. 19, 47. 3 P. 121.
4 To these might be added the names of eminent American Divines,
Dr. N. Taylor, formerly of Yale College ; Dr. Edwards A. Park, of
Andover, and others. See Dr. Alexander's Biblical Theology, pp. 166-186,
admirably edited by the Rev. James Ross ; published by Messrs. T. & T.
Clark. 6 As to the more remote ends of the passion of Christ, all are agreed,
though the two are not always distinguished as they should be.

INTRODUCTION. 53
salvation which was otherwise ipso facto impossible.
They were to be made to feel that though God was
ready to forgive, He was as unchangeably holy,
righteous, true as ever; that though penalties were
remitted, the law had lost none of its sacredness,
inviolability, justness ; that sin, though its evil effects
were checked, was no less sinful. But what is all this
but "moral" influence? Whether considerations be
brought to bear on men that are fitted to overcome
their aversion or hostility to God, and by removing
their suspicions and fears to make way for confidence
and love, as in Dr. Young's view ; or whether their
consciences, their power of moral judgment, their fears
and so forth, are influenced and worked upon — makes
no real difference. Phrases, indeed, are often used,
such as " to enable God ; " but take them in their
connection, and they will be found to refer solely to
hindrances or difficulties that lie outside God. At the
back of the reasonings on the subject there is always the
assumption that in God Himself there is no obstacle ;
often, too, the notion that had He so chosen, He
might have forgiven and redeemed without an atone
ment. God is " enabled " by the passion of Christ,
in that by means of that passion He can govern as
readily and wisely as He would govern by means of
the infliction of deserved penalties. But the advocates
of the pure self-sacrifice view would be able to say
just the same : God can secure all the ends of moral
government far more certainly by a supreme manifesta
tion of His love in the surrender of His Son unto
death, even the death of the cross, than by letting law
have its course.

54 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
In one respect the "Governmental" agrees most
thoroughly with the " Catholic " theories, namely,
in its frequent reference to " the law ; '^ and the usage
in this respect seems to me to be open to the objec
tions which I mentioned in dealing with the latter.
It is really crypto-dualism. But for the perpetual
substitution of terms like "justice," "government,"
"administration," "law," and the like, where, unless
a sort of dualism is conceded, God is really meant,
I question whether they could have kept up the
appearance of objectivity that has been preserved.
It is time that theology, especially so far as the
question of the relations of God and man are
concerned, were cleared of a good deal of the round
about abstract phraseology and terminology that
at present, like a bristling fence, shuts up believers,
and often excludes those who do not believe.
(II.) In a second subdivision of the exclusively
manward - looking theories, I would place various
modifications of what may be termed the organic
or dynamic view, — the view that Christ, by His
obedience unto death, not merely brought considera
tions or influences to bear on men's minds, i.e.
through consciousness, but also produced a real
effect on the life, on the vital energy, on the organic
constitution of the race, or on the system to which
man belongs. The difference between the two
positions is this : — According to the properly moral
view, man is first consciously appealed to, and then
through his own action, or with his co-operation, a
1 Professor Park goes even so far as to speak of being reconciled to
law. See Sermons, p. 112.

INTRODUCTION. 55
change is effected ; according to the organic view,
the spiritual substance, or, at all events, the environ
ment of humanity, is, so to speak, unconsciously
affected, and out of that arises the transformation
of the conscious life. The two views are rather
mutually supplementary than mutually exclusive.
1. The theory of Anselm.
It is usual to regard Anselm as the first sower of
the seed from which, in the course of ages, the
entire crop of orthodox theories of the atonement
has sprung — the theories, namely, which are based on
the idea of justice, which are commonly designated
juridical, and which vindicate for the work of Christ
an objective as well as a subjective, a Godward as
well as a manward purpose and influence. Anselm's
exact position is, however, not very easy to deter
mine; in the course of the dialogue with Boso, he
throws out so many suggestions, each of which may
seem to supply the key to his theory, that one cannot
be surprised at the variety of views held regarding
it.1 There is much to be said in favour of an idea
thrown out many years ago by Baumgarten-Crusius,
and recently revived by Dorner,2 namely, that
Anselm regarded sin and the work of Christ very
much in the light in which a knight of the age at
which he wrote regarded an insult and the reparation
due by his insulter. Not to pay to God His debitum
is to sin ; 3 what we owe to God is solus et lotus

1 Cur Deus Homo ?
2 Dorner, Christliche Glaubenslehre, vol. ii.
" Cur Deus Homo t cap. xi.

56 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
honor, which includes everything ; l he who fails to
render to God the honour which is His due, robs
God of what belongs to Him and dishonours Him;2
as long as this is not repaid the offender remains
guilty;3 nor is it sufficient to repay simply what
was robbed — no, for the insult inflicted, there ought
to be returned more than was taken way ; 4 such
payment is the Satisfactio which every sinner ought
to offer to God : 5 as man was so made that he
could enjoy blessedness provided he did not sin ;
if, on account of sin, he be deprived of blessedness
and all good, he repays what he robbed, even though
he do it unwillingly.6 Such payment, however,
denotes for man ruin ; if he is to be saved, it must
be by Christ or in some other way ; but another
mode than by Christ exists not.7 The alternative,
therefore, was satisfaction by Christ or payment by
punishment. God could not be really deprived of
His honour ; for if it were not paid voluntarily by
the sinner, it would be paid involuntarily.3 As the
latter mode of payment, however, meant both man's
ruin and the frustration of God's plan for supple
menting the gap made by the fall of the angels,9
God, being in addition compassionate, resolved to
secure satisfaction by the God-man.
The frequent use of such words as " clecet," "con-
venit," 10 " tolerat," u and so forth, point in the direction
thus indicated by Dorner ; and were this view of the
case correct, we should have had to class Anselm's

1 L.c. cap. xi.

2 Cap. xi.

3 Cap. xi.

4 Cap. xi.

6 Cap. xi.

6 Cap. xiv.

7 Cap. xxv.

8 Cap. xiv.

0 Cap. xvi.

10 Cap. xii.

11 Cap. xiii.

INTRODUCTION. 57
theory with those which regard the work of Christ
as having a personal Godward end to serve.
But a serious difficulty is interposed by Anselm
himself. He tells us elsewhere, that as far as God
Himself is concerned, nothing can be either added or
taken away from His honour; and that it is essenti
ally incapable of being stained or changed.1 When
creatures, however, serve God, whether naturally or
rationally, they are said to obey and honour Him.2
Especially is this said of rational creatures, which
honour God by willing to render unto Him what
they owe to H im ; not because they confer anything
on Him, but because they voluntarily submit to the
divine will, and subserve the order and beauty of
His universe.3 When, on the contrary, they refuse
to will what they owe, and thus bring disorder and
ugliness into the universe, they are said to dishonour
God, though they cannot in any wise thereby either
damage or soil the divine power or dignity.4
If we are to interpret Christ's work in the light of
this fundamental assumption, — an assumption which
is in strict harmony with the general thought of
the Church regarding God and His immutability,
His non-affectibility by man, or anything man can
do, down to a very recent period, yea, to our own
day ; 6 further, of the notion that a gap made by the
fall in the number of angels, as conceived and willed
by God, was to be filled up by men ; 6 and lastly,
of a certain conception of the constitution of the
1 Cap. xv. 2 Cap. xv. 3 Cap. xv. 4 Cap. xv.
6 See Dorner on the Divine Immutability in his volume of Disserta
tions, and the corresponding section in the Glaubenslehre.
6 Cap. xvi.

58 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
universe as a whole, at which he hints in various
passages,1 — it seems to me more correct to class
Anselm with the divines whose conception of the
influence or action of the work of Christ is not
properly objective. To describe his theory as sub
jective in the exclusively manward sense would
scarcely be accurate ; but that it does not look God
ward his own protests make quite clear : it really
looks towards the cosmos as a whole, with special
reference, of course, to man and angelic intelligences.
It is possible, of course, to use the word objective 2 in
such a sense as to embrace all that is not man,
or the individual man ; but that would be simply
to confuse, and would necessitate the employment
of some other less ambiguous term like God
ward? 2. The second form deserving of notice is one that
has recently been freshly put by Bishop Magee :
" Forgiveness is achieved by and in a supernatural
dispensation, a system of things created by the mar
vellous power and love of God, in order that by it
that remission of penalty might be obtained which in
the natural order of things seems impossible. This
state of things is described as a new state of being —
a new life ; so new, that those who enter it are said
to have been born again."
1 E.g. cap. xv. : " Rerum universitatis ordo." " Ejusdem Universi-
tatis pulchritudo."
2 This is done even by writers so eminent as Dorner ; so also by Dr.
Dale. 3 The prevailing theory in the Romish Church is probably in essence
this of Anselm, stripped, of course, of some of the subordinate elements
of Anselm's theory. See, e.g., Hettinger, Apologie des Christenthums,
Abth. i. Bk. ii. Lecture io, 3rd edition.

INTRODUCTION. 59
" This state we enter into by a spiritual act of faith,
which unites us with a divine person, who is said to
be one with us. . . . We are his body ; he is our life.
He is not an individual man, but humanity.1 ... A
unique supernatural fact is effected in the spiritual
world by the great miracle of the incarnation, which
produced a profound change in the relations between
God and humanity. ... It frees us from law. . . .
And this new existence, this new state and condition
of being in which we are in some mysterious way
delivered from the operation and rule of natural law
and brought under other rules and laws which are
supernatural, is4 obtained for us by one who died, rose,
and ascended to heaven, that he might communicate
to us from thence a life over which death had no
power." " The essential idea of the sacrifice of Christ
is an offering made not to appease the wrath of an
angry God, but to effect the compassionate purpose
of a loving God." " The sublime self-sacrifice of a
voluntary victim offering himself freely, lovingly to
save others from sins in which he has no share, and
penalties which he has never incurred." :;
3. As a third form may be adduced the repre
sentation given by F. W. Robertson. In order to
appreciate his view it is necessary to bear in mind
what he held regarding sin. "Sin," he says, "is a
great connected principle, — a single world-spirit, —
exactly as the electricity with which the universe is
1 There is a curious echo here of the ideas expounded by Kant in his
Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der reinen Vernunft, and since taken up
by A. Ritschl, of Gbttingen.
2 Bishop Magee, Atonement, p. 114 ff., p. 83 f. Cassell & Co., 1887.
The late Thomas Binney held a similar view of the work of Christ.

60 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
charged is indivisible, so that you cannot separate it
from the great ocean of fluid. The electric spark that
slumbers in the dewdrop is part of the flood which
struck the oak. Separate acts of sin are but mani- ¦
festations of one great principle." " Let us possess
ourselves of this view of sin, for it is in this way only
that we shall be able, with any reality of feeling, to
enter into the truth that our sins nailed the Saviour
to the cross, or that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity
of us all." " It was Christ's foresight of all the results
of His opposition to the world's sin, and His steady
and uncompromising battle against it notwithstanding,
in every one of its varied forms, knowing that He
must be its victim at the last, which elevated His
death to the dignity of a sacrifice. It was a true and
proper sacrifice — a sacrifice for sin — for the worlds
sin." It is altogether wrong, however, to think of
Him "as having endured a mysterious anguish, the
consequence of divine wrath, the suffering of a heart
laden with the world's transgressions." " Christ simply
came into collision with the world's evil, and bore the
penalty of that daring. . . . Such is the law which
governs the conflict with evil. It can be crushed
only by suffering from it. The Son of man, who puts
His naked heel on the serpent's head, crushes it; but
the fang goes into His heel." x The idea evidently
hoVered before Robertson of a great whole of sin or
evil on which Christ inflicted a deadly blow ; thus in
principle delivering man, though ages might elapse
before the final destruction and disappearance of the
whole ; though the co-operation of every individual
1 Sermons, ist series, pp. 58-164.

INTRODUCTION. 6l
man would be needed ; and though the undertaking
necessarily involved the suffering and death to which
so exclusive prominence has been given.
4. A fourth form of the organic theory of the Atone
ment is Schleiermacher s. According to Schleier-
macher, Christ's business (Geschaft) consists in the
assumption of believers into the fellowship of His life;
that is, on the one hand, into " the vigour of His God-
consciousness ; " on the other, into the " enjoyment of
His untroubled blessedness."1 The former is His
redeeming, the latter His atoning activity. The
former denotes the religious and moral renewal of the
Church by means of vital fellowship with its arche-
typally perfect head ; the latter, the doing away with
the power of evil and sin, to the extent that evils are
no longer felt to be a divine punishment, and the man
who bears them no longer regards himself as worthy
of punishment. . . . The sufferings of Christ were
purely sympathy with human guilt and ill-desert, and
the innocent endurance of ills deserved by others ;
which sympathy, being the highest proof of self-
denying love, has a redeeming effect on human souls,
and thus also mediately takes away punishment ; that
is, the sense of ill-desert from the redeemed. . . . All
this Christ works solely through the medium of the
organization, that is, the Church, which He called into
existence by the moral energy of His life. He does
not act directly on individuals for their redemption.
When men are received into this organization they
come under the influence of the pure and blessed life
1 With which one side of A. Ritschl's is akin. For the account given
in the text I am partly indebted to Lipsius' Dogmatik, ist ed. p. 534 f.

62 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
by which it is, as to principle, animated; and so far as
that life issued from Christ at the first, so far are we
said to be still indebted to and saved by Him. Any
other influence exerted by Him is what Schleiermacher
calls "empirical ; " that is, the influence of His example
and teaching.
To put the position into a few words : — Christ held
an archetypal relation to God ; through Him and His
life God or He founded a Church which embodies the
principle of His life ; Christ bore sympathetically
human sufferings and sin, and yet His relation to God
was not disturbed by them ; those who become mem
bers of His Church enter into His life, and therefore
become in principle what He was, and are no longer
separated from God by sin and suffering ; they are
thus redeemed, on the one hand, by His action
through the living organization which He established,
and which His life in all its aspects animates and
inspires ; on the other hand, by what they read of
His example and teaching.1
Besides the two great classes of theories —
objectivo-subjective and subjective — to which atten
tion has been called, a third might be made of
theories which have been worked out from an
exclusively philosophical point of view, and as
constituent parts of systems of philosophy. These
again might be subdivided, according as they repre
sent the atonement as a kind of process primarily in
God Himself though reflected or reproduced in the
creature ; or as a sort of cosmic process — the cosmos
and the process alike embracing God and man ; or
1 See Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. § 100-105, 5th ed.

INTRODUCTION. 63
as a purely subjective process of the human mind,
whether intellectual or moral. In the first sub
division may be placed Jacob Bohme and the
mystics and theosophists generally ; in the second,
Schelling, Hegel, Daub, and others ; in the third,
Kant, some of his followers, and others akin to him.
It would help at the present time to clear the air
in some quarters if a thoroughly definite exposition
were given of the nature, scope, and implications of
theories of the second subdivision, especially of that
of Hegel. For signs are not lacking that there is
going on among us not a little Hegelianization of
the Christian faith in general, and of the Christian
atonement in particular. What I mean is that ideas
of the Hegelian philosophy are being quietly substi
tuted for the concrete actualities accepted by the
Christian Church. This may be done by some in
the good faith that the two are really identical, that
they are only different modes of presenting, or dif
ferent stages of apprehending or conceiving the same
things. All depends then on the starting-point. If
a man start with the concrete actualities, he may
perhaps find intellectual satisfaction — theological, or
scientific, or philosophical satisfaction — by expressing
and correlating them in terms of the Hegelian
dialectic. Against this no objection of principle can
fairly be urged. One may judge the result inade
quate ; one may fear its logical consequences ; but, as
a bona fide theological effort to rationalize facts derived
from revelation and experience, it is as legitimate in
principle as the procedure of the most " orthodox "
theologian.

64 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
But it is also possible for a man to start, not
with the concrete actualities in question, but with
his Hegelian system,1 and to clothe those of its
ideas which bear the process, or which there may
be other reasons for thus clothing, in the language of
the Christian faith, in such a manner as to produce
the superficial impression of being what is called
orthodox ; whilst the concrete actualities believed by
the Church are never really touched or grasped.
Hegelian ideas or Begriffe are the objective reality :
religious facts are the figurative ( Vorstellungs-mdssige)
representations thereof. Perhaps this, too, may be
done in good faith, — the good faith of one who thinks
himself to have attained to the true esoteric gnosis,
but feels himself bound to speak to them that are
without in parables, that seeing they may see and
not perceive. It may also be believed that the true
function of the Church and the Christian preacher can
in this way be discharged. If it could be, well and
good ; but it cannot be. The soul of man, that is,
the inward man, can no more be fed by ideas than
the outer man. It needs spiritual actualities, even
as the body needs material actualities. Preaching of
this order is in reality the presentation of ideas and
nothing more. They may, of course, have a certain
influence, — ideas have, even fancies, — but they cannot
produce the effects which actualities produce. The
best evidence of this is the history of the Church.
The substitution to which I am referring has been
tried on a large scale, especially in Germany.
1 For a thoroughgoing example of the Hegelianization of the Christian
faith, see Biedermann's Dogmatik ; also Lang's Christliche Dogmatik.

INTRODUCTION. 65
Wherever it has been tried, the results have been,
in the long run, an enfeeblement of the inner man, a
lowering of the tone, and a diminution of his spiritual
life and activity, exactly analogous to the enfeeble
ment of the outer man, the lowering of the tone, and
the diminution of the bodily life and activity which
invariably follow the withholding of proper bodily
nourishment.

The fact that the Son of God died for the
remission of sins is known by us now solely from
the New Testament. The early Christians outside
Jerusalem learnt it from the apostles and their suc
cessors. It was committed to writings, which are
the channel through which we became acquainted
with it. Another source of information does not
exist. It is embodied, indeed, in the Lord's Supper,
which was celebrated from the very beginning. But
apart from the writings of the New Testament, that
ordinance would certainly soon have degenerated into
a magical ceremony observed with superstitious awe ;
but not understood at all, or, as is even the case now
in the Romish and Greek Churches, and Churches
which imitate them, very partially understood.
Tradition, too, would have been a very untrust
worthy vehicle of knowledge, as, in fact, experience
has abundantly shown.
Whilst we owe our acquaintance with this great
fact to the New Testament, it must not be supposed
that the authority of the New Testament is our only
ground of confidence regarding it. On the contrary,

66 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
it has proved its own reality by the effects which it
has produced in the life of humanity.
Now Christian theology, as I have already taken for
granted, is concerned with the task of showing the how
and why of the great work accomplished by Christ.
It aims at exhibiting its rationale. Whether we
accept the fact simply on the testimony of the New
Testament, or on that testimony conjoined with the
confirmation afforded by the experience of centuries,
matters not : — theology asks, How did the earthly
passion of Christ bring these effects about ? What
was its exact relation to the establishment of the
divine kingdom which has actually been proceeding ?
Especially, what had His death to do with reconciling
God and man ? What was the modus operandi?
What were the principles involved ? In a word,
Christian theology seeks a "doctrine," or "theory,"
or explanation of the atonement.
At this point our business begins to be scientific
or philosophical. We take the fact for granted as
given. It is not, of course, a fact of the natural
world, like the appearance of a new comet or the
polarity of electricity ; but it may none the less be a
fact. There is an order of things, with facts and
laws of its own, different from that with which
natural science has to do. That order we designate
the moral cosmos ; and to it this fact specially
pertains. Not that it will not affect the physical
order ; but that, as I previously remarked, it belongs
specifically to the religious, which is a branch of the
moral sphere. Within the great system of forces
and relations and laws which is designated the moral

INTRODUCTION. 6?
cosmos, there are lesser systems such as the family,
the tribe, the nation, which at their centre are essen
tially moral ; and their facts are no less real than the
facts of the great physical system with the minor
systems of which it consists. Of the great moral
system God is the centre, the relations to Him are
supreme, and the laws controlling those relations are
fundamental and all-comprehending.
If this system really exists, we may surely inquire
how the rectification of its disordered relations and
states was accomplished by the mission of the Son of
God on earth ; and this inquiry is scientific. If the
non-existence of such an order were established, and
the fact were accordingly found to be a delusion, it
would then devolve on science to show how the
delusion arose. Meanwhile, those of us who believe
in God and the closeness and supreme importance of
the relation between God and man, and who know
that naturally the relations between man and God
are abnormal, can scarcely have an excuse for the
a priori denial of the fact that Christ came to rectify
these relations ; still less to refuse to interest them
selves in attempts to discover the how and why of
the Saviour's work.
But if such efforts are to claim scientific character,
they must submit to scientific conditions. Not,
indeed, to conditions drawn from the natural sphere,
but to conditions appropriate to the moral sphere —
to the sphere of which God is the supreme factor.
Speaking generally, we shall have to show that it
falls in with, is congruous to, certain principles and
relations which, if a God such as the Biblical God

68 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
exists at all, must be allowed to have validity and
existence. The theologian who deals with the atone
ment alone must take for granted the chief features
of a system whose justification is the task of syste
matic theology in general. So that, strictly speaking,
the atoning work of Christ, as I previously remarked,
can only be fully and adequately justified as part of
a system which embraces in its consideration the
kingdom of God in its entirety, with God, creation,
especially the world of intelligences, and sin.

CHAPTER I.
THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
I. The earthly mission of our Lord Jesus Christ,
with its obedience unto death, even the death of the
cross, was an episode in the history of the kingdom
of God. It was a history within a history ; an objec
tive historical process within another vaster historical
process ; a transaction or series of transactions within
and related to a grander transaction or series of trans
actions. It might be called an act or scene in the
great drama of history.
In this respect it has, of course, many analogies in
human history. The history of every nation includes
episodes within itself. The revolution which issued
in the Cromwellian Republic was an episode in the
history of England. So, too, though in another way
and on a minor scale, the passing of the first Reform
Bill. The Thirty Years' War in Germany was such
an episode on a larger scale, with more complex con
nections and weightier issues.
The history of humanity, notwithstanding the
apparent isolation of many of its families and tribes
and nations, — notwithstanding the jealousies, antagon
isms, and divisions that have everywhere prevailed, —
is one great history. It is the history of the develop-

70 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
ment, amidst all kinds of hindrances and despite all
kinds of failures and neglects, of the divine idea of
humanity. That history, too, has its great episodes.
But the history of the kingdom of God is, beyond
all imagination, vaster than that of the history of
humanity. It embraces the latter and far more.
And of it the mission of Christ is an episode, — the
most significant episode, — one, indeed, which was
played out on earth and amongst men, but whose
relations and issues concerned far more than the earth
and humanity.
II. Nay more, that mission is an episode in the
relation of our Lord Jesus Christ to the kingdom of
God. His relation to that kingdom neither began
nor shall end with this particular mission. He under
took His earthly work because of the position which
He already held in the kingdom. It was fitting that
He should come to redeem, because of the relation
He already bore to the system which needed redemp
tion. To regard Christ, or to speak of Him, as if He
were merely the Redeemer, or to ignore the larger and
prior relations, is to narrow His functions, — yea, it is
to endanger the due appreciation of His redemptive
work. To this also general history supplies us with analo
gies. He who discharges larger functions in a king
dom is for that reason better fitted to undertake
special missions. Efficiency in a narrower sphere
prepares, indeed, for undertaking larger duties ; at all
events, ordinarily. But if any task of more than
usual complexity and difficulty is to be accomplished,
it is usual to entrust it to one whose previous position

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 7 1
points him out as the one on whom it naturally
devolves. Forgetfulness of this very obvious truth regarding
Christ has been fruitful of practical mischief. Men
have supposed that if they needed no redemption or
cared not to be redeemed, therefore Christ had no
claim on them, and they owed no special regard to
Christ. It is not so; and that it is not so, I would
express by saying that His earthly mission is an
episode in His relation to the kingdom of God.
III. As such, the mission of Christ can only be
understood when looked at in the light of the king
dom of God, — of its nature, constitution, laws, con
dition, and destiny. Both the events which constitute
redemption and the person who undertook the work,
find their explanation in the kingdom. Were the
kingdom not what it is, the mission of Christ would
not have been undertaken, and would not have taken
the form it actually did. Given a system constituted
as is the kingdom of God, and the occurrence of the
changes known as sin and evil, then the mission of
the Son of God was a moral necessity, as rational and
natural, though in form supernatural and transcending
human comprehension, as any transaction whatever
in the moral cosmos. It would not be more natural
and reasonable for the father of a human family to
entrust his eldest son with a mission to recall the rest
of his brothers and sisters to duty and happiness ; or
for a human monarch to commission his son and heir
to undertake the restoration of a rebellious province
of his dominions to loyalty and prosperity. We
should acknowledge that the mission in each case

72 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
owed its intelligibility to, and was truly intelligible in,
the light of the previous relations.
So is it with Christ and His mission. If we would
duly appreciate it, — i.e. in an intellectual respect, — if
we would apprehend its truth as truth, — we must first
grasp the larger whole, and then assign to it the place
it actually holds in the larger whole. Till then, it
will continue to wear that look of exceptionality which,
in the domain of the spiritual, is the sure forerunner
of intellectual doubt and practical disregard.
IV. One may say, indeed, that in the history of the
kingdom of God there is nothing really abrupt, really
exceptional. It comprises no deus ex machina inter
ferences. The Eternal Father, the co-equal Son, and
the Holy Spirit, hold originally and naturally such a
relation to the great system of things which constitutes
the divine kingdom, that whatever they do is as
natural and reasonable for them to do as anything
that can be normally done by a human monarch within
his dominions, or a human father within his family.
Not even miracles bear this character. They find
a place as naturally in a system constituted as is God's
kingdom, under the circumstances induced by sin, as
would any seemingly exceptional act of an earthly
ruler or father. If we fail to assign them their place,
— the place which would account for them, — it is either
because we do not understand the constitution of
God's kingdom, or are still ignorant of the larger
process to which these transactions belong.
All this is emphatically true of the mission and
work of Christ. It did not, indeed, form part of or
enter into the original divine plan of the kingdom ;

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Jl
at all events, not in the form which it actually took ;
but, as I observed already, given the kingdom as
actually constituted by God, given the original relation
of Christ thereto, and given the fact of sin, we may
say not only that Christ's mission was natural and
reasonable, but that it would have been a violation
of its order, — a miracle of disorder, — an irrationality,
— if the Son of God had not come into the world as
He did.
V. The justification of this description of Christ's
mission as an episode in the history of the kingdom
of God is supplied by Christ Himself. He surely, if
any one, knew from what point of view it is most
satisfactorily regarded, most clearly understood. He
does not, indeed, refer to the subject for the purpose
of explanation ; He simply sets forth the object which
He came to accomplish in the plainest and most
intelligible terms for an immediate practical end; He
tells us what He came to do. But this may be taken
to render His language all the more significant, all
the more worthy of attentive consideration.
He speaks of His mission, and of the work of His
disciples; and the disciples speak of His mission, and
of their own work as directed to the establishment of
the kingdom of God.
Our Lord began His ministry by "preaching the
gospel of God, and saying the time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand;"1 "And Jesus went
about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel of the kingdom." 2 To the
multitudes who wished to detain Him, He said, " I
1 Mark i. 14. 2 Matt. iv. 23.

74 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God
to the other cities also ; for therefore was I sent." 1
"He went about through cities and villages preaching
and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of
God."2 He also foretold that this gospel of the
kingdom should be preached in the whole world for
a testimony unto all the nations ; 3 and " when He
showed Himself alive after His passion, and appeared
unto the disciples during the space of forty days, He
spake the things concerning the kingdom." 4 A great
part of His teaching before the crucifixion turned on
the kingdom of God. His parables especially were
devoted to the elucidation of its principles, laws, aims,
and so forth. He exhorts men to seek first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness ; 5 promising
to them, as to all who are loyal subjects, every
blessing — outward and inward.
His commission to His disciples was " to preach
the kingdom of God ; " 6 and that the apostles under
stood that it was to be the burden of their testimony
is clear, both from their conduct and their words.
Philip was believed, preaching good tidings concerning
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.7
Paul says to the Ephesian elders when on the point
of parting from them, " Behold, I know that ye all
among whom I went about preaching the kingdom
shall see my face no more : " 8 and whilst abiding in
Rome he " received all that went in unto him, preach
ing the kingdom of God, and teaching the things
1 Luke iv. 43. 2 Luke viii. 1. 3 Matt. xxiv. 14.
4 Acts i. 3. B Matt. vi. 33 ; Luke xii. 31.
0 Luke ix. 2. 7 Acts viii. 12. 8 Acts xx. 25.

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 75
concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness ; " 1
and he warned the Christians of Derbe, Lystra,
Iconium, and Antioch, that through many tribulations
they must enter into the kingdom of God.2 His
kingdom is one that cannot be moved ; 3 it is not
eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and
joy in the Holy Ghost ; 4 it is not in word, but in
power ; 5 the unrighteous cannot inherit it ; 6 God
delivers us out of the power.of darkness, and translates
us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.7 It is an
eternal kingdom ; 8 Christians are exhorted to have
patience and faith in all their persecutions and afflic
tions, to the end that they may be counted worthy of
the kingdom of God for which they suffer.9 And the
Book of Revelation is full of allusions to the conflicts
and triumphs, the joys and glories, of the kingdom of
God or the kingdom of heaven.
Few things are more striking than the contrast
between the emphasis laid on the kingdom of God
and the variety of the allusions to it in the Scripture,
especially in the Gospels, and the rarity and vague
ness of the references to it in ordinary Christian
preaching and teaching. Instead of being the burden
of the message of the modern representatives of
Christ, it is treated as a sort of idea having solely
a theoretical significance, and therefore not to be
given any prominence. And where it is preached or
discussed it is too often spiritualized away.
VI. The Kingdom of God. — In the absence of
1 Acts xxviii. 31. 2 Acts xiv. 21 f. 3 Heb. xii. 28.
4 Rom. iv. 17. 6 1 Cor. iv. 20. * I Cor. vi. 9, 10.
7 Col. i. 14. « 2 Pet. i. 11. 9 2 Thess. i. 5.

76 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
agreement among theologians as to the nature of the
kingdom of God, it will be necessary for me briefly
to expound my own view. The limits of this work
will prevent me from discussing with any fulness the
reasons for or the objections which might be urged
against it. To do that I should require a volume
instead of a chapter.1 If I might use any one term to
designate the view to be expounded, it would be the
word realistic. I take the expressions of the Scrip
tures — Old Testament and New Testament — in their
natural sense as denoting something real, actual ; and
by doing so, I think it possible to correlate views
which seem mutually exclusive.
i. The universe in its totality, with its innumerable
intelligences, constitutes the kingdom of God. As
such it is directly or indirectly described with great
frequency in the Old Testament ; and the allusions in
the New Testament, so far from being incompatible
therewith, really presuppose and require the recogni
tion of what is contained in the Old Testament. The
latter supplies in the main the inward for the outward
chiefly set forth in the former. " Thine, O Lord,"
said David, king of Israel, when he publicly conse
crated the gifts of the nation to the erection of a
temple to Jehovah, " is the greatness, and the power,
and the glory, and the majesty : for all that is in the
heaven and the earth is Thine ; Thine is the kingdom,

1 The best English work on the subject is Prof. Candlish's Cunningham
Lectures on the " Kingdom of God." A good deal of the literature is
mentioned by him. See A. Dorner's Kirche u. Reich Gottes. The only
Writer that I know of whose general point of view seems substantially to
agree with my own is Kling, in his article " Reich Gottes," in Herzog's
Real-Encyclopadie, vol. xii. ist ed.

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF COD. 77
O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head above all.
Both riches and honour come of Thee, and Thou
rulest over all ; and in Thine hand is power and
might ; and in Thine hand it is to make great, and to
give strength unto all ; " x and David surely knew
what was meant by the words he so emphatically
employed. " The Lord hath established His throne
in the heavens, and His kingdom ruleth over all. Bless
the Lord, ye angels of His ; ye mighty in strength that
fulfil His word ; bless the Lord, all ye His hosts, ye
ministers of His that do His pleasure. Bless the
Lord, all ye His works, in all places of His dominion."2
" The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot
stool : what manner of house will ye build me ? and
what place shall be my rest ? For all these things
hath mine hand made, and so all these things came to
be." 8 " His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and
His kingdom from generation to generation ; and all
the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing ;
and He doeth according to His will in the army of
heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth." 4
" He is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and His
kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and His
dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth
and rescueth, and He worketh signs and wonders in
heaven and in earth." 6 This conception seems to me
to be the tacit assumption at the back of a large pro
portion of the references to God in the Old Testament :
1 i Chron. xxix. n, 12.
2 Ps. ciii. 19-22. Cf. Ps. xi. 4 ; Matt. v. 34 ; Ps. cxlv. 10-13.
3 Isa. lxvi. 1. 4 Dan. iv. 34, 35.
6 Dan. vi. 26. See also the numerous passages where God is termed
King.

78 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
it is its ruling idea. It dominates the Jewish view of
their history, constitution, mission, and destiny as a
nation. Why it should be reduced to the position
of a kind of theologoumenon or philosophoumenon,
instead of being treated as the supreme fact of the
universe, is more than I feel able to explain.
God, indeed, is the creator, the generator of His
own kingdom. Unlike human monarchs, He finds
nothing ready to His hand ; He has to bring every
thing into existence, give everything its nature,
impose on everything its laws ; but, notwithstanding,
He is and must be regarded as the King of the
universe, and the universe as His kingdom ; yea,
in the most real sense in which the words can be
employed. There is no doubt a profound mystery in
the fact — the mystery of mysteries; but the fact
may be a fact despite its being a mystery ; and
whether we can see it to be a fact or not, such is
the mode of representation of our Book of Books.
2. The territory of the kingdom of God is the
physical part of the universe. When we speak of a
kingdom we naturally — why not necessarily ? — ask —
where ? The kingdom, in the strictest sense, is
perhaps constituted by the subjects, but the subjects
must be somewhere — must live, and move, and act
somewhere. What is the where of this kingdom?
The so - called physical universe. This physical
universe is again distinguishable into a visible and
invisible part ; that is, a part which is appreciable by
and accessible to our bodily senses, either unaided or
with such aids as we ourselves can now supply for
ourselves, and a part which is at present inaccessible to

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 79
us, unless it be by capabilities of perception, by powers
of sensitivity, which are ordinarily dormant or in
abeyance. Of the former, the earth is the part with which we
are most specially concerned ; but it also includes what
we commonly term the heavens as well as the earth.
Sun, moon, planets, stars, — all the heavenly hosts in
all their known and unknown varieties, — with the
earth, constitute the visible territory of the empire of
the King of kings. Our earth. is but a very minute
part of His dominion ; so minute, that to many it
seems the height of absurdity that the supreme
Monarch should condescend to take note of it, still
more, to arrange for its being the scene of a trans
action so amazing as that of the incarnation and
sacrifice of His beloved Son. But how little do we
yet know of the inter-relations of the physical cosmos !
— far too little to warrant us in dogmatizing on merely
quantitative grounds. Who can tell but that this earth
is in some such sense the present centre of the
physical cosmos, as a comparatively small city may be
the capital and centre of a mighty empire ? Mean
while those of us who have experience of Christ as
the power of God unto salvation can well afford to
wait till we shall " know even as also we are known."
The laws of this physical universe are the laws of
God ; none the less His for being interwoven with its
very essence and constitution, — none the less His
because they are not prescribed and promulgated after
the manner of the moral laws to which moral beings
are subject. These laws are being investigated by
the scientists of the world ; and though many of them

80 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
fail to see that they are as truly written in stone and
other materials by the finger of God as were the laws
of Sinai, every godly man should rejoice at the work
they are doing, and say like our great Master, they
that are not against us are for us ; and like Paul,
even if in another connection, in every way, whether
in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed ; and
herein T rejoice, yea, and will rejoice}
Concerning the invisible territory of the great King
nothing definite can be said, and little conjectured.
For my own part, as I hold that created spirit cannot
exist without its corporeal correlate or vehicle, whether
of the kind with which we are now familiar or of that
kind which the Apostle Paul had in view when he
used the — as some count them — paradoxical or even
self-contradictory words "spiritual body," so also do I
hold that the intelligences clothed with a " spiritual
body " will inhabit a material or corporeal world
answering to their spiritual bodies, — a world which
shall be to them a basis of existence, a means of
expression, a sphere of action, a source of stimulus
and of nutriment, in short, an environment analogous
to that in the midst of which we now live. This
world, too, will have its own laws — divine laws
analogous to, though scarcely identical with, or a con
tinuation, prolongation, but rather a transfiguration,
sublimation of those which it is at present the business
of natural science to investigate and expound.2
Scripture does not, as far as I am aware, explicitly
1 Phil. i. 1 8.
2 See Isaac Taylor's Physical Theory of Future Life • Drummond's
Natural Law in the Spiritual World; Stewart and Tait, The Unseen
Universe.

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 8 1
distinguish between the territory and its inhabitants ;
but the distinction lies at the back of the numerous
allusions to the divine kingdom as embracing the
heavens and the earth, and is necessary to their being
duly appreciated. Nor does it expressly inform us
with regard to the invisible part of the royal
dominion ; yet it is surely fair to suppose that the
descriptions of the " new earth and new heaven," of
the heavenly Jerusalem, the holy city which has the
glory of God to lighten it, of the river of water of life,
bright as crystal, which is in the midst thereof, and
of the tree of life on both sides of the river bearing
twelve manner of fruits, yielding its fruit every
month,1 not to mention what is implied in the words,
"in Him were all things created, in the heavens
and upon the earth, things visible and things in
visible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principali
ties, or powers," 2 have a background of reality ; that
though the images used are material, such as 'we
now know it, the things signified may be material of
the spiritual kind corresponding to the spiritual body.
3. The subjects of God's kingdom are the free
intelligences which inhabit it. These, too, are visible
and invisible ; i.e. perceptible by our bodily senses,
and imperceptible by our bodily senses ; — whether or
no the latter are occasionally perceptible to specially
constituted, specially sensitive individuals, such as
were some of the old prophets and the Apostle Paul,
I need not stay to inquire. For our purpose men
are the only visible subjects of God, and indeed only
1 Rev. xxi. 1 ff., xxii. 1 ff.
2 Col. i. 16 ; cf. Rom. viii. 38 ; Eph. i. 21, iii. 10 ; Col. ii. 10.
F

82 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
those who still visibly inhabit the earth. But there
are among the inhabitants of the invisible sphere
myriads on myriads of men who have been unclothed
of their visible organization. That all these are the
subjects of God is implicitly taken for granted and
explicitly affirmed so frequently in Scripture, that it
seems almost a work of supererogation to adduce
passages: — " All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the
nations shall worship before Thee. For the kingdom
is the Lord's ; and He is the ruler over the nations." l
" God is the King of all the earth. God reigneth over
the nations : the princes of the people are gathered
together, the people of the God of Abraham ; for the
shields of the earth belong unto God." 2 " The Lord
is the living God, and an everlasting King : at His
wrath the earth trembleth, and the nations are not able
to abide His indignation."3
Not less are the inhabitants of the invisible world
His subjects. Indeed, the very name by which one
great section of them is called points to this relation
ship, — they are angels — messengers. As such they
are sent forth to do the will of God especially among
men. " Are they not all ministering spirits ? " i They
were employed in a great variety of services alike in
Old and New Testament times ; they characterize
themselves as " fellow-servants with their brethren the
prophets ; " 5 and at the last they will be sent forth
by the Son of man to gather out of His kingdom all
things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity.6
1 Ps. xxii. 27, 28. 2 Ps. xlvii. 7 ff. s Jer. x. 10.
4 Heb. i. 14. s Rev. xxii. 9, cf. xix. 10. 6 Matt. xiii. 41, 42.

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. '83
" Because His kingdom ruleth over all," — therefore are
the angels called upon to bless the Lord — they who,
being mighty in strength, fulfil His word, hearkening
unto His voice.1
The Monarch and the subjects of this great
kingdom are bound together by a fixed constitution,
and their mutual relations are determined by laws
as unchangeable as those which regulate the heavens.
God and man, man and man, are designed by the
Creator and Ruler to hold certain relations to each
other. The various ethnic religions, theoretically con
sidered, embody the results of human efforts to dis
cover the relations men should hold to God : Judaism
and especially Christianity give us God's view of
those relations. Human social constitutions and laws,
on the other hand, are the results of men's inquiries
into and experiments with regard to the relations
which man was designed by God to hold to man. In
the New Testament, again, the fundamental laws
regulating those relations are set forth by teachers
whose eyes God had opened to know His mind and
will. Doubtless all this holds equally true of the
invisible world. Indeed, there are hints in the
Scriptures that its inhabitants are divided into ranks
and orders ; for we read of angels and archangels,
cherubim and seraphim, principalities and powers.
What their relations to each other may be, cannot
be told ; though we may be sure that the fundamental
moral laws that apply to men apply also to them.
The same thing may be assumed to be true of their
1 Ps. ciii. 19 ff.

84 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
relations to God. In a word, for invisibles and
visibles, the supreme law of life is the one laid
down by Christ — " Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God, with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and
strength ; and thy neighbour as thyself."
4. In speaking of God as the universal King, and
of the visible and invisible worlds as His territory
or dominion, and of their respective inhabitants,
visible and invisible, as His subjects, we are compelled
to make use of the distinction between de jure and
de facto, of right and in fact. God is of right the
universal King ; as a matter of fact His territory
is in disorder, and myriads of His subjects are in
more or less complete rebellion — some, it is believed,
in open and avowed rebellion. But as a human
monarch may be de jttre ruler of his kingdom, whilst
in fact provinces thereof may be in rebellion, and
as he and his faithful subjects would resent, and
justly resent, his being spoken of in any other way
than as the king ; so in the case before us. The
Scriptures do not make use of these two expressions
with regard to God and the universe; but the
things denoted by the expressions are everywhere
recognised. Indeed, they supply the true key to
the history of which the Scriptures are the record
and product.
The fact that men are God's subjects though they
disobey His will, is everywhere implicitly or ex
plicitly confessed ; and commendation and blessing
are bestowed on such as are loyal and righteous.
The judgments pronounced and executed upon them
by God for their conduct towards Himself are

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 85
only intelligible and justifiable on the assumption
that they are His subjects — His rightful subjects, —
not that they have to become His subjects, belonging
de jure either to themselves or some other ruler,
though their conduct is out of harmony with their
responsibilities. Equally true is this of the invisible world. Some
of its inhabitants are — some always have been — loyal,
loving subjects. Over them, God is therefore in the
fullest sense King. Others again are rebels, doubt
less of different degrees, from him who, because of his
slighter offences, is beaten with few stripes, to that
Titanic spirit whom Milton represents as saying, —
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
But even of him God is de jure King; and no
purpose, no effort to establish a separate and hostile
dominion can relieve him from his allegiance — to the
end of the chapter he is but a subject in rebellion.
It may almost seem trifling to call attention to
this simple distinction ; and yet, simple as it is, it
has been practically ignored in the thinking, writing,
and speaking of thousands of Christian teachers,
and that to the great detriment of Christianity.
Says a recent writer : x " Satan is said to be the
prince and god of this world. His kingdom is the
kingdom of darkness, in which all men since Adam
are born, and in which they remain, until translated
into the kingdom of God's dear Son. They are
his subjects, taken captive by him at his will."2
1 Systematic Theology, by C. Hodge, D.D., vol. ii. p. 518 f.
2 2 Tim. ii. 26.

86: THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
And this is a specimen of a mode of representation
which has either given rise to, or at all events
fostered, the notion that somehow or other men are
naturally outside God's kingdom, and do not become
subject to its obligations, till they freely take them
upon themselves, — a notion, I grant, very vague,
very unclear, yet unquestionably existent. The
expression " kingdom of darkness," in the quotation
just given, is not scriptural : it certainly is not
sanctioned by the passage, " Who hath delivered
us from the power of darkness, and hath translated
us into the kingdom of His dear Son."1 I am far
from suggesting that those to whom I refer really
mean that men are outside God's dominion ; yet
many of their words suggest the idea, and of a
certainty adequate practical use has not been made
of the great and primal fact, that men are verily
natives of a country whose monarch they ignore,
owe a loyalty which they are constantly violating,
and consequently stand before the alternative, either
of submission or ruin.
There is, no doubt, a certain truth in the words I
have criticized — a truth which is brought out to the
full alike in the Old and New Testaments. Men
are not true subjects of God, and as such have to
be made His subjects. The tendency or aim of
rebellion is in God's kingdom, as it is in human
kingdoms, to consolidate itself into an antagonistic
kingdom : such is the aim of him who is called the
prince of this world — the prince of the power of the
air. But it should never be overlooked in thought,
1 Col. i. 13.

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 87
or forgotten in our words, that, despite all, there is
but one King and one kingdom. " Why do the
nations rage, and the peoples imagine a vain thing ?
The kings of the earth (and the prince of the powers
of the air) set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the Lord, and against His anointed,
saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast
away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the
heavens shall laugh : the Lord shall have them in
derision." x
But men could not become God's subjects if they
were not already His subjects : His kingdom could
not be established among them had it not already
an existence. The conduct of subjects towards a
monarch and his laws does not alter the rights of
the case. If this be so in the affairs of man, how
much more so in the affairs of God ! He remaineth
King for ever, let His subjects rebel as they may.
Nothing can overthrow this order ; nothing can affect
this relationship.
As for the subjects, so for the territory, we need
to make use of the distinction in question. The
earth, at all events, is not in the condition in which
it should be ; in which it would be if the Lord
reigned in deed and truth. Then, assuredly, we
should be able to say of it in its entirety, as we can
now increasingly say of it in part, "The Lord
reigneth : let the earth rejoice."2 How far disorder
prevails in the rest of the physical universe we
cannot tell. Perhaps even there the results of
spiritual rebellion are also felt.
1 Ps. ii. 1-4. 2 Ps. xcvii. I.

88 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
But Scripture gives us every reason for believing
that the invisible part of the divine kingdom is to
some extent in disorder. Doubtless the region
inhabited by God's loyal subjects is one of perfect
peace, harmony, beauty, glory ; there the environed
and their environment are in absolute correspondence.
But there is also a region of which the contrary
holds good, — where environed and environment are
in more or less complete antagonism — an antagonism
which will grow with the growth of disloyalty and
wickedness, till it shall issue in that uttermost of
chaotic disorder and confusion which the Book of
Revelation describes as " the lake that burneth with
fire and brimstone," to dwell in which is " the second
death."1 Bearing in mind this simple distinction between
de jure and de facto, and remembering that whilst
in the Old Testament chief stress is laid on the
more outward features of the divine kingdom,
whilst the new is more concerned with its inward
features, little difficulty will be experienced in
combining all the more important and significant
allusions into one self- consistent and harmonious
picture. 5. So far as the expression " kingdom of heaven "
is not a mere synonym for the " kingdom of God,"
and has a distinctive meaning of its own, — which
seems sometimes to be the case, — the relation between
the two appears to me to be this. The kingdom of
heaven is the identity of the de jure and de facto
kingdom of God. There God and His subjects,
1 Rev. xxi. 8 ; cf. xx. 10, 15.

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 89
and the subjects amongst themselves, are related
to each other, as God in founding His kingdom
meant them to be related. Their state, too, and
that of the territory, is all that it was designed to
be, — living, growing, developing in absolute nor
mality, — a full and 'glorious realization of the divine
idea. The end of the mission of Christ was to establish
the kingdom of God, not in the de jure sense, for in
that sense it already existed, but in the de facto sense ;
in other words, to realize the kingdom of heaven. Not
that the kingdom was a merely ideal kingdom even
prior to His mission ; not that it had no actual reality
till then ! On the contrary, wherever God was trusted
and served, wherever His laws, even though not
known to be His laws, were loyally recognised and
obeyed, there His kingdom existed de facto. Nay
more, the King was ever asserting His authority and
showing His power in the punishments which fol
lowed disobedience to His laws. Neither individuals
nor societies can permanently flourish which refuse to
submit to the divine order. They fall into discord,
and misfortunes befall them, which are as really signs
that the writ of the great King runs in this world, as
if He had sent visible messengers to foretell what
would be the consequences of disobedience, and had
commissioned legions of angels to execute His
decrees. But the God who is Father as well as King could
not be content until His dominions were one boundless
scene of harmony, beauty, and gladness, and His sub
jects were subjects not in word only or outward conduct,

90 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
but in heart, and soul, and mind — outward answering
to, expressing, supplementing the inward, and each
ministering to the other. Hence the mission, the
incarnation, the life, the sufferings, the death, the
resurrection, and the intercession of His only-begotten
and well-beloved Son.
VII. The immediate aim of Christ. — The earthly
mission of the Son of God, the eternal Word, was
undertaken for the purpose of establishing the king
dom of God ; not, as He is wrongly supposed to have
taught, in order to set up a new kingdom, but to make
that kingdom a full actuality which already existed of
right and in part. He came to realize the plan, the
idea which God had when He brought into existence
the self-evolving (as some count it) physical universe
and its self-propagating races of free intelligences.
The physical universe was in disorder ; the inhabit
ants were alienated from God, at discord amongst
themselves, out of harmony with their abode, and
therefore subject to suffering alike in body and mind.
In the invisible part of the universe were intelli
gences that sought to set up an antagonistic system
or kingdom.
The work of Christ is accordingly spoken of as a
work of salvation — salvation in all its various aspects,
intellectual, affectional, corporeal, moral, spiritual ; and
as a work of destruction, so far as the powers of evil
and their productions and ends were concerned : some
times one aspect is emphasized, sometimes another.
At what point did Christ begin ? The idea of in
augurating an era of order, peace, happiness was not
new, though none besides Christ, either before or after

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 9 1
Him, ever grasped it in all its length, and breadth, and
depth, and height. The method of Christ was new ;
and it was the newness of His method that required
the newness of the means for carrying it out. All
other reformers begin at some part of the periphery ;
He began at the centre. Human attempts at reform
generally attack first the external surroundings, and it
is only as experience teaches the futility of such a
course that the eye is fixed on what is nearer to the
centre. Give men regular employment, give men
good houses, give them land, give them material help
of various kinds, enact good laws, let the State
encourage or prohibit this and the other, — none of
these things need be useless ; sometimes they do a
certain amount of good. But it becomes more and
more evident that if societies are to be reformed, the
inner nature, the heart, conscience, will, intelligence of
the individual men must be quickened and renovated.
The evils under which the world groans have their
secret root there.
But even thus the true centre has not been touched.
Occasionally, indeed, it may have dawned on reformers
of the deepest insight that the true root of human dis
order and misery lay somehow or other in the relation
of the race to God. Perhaps this was the secret alike
of the earnestness and influence of religious reformers.
But Christ alone, in all the ages, saw the point as
clearly as if it had stood out singly and alone in the
full blaze of the mid-day sun, and His life-work was
concentrated on it as though it alone had a right to
attention. He came to reconcile men to God, because
the alienation of God and man was the source and

92 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
sustaining energy of all the other alienation, disorder,
and misery that are to be found in the universe.
What I have said may seem to be contradicted by
the fact that He went about doing good, healing the
sick, raising the dead, and working all manner of
wonderful works for the relief of human suffering, and
that He was a great teacher, and Himself described
it as His mission to bear witness to the truth ; but all
these things were means to the one great end. Their
significance becomes clear as soon as we view them in
the light referred to ; apart therefrom how fragmentary,
how casual, how lacking in system, in definiteness of
aim, in plan, was His whole life and work !
Not that He was indifferent to the inequalities and
disorders and miseries of men. Far from it. It was
simply a question, how best to remedy them ? And
knowing that the only true remedy lay in the rectifi
cation of the relation of man to God, He made this
His grand aim. The rest He knew would follow as
a result — follow, too, all the more surely and with all
the more safety, because man himself would be
transformed from a cause of disorder into a co-worker
with God for the regeneration of himself and the
world. VIII. The establishment of normal relations the end
of Chris fs mission. — It may be well to draw special
attention to a point which I have already touched in
passing, namely, that the primary end of the mission
of the Son of God was to establish right or normal
relations — not a normal state, save so far as to be
normally related is to be in a right state ; whether
that state be a matter of character or feeling, of right-

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 93
eousness or happiness, of nature. As was already
indicated, too, the relations to be set right were those
between man and God.
What I mean will be perhaps best elucidated by an
analogy. Biology tells us that the healthy growth and
development of living beings depends primarily on
their holding fitting relations to their environment.
The environing forces cannot act on them in such a
way as to promote healthy growth and development,
unless the living beings enter into fitting relations
thereto, open themselves to their influence, lay hold
of and do their part in assimilating them ; in other
words, unless they eat and digest food, and discharge
other functions normally. The normal relations are
the condition of that action of environment which
issues in normal being. My eating and preparedness
to digest do not of themselves constitute me normal
as regards being. What I am I must first become ;
and the interaction or inter-relations of myself and the
surrounding forces cause me to be. Man can only
be through himself and his environment ; but the two
must be related, or stand towards each other, thus and
thus, and not otherwise, or he will never be what he
should be. It is man's business to relate himself;
this is his part ; and if he once lose the power to
relate himself, no forces from without can help him.
But to relate himself without environment or its action
would also leave him helpless. If I am ill, I must
seek and take medicine; the search and the taking
are my relation. The medicine might be there, yet
not help me without a fitting relation ; or I might
search and be ready to take medicine, but if the medi-

94 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
cine was not there, my search and readiness would not
effect my cure.
So in the sphere with which we are now concerned.
What Christ came primarily to remedy was the rela
tions; that is, to bring God and man so together, that
God might be to man and do for man what was neces
sary, in order that man should realize the divine idea,
alike for his nature, character, and state.
It is obvious, of course, that to be related, or relate
himself at all, whether in the biological sphere to
which I have just referred, or in the moral sphere now
under consideration, he must be something ; but what
he then is may be said to be a sort of minimum of
being — a mere germ-like being. This has to be pre
supposed. It is further clear that with every step of
growth, that is, of attainment of being, his relatedness
becomes more fitting to his environment, and his
growth and development and state more full, — not
necessarily more healthy, unless he started out with
being unhealthy. But the same law prevails. He
must enter into ever new relations of this and that
kind and no other, or progress will be changed into
retrogression, health into disease, and pleasure into
pain. In the bodily sphere, it is true, a time comes when
self-relation to environment, however normal, ceases
to issue in growth. The utmost it can do is to check
decay, to maintain the status quo. And after man's
term is run, he ceases to be able to relate himself,
and then dissolution is at hand. In this moral sphere,
on the contrary, the life may be eternal ; for not only
are the environing divine energies, from which our

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 95
soul is to draw its chief sustenance, inexhaustible in
fulness and variety ; but each new step in our upward
growth qualifies us, if our self-relation is normal, for
assimilating ever richer and fuller nourishment from
the source ; and thus we shall grow from more to
more in largeness of nature, holiness and beauty of
character, and richness of blessedness for ever and
ever. It seems to me of considerable importance to observe
the distinction I have attempted to draw ; and I
venture to think that forgetfulness thereof has caused
a good deal of confusion in the treatment of this
central theme.
Not to make holy or to remove unholiness, save
so far as holiness and unholiness are predicable of
relations ; not to make men happy, or to remove and
avert unhappiness ; not to make them healthy and
strong, or to overcome disease and weakness, — was
Christ's primary and immediate end ; but to bring
about relations that will render possible such com
munication and assimilation of divine energy as will
make man strong, holy, blessed, and reduce his abode
to harmony.
In popular speech it is justifiable enough, nay,
perfectly correct, to include the results of relations as
well as the relations themselves, when describing the
end of our Lord's mission ; for Christ did come to
bring in peace, righteousness, and joy in the Holy
Ghost ; but if we are to see our way theologically, I
am convinced we must give due effect to the distinction
which I have been urging.
Rightly understood, too, this view of the work of

96 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Christ underlies the doctrine of justification by faith.
Faith on the side of man, forgiveness for Christ's
sake on the part of God, are its constituent factors :
and the former no less than the latter is best described
as a relation.. -.Each conditions the other, and both
together are the condition of the righteousness, peace,
and joy in the Holy Ghost which are characteristic
of the kingdom of heaven. If that doctrine be
regarded as anything more in itself than a statement
of a relation, or of relations, we must fall into the
Romish and Pelagian errors, and sacrifice the precious
birthright won for us by the incarnation, life, and
death of the Son of man.
IX. The kingdom of God never had actual exist
ence. .-Jj Another point of considerable importance
which needs to be remembered, is that the kingdom
of God never had a normal existence among men in
this world, unless we count the time — whatever may
have been its duration — between the creation and fall
of the first man. Language is frequently employed
which implies that somehow or other men were loyal
subjects of their King, and afterwards fell into rebellion.
Whereas, as a matter of fact, disorder entered into the
very foundation of the kingdom. No sooner was the
first stone laid, than its position was altered for the
worse. The self-propagating founder of the race fell ;
from the first, therefore, the kingdom has been rather
an ideal to be aimed at than an ever expanding
actuality. In consequence of the fall — such, at all
events, is the teaching of Scripture — all men enter the
world with an inborn bias towards a rebellious relation
ship more or less strong. None the less was God

THE ATONEMENT AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 97
their King de jure ; though a condition of things had
never existed when His de jure claims were de facto
acknowledged. This being the case, we can understand, on the one
hand, how God should treat men with a forbearance,
patience, and gentleness that would have been in
explicable had men been the conscious, deliberate,
determined, and high-handed revolters of whom
theologians have often spoken ; and, on the other
hand, the relation into which God at once entered to
humanity, chastising, punishing, exterminating, edu
cating, redeeming.

CHAPTER II.
THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY.
I. Man is an individual ;x — Each member of the
human race is an individual — within limits, an in
dependent whole — a distinct organism — a something
sui generis. In the words of Dorner, " Every man
is a peculiar combination of the forces or powers of
the genus alike in a physical and psychical respect;
and the totality of humanity is individuated in each
man in a special manner. In the divine idea, humanity
exists no otherwise than as a multiplicity of persons,
each more or less different from every other." 2 This
something sui generis consists rather in a peculiar pro
portion of the elements common to all men, than in
the possession of absolutely different elements. How
individuality arises need not here be investigated :
— it is certainly not due alone to external influences.
All we can say is, perhaps, that it is one result of the
action of the great principle or law of differentiation
which is everywhere at work in the domain of life.
1 On the subject of the organic unity of humanity and its history as
such, see works like Principal Caird's most interesting Introduction to
the Philosophy of Religion, especially the chapter on the "Specula
tive Idea of Religion;" Mehring's Geschichts - Philosophie, with his
Religionsphilosophie, works rich in suggestions ; Professor Flint's
History of the Philosophy of History; and, of course, Schelling and
Hegel. 2 Dorner's Christl. Sittenlehre, p. 136.

THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY. 99
Individuality is recognised distinctly enough in
Scripture, and that not merely in the indirect form
of appeals implying personal responsibility, but also
otherwise. Implicitly it appears even in connections
where stress is laid on its antithesis or correlate, the
organic relation. " There are diversities of gifts, but
the same spirit. To one is given through the spirit
the word of wisdom ; and to another the word of
knowledge ; to another faith ; to another gifts of
healings ; to another workings of miracles ; to another
prophecy; to another discernings of spirits ; to another
divers kind of tongues ; to another the interpretation of
tongues : but all these worketh one and the same spirit,
dividing to each one severally, even as he will." J
As an individual, each man is bound and privileged
to enter into an individual relation to God — a rela
tion in its measure as sui generis as his constitution :
even as in a large family each child holds its own
specific relation to the parents, — a relation which no
other can assume, — so is it with the human race and
God. No one of the millions of millions of men that
have come into existence could be or act towards
God exactly as any other could be or act. To the
extent of the individual difference is the extent of his
relational difference.
God also is different to each individual. Nor is
this difference merely a subjective difference— a mere
result of our way of looking at Him. No, He shows
Himself, manifests Himself, gives Himself to each
peculiarly. For God is, so to speak, myriad-sided.
1 1 Cor. xii. 4-1 1 ; cf. Eph. iv. 11 ; Rom. xii. 4 ff. See Dorner,
Sittenlehre, p. 129.

IOO THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
His infinite unity is constituted by boundless diver
sities ; and each of those who seek Him finds some
thing in God that meets his specific needs.
For my present purpose, however, I need not dwell
longer on this point. The actuality of the individual
relations to God is now generally recognised, at all
events among Protestants. Indeed, the tendency is to
treat them as alone real or important. The days are
passing when men's relation to God was implicitly, if
not explicitly, regarded as determined by that of the
nation, or society, or Church to which they belonged.
The Israelites cannot be said to have been emanci
pated from it. Individualism was recognised, indeed,
implicitly when individuals were destroyed from amidst
their nation for their sins ; but these were cases of
high-handed sin, and therefore exceptional. The
average Israelite assuredly regarded his relation to God
as determined, guaranteed by, involved in the relation
of the people of which he was a member. The whole
was chosen, therefore he ; the whole was regarded with
favour, therefore he ; the whole was atoned for, there
fore he. This is a consideration which needs to be
kept in view when we deal with the Old Testament ;
for it has an important bearing on the interpretation
and application of many things found there.
Nor is Christendom yet by any means quite freed
from the notion, — if, indeed, one might not rather say,
the greater part of Christendom is still more or less
under its dominion. Of most Roman Catholics it is still
probably true that the supposed relation of their Church
to God as the holy Catholic Church involves or carries
with it their individual relation ; not, of course, apart

THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY. IOI
from their individual consent ; but yet to a degree
which a thorough Protestant can scarcely understand.
To some extent this is also true of the Protestant
Episcopal Churches, and especially of those sections
thereof which are retrogressing to the beggarly ele
ments of Rome. Where Lutheranism has a real hold
on the people, we discover the same phenomenon ;
the Church in its totality somehow stands for the
individual, and fills up that which in him is behind.1
II. Man as an organic whole. — But the constitution
of man is not adequately described when we merely
speak of him as an individual. The individual is a
member of a race. Humanity is an organic whole,
constituted by organic wholes, a macrocosm constituted
by microcosms. Its life and activity revolve like an
ellipse round two foci, — one the individual, the other
the organic ; and neither can be ignored without detri
ment to the other.
i. Biblical recognition of the fact. — As has already
been hinted, the organic found full recognition under
the old dispensation. Paul summed up the dominating
conception of his nation when he wrote : "If the first-
fruit is holy, so is the lump ; and if the root is holy,
so are the branches. And if some of the branches
were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast
grafted in among them, and didst become partaker
with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree.

1 " Among the Romans, religion was an integral part of the political
constitution, a matter far more of national, or tribal, or family feeling
than of personal." — Bryce's Holy Roman Empire, 10. In the Roman
jurisprudence jus sacrum is a branch of jus publicum, loc. cit. 10. This
fact throws light on the characteristic of the Romish Church to which
reference has just been made.

102 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
. . . Thou wast grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree." x In his view, the nation constituted
an organic whole very much after the analogy of a tree.
The comparison which Paul institutes between the
human body and Christ and His believers might also
be very well transferred to the human race : " As the
body is one and hath many members, and all the
members of the body, being many, are one body." :
The conception of the organic unity, or solidarity
of the whole of humanity, is not indeed very distinctly
expressed in the Scriptures ; but it certainly lies at
the back of and conditions their teachings, especially
regarding redemption. The nearest approach to a
distinct recognition thereof is to be found, perhaps, in
the words of our Lord Himself: " I am the true vine,
and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch
in me that beareth not fruit, He taketh away ; and
every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth, that it
may bear more fruit. ... If a man abide not in me,
he is cast forth as a branch and is withered ; and they
gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are
burned." 3 Paul might be supposed to hint at a vaster
solidarity than even that of humanity, when he speaks
of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain
together until now.4 It is generally supposed to be
involved, at all events, in the argument of the fifth
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, especially in
such words as — " As through the one man's disobedi
ence the many were made sinners, even so through
1 Rom. xi. 1 6 ff.
2 i Cor. xii. 12. See Strachey, Jewish History, etc., and references,
p. 205.
3 John xv. 1, 2, 6. 4 Rom. viii. 22.

THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY. 103
the obedience of the one shall the many be made
righteous." "In Him were all things created, in the
heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things
invisible ; whether thrones, or dominions, or principali
ties, or powers, all things have been created through
Him and unto Him; and He is before all things, and
in Him all things consist"1 : — these words, too, point
still further in the direction of the passage previously
quoted. If the whole is rooted in Christ, it may be
truly said of humanity the part, and that part must con
sequently constitute, in some sense, an organic whole.
2. General recognition of the fact. — In all ages
mankind has lived its life under the unconscious in
fluence of this its constitution ; and the idea, though
never grasped with approximate clearness and fulness
till the present day, has, so to speak, sought and found
embodiments, and has dawned ever and anon on the
higher thinkers and more energetic leaders of the
race. Every society has been in its measure a wit
ness to this unity ; and the visions of a world empire
which have fascinated the greater statesmen and rulers
— were they not also due to its secret inspiration ?
Still the perception of the fact that all men constitute
one body ; and that, therefore, if one member suffer
all suffer, if one rejoice all rejoice, — is the result of the
advent of Him who came to be the propitiation, not
for the sins of Jews only, but for those of the whole
world. The societies which grew out of and em
bodied the indwelling idea, regarded each other for
the most part with suspicion, and treated each other
with hostility. To be a stranger was, ipso facto, to be
1 Col. i. 16-18.

104 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
a foe. Christ brought in the idea that to be a stranger
was to have a claim to sympathy and help — " I was
a stranger, and ye took me in," — " I was a stranger,
and ye took me not in." J
Christ's Church, too, has more or less embodied the
idea ; for it has overleaped the barriers of clime and
country, of colour, of race, of nationality, of station by
which men are generally separated from each other, and
accustomed them to regard themselves first as one in
Christ, and then as one by nature. Now-a-days it is
becoming more and more a power. Internationalism,
with all its errors and defects, is its product and wit
ness. And Tennyson lends voice to what is an ever-
widening and strengthening aspiration when he says :
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the vision of the world and all the wonder that would be ;
Far along the world-wide whisper of the South wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the people plunging through the thunderstorm:
Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.2
But profounder expression is given to the thought by
Browning, —
When I say " you," 'tis the common soul,
The collective, I mean ; the race of man
That receives life in parts to live in a whole,
And grow here according to God's clear plan.3
Humanity is not yet, indeed, a complete whole.
It is rather a self-developing organism analogous to
the other organisms which constitute the world of
life. And the idea of a cosmos, of a world, yea,
even of a kingdom, may possibly warrant some such
view as that which is advocated by Dorner —

1 Matt. xxv. 35, 38. See Note V., Appendix.
2 Locksley Hall. s Browning, Dramatic Lyrics, p. 134.

THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY. 105
" Reason demands a unity of the many ; and the
perfection of the world requires that its various
members should further and supplement each other,
constituting a perfect organism. The supposition is,
therefore, inadmissible that the world consists of
totalities having nothing whatever to do with each
other. . . . An absolutely unlimited number of
personalities with the destiny to live the true life
of spirit is unthinkable. In that case it must be
possible, in order that the number be infinite, for
the same to reappear. That, however, would be no
enrichment of the infinite life of love. We must,
therefore, assume that the number is not absolutely
unlimited ; that, on the contrary, it is limited by its
purpose. Such spiritual individualities are alone
created as will be able in giving and receiving to
promote the life of love, each of them having some
specific characteristic of its own. The creative love
and wisdom of God, therefore, did not design to
bring into existence an infinite number of individu
alities, but only the full number of possible indi
vidualities, embodying all possible specific excellences.
For a determinate end demands a determinate num
ber ; a perfect organism may neither be burdened by
a too much nor weakened by a too little. It is rather
a gapless though growing circle, in which everything
has a place, and where each is for all." x What will be
the final compass of this great organism which is now
day by day adding to its members, the future alone
can teach. Meanwhile, however, we must hold fast
to this — that in its idea humanity is an organism ;
1 Dorner's Glaubenslehre, vol. i. 464 f. ; cf. ii. 245, and elsewhere.

106 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
that this idea is only realizable through individuals
who are themselves relative organisms ; and that one
day it will stand complete. Whether to that com
pleteness each and every individual human being
that has ever existed will be a necessity, is another
question. Dorner's view would seem to look in that
direction. The teachings of Christ, however, do
not warrant the notion ; at all events, if the words
reported by the Evangelist John may be brought into
connection with this subject, " I am the vine, ye are
the branches ; he that abideth in me and I in him,
the same beareth much fruit : for apart from me ye
can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is
cast forth as a branch and is withered ; and they
gather them and cast them into the fire, and they
are burned." * Applying these words to humanity
and its relation to its head, it may be likened to a
tree, which constitutes an ever-growing organic
whole, — ever - growing, that is, till it has reached its
appointed limit, — and which may be constantly drop
ping or be deprived of branches without essentially
affecting its organic wholeness ; though, of course, it
need not be supposed to be destined to grow in
infinitum, and until it has attained full growth is
not the whole prefigured in its indwelling idea.2

1 John xv. 5-7.
2 Various interesting questions here suggest themselves, of which
this is not the place to attempt an answer. Some will object to the
application of Christ's words to humanity as a whole, and maintain that
He refers merely to His Church, to believers. The matter cannot be
settled by a simple appeal to this fifteenth chapter, but involves a wider
survey of New Testament thought. Those, however, who chiefly urge
the narrower view of the words seem to overlook the for them perilous
inferences they then warrant.

THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY. 107
" Humanity is then not an agglomeration of indi
vidual atoms, each possessing an independent life ;
it is not a mosaic which can be taken to pieces at
will ; it is not an aggregation of individuals, each of
whom may, if he please, isolate himself from the rest
and say, ' I stand for myself alone.' It is a huge
tree, and we all are the branches, along which flows
the common sap ; it is a living body, of which we
are truly the members. In my individual life I feel
the life of humanity ; in my blood the life-stream of
the race." 1
3. Inferences that may be drawn. — Such being the
constitution of man, is it not natural and reasonable
to suppose that God will hold to humanity, and
humanity to God, relations of a specifically organic
or corporate kind ; that God in His dealings with
man, and normally man in his behaviour towards
God, will recognise this twofold characteristic of his
being ? Whilst not ignoring, on the contrary,
giving full weight to the individual, we must be
careful not to underestimate, much less to ignore
or set aside, the organic or corporate aspect of the
relations between God and man. If the organic have
not a value of its own, a significance of its own for
God, why should we have been thus constituted ?
Solidarity was not necessary as a means to the end
of bringing into existence a certain number of mere
individuals. We can conceive of the principle of
individuality predominating in our case as in that of
1 Bersier, The Oneness of the Race in its Fall and in its Future
(London 1871), p. 48 ; cf. p. 62. For other quotations to the same effect
see Note VI., Appendix.

108 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the animals. Though, as even Aristotle said, man
is essentially a £&ov TrdkiriKov, and it is quite true that
Unus homo nullus homo, if we take homo to mean
what it actually does mean. What man would
probably have been had the principle of individuality
excluded that of organic unity, we may guess from the
state of the savages. This principle of individuality
we find prevailing in the animal world, where each is
little more than a repetition of its predecessors, all
beginning and ending at much the same point. It is
the organic unity of the human race that renders it
possible for individual men to give and receive, to in
herit and transmit, and thus to enrich and expand the
life of the whole as well as that of each individual :
in a word, to be a man.
We may therefore judge that the purpose of God
required the organic as well as the individual ; and
that accordingly no account of the relations between
God and man will be complete which leaves out of
view the organic relations, or of the divine dealings
with humanity which fails to recognise their organic
aspect. 4. Influence of the respective aspects on the
doctrine of Christ's work. — Until a comparatively
recent period, the treatment of the doctrine of the
atonement was dominated by the organic or corporate
principle. Not that it was consciously or of purpose
taken as the starting-point, or accepted as regulative,
but unconsciously. The relative positions held
generally by the two principles in the life of men
was reflected in this particular domain. The State,
the corporate life, was all-dominant. The individual

THE CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITY. 109
was lost, or nearly so, in the organic. At the
Reformation the seeds were sown of the modern
tendency to exalt the individual. They did not,
indeed, at once bear fruit. On the contrary, the old
view still controlled systematic thought regarding the
relations of God and man ; and that control has
continued till a very recent period. The way was
prepared for a breach in the traditional treatment
by the so-called moral view of the atonement, first
formulated by Abelard ; and in recent years the
sense of individual relation to God has been so
intensified, that even where positive objections to
the corporate treatment of Christ's work are neither
felt nor expressed, it is being quietly superseded.
Speaking generally, one may now say that Christ is
looked upon solely in His relation to individuals.
He may be regarded as the Saviour of all ; but it is
of all individuals. His relation to the race as some
thing specific has ceased to be considered.
This seems to me, so far as it goes, an unquestioned
gain. There was an element of unreality in the old
view of the subject, which, though not felt as such
in former days, nor even yet, apparently, in some
quarters, needed setting aside ; and the only way to
do that was to secure the full recognition of the
individual alongside of the organic. For it is to
the individual that the organic owes its content.
Neither, however, is healthy or true without the
other. The truth is to be found in the combination
of the two : in the treatment of the atoning work of
Christ as related at once to the organic and the
individual aspects of humanity.

110 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
But there is considerable danger of the organic now
being overlooked. It is a somewhat remarkable fact,
that whilst in other domains alike of thought and prac
tice, there is a decided rebound from the individualism
that prevailed down to a recent period, at all events
in Britain, the individualistic tendency in religious
matters, especially in the treatment of this doctrine,
seems to be gathering strength. The solidarity of
mankind is becoming one of the ruling ideas of the
age in politics, in social questions, in natural science,
and especially in philosophy ; x yet, in theology,
individualism seems day by day to be acquiring
more and more complete sway.
The problem of the passion of Christ needs, how
ever, to be approached from both sides — from the
individual and from the organic or corporate — if it is
to be adequately appreciated.
1 See Herbert Spencer's Sociology. Compare Seth and Haldane's
Essays on Philosophical Criticism, especially the essay on " The Social
Organism."

CHAPTER III.
RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD.
I. General considerations as to Relations. — Rela
tions, that is, modes of behaviour of beings towards,
of action upon, or connection with each other, are
grounded in, determined by, the nature of the beings
related, and cannot be capriciously imposed or held.
In other words, no being can hold a relation to
another for which it is not by natural constitution
fitted. A piece of unorganized matter cannot hold
the relations of a plant or animal. There are,
indeed, relations which they hold in common ; for
example, that designated gravitation ; but organized
matter holds in addition relations of its own. A
stone sunk in the ground acts mechanically, and
may also act chemically, but that is all ; whereas,
a seed sunk in the ground acts mechanically,
chemically, and as we say, vitally.1 An animal,
again, enters into other relations than the plant ;
man, than the animal ; invisible intelligences, than
men ; and, perhaps, there may be analogous differ
ences throughout the invisible sphere.
1 Compare Rev. W. Arthur's interesting book, Physical and Moral
Law. See Lotze, quoted by Dorner, Glaubenslehre, vol. i. 603 ; Kdstlin
in Jahrbiicherf. deutsche Theologie, 1864.

112 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Relations may be abnormal, and yet grounded
in the nature of the beings holding them. For
example, if a stone fall on a plant arid crush it,
that is abnormal ; but the relation is grounded in
their respective natures. Were it to fall on another
stone, or were a leaf to alight on the plant, the
relation would not be in the same sense or degree
abnormal, though not more truly natural. So a
man may become a slave, because it is grounded
in his nature, though such a relation is abnormal;
a plant cannot under any circumstances become a
slave — the relation denoted by that term is im
possible to it.
(I.) Relations may be classed as uncontrollable
and controllable. Other terms used to denote the
same distinction are natural and moral, necessary
and free. Uncontrollable relations are modes of
behaviour or connection which must be observed
or held as long as the beings exist, and are what
they are. Controllable relations, on the other hand,
are modes of behaviour or connection which may
be modified or changed, either by the beings
themselves or by other beings, though never
to the extent of contrariety to or transcend
ence of the natural capabilities of the beings
related. By some writers the uncontrollable or necessary
relations are termed par excellence laws ; as, for
example, by Montesquieu, who defines the latter
as rapports nScessaires qui derivent de la nature des
c hoses ; and a recent English writer says they are
" a statement of constant relations posited by the

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 113
nature of things." x The word law is used in a
variety of senses, however; such as — (i) Prescribed
mode of behaviour ; this is the moral or legal sense ;
(2) Constant mode of occurrence of two or more
phenomena; in this sense it is used in mathematics,
and sometimes in natural science;8 (3) Necessary
mode of relation ; i.e. mode of relation conceived
as necessary, for example, gravitation ; (4) That
which necessitates modes of relation ; (5) Active
cause or force in nature. There is evidently a great
difference between the first use — which I hold to be
the generative principle of all the rest — and the
following senses — the difference between consciously
self- controlled or self- regulated behaviour, and
behaviour that is not self- regulated or self-controlled,
yea, even force compelling behaviour. In the first
sense, law is necessarily presented to thought, to
consciousness, before it passes into actuality ; in the
latter senses it is not.
It is involved in the unity and solidarity of the
universe that there should be relations which are
absolutely uncontrollable, which beings must under
all circumstances hold towards each other. It is
equally involved in the fact that the universe has
been and is being continuously evolved, that there
should be relations which are variously modifiable ;
in other words, that the behaviour or connection
of the constituent factors may within certain limits
1 See Edith Simcox, Natural Law, p. 6, to whom I owe the quotation
from Montesquieu. Compare also what Pye Smith says on the Moral
Law, Discourses, p. 162 ; and Dr. Dale's striking though partial discussion
of the subject of law in his work on the Atonement.
2 See Jevons' Principles of Science. H

114 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
be changed. Among the stable relations, the most
remarkable at present known is gravitation ; the other
physical relations are modifiable.
Whilst some of the relations of all beings are
controllable, that is, capable of modification, all
beings are not capable of exercising that control.
So far as control of their relations is possible, the
control is exercised not by themselves but by others ;
some again have the power both of controlling others
and of self-control ; indeed, the two are correlates,
for no being really controls another unless it has
control of itself. Otherwise, its apparent control is
simply transmission of control originating elsewhere.
Within limits that are not easy to define, man
has the control of himself, — in some cases direct, in
others indirect, — and therefore, also, control over
other beings. God alone was originally the
absolutely self-controlled, for He created the beings
between which and Himself relations exist.
(II.) God and man alike hold both controllable
and uncontrollable relations to each other.
i. The uncontrollable relations may be reduced
to the following : —
(i.) God not only brought man into existence, —
whether by a separate creative act or as a part of the
process which He initiated and regulates, matters not
for my present purpose, — but also sustains him, and
therefore conditions him.
Man, on the other hand, lives, and moves, and
has his being in God — depends on God — cannot
escape from God if he would. He cannot become
independent if he would.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 115
So that neither God can separate Himself from man,
as long as man exists, nor man from God. If God
were to withdraw Himself absolutely from man, man
would cease to exist. Man may wish to cease even
to exist, but he cannot, save by the will of God. He
may change his relation to the visible part of the
universe to which he now belongs at his pleasure,
i.e. by committing suicide ; but he cannot therefore
cease to exist.
Any appearance of interfering with the divine
absoluteness presented by this statement will vanish
when it is remembered that the relation in question
originated with God Himself; and any other view
of the matter would involve laying against God a
charge of self-contradiction,
(2.) God cannot but think of and feel with regard
to man. God cannot forget man, cannot ignore
him, cannot treat him as non-existent. Nor can
the divine heart be unaffected towards man ; it must
feel for and towards him, as we say, either in one way
or another. In other words, man can never become
an object of indifference to God.
Man, on the other hand, can never escape from
some sort of consciousness or sense of his relation
to God. The fact that his being, his life, his move
ments are rooted and grounded in God, will in some
form or degree colour or condition his thought
when he reflects on himself. And the more he
enters into himself, the more distinctly will the
world outside speak to him of the being who is the
common source and abiding ground of both. At
the same time, the more man becomes absorbed in

Il6 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the world outside him, the less sensitive will he
become to the voice of God within.
Nor can man ever become really indifferent to
God, or his state be unaffected by his relation to
God. In the words of Christ, "he that is not with
Him is against Him ; " and as he is with or against,
so will be the effect on His state, and therefore on
His feeling. Here there is no escape. The relation
of the heart and the condition of feeling will, of
course, be affected by the general state of the man;
if he is generally low, undeveloped, insensitive,
unreflective, his affections and feelings in this
direction will be proportionately indeterminate and
vague. But the relation in itself cannot be changed
by anything he can do. No creature can constitute
a cosmos of its own within which it shall be indepen
dent of God.1
2. The controllable relations between God and
man. Theologians and preachers sometimes use
language which implies that, however greatly man
may change towards God, God can never change
towards man ; and that whatever semblance of
change there may be in God, is in reality a change
in man's view of God. As the sun never ceases to
shine, though men may intercept its rays, and thus
be in darkness more or less deep, so God never
ceases to be what He always was, though men alter
their relation to Him, and may regard that as an
alteration in Him. This notion is not Biblical; the
unchangeableness of God is not only compatible with,
1 On Freedom, see Kreibig, Die Versohnungslehre, 1878, p. 48.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 117
but even expresses itself in the greatest possible
changeableness.1 God's thought of man is determined by what man
is ; it may therefore vary. The divine affection
towards man varies. The divine feelings, too, are
coloured by men's changes. And God's actions
relatively to men are not always the same.
It scarcely needs adding that men, too, change their
relations to God. They cannot get away from certain
relations ; but the character thereof may vary. Their
thinking, their affections, their conduct, their feelings
— all are and have been subject to alternation.
It is of importance distinctly to recognise the fact
to which I have now called attention, in both its
aspects. Not to do so is to reduce God and man
alike to the rank of the inorganic substances, and to
treat their relations as purely mechanical.
The law or principle of these controllable relations
is — "God to man as man to God." This law is
repeatedly and expressly alluded to in the Scriptures ;
as for example — " With the merciful Thou wilt show
Thyself merciful ; with the perfect man Thou wilt
show Thyself perfect ; with the pure Thou wilt show
Thyself pure ; and with the perverse Thou wilt show
Thyself froward." 2 " The Lord is with you while
ye be with Him ; and if ye seek Him, He will be
found of you : but if ye forsake Him, He will forsake
you." 3 " If ye forgive men their trespasses, your
heavenly Father will also forgive you : but if ye
1 See a profound and learned discussion of the Unchangeableness of
God, by Dr. J. A. Dorner, in the Jahrbiicher fiir dentsche Theologie,
vols. i. ii. iii.
2 Ps. xviii. 25, 26. 3 2 Chron. xv. 2.

Il8 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses." J Compare, " Inas
much as ye did it to one of these my brethren, ye did
it unto me."2
It is not, " Man to God as God to man," for God
never changes so as to involve or call forth a change
in man, but " God to man as man to God." God
changes in accordance with human changes.
This may seem inconsistent with the words, " Love
your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you ;
that ye may be sons of your Father which is in
heaven : for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil
and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the
unjust;"3 but there is no real discrepancy between
the teachings.
So far as a man is holy, as God is holy, so far may
He also recognise as the law of His relations to men,
"I to thee as thou to me." As long, however, as
men are imperfect in knowledge, temper, expression,
so long will it behove them to be exceedingly chary
of letting the principle just stated influence their
conduct, and even under the greatest provocations
will do well to remember the divine example adduced
by Christ.4 God's all man's nought :
But also, God, whose pleasure brought
Man into being, stands away
As it were a handbreadth off, to give
Room for the newly-made to live,
And look at him from a place apart,
And use his gifts of brain and heart,
1 Matt. xvi. 14, 15. 2 Matt. xxv. 40. s Matt. v. 45.
4 A full discussion of this subject lies beyond the scope of the present
work. Ethical problems are here involved to which very little attention
has been given. See Note VII. in Appendix.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 119
Given, indeed, but to keep for ever.
Who speaks of man, then, must not sever
Man's very elements from man,
Saying, " But all is God's " — whose plan
Was to create man and then leave him
Able, His own word saith, to grieve Him,
But able to glorify Him too
As a mere machine could never do.
R. Browning, Christmas Eve.

II. Normal or de jure relations of man as an
individual to God. — The relations here to be con
sidered are, of course, those which are controllable,
those which have to be voluntarily entered into, and
which may therefore be voluntarily avoided, — modes
of free activity or behaviour. The relations looked
at as laws are fixed ; that is, such and such relations
ought to be entered into ; if they are not entered into,
disorder and suffering ensue. Personal relations in
this sense are as fixed and determinate as the relations
between the stars ; the difference between them is,
that whilst the latter cannot but be observed, the
observance of the former is a matter of choice on the
part of the beings who are to be related.
The individual man is capable of entering into
three modes of relation, answering to the three
aspects of his nature — the corporeal, the intellectual,
the affectional. We have here to do exclusively with
the third mode of relation — the affectional. The first
or corporeal relation, though of independent, intrinsic
importance as regards the mundane system, is of
significance as far as God is concerned solely as the
vehicle or mode of expression of the affections. This
aspect of the matter is brought out with great clear
ness in connection with sacrifices by the writer of the

120 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
51st Psalm when he says, on the one hand, " Thou
delightest not in sacrifice, else would I give it ; Thou
hast no pleasure in burnt-offering : the sacrifices of
God are a broken spirit ; a broken and a contrite
heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise ; " and, on the
other hand, " Then shalt Thou delight in the sacrifices
of righteousness, in burnt-offering and whole burnt-
offering ; then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine
altar."1 When sacrifices embodied or were made the
vehicle of one kind of spirit or affection, God would
have none of them ; when they embodied another and
opposite spirit or affection, they were a delight to
Him. Our corporeal relation to our fellow-men, however,
as we well know, may in and of itself condition the
welfare both of the corresponding aspect of their
nature, and also of their spiritual nature so far as it
depends on the body ; besides serving the purpose
to which reference has been made above.
The divine estimate of the intellectual relation of
man equally depends on the purpose it serves.
Three functions are assigned to intellect, to the
intelligence of man, including therein the senses at
the one end, and speculative reasoning and con
structive or creative imagination at the other. The
first is to guide him to the objects to which he
should be related, and to the relations which he
should hold to them. This concerns the body as
truly as the heart, the outer man as truly as the inner
man. The second function is to minister to its own
needs. The intellect has its needs as truly as the
1 Ps. H. 16, 17, 19.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 121
body and the heart ; these needs may to a certain
extent be met by the discharge of the function just
mentioned, and of that to which I shall next refer ;
but it has needs which are only met by those higher,
and deeper, and broader exercises which issue in
literature, art, science, and philosophy. The third
function is to minister to others, by aiding them in
the discovery of the objects and the determination of
the relations which are necessary to the healthy
development of either body, intellect, or heart. As
far as the first two functions are concerned, it will be
obvious that intellectual activity is self-centred —
meaning by self not merely the intellect, but the whole
man. Its significance therefore, alike for God or man,
depends on which of the functions it discharges,
whether the first two or the last. As far as the
first two are concerned, it is very possible for them
to be so discharged that God and man alike must
despise and reject them ; as to the third function —
both God and man take pleasure therein. No
healthy-minded man cares to be made an object of
observation, thought, and imagination merely with a
view to meeting intellectual or other wants of a
fellow-man ; but he values it highly when another
places his intellect at his service ; and the higher
the intellect, the higher the estimate. Equally true
is this of God. Hence the highest philosophy
may be as offensive to Him as the vulgarest
curiosity ; His estimate of it, in other words,
its religious value, depends on the degree in which
it is designed to minister to the purposes of His
kingdom.

122 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
The third relation, which I have termed the affec
tional — emotional — or heart relation, is the one with
which we have here exclusively to do, because it is
by the affections, through the heart, that persons are
centrally united with or separated from each other.
Out of the heart are the issues of social life. A man's
physical relation to his fellow-man is of comparatively
subordinate importance as long as he " feels " as he
should towards him. The intellectual relation exercises
a more directly determining influence on, and is too
fully inspired by, the state of the heart, to allow of our
saying in the vast majority of cases, I do not care how
he conceives me, so long as he feels rightly towards me.
So far, however, as the two can be dissociated, the
former would unhesitatingly be subordinated to the
latter and treated as of small importance in comparison
with it. The strongest possible confirmation of this
position, as far as the body and God are concerned,
is given in the saying, " Though He slay me, yet will
I trust in Him."1 And the notion of the essential
subordination of the merely intellectual to the moral
or spiritual, by which men generally mean the heart
relation, underlies a good deal of the modern protest
against dogma and theology. It is, of course, or
ought to be, obvious enough, that the relation of the
affections to God, in other words, the relation of man
to God, and to that extent the reciprocal relation of
God to man, must largely determine, as well as be
determined by, the relation of his intellect, that is, by
the view he entertains of God and of the divine mind
and will. 1 Job xiii. 15.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 1 23
In point of fact, as it seems to me, religion — and we
have here really to do with religion, though I have
thus far avoided, yea, purposely avoided, using that
vague term — has its seat in the heart. It is a matter
of the affections — the affections as directed towards
God. The religious man is the man whose heart
is right with God ; the non-religious man, if such a
man there be, is the man whose heart is negatively
related to God — a state which is scarcely conceivable
when God has once arisen above the mental horizon ;
the irreligious man is the man whose heart is, if I may
use the apparently self - contradictory expression,
positivo- negatively, antagonistically related to God.
For the heart, as every one knows, may take up a
positively wrong attitude as well as a positively right :
the attitude being as positive and active in the one
case as the other. Herein it differs from the intellect,
which is only capable of either action or inaction, not
of negative action.
What then are the normal relations between God
and man with which we have here to do ? What, in
other words, are the truly religious relations of man
to God, and the corresponding relations of God to
man ?
The chief constitutive features, or as they might be
designated, the principal stages of a right affectional
relation as between man and men, are respect or
reverence, trust or confidence, and regard or love ;
equally so, therefore, as between man and God.
These more than any other, even if not exclusively,
are personal relations — relations characteristic of
personal beings.

124 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Normally, men would have cherished and, of course,
displayed towards God the fullest reverence, trust, love,
of which their nature was at each successive stage
capable, — at each stage perfect ; yet, ever more
perfect. For perfection is not merely a matter of
degree, but also of kind. If the affections cherished
by the child are all that it can cherish, they are for
the child perfect ; but the affections of the youth and
man must be broader, stronger, deeper, fuller, or else
they will be imperfect, that is, abnormal. As our
nature grows, so must our affections grow ; and as
they can never transcend, so should they never fall
behind the capability of the stage we may have
reached. These forms or aspects of our relation to God are
sufficiently emphasized in Scripture. So, for example,
reverence, or, as it is often termed, fear. " Let all the
earth fear the Lord : let all the inhabitants of the world
stand in awe of Him." x " Be thou in the fear of the
Lord all the day long." 2 " The Lord of hosts, Him
shall ye sanctify; and let Him be your fear, and let
Him be your dread."3 "Who shall not fear Thee and
glorify Thy name ? for Thou only art holy." 4 " I will
give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear
me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children
after them : and I will make an everlasting covenant
with them : and I will put my fear in their hearts, that
they shall not depart from me." 5
Not less stress is laid in various ways on trust or
confidence as due to God from man. " Trust in God
1 Ps. xxxiii. 8. 2 Prov. xxiii. 17. 3 Isa. viii. 13.
4 Rev. xv. 4. * Jer. xxxii. 39 ff.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 125
at all times." J " Trust in the Lord with all thine
heart."2 " Trust ye in the Lord for ever."3 " Who
is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the
voice of His servant, he that walketh in darkness
and hath no light ? let him trust in the name of the
Lord, and stay upon his God." 4 " Blessed is the man
that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord
is." 6 " We both labour and suffer reproach because
we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of them that believe." 6 " Hezekiah
trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel ; so that after
him was none like him among all the kings of
Judah." 7
And as to regard or inclination for God, rising to
love — that, we know, is set forth as the great duty
required of man. " Take diligent heed to do the
commandment, and the law, which Moses, the servant
of the Lord, commanded you, to love the Lord, and to
walk in all His ways, and to cleave unto Him, and to
serve Him with all your heart, and with all your
soul."8 "O love the Lord, all ye His saints!"9
"Keep yourselves in the love of God."10 "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and
with all thy strength." u " And now, Israel, what doth
the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the
Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love
Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy
heart?"12 It is natural for man, that is, it is in accordance with
1 Ps. lxii. 8. 2 Prov. iii. 5. 3 Isa. xxvi. 4. 4 Isa. 1. 10.
5 Jer. xvii. 7. 6 1 Tim. iv. 10. 7 2 Kings xviii. 5.
8 Josh. xxii. 5. 9 Ps. xxxi. 23. 10 Jude 21. u Matt. xxii. 37.
12 Deut. x. 12 ; comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 25.

126 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
his true and uncorrupted nature, to render respect,
reverence, homage in the presence of personal great
ness, wisdom, truth, sanctity. Nay more, it is a need,
one of the deepest needs of his inmost nature, to give
such reverence, to give it without stint, to give it in
the fullest measure of which he is capable. It is
normal, therefore, for man absolutely to revere the holy
and exalted name of God. Corrupt and degraded as
humanity now is, there are few men in whom signs of
this original need and impulse of their nature are not
discoverable. Now all right personal relationship begins at this
point. This is its abiding root or foundation. It may
be taken up into the higher stages, but it must be also
preserved in them ; for it is in a sense their immanent
law. Like the foundations of a temple, it may be out
of sight ; but it none the less sustains the whole edifice,
which without it must speedily fall to pieces.
Were man's nature true, it would go out in reverence
as surely as the magnetic needle turns to the north.
For what more does this say than that when he
recognises the greatness, and glory, and majesty, and
holiness of God, his heart will at once respond,
" Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive
the glory, and the honour, and the power " ? l
Equally is it a need and an impulse of man to trust
— to trust implicitly — to trust utterly. There must
be some form or degree of respect where we are to
repose trust ; and we can scarcely help trusting where
we see reason for respect. Trust, I mean, of its kind,
answering to respect of its kind. If there is physical
1 Rev. iv. n.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 127
power that commands respect, I may trust for that,
though other grounds for respect may be absent ; and
therefore it may be impossible to trust in other
directions. Or I may respect a man's knowledge,
and therefore trust it, without being able to respect or
trust his strength or artistic skill. At the same time,
one ground of respect needs, as a rule, to be present
if we are to repose confidence even for other qualities,
and that is moral integrity. A man may have the
strength of a giant, the skill of a Bezaleel, the know
ledge of a century ; but if his moral integrity is
doubtful, it may interpose an impassable gulf between
the respect these qualities necessarily awaken and
the trust by which that respect ought to be immedi
ately followed, or which, rather, it should contempo
raneously evoke. I n proportion as absolute reverence
is seen to be deserved, — reverence without a break,—
in that proportion can we absolutely trust ; nay, as in
the case of reverence, we need to do so, we are
sensible of the impulse to do so. Trustfulness —
implicit, unquestioning trustfulness — is according to
man's true idea. Trust is the recognition of our
dependence, whilst it is also in one and the same act
the assertion and renunciation of independence. The
former, in so far as it is a free act ; the latter, in so
far as dependence is the antithesis to independence.
Trust towards God is rooted in our creaturehood ;
trust towards man and other creatures, in the fact that
each of us is the complement of the other, and only
partially realizes the full idea of creation. Dependence
on God is a necessity of our nature, which we share
with all other creatures of every kind and grade ;

128 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
trust is a matter of free control, at all events, within
certain limits as to degree and direction, which, in the
present state of man, are not easy to determine.
Absolute trustlessness is impossible to dependent
beings. A man utterly trustless would be a monster,
and must perish. But we may refuse trust to this
and the other being : we can refuse it even to Him
who concentrates in Himself all the attributes which
commend themselves to us as worthy of trust. Yet,
without question, our normal relation to Him is
one of trust, of confidence that knows no shadow of
doubt, that has never encountered, never dreamed of
a limit.1 Love, however, is the crown or ripe blossom of
personal relations, and when perfect, presupposes
perfect reverence, perfect trust. In loving, we give
ourselves ; but how could we give ourselves to one
whom we do not respect, do not trust ; still less
absolutely give ourselves unless we absolutely rever
ence, absolutely trust ? There may be, there is, a sort
of natural affection, even where there is little respect,
and less trust ; but natural affection is not the same
thing as love. It may be transfigured into love ; and
where love is, as it were, grafted on to such natural
affection, or has it for one of its roots, there it has the
greatest intensity and depth. But true love cannot
live in the absence of respect or reverence and trust.
1 Schleiermacher would have been nearer the truth had he said that
religion is rooted in absolute dependence, instead of defining it as the
sense of absolute dependence. If we are absolutely dependent, then
when man comes to himself he will have the sense or feeling of it ; but
that he cannot help. Whereas religion surely as a thing for which we
are responsible — for whose lack we are blamed — must be under our free
control.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 1 29
Who would willingly commit anything of value to
one who lacked these qualities ? How, then, can it
be possible to give ourselves ? Such giving would
issue in that death of the self from which there is no
resurrection : it would be a giving which would put
an end to the possibility of giving, and therefore be
the very depth of immorality. But, indeed, such
giving, though it may seem to be and wear the name
of self-giving, has in it a hidden worm of selfishness,
either negative or positive, in the form either of
reluctance to encounter inconvenience, or of some
desire of advantage. It is not genuine love ; for
genuine love is full of that divine wisdom which is
inherent in simplicity of purpose ; and aiming, as it
does, solely and purely at the highest good of him to
whom it gives itself, it cannot consent either to bear
or do anything that would be mischievous. Whether,
therefore, it withhold or bestow, its own nature is
enriched. It is not, indeed, a more real, but still a profounder
necessity of man's nature to love than it is to render
reverence and to exercise trust. Love is at once a
confession of need and an assertion that we have
something to give ; and so the practical solution of
one of the greatest paradoxes. Man needs, moreover,
to love utterly — to love without any reserve. Nay,
indeed, wherever love exists truly, this is its demand.
A love that could consciously impose a limit on itself
would by the very act destroy itself. But such
absolute love can only be centred on one who is
absolutely worthy of it — on God. So that love —
complete, perfect love to God — is in the fullest sense

130 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
normal to man. It is for this relation, indeed, God
created him. God yearned, so to speak, for the love
of those who were not Himself; and so He brought
beings into existence who should be in a sense
independent of Him, and yet as to every fibre of their
nature, every aspect of their constitution, need Him
and His love, and be able to give Him their love,
that is, themselves.
Man belongs, of course, to God by his very nature ;
he is literally nothing without God ; yet God's purpose
did not end with this natural belonging. Not for that
alone did He create him. Indeed, constituted as man
is with the power to control himself and his relations,
he cannot be said to belong really to God till he has
made the natural relation a matter of free conscious
ratification, until he has made the natural belonging a
freely chosen belonging. And this is what God looks
for ; this constitutes the fully normal relation. In a
sense, God is not satisfied till man has enriched Him
by self-bestowal, and thus transformed God from a
mere bestower into a receiver, from a mere creditor
into a debtor. So wonderful is the significance of the
capacity to love.
Neither God nor man can be satisfied till reverence
and trust are taken up and transformed into love.
Reverence that does not issue in love becomes unreal ;
trust alone does scant justice to man's highest capa
bility and dignity ; whereas love raises both reverence
and trust to their highest potence.
III. Normal or de jure corporate relations of man
to God. — Humanity in its corporate or organic capacity
or aspect has not a specific consciousness, still less

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 131
self-consciousness.1 Herein it differs from the organ
isms by which it is constituted. An individual man
is conscious as a whole ; the elements, whether organic
or inorganic, by which he is constituted are unconscious.
It would seem, therefore, as though corporate humanity
must be incapable of any relations approaching to
those of a personal kind, — relations for which it can
be held responsible, which are under its own control,
and which may be designated normal or abnormal ;
that any relations it holds must be natural, inevitable.
Were this the case, it would be as needless, or indeed
absurd, to institute the present inquiry, as to inquire
into the relations which might be held by the con
stituent factors of the self-controlled individual, which,
as was stated, are impersonal. Are not the only
relations into which humanity can enter those of the
individuals who constitute it ? What we term the
corporate relations, are they anything more than the
sum-total of the individual relations ? All the indi
viduals of a race might be related, each in its own
way, each in the best possible way ; and yet there
might be no properly corporate or organic relation, —
no relation, that is, rooted in, determined by, and ex
pressive of the organic unity, — of the fact that humanity
is a great organism constituted by organisms. Nay
more, they might perform conjointly the acts in which
they severally express their relation to God, and yet
there might be no corporate act expressive of a cor
porate relation.
Yet men have always had a dim feeling that their
conjoint manifestation of what stirred them as indi-
/ l See Note VI. in Appendix.

132 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
viduals was, or might and should be, something more
than appeared on the surface ; they have reached out
towards something grander — something which, as it
seems to me, may be best described as a corporate
relation or activity. Especially has this been the case
in connection with worship. Nowhere have they
been content, save when overmastered by an unhealthy
individualism, or possibly at the lowest stage of
degradation, with lonely adoration and prayer ; on the
contrary, they have felt that their individual worship
needed for its correlate a corporate worship — neither
supplanting the other, rather each complementing
the other. They have not, it is true, said this to
themselves ; but men often do without previous
reflection, and as it were instinctively, things which
reveal to themselves aspects of their nature and con
stitution that otherwise would altogether have escaped
their notice. By unconscious action we awaken
conscious attention to ourselves. The Israelites, how
ever, did say to each other in sacred song what all
feel should be said by every man to his fellow-man,
" O come, let us sing unto the Lc^rd ; let us make a
joyful noise unto the Rock of our salvation. O come
let us worship, and bow down ; for He is our God ; and
we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of
His hand." 1 "I was glad when they said unto me,
Let us go into the house of the Lord." 2 All this may,
indeed, have been very imperfect, even at its best :
that is true ; yet glimpses were and are thus sometimes
got of a community of sentiment, spirit, life, action,
which seems to hover on the very verge of specific
1 Ps. xcv. 2 Ps. cxxii.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 1 33
consciousness. Men experience conjointly what has
an analogy to one's feeling when one waits for a word
to embody some thought or emotion which is stirring
below consciousness.
The experiences here referred to are not confined
to religious occasions. At other times, under other
circumstances, as, for example, in great crises of a
nation's life, men are impelled by a common im
pulse, stirred by a common sentiment, swayed by a
common purpose, which carries them out beyond
themselves. Each individual, whilst apparently con
tributing only his individual share to the joint move
ment, finds that he is something more and other than
his individual self. He says afterwards of himself, " I
was completely carried away ; I did not know myself;
I was another being ; and now I am my former self."
Each is lifted up and swept onwards by a power not
himself, yet most fully akin to himself. For the
moment his little individuality is as it were blended
with, though not swallowed up or extinguished, nay,
rather elevated, expanded, quickened by, the whole
body to which he belongs. Just as there is always
more belonging to the individual than he himself is
fully aware of, and this more may flash up sometimes
to his surprise, or cause him to do or say what
he never dreamt of doing or saying ; so is there a
depth below that depth — the depth where the currents
of the lives of the individuals who constitute the race
cross and blend ; and at special times, out of this
deeper depth — it is not the deepest of all — arise the
phenomena to which I am now alluding.
Perhaps at some future period, when sin has ceased

134 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
to wield its darkening and dividing influence over
men, there may be realized a ¦7repix«>pn<™, a circumin-
cessio, an in-each-otherness of individual and individual,
such as shall express itself, not only in feeling,— each
feeling what all feel, — but even in some sort of aware
ness of the oneness which will coexist or alternate
with the properly individual consciousness. The
mutual exclusiveness which is now a characteristic of
individuality is not after all so essential thereto as many
imagine : — it is rather a defect of our present condition.
So far, however, as we can at present see, corporate
relations can only be upheld through a representa
tive or representatives, whose action the body of
individuals represented consciously and freely makes
or adopts as its own. The principle has found recog
nition among men in the most varied forms and
circumstances. The two elements have gone together
— representative action ; free ratification of the action
of the representative by those represented. The
modes of effecting the ratification have varied ; the
thing has been abiding.
(I.) Action through representatives. In all ages and
under the greatest variety of circumstances men have
acted through representatives ; been regarded as re
sponsible for what their representatives said and did,
promised or refused ; nay more, those who were
represented have been conceived and treated as the
body of which the representatives were the veritable
head and organ. Even as in the individual the body
executes what the head plans, prospers or suffers by
what it does, and is bound by that to which the head
binds it ; so is it in societies and nations.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 1 35
Alike in a formal and informal way has this principle
found recognition. What monarchs and great leaders
say or do commits the peoples at whose head they
stand. What again are ambassadors, plenipotentiaries,
and the like, but representatives through whom bodies
of men hold corporate relations with each other, by
whose words and acts, yea, even by whose feelings and
dispositions, they judge each other ? Often, indeed,
— perhaps as often as not, — the representatives may
misrepresent ; they cannot so rise above their own
individual notions and prejudices as to let the great
mass for which they stand speak through them as
their organ. Yet there is great truth also in what
is remarked by one who more than most men
deserves to be heard on this subject : 2 —
" The statesman must resolve to lay aside in his
public function a part of his individuality, and very
commonly, in all matters that are not of conscience,
must act more as impelled than as impelling, more
upon the convictions of others than his own. Still, the
acts so done are acts which may be fraught with
most serious, even with highly moral results. At
least they are acts which ought to be, like all others,
commended to God. Yet these are acts done, so to
speak, without an agent, unless the nation, the moral
person of the State, be that agent. They are not the
acts of the statesman in any sense, except that he is
their instrument. ... He will shift the responsibility
for them from himself in proportion as they are less
the genuine offspring of his individual judgment ; he
will feel, and with a degree of justice, that morally,
1 W. E. Gladstone, Church and State, i. p. 92.

136 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
though not constitutionally, it rather lies elsewhere.
But what is its true and proper seat ? The persons
whose will he is anticipating are busy each with his
farm and his merchandise, with personal interests or
duties. This responsibility, however, which has an
aspect so indefinite, while we look only at individual
men, has, in fact, a legitimate subject, which can
consistently and adequately refer all these acts to the
Almighty Ruler. There are qualities as a combination
which arise out of the union of its parts, and are not
to be found in those parts when they have been
separately and singly examined. In the government
and laws of a country, we find not a mere aggregation
of individual acts, but a composite agency, the general
result yielded by a multitude of efforts, each of which
in part modifies, in part is abolished amid the rest.
This composite agency represents the personality of
the nation; and, as a great distinct moral reality,
demands a worship of its own, namely, the worship
of the State represented in its living and governing
members, and therefore a public and joint worship." x
"A man will feel that when he becomes a member
of the governing body, a portion of the national energies
are impersonated in him, and take effect in his
decisions. . . . Acts are public, and they should be
sanctified not only by the private personal prayers
and piety of the men filling public situations, but also
by their public observances as composing a public
body, and actuating and impelling the sovereign power.
In the collective character, in which they constitute
1 L.c. p. 128. Compare also Burke's Thoughts on the French Revolu
tion, p. 185.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 137
the organ of the nation and wield its force, they are
bound to offer collective prayer and praise." It has
been well said also that "George III. and Lord
North have been made scapegoats for sins which
were not exclusively their own. They were only the
organs and representatives of all the lurking ignorance
and arbitrary passions of the community." 1
It has been often remarked, too, that in certain
eminent men the whole spirit of an age is embodied
and finds expression. Dante, for example, focussed
the mind of his nation ; Shakespeare, the spirit of the
Elizabethan era in England ; Milton, the Puritan
mind, with its strengths and weaknesses, with its
theology and religion ! But they could not be said
to have had a kind of double consciousness. The
generic which lived and stirred in them was, strictly
speaking, subconscious. Yet, at the same time, their
more or less conscious ambition was to feel and think,
not merely individual, but collective thoughts and
feelings. In so far they bore unconscious testimony
to the truth I am urging. Indeed, the same may be
said in its measure of every writer, or speaker, or
artist. The secret desire of his heart is to be at
once individual and generic, both in one ; his deepest,
though it may well be an unconscious ambition, is to
gather up in himself and be the mouthpiece of the
thinking and feeling of, at any rate, his circle; and
the wider the circle, the greater satisfaction does he
experience. Hitherto, indeed, representatives have acted solely
1 John Morley's Life of Burke, p. 72. A remark applicable to the
present time. Cf. T. Carlyle on Dante, Shakespeare in Heroes, etc.

I38 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
on behalf of communities within nations, or on behalf
of tribes and nations : mankind, as a whole, has
never, at all events since it attained vaster dimen
sions, acted in any respect in its corporate capacity.
No man has yet arisen who can be said to have
become the voice even of a single aspect of its
corporate life. But more and more outreachings
after something of the kind are manifesting them
selves. Alexander the Great in his day; some of
the emperors of Rome ; other great conquerors ;
Napoleon, — all were possibly more or less stirred
by the idea. Corporate action on the part of the
great body the " Leviathan " will not in the fullest
sense be possible till it is full grown ; but even
during its development such action towards God is
necessary — necessary, because without it the healthy
development of humanity is not possible.
To this end, however, an adequate representative
would be needed, one in whom, as it were, all
the separate lines of human thought, purpose,
affection, action should converge ; who knew and
could express for every man not only what he him
self could express, but also that in him which he
could himself not express ; could set forth what was
generic and what was individual in every man ; who
should be in contact with every man ; who should
be every man's real self yet more ; whose action on
behalf of men could be known by them ; whose
relation they could make their own.
(II.) What is the nature of the relations that would
normally have existed between God and corporate
humanity ? and that would have been mediated or

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 1 39
upheld by means of a representative ; and been
ratified by those who were represented.
The function of the representative would have
been, as has been said, to combine, as in a focus,
what is otherwise broken up and scattered ; to provide
it fit and adequate expression ; to make known also
to the individual members the life of the whole ; and
thus to render it possible for them at once to ratify
and share it.
Every individual man in a normal state would
cherish in his own way and degree the affections
and prosecute the activities in relation to God which
are the divine due — each, however, only in his own
way and degree ; and each in a different way and
degree from every other. The reverence, trust,
love of one man towards God is never identical
either in quality or quantity with that of another
man. Yet an ideal of completeness hovers before
all higher minds, i.e. an ideal of perfect worship and
service. But such a perfect, all-sided relation must
be impossible to an individual member of a great
organization merely as an individual. Each may be
true and perfect so far as he goes, even as an eye
may be perfect, yet not be able to supply the place of
the ear ; yet the whole may not be set forth by what
he says and does. Implicitly the aim of all true
representation is to focus every variety of need,
thought, wish, purpose, and so forth. Hence the
custom of deputing several men to represent larger
bodies and interests.
Such an organ and representative as was described
will realize the idea of the organism to which he

140 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
belongs, the idea of its life — the idea which dwells
in, controls, and is its goal ; the idea of which each
sees an angle, and of which each is more or less
realizing a part. He thus helps each to understand
and duly appreciate the double fact, that on the one
hand he really holds a necessary place in the whole ;
whilst, on the other hand, his place is but one among
a myriad places, each of which also has its holder.
This not only heightens the individual's activity,
but links it consciously on to that of the rest of the
members, and renders possible a veritable organic
corporate relation.
Whatever individuals do in relation to God, the
whole body thus does, of course through its organs :
be the form what it may in which the individual life
finds expression. All the reverence, trust, and love
which filled and swayed the individual members
would concentrate itself in and flow through the
representative. In him the ideal devotion of the
race would find embodiment. As each member con
templated him, he would discover not only that the
deepest and truest in himself was there to be found
in all purity and fulness, but that it had a full-orbed
glory and perfectness due to the fact that in it met
and blended all that was deepest and truest in each
and all.
The feelings described would have found glad and
glorious expression in public worship. Perhaps each
nation would then have had its central national
temple ; and if so, the race might also have had
its great human temple, where worship of the
grandest and most impressive kind would have

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 141
been constantly celebrated. All the inward love of
the race would there have poured itself forth in
sacred song, set to sublimest music, and manifested
itself in picture, procession, and every other sensuous
embodiment of the spiritual life, alike beautiful and
august. One may well say, " Eye hath not seen, nor
ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man,"
the vastness, magnificence, and beauty of the edifice
wherein the human race would have met by its
representatives ; and the equal impressiveness and
significance of the worship which would there have
been paid to the King of kings and Lord of lords.
As regards the point under consideration, Israel
and its history are typical. This, indeed, might be
expected, if, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the
Jewish nation was meant to be the beginning of the
true kingdom of God ; for the child is father of the
man. Not merely individual Jews held relations to
God, but the nation as a whole ; and the nation as a
whole was related through men who acted as its
organs and representatives, and for whose acts on
its behalf it made itself responsible.
Repeatedly did men arise in its midst who seem to
have been possessed with the feeling, even if it did
not distinctly formulate itself to them, that they were
called to act for the nation in relation to God ; that
they stood, as it were, between it and God.
Such was Moses. How emphatically is this
brought out when the Israelites say to him at Sinai,
" Now, therefore, why should we die ? For this
great fire will consume us ; if we hear the voice of
the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. Go

142 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall
speak unto thee, and we will hear it, and will do it." !
Samuel, again, took up this position when he said,
" Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for
you unto the Lord ; "2 and when the children of Israel
said unto him, " Cease not to cry unto the Lord our
God for us."
But in no one did the most characteristic elements
of the Jewish nation find such full expression as in
David, their beloved hero ; he, too, was more com
pletely the organ and medium of the nation's relation
to God than any other man. Alike in obedience
and disobedience, in wisdom and folly, in the passion-
ateness of his sin and in the truth and intensity of
his religious affections, he was the true representative
of his people, voicing forth what was deepest and
best in them. His exhortations and aspirations set
forth in typical form and degree what individuals
and communities alike ought to feel towards God.
"Stand in awe of Him, all ye seed of Israel."3 "O
fear the Lord, ye His saints."4 " Blessed are they
that put their trust in Him."5 "The Lord is my
strength and my shield ; my heart hath trusted in
Him, and I am helped."6 "O love the Lord,
all ye His saints."7 "I love Thee, O Lord my
strength." 8
The idea of a corporate relationship between
Israel and Jehovah their King was further distinctly
embodied in the law that "three times a year all
1 Deut. v. 26 ff. 2 1 Sam. vii. 5, 8. a Ps. xxii. 23.
4 Ps. xxxiv. 9. 5 Ps. ii. 12. 6 Ps. xxviii. 7.
7 Ps. xxxi. 23. 8 Ps. xviii. 1. See also Note VIII. in Appendix.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 143
the males should appear before the Lord God, the
God of Israel," x for common worship ; a law which,
when the people grew in numbers, was fulfilled by
means of representatives. On other special occasions
too, indeed, whenever the nation as a nation was
deeply stirred, and its mind and will had to be
expressed in gratitude or penitence, in adoration or
humiliation, the people met in great assemblies,
constituted, doubtless, by deputed members. One of
the purposes of the law referred to unquestionably was
to promote the unification of the tribes, whose centri
fugal tendencies exposed the nation to the constant
danger of disintegration ; but it was also designed to
express the fact that even as a nation they owed
allegiance and reverence to their great King.
Special provision was made, too, for preserving the
continuity of the relation of the Israelites to God in
their national corporate capacity by the institution
of the office of high priest with its distinctive
functions. He was termed " the priest who is
higher than his brethren, upon whose head the
anointing oil was poured."2 He concentrated in
his person the duties connected with mediatorship,
which were distributed among the other priests and
Levites. Special rites were observed at his consecra
tion ; garments of special glory, beauty, and sanctity
were made for him ; 3 he was to wear a breastplate
of judgment, the work of cunning workmen,4 upon
his heart ; there were to be engraved thereon the
names of the children of Israel ; 6 and he was to " bear
1 Ex. xxxiv. 23 ; Deut. xvi. 16 ; Luke ii. 41. 2 Lev. xxi. 10.
3 Ex. xxviii. 2, 3 ff. 4 Ex. xxviii. 15. * Ex. xxviii. 29 ff.

144 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart
before the Lord continually."1 Nay more, he was
to wear a mitre on whose forefront was a plate of
pure gold, with the words engraved thereon, Holy to
the Lord, in sign of his bearing the iniquity of the
holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow
in all their holy gifts ; and it shall be always upon
his forehead, that they may be accepted of the Lord.2
In sign of his being, as it were, equal to the entire
people,3 it was ordained that if the anointed priest
should sin so as to bring guilt on the people, he was
to offer for his sin the same sacrifice as was offered for
the whole congregation when it had sinned, namely,
a young bullock.4 When he sinned, the whole people
sinned ; when he was well-pleasing to Jehovah, the
whole people was well-pleasing.5 The representative
character of the high priest was brought out with
special clearness on the great day of atonement, when
he had to lay both his hands upon the head of the
live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of
the children of Israel and all their transgressions,
even all their sins.6
The Israelites rendered corporate worship to
Jehovah through their representatives, especially on
great national occasions. How truly did David
carry out this idea, alike in his own action and in
calling on the people for co-operation, when he deter
mined on fetching in the ark of God ! " David said
unto all the assembly of Israel, If it seem good unto
1 Ex. xxviii. 30. 2 Ex. xxviii. 36 ff.
3 ./Equiparatur universo Israeli, says Aben Ezra on this passage. See
Oehler in Herzog's Real-Encycl. vol. vi. 199.
4 Lev. iv. 3, 13 ff. 5 See Lev. iv. 3 ; Zech. iii. c Lev. xvi. 21.

RELATIONS OF MAN TO GOD. 145
you, and if it be of the Lord our God, let us send
abroad everywhere unto our brethren, that are left in
all the land of Israel : and let us bring again the ark
of God to us."1 "And David assembled all Israel
at Jerusalem to bring up the ark of God unto its
place which he had prepared for it ; " and the priests
were called upon "to sanctify themselves for the
purpose. And David clothed himself, and all the
Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, with robes
of fine linen. And all Israel brought up the ark
of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with
sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with
cymbals, sounding aloud with psalteries and harps." 2
So, too, when Solomon consecrated the temple he
had built, everything was done to embody the idea
that the worship was the worship of the whole nation.
" He held the feast," we read, " seven days, and all
Israel with him, a very great congregation."3 Sacrifices,
music, processions, robes — all that could be done to
heighten the splendour of the ceremonial was done ;
and " the people went away unto their tents, joyful
and glad at heart for the goodness that the Lord had
shown unto David, and to Solomon, and to Israel His
people." 4
When David made preparations for a " house that
was to be builded to the Lord exceeding magnificent
of fame and of glory throughout all countries ; " 6 and
when Solomon set about building a house which
1 1 Chron. xiii. 2, 3.
2 1 Chron. xv. ; comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 20 ff. ; 2 Chron. v. ; Josh. xxiv.
24 ; Deut. v. 22-33.
3 2 Chron. vii. 8. * 2 Chron. vii. 10 ; cf. also 2 Chron. xxxiv.
6 1 Chron. xxii. 5. K

146 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
should be great, because of the supreme greatness of
the God to whom it was to be dedicated, which should
in some measure reflect the glory of Him whom the
heaven and the heaven of heavens could not contain,1
they were the organs in part of the national mind and
will, but certainly of the national idea. Occasionally,
too, the thought of a still vaster temple, of still vaster
significance and representative of a still vaster unity,
rose on the horizon of the higher prophetic minds.
Indeed, Solomon seems to become for a moment the
representative of humanity, whilst he is actually only
dedicating the national temple ; for in the act of pray
ing for his own people and their needs, his thoughts
suddenly take a wider range as he exclaims, " that all
the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord, He
is God: there is none else." 2 In Isaiah we read, "As
the new heavens and the new earth which I will make
shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your
seed and your name remain. And it shall come to
pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one
Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
before me, saith the Lord." 3 " The desirable things
of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with
glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The latter glory of
this house shall be greater than the former;"4 as
indeed it must needs be if it were to be " the house
of prayer for all nations." 6
1 2 Chron. ii. 5 ff. 2 1 Kings viii. 60.
3 Isa. Ixvi. 22. 4 Hagg. ii. 7-9.
5 Isa. lvi. 7 ; cf. Zech. vi. 12, viii. 22 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 26 ff. See Note IX.
in Appendix.

CHAPTER IV.
HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS.
The social and political organization whose life dur
ing its beginnings, its culmination, its disintegration,
and its final destruction is reflected, or embodied, or
recorded in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, was
called into existence, protected, and sustained by God
for the purpose of making His kingdom de facto what
it was de jure. Institutions and laws were given to
the Jews, and God entered into special personal rela
tions to them, in order that, on the one hand, they
might themselves be His loyal subjects, and, on the
other hand, that they might be His representatives,
agents, missionaries to the rest of the world. Their
institutions and laws, indeed their constitution as a
whole, whilst ordered to meet their own needs, and
undergoing constant changes according to the exigen
cies of their individual, social, and national life, were
intended to undergo, as the ages ran on, a process
of evolution fitting them to become the chief and
determining feature of the framework of the life of all
the peoples of the earth.1
It must not, of course, be forgotten that nothing in
the constitution referred to was settled on purely ideal
1 Isa. ii.

148 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
principles. From the beginning to the end it was
essentially an adaptation of the ideal to those who were
actually imperfect and sinful. Men, Israelites, were
taken as they were ; and institutions and laws were
given best fitted to train them into true loyalty to their
invisible King. Things were accordingly permitted
and prescribed at one stage of their development
which at another might be left in abeyance or even pro
hibited. The divine educator, lawgiver, Saviour, was
no doctrinaire, no theorizer, no adherent of finalities.
It is from this point of view that we must try to
ascertain what may be learnt from the Old Testa
ment touching the divine method of establishing the
kingdom of God.
I. The institutions and laws and personal interven
tions referred to had three great objects in view,
— these three objects, however, being but the
constitutive factors of the one great object, the estab
lishment of the kingdom. They are, first, the
establishment and maintenance of right relations
between the invisible King and His subjects; secondly,
the establishment and maintenance of right relations
between the subjects, according to the several positions
and functions assigned to them in the organization by
its divine Head ; and thirdly, the establishment and
maintenance of normal relations between the subjects
and their dwelling-place — the territory which they
held in fief from their great Lord. These are at all
events the all-dominating ends which God had in view.
II. Owing to the fact that God had constituted or
rather revealed and proved Himself to be the real
active ruler of the nation, the distinction now so

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 49
frequently drawn between the religious and secular
had no existence for the Jews : — it could have none.
Inasmuch as all their laws and institutions — their
entire constitution — were mediately or immediately,
directly or indirectly of God's appointment or sanction,
and were recognised as such, disobedience to any law,
violation of any obligation, was sin against Jehovah ;
fulfilment thereof was obedience : everything, there
fore, was either religious or irreligious. For the Jew,
therefore, there were no distinctions of kind between
sins. Indeed, there has never been an error so
fruitful of mischief, an error so clearly traceable to the
Spirit of all untruth, as the notion embodied in the
distinction frequently drawn between secular and
religious. In God's world everything is related to
God, or should be ; it is therefore, or should be,
religious : if it is not so, the world is not a part of
God's kingdom. " Whatsoever ye do, whether ye
eat or drink, do all to the glory of God." Whatso
ever then is not thus done is a sin.
This did not mean, however, that all acts were of
equal value — all equally good and right, if good and
right ; or equally sinful, if sinful. There were differ
ences of degree, especially between sins, according to
the persons offending, according to the circumstances
of the offence, and according to the persons offended.
Peculiar stress was laid on the relation of sins to
God : particularly on certain sins above others — those
naturally which had a more direct bearing on Him,
either as involving a violation of His royal rights or
as being the transgression of special commands.
This was grounded, too, in the supreme importance

150 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
attached to the personal relations between God and
His subjects. These relations were consistently thus
treated because of their fundamental character. Ac
cording to the very constitution of the world, a
constitution which God Himself could not change
without first changing the world, all other relations
are necessarily conditioned by the relation between the
ruler and the ruled. This need not be the case in
earthly kingdoms. Whether subjects stand in this or
the other personal relation to the monarch, may have
very little to do with their relations to each other or
with their relations to their environment : but it is not
so in God's kingdom ; it is not so even in a human
family. His subjects can hold truly harmonious rela
tions to each other and to their environment on one
condition alone — that they are inwardly and outwardly
loyal to Him, that their relation to Him is normal.
On this condition alone can they enjoy, not only
spiritual, but even material prosperity.
III. Provision was accordingly made for impressing
this great principle on the minds of the Israelites by
the institution of sacrifices — or rather by their specific
regulation. Like all other branches of the human
family, they were familiar with the practice of sacri
ficing. It existed, doubtless, in Ur of the Chaldees,
whence Abraham was called to go forth with his
family ; it existed among the tribes of Canaan, in
whose midst he and his family took up their abode ;
it existed in Egypt, whither the tribe he had founded
went to live. So that, apart altogether from any real
or supposed divine command, we may be pretty sure
that they would have formed no exception to the

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 151
universal custom. We are justified, too, in assuming
that this was the case by the words which Moses
and Aaron spake to Pharaoh : " Thus saith Jehovah,
the God of Israel, Let my people go that they may
hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. . . . The
God of the Hebrews hath met with us ; let us go, we
pray thee, three days' journey into the wilderness and
sacrifice unto the Lord our God ; lest He fall upon us
with pestilence or with the sword."1 From another
passage, however, — " And Pharaoh called for Moses
and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God
in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to
do ; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the
Egyptians to the Lord our God : lo, shall we sacrifice
the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes,
and will they not stone us ? We will go three days'
journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord
our God as He shall command us," 2 — some writers
have drawn the conclusion that the Israelites offered
no sacrifices. But so sweeping an inference is un
warranted ; for, first, the reference may be, not to
bloody sacrifices in general, but merely to one species,
e.g. the bullock, one of the gods of the Egyptians ;
secondly, even if bloody sacrifices were meant, other
offerings may have been presented ; and thirdly,
danger may have been apprehended, not because
of the bare fact of sacrifice, but because of its public,
special corporate character.
We altogether lack, however, detailed information
either as to the nature of the offerings presented or
the ritual observed.
1 Ex. v. 1, 3. 2 Ex. viii. 23-28.

152 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Neither the matter nor the manner of the sacrificial
legislation compels us to assume that Moses, under
the guidance of Jehovah, began de novo. It is sheer
misunderstanding of God's method, and false super-
naturalism, to shrink from conceding that laws,
customs, ceremonies, sacrifices, rites, and so forth,
with which the Israelites were more or less familiar
through their intercourse with other nations and
tribes, and which were adapted to their circum
stances, or which they could readily understand and
assimilate, might have been incorporated with the
code drawn up by Moses and others. As long as
there was nothing in any of these things which
absolutely prevented its becoming the vehicle of a
divine idea and a true life, it was acceptable. The
only questions to be asked were — Would it prove a
temptation, or a snare, or hindrance, though essen
tially harmless ? Or was it essentially and exclusively
adapted to a heathen system ?
IV. In fact, a dim and vague apprehension of the
truth which was vividly and forcibly impressed on
the Israelitish mind, lay at the back of the entire
sacrificial system of the heathen world. Men have
felt that somehow or other their supreme concern
was to stand well with God. They were far enough,
indeed, from discerning the full significance of the
fact thus recognised. Very few dreamed of the close
relation that existed between their religion and the
rest of their life ; between rectifying the relation to
God and rectifying all other relations : still less did
they seek to bridge over the apparent distance
between the two. Even down to our own time,

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 53
even at the present moment, a right relation to God
is not regarded as the essential condition of the
Tightness of other relations. The former may be held
to be of supreme importance ; but it is rather because
of the determining influence it is believed to have
on the never-ending existence awaiting men beyond
death, than because of the close, vital, organic con
nection between it and every other domain of life.
The distinction between the religious and the so-
called secular — if distinction there be — lies here, that
the character of the religious life determines that of
the secular life. They are related at the deepest as
cause and effect. Disorder in religion is the root of
disorder elsewhere ; to establish order elsewhere is
hopeless till order is established in religion — and that
because God cannot be to us and to our created
environment what it is necessary He should be if
we and that environment are to be in a normal state,
and normally related, so long as we, who have self-
control, are wrongly related to Him. It is not merely
the influence exercised by. our own wrong state on
our environment ; no, it is that our wrong relation to
God checks or stops the influx of those energies and
influences from Him on which depend the well-being
of the cosmos. A hint of this is given us in the New
Testament, when it is said of Christ, "He could do
no mighty works there because of their unbelief."
V. A few words on sacrifices in general.1 The
1 The following is a list of some of the principal works which have
been consulted : — Oehler's Theology of the Old Testament, and the same
writer's articles in Herzog's Realencyclopadie, ist ed. ; Kurtz, Sacrificial
Worship of the Old Testament; Alfred Cave, Sacrifice; Bahr, Symbolik
des Mosaischen Cultus, 2 vols. ; Smith's Dictionaries; Briggs' Messianic

154 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
most general term for offering would seem to be
corban = presentation oblation, for which other words
are also used, as, for example, Matnoth and Kadesh.1
Of the Corbanim, there were three great classes :
first, those offered to God for the erection, furnish
ing, and maintenance of His sanctuary, such as, for
example, those mentioned in Numbers : "It came to
pass on the day that Moses had made an end of
setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed and
sanctified it, and all the furniture thereof, and the
altar and all the vessels thereof, and had anointed
them and sanctified them, that the princes of Israel
brought their oblations {corbanim) before the Lord,
six covered waggons and twelve oxen, a waggon for
every two of the princes, and for each one an ox ;
and they presented them before the tabernacle." 2
" And we have brought the Lord's oblation [corban),
what every man hath gotten [i.e. his share of the
prey taken from the Midianites), of jewels of gold,
ankle chains and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings, and
armlets, to make atonement (Kapper) for our souls
before the Lord." 3
Prophecy; Keil's Archceology of the Old Testament; Outram, De
Sacrificiis, one of the best works on the subject yet ; Orelli, Messianic
Prophecy; see also Dr. Alexander's judicious discussion in his Biblical
Theology, so admirably edited by the Rev. James Ross.
1 See Ex. xxviii. 38 ; cf. Mark vii. 11. With this agrees the view
taken by Abarbanel (Exor. Comm. in Lev. c. i.) : " Omne Zebach est
Corban ; quoad adolebatur in ara. Verum est Corban quoad non est
Zebach, e.g. oblatio volucris, quoniam in ea non est jugulatio : et
Mincha etiam vocatur corban." Quoted in Essay on the Nature,
Design, and Origin of Sacrifices (1748), p. 18.
2 Num. vii. 1-3, and whole chapter.
3 Num. xxxi. 50. " In Ex. xxx. 12-15, the expression, Money of atone
ments, is used. It was to be employed for the service of the tabernacle
of the congregation, and was for a memorial to the Lord to make an

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 55
In this class may also be included things which
became Corban in consequence of vows.1 In a word,
they were dedication gifts. Modern equivalents
might be church buildings, pulpits, windows, com
munion utensils, Bibles, altar cloths, or any other
part of the furniture of the sanctuary ; or the money
necessary for their purchase.
Secondly, offerings for the maintenance of the
priests and Levites, as being the immediate servants
or, so to speak, officials of Jehovah, and consisting of
first-fruits, tithes, and the male first-born of man and
beast. These offerings, as well as those mentioned
under the preceding head, were a sort of tribute or
tax paid to God as the King of the Israelites and the
Lord of the land — the Feudal Superior.2
Lastly, there were the corbanim for Jehovah
Himself, or the altar sacrifices proper, which were
generally consumed upon the altar. It is with these
last we have now specially to do.3
atonement for their souls. This offering is called by the LXX. thtpopa,
a tribute to the Lord ; and it is said, lg<?i«<r«<r0«/ mpi tuv ipv%av, as if it
had been an expiatory sacrifice, or there had been an effusion of blood.
The meaning of the law is, that when this tribute was paid the law was
observed, and the dominion of their God and King was recognised ;
whilst He on His part engaged that there should be no plague among
them (Ex. xxx. 12)." Essay, etc., p. 5 ff.
1 Mark vii. II.
2 See Num. xviii. 8-20. " The first ripe fruits of all that is in their
land shall be Thine. Everything that openeth the womb, both of man
and beast, shall be Thine — the first-born of man shalt Thou redeem."
(See note under the preceding head.) The firstling of an ox, sheep,
goat, however, were not to be redeemed, but dealt with like the third
class of corbanim. See next head.
3 The Romans also recognised three classes of offerings : — 1. Those
which were of a permanent character, donaria; among the Greeks,
«»atffj|M«T«. These were gifts presented to the gods, and deposited in
their shrines by individuals or whole nations, and consisted in statues,
pictures, tapestry, plate, etc. 2. Those which passed away at the

156 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Various kinds of sacrifices are mentioned in the
Pentateuch, and considerable diversity of opinion
prevails as to the best mode of classifying them, as
to their relation to each other, and as to the precise
significance of some of them. They are perhaps
best reduced to four classes, namely, burnt-offerings,
which are the most ancient ; peace - offerings, again
subdivided into thank - offerings, offerings in pur
suance of vows, and free-will, spontaneous offerings ;
trespass-offerings ; and .s-zVz-offerings.1 A fifth class
might, however, be made of meat- and drink-offerings,
on the ground that though generally presented along
with burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, they some
times formed a sacrifice by themselves. We read,
for example, " The man shall bring her (his wife's)
oblation for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley
meal ; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankin
cense thereon ; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy,
a meal - offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to
remembrance."2 Elsewhere, however, it is associated
with other sacrifices: "When ye be come into the
land of your habitation, which I give unto you, and
moment when they were offered, viz. sacrificia. These were divided
into two classes, bloodless and bloody — the latter generally designated
victimce or hostia. 3. Epulum — Epula, — feasts. During the Roman
games and at other times, a feast termed Epulum Jovii, the feast of
Jove, was spread in the Capitol. Many temples contained couches,
and occasionally the Senate in times of great depression or exultation
caused the statues of the deities to be laid on the couches in pairs, and
banquets to be served up to them. With this lectisternium, as it was
termed, was often combined a supplicatio. Public feasts given to the
people were sometimes regarded as offerings to the gods by the hosts.
4. The public games were regarded as religious rites in the earlier
ages, and are therefore also adduced under this general head. See
Ramsay, Roman Antiquities.
1 So Outram, De Sacrificiis Judaorum, p. 98. 2 Num. v. 15, 25 f.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 57
will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, a burnt-
offering, or a sacrifice, to accomplish a vow, or as a
freewill - offering, or in your set feasts, to make a
sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd, or of the
flock ; then shall he that offereth his oblation offer
unto the Lord a meal-offering, and wine for a drink-
offering."1 The quantities to be offered are then
prescribed, and differ in proportion to the importance
of the animal sacrificed.
Approached from the point of view of this dis
cussion, they might be distributed into two classes, —
those which were the outcome, expression, ratification,
of normal relations ; and those which were designed
to rectify wrong and establish right relations between
the subjects and their King.2
The several species of sacrifices, especially those
of propitiation, may be further divided into two
1 Num. xv. 1-16.
The meal-offering mentioned in Lev. v. 1 1 is merely a substitute for
the two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, that ought properly to have
been sacrificed. Again, in Lev. vi. 14 the meal-offering is presented
independently in connection with the consecration of the priests. As
Oehler says ("Opfer," in Herzog's Real-Encycl. x. 621), the first sheaf
brought on the first day of Passover, and the Pentecostal and Shew-
bread, may also be regarded as species of mincha or meat-offerings.
See Keil, Bibl. Archaeology (Eng. tr.), i. 256.
2 So Oehler, l.c. p. 634. Compare also the Apol. Con. Aug. : " Sunt
autem sacrificii species proximae duas, nee sunt plures. Quoddam est
sacrificium propitiatorium, i.e. opus satisfactorium pro culpa et poena,
h.e. reconcilians Deum seu placans iram Dei seu quod meretur aliis
remissionem peccatorum. Altera species est sacrificium tixapwrixoa,
quod non meretur remissionem aut reconciliationem, sed fit a reconcili-
atis ut pro accepta remissione peccatorum et pro aliis beneficiis acceptis
gratias agimus vel gratiam referamus." Quoted by Schneider, "die
lutherische Lehre vom Opfertode Christi," Stud. u. Kritiken, i860, p.
659 f-
Maimondes gives as a reason for incense, "that because they killed
a great number of beasts and cut them in pieces, and washed and
burned the inwards, the stink would have been just like that of a

158 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
classes, viz. those which are offered by and on
behalf of individuals, and those which are offered
by and on behalf of the community; in other
words, particular and general, individual and
corporate. VI. Sin- Offerings.
We are concerned solely with the second of the
two great classes of offerings just mentioned, and
more especially with sin-offerings. It should not
be overlooked, however, that the sense of sin can
scarcely be said to have been completely absent from
sacrifices of even the first class. If not in the
offerings themselves, yet in the rites with which they
were presented, there was always something to
remind men that the offerers were not what they
should be. In general, that which was presented
was not what a pure and holy being would have
offered ; nor, apart from special rites, was the mode
of presentation such as a pure and holy being would
have chosen. With this class of sacrifices it was as
with our warmest thanksgivings — we dare not forget
that though we are in a position to thank for grace,
we deserve rather to be deprecating wrath ; and,
accordingly, confession of sin, when not expressly
interwoven with thanksgiving, is really presupposed
or implied in it.
Three points have to be examined, viz., first, the
nature of the objects presented ; secondly, the rites
shambles ; that therefore it was necessary that incense should be
burned twice a day to make the smell of the place and of the clothes
of those that ministered in the temple not disagreeable " {More Nev. iii.
46). Frankincense is said also to have been of peculiar efficacy in
driving away or destroying flies.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 59
observed at presentation ; and thirdly, the function
subserved by the sacrifices. These points need,
indeed, to be inquired into in connection with all
sacrifices, specially, however, with those in which
we are here interested, namely, offerings for
sin. (I.) The nature or material of the sin-offerings. All
the animal or blood-offerings were to be taken from
the herd, or the flock, or other domestic animals. If
from the herd, a bullock or heifer ; 1 if from the flock,
a goat or a lamb, in both cases either a male or a
female ; 2 if of other domestic animals, a young pigeon
or a turtle dove.3 In cases of poverty, it was per
mitted to bring as an "oblation for that wherein he
hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour
for a sin-offering ; he shall put no oil upon it, neither
shall he put any frankincense thereon ; for it is a
sin-offering." 4
The following are the characteristics by which
sacrifices were to be marked : —
1. That which a man presented was not only to
be his own property, but was to belong to him in
a special sense. " When any man of you offereth
an oblation to Jehovah, ye shall offer your oblation
of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock." 6
And in order that every one might fulfil this rule, the
poor man was to offer two young pigeons or turtle
doves — things which he most probably possessed ;
nay, he that was poorer still, was to give what the
very poorest must have if he were able to live at all,
1 Lev. iv. 3, 14 ; I Sam. xvi. 2. 2 Lev. iv. 24, 28, iv. 32, viii. 18.
3 Lev. v. 11. 4Lev. v. 11. 5Lev. i. 2.

160 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
a small quantity of fine flour.1 He must bring some
part of his personal property.
But, further, it must be in a certain special sense
his property. It was not enough for it to belong to
him. A great many things are excluded from pre
sentation, which in the usual sense might be con
sidered as truly his as his bullock, or goat, or lamb, or
turtle doves, or pigeons, or even flour. Neither the
gazelle (roebuck) nor hart, though both of them were
pure animals, might be offered ; 2 indeed, all others
were excluded, even if pure; still more if impure. Nor
were any of the fruits of the earth to form an oblation,
except corn, oil, and wine ; by way of substitute for
the simplest kind of sin-offering, as we saw, corn
alone, or what was made from corn, was admissible.3
Much discussion has been devoted to determining
the reason of this restriction.
With regard to the recognition of this principle in
other religions, I cannot do better than quote the
following words : 4 " An indispensable quality of
oblations was, that they should be the property of
those who presented them. In the course of time a
limit ceased to be placed on the class of objects that
might be offered ; but this characteristic remained, —
it was so even with the offerings of gold brought by
the Hindoos, or of manufactures by the Chinese.
And a decided preference continued long to be shown
1 Lev. v. ii. 2 See Deut. xii. 15, 16, 22, xv. 22.
3 The exceptions recorded in Ezra vii. 17, vi. 9 (cf. 1 Mace. x. 39;
2 Mace. iii. 3, ix. 16), really confirm the rule.
4 See Plath, Cultus der alten Chinesen, pp. 31, 34, quoted by Kleinert
in " Religionsgeschichthche Studien zur Theorie des Opfers," in Studien
u. Kritiken, 1874, p. 424.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. l6l
for the simplest and most primitive forms of property,
as, for example, fruits of the field or domestic animals.
Amongst some peoples, indeed, this restriction to
what might be considered property kclt e^oyjiv, was
so far removed that game as well as domestic animals
were received. But that the principle was not sur
rendered, is clear from the fact that the exceptions
were limited to two cases : first, that of men whose
calling required them to depend for a living on wild
animals. The Chinese ritual, for example, allowed a
huntsman in the mountains to present stags and boars ;
fishermen, fish and turtles.1 Secondly, the case of
deities, to whom special thanks were due for having
first bestowed the property, part of which was sacri
ficed. Thus fish were offered to Poseidon,2 and game
to Artemis Laphria at Patrae, as is described in
detail by Pausanias."3
Among the Hindoos, tame animals were the
sacrificial ones icar i&xnv, and, indeed, the following
five species, — man, horse, ox or cow, sheep, goat. In
some lists man is omitted and another inserted. A
goat was the animal usually sacrificed, both alone and
in connection with the Soma ; and the mode of its
presentation may be regarded as typical.
The he-goat had to be taken from the flock ; be
one of twins ; its parents and brother be still alive ; it
was to have two teeth ; must therefore be about two
years old ; and was required to be, if possible, fault
less. Among other defects by which it was not to be
marked are specified, — a broken or imperfectly grown
1 Plath, l.c. Li-Ki, c. 9. 2 Athenaeus, vii. 50, 51, 56.
3 vii. 18, ed. Kuhn, p. 570.

162 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
horn, too short ears, missing teeth, a hoof not cloven,
mutilated tail, one eye short, blind, deaf, lame, or
diseased with the scab. To Indra and Agni it was
forbidden to offer a castrated goat. As to the colour,
it might be red or of two colours, chiefly black and
yellow. Special importance was attached to the fat,
particularly that about the kidneys.1
The central feature of animal sacrifice was the
presentation of the caul {omentum) and of the parts
which could be medhya, of which eighteen are men
tioned {e.g. heart, tongue, liver, kidneys, etc. ; see
p. 126 ff). They are offered to the chief deities
of animal sacrifice through the mediation of Agni,
and were intended to be eaten by them. The
primary occasion of animal sacrifices, and others
rooted in them, was probably the desire to gratify
the gods with the best that man himself enjoys.
The pressing out of the Soma was regarded as a
kind of slaughter.
Animals of the greatest variety were offered, wild
and tame, male and female. Cows, indeed, were
specially spared, though there is no express prohi
bition to sacrifice them. Wild animals were, how
ever, not bound to the stakes like tame ones. From
the lists of animals to be sacrificed in connection with
the horse, it would seem that nearly all kinds were
eligible. The lists, it is true, are of late origin, but
they testify at any rate to the universality and the
early date of animal sacrifices.
In the selection of a victim, the preference of the
deity, or the agreement between certain marks on
1 See Schwalb, Das altindische Thieropfer, 1886.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 63
the victim and characteristics of the deity, was
taken into consideration. To the gods of the
early dawn, dark animals were presented ; to
Indra, as the representative of power, males and so
forth. Even when human beings were offered as pro
pitiatory sacrifices, as when the inhabitants of Patros
were counselled by the oracle of Delphi to sacrifice a
youth and a maiden in order to avert the plague that
had been brought on their land by the priestess
Komsetho and her lover Melanippos ; or when Nero,
alarmed by a comet, caused several of the chief
Romans to be immolated on his behalf,1 — the same
idea underlay the action. The persons offered be
longed to the State ; there was a tie of solidarity
between them and the offerer.2 This seems to be
contradicted by the custom that prevailed amongst
many peoples of offering captives and prey in sacrifice.
Whilst it is probably true that the boundary-line for
consciousness between sin-offerings and thank-offer
ings — offerings intended to propitiate and atone, and
offerings intended to express the gratitude, or reverence,
or loyalty, or love of the offerer — was frequently very
vague and indeterminate, there still seems reason for
supposing that the offerings now referred to belonged
as a rule to the latter class. When the Franks in
making war entered the territory of the Goths, they
cast the children taken captives into the river; but
they are expressly designated by Procopius 3 aicppOLvia
tov irokefiov, first-fruits of the war. Of like nature were
1 Kleinert, pp. 432, 433. 2 Kleinert, p. 435.
3 De Bello Gothico, in Kl. p. 434.

164 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the offerings of captives and strangers among the
Scythians;1 of a captive warrior to the Mirrich, i.e.
Planet of War, Mars, amongst the Arabs ; 2 so also
when the Thracians sacrificed the fugitive Orobazos
to their national deity Pleistoros ; 3 and when the
Messenian general Aristodemus offered three hundred
Lacedaemonian prisoners, with their king Theopompos,
to the Ithomian Zeus.4 They were no doubt intended
also to secure the further favour of the gods for the
undertakings thus fortunately begun ; and according
to circumstances, the one idea may have passed into
the other till the same sacrifice really embodied a
variety of feelings and thoughts. In the main, how
ever, the prevalence of the conception under notice
can scarcely be questioned.
Various convergent, not conflicting, but mutually
supplementary reasons may be assigned for the
Israelitish practice, which, be it remarked, should
rather be regarded as a revival or reinforcement of
what had been felt to be the normal practice, than as
a rule introduced de novo. All men, they themselves
included, were departing more and more from the
principle which had commended itself as the correct
one ; and now they were recalled to its observance.
The first is, that in a primitive state of society the
oblations enjoined were the most natural ones.5
Men's earliest occupations were the keeping of flocks
and herds, and agriculture. The only property they
had was got by these means ; sheep, cattle, corn,
1 Herod, iv. 62, in Kleinert, p. 434.
2 Gesenius on Isaiah, Kl. p. 435. 3 Herod, ix. 119, Kl. p. 435.
4 Clem. Alex. Coh. iii. 36. 19, in Kl. p. 435.
6 See Kleinert, p. 424.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 65
wine, oil, — these were their only valuables. Indeed,
what else could they offer ? J
Secondly, oblations of this kind were within
everybody's reach. The last thing a man lacks or is
destitute of is food, or that which is to serve for food,
as long as he has anything, that is, under ordinary
circumstances. One may say, indeed, that such
offerings were appointed, so far as they were or were
supposed in any case to be of divine ordination, for
the sake of making it easy for men to manifest their
loyalty to God, or express their penitence for sin.
Even at the present day men who are engaged in
agricultural pursuits find it much easier as well as
much more natural to contribute what they do con
tribute, as we say, in kind, for religious purposes.
This is emphatically the case with converts to Chris
tianity from heathenism.
A further reason was doubtless that into this form
of oblation men put most of their own labour and
thought, most of their life. These things were the
product of their personal toil and care. Game, fish,
fruits of trees, and the like, might be as truly their
property, and they might have put forth great effort
in securing possession of them ; but they had not
co-operated in bringing them into existence, or giving
them form. Yet this latter has ever been felt to be a
condition of the most acceptable offering, whether to
1 Our word pecuniary is from pecunia, which is again derived from
pecus, a herd ; the word herd being applied not merely to cattle proper,
but to sheep, horses, swine, and even fowls (volatile pecus). Pecunia
sacrificium fieri dicebatur, cum frugum fructuumque causa mola pura
offerebatur in sacrificio, quia omnis res familiaris, quam nunc pecuniam
dicimus, ex his rebus constaret. Festus, quoted in Andrews' Lat. Diet,
sub voce " Pecunia."

1 66 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
man or God. What we make is better fitted to
represent us than anything we find made; and all
oblations, whether for sin or other reasons, owe their
true value to their representing us : their value as
oblations is not intrinsic.
It is so with what men now give to God. The
more personal thought and work put into it, the more
worthy of Him to whom it is offered. An altar cloth
purchased — how poor a gift! How rich one with
whose design and needlework the offerer has inter
woven the best love and thought of her heart ! Even
when men are compelled to employ others to produce
their offering, as in the case of a church, the more
loving personal interest they take in it, the more
carefully and tenderly they watch over the inception
and execution of the plan, the more anxiously they
seek to exclude everything that can mar its beauty,
fitness, or value, the higher is men's estimate of it as
a gift to God !
Here is the true secret of the divine ordinance.
Men were to give the things into which, as a rule,
they had actually poured most of their inner as well
as outer, their spiritual as well as their bodily life.
As following from or involved in the last reason, we
may also say that in the sacrifices thus prescribed
there was most of the element of sacrifice. That
which has demanded most of our personal energy
is the hardest to surrender. This may seem to con
flict with reasons previously assigned ; but it does not
really do so. The things which it ought to be most
natural and easy for us to give, we most grudge to
give, if the spirit of sacrifice is absent. Sacrifice ought

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 167
always to combine two apparently contradictory
elements — it should cost us what is dear ; and it
should be given with ease and readiness.
Perhaps, finally, there may have been the intention
to familiarize the minds of men with the fact that the
most acceptable service they can render to God is that
which is most closely associated with their common
life. Not what is far-fetched, but what lies close
to hand ; not what is rare, but what is common,
— that God is most delighted to receive as our
sacrifice; that is the best and the most significant
vehicle for the expression of our thoughts, affections,
purposes. This, as we all know, is even now one of the hardest
lessons men can learn ; even now no lesson needs
more perpetually inculcating ; and if the Christian
Church were inventing symbols for the purpose of
familiarizing their minds with the principle I am
referring to, would it not require the presentation of
our most ordinary possessions ? Owing to the vastly
greater variety and complexity of modern life, the
gifts would need to be of a far more varied character.
The agriculturist might still bring grain and the
like ; the gardener fruits and flowers ; but the
tradesman and manufacturer, the artist and poet, the
publisher and publicist, would bring of the things in
whose production or diffusion they are respectively
interested.1 2. The second characteristic of sacrifices was that
1 " Sacrifices were all of such things as were usually eaten by the
Jews, and were in common practice for the purpose of making or
restoring friendships ; and therefore they were applied to keep up
friendship between God and men." Essay, etc., p. 319.

168 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
both as to matter and rite they should be approved
or prescribed by Jehovah. This is not, indeed, stated
in so many words, but it is distinctly involved in or
follows from the prohibitions and commands relating
to the objects to be presented, and the rites to be
observed. We read, for example, in Deuteronomy,
" Then it shall come to pass that the place where the
Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to
dwell there : thither shall ye bring all that I command
you ; your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices." * " The
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children
of Israel, and say unto them, My oblation, my food for
my offering, made by fire, of a sweet savour unto me,
shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season." 2
" I have given it to you upon the altar to make atone
ment for your souls." 3 " Whatsoever hath a blemish,
that shall ye not offer ; for it shall not be acceptable
for you. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace-
offerings unto the Lord ... it shall be perfect to be
accepted." 4 We know, too, that certain things were
prescribed, others prohibited ; — among the latter, no
animal unclean for food : no animal that could not be
included among domestic animals ; no vegetables ;
no fruits on which human labour had not been directly
spent in some form or other. On the other hand, it
was expressly laid down when they should be of the
male sex,5 when female ; 6 the former being prescribed
for the more important occasions. They were to be
neither too old nor too young — animals from the flocks

Deut. xii. n. 2 Num. xxviii. 2. 3 Lev. xvii. 11.
4 Lev. xxii. 20 ff. 5 Lev. iv. 3, 14, 24, 15, xvi. 3, 7.
6 Lev. iv. 32, 28.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 69
were to be at least eight days old.1 Sheep and goats
were to be of the first year, as also calves ; 2 bullocks
and oxen might be of a greater age.3
The rites and ceremonies to be observed were also
carefully prescribed ; though the whole tone and
manner of the prescriptions are as far removed as
possible from the vexatious anxiety about trifling
externalities that is so characteristic of heathen
ceremonial. The same principle is more or less distinctly
recognised in heathenism. Both the things offered
and the manner of offering were deemed to require
divine approval, if not divine appointment. Oracles
were frequently consulted on the subject, or at all
events gave their commands. The inhabitants of
Patros consulted the oracle of Delphi what sacrifice
would effect the removal of a calamity which afflicted
their country.4 Among the Romans, no sacrifice was
efficacious unless it conformed to the prescribed rites ;
and the sole concern of one who prayed was exactly
to fulfil the religious law. He who had a favour to
ask of heaven, needed first to ascertain which god he
ought to address ; further, also, to know his peculiar
nature, functions, and name, lest he should make
mistakes. It was accordingly the custom to resort
to the pontifices, whose business it was to watch over
1 Lev. xxii. 27 ; Ex. xxii. 30.
2 Lev. xxii. 27 ; Ex. xxii. 30 ; Num. xxviii. 3, 9, 11; cf. Kurtz, Mosaic
Sacrifices, p. 81.
3 See Judg. vi. 25 ; Lev. xxii. 27.
* Pausanias, vii. 19, 21, iv. 9, quoted by Kleinert, "Religionsgesch
ichthche Studien zur Theorie des Opfers," in Studien u. Kritiken, 1874.
Compare Socrates' injunction to his friends to offer on his behalf a cock
to ^Esculapius.

170 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and scrupulously to maintain all the details of worship.
Sacrifices and ceremonies alike must be such as the
gods approved of, and their mind was learnt from the
public religious officials.1
According to the Code of the Twelve Tables,
animals were to be offered in sacrifice which were
known to be fitting and agreeable to the deity intended
to be worshipped, — whether, as some think, because
of some affinity between the two or for some other
reason can scarcely be decided. To Jupiter Capito-
linus, white heifers with gilt horns were offered, but
no bullock nor ram ; Apollo, Neptune, and Mars
alone accepted bullocks ; asses, cocks, and horses to
Mars ; a white cow, because of her moon - shaped
horns, to Juno Calendaris ; an untouched calf to the
virgin Minerva ; a pig with young to Ceres ; pigeons,
sparrows, and the loins of various other animals to
Venus.2 " The number of the gods amongst the Romans
being as great as the number of special occasions in
life, and the neglect of a god or a wrong mode of
showing reverence being sure to be at once avenged,
the task of even correctly ascertaining their religious

1 See Boissier, La Religion Romaine, vol. i. 14 ff.
2 Dollinger, Heidenthum u. Judenthum, p. 530. Compare Bahr, ii.
248, 250, 251, 252, 267, 273.
As Bacchus was the God-protector of vines, and as goats by their bite
did irretrievable mischief to the vine, —
Non aliam ob causam Baccho caper omnibus aris casditur.
Virg. Georg. ii. 380.
There were other reasons also why goats were never sacrificed to
Minerva, besides the fact that their bite was as destructive to the olive
tree as it was to the vine. It would have been an affront to that
maiden deity to have offered her such a sacrifice. See Essay, etc.,
p. 268 f.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 171
duties was encompassed with toil and danger ; hence
the influence secured by the priests who knew what
ought to be done."1 Accordingly "the Pontifex
Max. in Rome had to teach all who came to consult
him the order and manner of their sacrifices, to
appoint the holidays, to determine all controversies,
relating to sacred things between private persons or
magistrates, or the ministers of the gods : they could
make laws in relation to such points as were not wrote
down, or by use were not received ; judging and
determining what appeared to them to be proper to be
made into laws or received as customs ; they had
power of examining all those officers and priests to
whom the right of sacrificing or the service of the
gods was committed, their servants and officers that
they used in their sacred rites, whether they observed
or did not observe the sacred laws ; they were to
instruct private people who did not know the proper
manner of worshipping the gods ; and if they found
any that did not obey their directions or commands,
they had a power of mulcting them, whilst they them
selves were not accountable, either to the Senate or
the people." 2
From this cause alone, if from no others, the heathen
in all ages and lands have been all their lifetime
subject to bondage, especially when their intelligence
was awakened. They felt the need of the divine
approval of their religious acts, and yet could never
be certain of having that approval. This is one of
the grounds of the superior confidence and peace of
1 Mommsen, Rbmische Geschichte, i. 160; cf. 842.
2 See Dionysius Halicarnassus, I. II., quoted Essay, etc., p. 221 ff.

172 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN
the Jew : God Himself had prescribed what sacrifices
he should offer and what rites he should observe ;
and fulfilling the revealed will of his King, he could
feel satisfied.
3. The third characteristic of sacrifices was that
they should be spotless, faultless, the most perfect,
the best of their kind. The injunction that animals
offered be without blemish is very frequently
repeated ; but in one passage special prominence
is given to this characteristic : " Whatsoever hath
a blemish, that shall ye not offer ; " that is, as a
burnt-offering or sin-offering, though admissible as a
"free-will offering ;" 1 "for it shall not be acceptable
for you ... it shall be perfect to be accepted :
there shall be no blemish therein."2 The goat
offered by a ruler was to be a male without
blemish ; 3 that offered by one of the common people
a female without blemish ; 4 even the flour brought
for a sin-offering by the man who was too poor to
afford two turtle doves or two young pigeons was
to be " fine flour." 5 When the condition is not
expressly mentioned, it is fair to suppose from the
passages quoted above that it is implied. And the
divine mind in relation to this characteristic, as also
implicitly to the one mentioned under the last head,
is sternly enough expressed in the words of
Malachi:6 "Ye have brought that which was
taken by violence, and the lame, and the sick ; thus
ye bring the offering : should I accept this of your
hand ? saith Jehovah. But cursed be the deceiver,
1 Lev. xxii. 23. 2 Lev. xxii. 20, 21. 3 Lev. iv. 24.
4 Lev. iv. 28. ° Lev. v. 11. r' Mai. i. 13 ff.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 73
which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and
sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing : for I
am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts."
The same condition is more or less clearly, and in
various forms, recognised by the heathen religions.
Among the Egyptians the task of testing and
selecting animals for sacrifice was a very difficult and
delicate one. They were most carefully examined in
a variety of ways. If, for example, a single black
hair was found on an ox, it was counted unclean.
The examination was conducted according to definite
rules laid down in special writings.1
The Greeks, too, laid great stress on purity in
connection with sacrifices. Those who took part
in the ceremonial had to wash their hands, be
sprinkled with water, and put on clean garments.
It was deemed of great importance that the animal
to be sacrificed should move willingly towards the
altar. It must not be dragged violently; if it
went readily, it was a specially favourable omen.2
Equally significant were the prescriptions of the
Roman ceremonial in this respect. The animals
selected for sacrifice had always to be perfect in
form and free from blemish. The victims employed
in the public solemnities in honour of Capitoline
Jove were usually milk-white steers from Umbria.
All who took part in the rites were required pre
viously to purify themselves in a running stream, to
appear in white garments, and to wash their hands.
The victim was led gently to the altar ; and any
1 Ddllinger, Heidenthum, etc., p. 442, quoted from Wilkinson.
2 Ibid. p. 209.

174 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
reluctance displayed by it was regarded as an evil
omen.1 It is said that the inhabitants of Telmessos, in
Lycia, were enjoined to propitiate the deity who
had sent the calamity from which their country was
suffering, by offering every year their most beautiful
virgins.2 And in the case of such human sacrifices
great stress was further laid on their being willing
to die.3
According to Diodorus Siculus, the Carthaginians,
when pressed sore by Agathocles, ascribed their
sufferings to the anger of the gods, and accordingly
sacrificed "at one fell swoop two hundred of the
children of the first nobles ; " and the parents were
compelled to put on the appearance of sacrificing
them cheerfully.4
Porphyry, too {I.e. 1. 2), tells us that "in public
calamities, whether of war, or drought, or pestilence,
the Phoenicians used to devote one of their dearest
and best beloved, chosen by lot, as a victim to
Kronos" — $o<.Wes Se ev tcus fieydXais <rvfi<popal<s j)
iroKep,wv, r) av^mv, rj \oip,a>v, idvov rmv (piXrarcov riva
£Tn^rj<p^ovTe<; Kpova. Sometimes their princes offered
up the most beloved of their offspring as a ransom to
the avenging deities to r)ya7rrjfj,evov rwv rmvav roil';
KpaTovvra<;, r) 7ro\e»?, rj edvovs, et? a<payr)v i-iriSifiovai \vrpov
to« Tt/xwpoZ? Salpocri. Sometimes even an only child —
to, dyairr)Ta Kal p,ovoyevi) t5>v tralhav,6 was thus sacrificed
for the public weal.
1 Ramsay, Roman Antiquities, p. 166 f. ; compare Ddllinger, p. 533.
2 Kleinert, p. 432. 3 Kleinert, p. 433. 4 xx. 14, p. 415, in Bahr, 241.
K Philo, de Phcenic. ap. Euseb. Prap. Evang. 1. 4, c. 16. 4, 7 ; cf. Bahr
ii. 241 ; Dbllinger, l.c. 397.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 175
The Phoenicians had a sacrifice, too, in which the
victims were mactated mystically — KarecrfxiTTovTo Be ol
SiS6p,evot p.vo-TitcS)';, and it had the requisites that a prince
should offer it, and his only son should be the victim.1
The explanation given thereof by the Phoenicians them
selves is this, that their supreme, deity II, whom they
called Kvpios ovpavov, the~Lord"df heaven, and said that
he had the Elohim for his associates {a-v^a^ol 'IXoO —
'.EAcoet/A iireKX.rj0rjcrav), had a son dyair-qTov, well-beloved,
born of the fountain of light, his only-begotten pbovoyevrj,
and therefore called leoud; that this son was Sowm
ttjv TJrvxrjv XvTpov dvrl ttoWwv, dvrX rrj? iravT&v <f>0opa<; — to
give his soul a ransom for many, to prevent the ruin
of all ; and what is most remarkable, make the sacrifice
fiaaikucS) ayj]\uvn teeicoapLT]fievo<;, robed in royal State.2
The Babylonians and Persians, too, had a solemn
festival, which Berosus calls Haicea, to which Dio
Chrysostom alludes as follows : — " Have you never
considered the festival of the Sakkoi which the
Persians celebrate ? They take a prisoner under
condemnation of death and set him on the king's
throne, and clothe him with the king's own robes,
and feed him daintily, and no one hinders him doing
whatsoever he will. But afterwards they strip him
of the royal garments, and, having scourged him,
hang him up, yea, hang him on a stake." s
1 Euseb. Prcep. Evang. 1. c. 16. 7, 8 ; 4. 16. 142 ; 1. 10. 30.
2 Quoted from Philo Byblius, in Eusebius, Praparatio Evangel, iv.
16. 7, 8 ; see Essay, etc.
3 ovx. i)vtv6rix.MC rriv tZii Sxzzav hprqv, tjv Tlipaat cLyavai ; ?i«/3oVrs? rZti
lisaftaTav ha, tSi/ iir\ 6a.sa.ra, xa.6i^ov(riii ei; toj/ ip&vou tow $avih.to: x.aX t»)ii
yOyra, "iiioaaiv aiira tviu «i/toj», x.a.1 rpvtpav — xaX ouSsfj oitiiii xuXvu ¦jcoitiv
av fSovKtra-i. Mini, ii tuvto- oexoStwajcre?, x.a.1 (ia.VTiyuaa.mii, ixpeftttetr
inpifiiuau Ixl |i/A.ou. See Athenaeus, 1. 14, c. 10— fatibulo suffigunt.

176 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Augustus Caesar, on the surrender of Perusia,
offered up three hundred chosen persons, both of
the Senatorian and Equestrian order, at an altar
dedicated to the manes of his uncle Julius : " Perusii
capta — scribunt quidam, trecentos ex dedititiis electos,
utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo Julio extructam, idibus
Martiis, bestiarum more mactatos."1
Porphyry, too, asks : dXX en ical vvv tL<; dyvoel Kara
tt)v pLeydXrjv itoKlv ry tov Aartapiov Abhs eopry o-<pa£6/ievov
dvdpcoirov 2 — " Who is not aware that even now a man
is mactated in the great city at the festival of Jupiter
Latiaris ? " Tertullian testifies also to the same fact :
" Latio in hodiernum Jovi media, in urbe humanus
sanguis ingustatur."3
Among the Northern nations, as Caesar, Lucan,
Tacitus, Claudian, and others testify, human sacrifices
were only two common under the superintendence
of the Druids. The woods of our own island of
Anglesea were specially devoted to these cruel rites ;
as Tacitus says: " Excisi luci, saevis superstitionibus
sacri. Nam cruore captivo adolere aras et hominum
fibris consulere Deos, fas habebant." 4 Even as late
as the tenth century of our era, we are told that
seventy carcases thus immolated were found in a
wood of the Suevi.5
The altars of Thor and Woden used to be
glutted with human blood by the Massagetae, Getae,
Sarmatians, Scythians, particularly the Suevi and
Scandinavians. The beautiful isle of Rugen was
1 So Suetonius in August, c. 1 5. 2 De Abstin. 1. 2, p. 226.
3 Gnost. c. 7. 4 Annal. xiv. 29, 30.
5 Adam Bremensis, De situ Danice, c. 234 ; see Essay, etc.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 77
specially the scene of these atrocities. But the
most famous altar of all was at Upsala in Sweden,
where grand sacrifices were offered annually for
nine days.1 Bishop Dithmar mentions a place
called Ledur in Zeeland, where ninety-nine persons
were annually sacrificed to the god Swantowite. It
is said, too, that the blood of the victims was struck
upon the doorposts of the place where they were
slain, and part of it handed round to the bystanders :
pars sanguinis postibus illita ; pars adstantibus pro-
pinata.2 The Suevi on one occasion, when afflicted with
a grievous famine, even sacrificed their own king : —
Cum pcenam delictorum divinam agnoscerent, primo
anno boves, altero homines, tertio Regem ipsum
velut irae ccelestis piaculum, ut sibi persuasum habe-
bant, Odino immolabant.3
But, indeed, kindred ideas constantly recur in
nearly all, if not in all religions, sometimes in one
form, sometimes in another ; sometimes, too, so
wrapped up and concealed as to be scarcely re
cognisable. The voluntariness which Greeks and Romans
regarded as of so much importance alike in animal
and human victims, reminds us involuntarily of the
words of Isaiah, "He was oppressed, yet He
1 See Tacitus, de Mor. Germ. 40. 43. Compare Dithmar, Episc.
Mersburg, i. p. 12 ; Schafferi, Upsal. c. 16.
2 Olai Wormii Mon. Danica, i. c. 5, p. 28.
3 Loccenii Antiq. Suevo-Gothica, 1. i. p. 5. In the notes to Arch
bishop Thomson's Bampton Lecture on the Atonement will be found
many interesting details with regard to human and other sacrifices,
drawn from Ernst v. Lasaulx's Die Suhnopfer der Griechen u. Rbmer,
and other sources. M

178 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
humbled Himself, and opened not His mouth : as
a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep
before her shearers is dumb, yet He opened not
His mouth."1
Surely a remarkable condition to insist on — that
the objects presented as sacrifices for sin should be
the best of their kind, without blemish ! The repre
sentative of an offender as unlike to the offender as
possible ! The more imperfect and blemished the
sacrificer, the more perfect and faultless the sacrifice !
Should we not have expected just the opposite ?
Natural enough, as we all know, in the case of thank
and similar offerings, but strange in the case of
victims that seem to bear sin !
(II.) The rites and ceremonies observed in the
presentation of sacrifices.
i. The offerer laid his hands on the head of the
offering. When a sacrifice was presented on behalf
of the congregation, " the elders of the congregation,"
we are told, "shall lay their hands upon the head of
the bullock before the Lord : " 2 so, too, the ruler had
to " lay his hand upon the head of the goat " which
he offered : 3 the member of the common people
likewise had to " lay his hand upon the head of his
sin-offering ; " 4 on the great day of atonement Aaron
laid " both his hands upon the head of the live goat
1 Isa. liii. 7.
Nagelsbach is of opinion that amongst the Greeks the idea of sub
stitution was originally associated exclusively with human sacrifices ;
and that such sacrifices were never offered save where a number of
others were to be saved from ruin— not for individuals. When animals
had a substitutionary character, it was as taking the place of men,
never independently. See his Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 355 f.
2 Lev. iv. 15. s Lev. iv. 24. 4 Lev. iv. 29.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 79
which was to be sent away into the wilderness." l
The only exceptions were such as did not admit of
the act, as, for example, when a pigeon or fine meal
was presented.2
Customs similar or analogous to this were observed
in other religions. Among the Parsees the priests
laid their hands on the animal, and kept them there
till life was spent.3 The Egyptians, again, according
to Herodotus,4 laid a curse on the head of animals
that were sacrificed, and therefore refused to use
them for food ; the Greeks, however, would seem to
have bought these very heads for the purpose of
food, perhaps because they got them cheap. The
hide of the goat offered by the Greeks in November
to Zeus Maimaktes or the Stormy One, was regarded
as specially efficacious for atonement, and it was
customary accordingly that such as had been atoned
for at other festivals should put their left foot on it.5
Amongst the Albanians, too, the peculiar custom was
observed, that when a human sacrifice had been
offered, all the heads of families trod thereon with
their feet, the idea seeming to be by this means to
gain participation in the atonement effected by it.6
The same aim dictated the Hindoo ceremony of
Acmavedha. A cripple of the Brahman tribe Atri

1 Lev. xvi. 21. 2 Lev. v. 7, 12.
3 Ddllinger, Heidenthum u. Judenthum, p. 370.
4 See Bahr, Mos. Cultus, ii. 339 ; Kleinert, p. 447.
6 They were wont also to desire that evils, instead of falling on them
selves or their country, might fall on the head of the victims offered in
sacrifice (Herod, ii. c. 39). Perhaps the very expression, visit or fall on
men's heads, may have originated in this custom, or at all events have
had a co-ordinate origin therewith.
6 Dollinger, p. 208.

180 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
having been purchased from his relatives for a
thousand cows, was led to the water, and after the
blood of the sacred horse had been poured over
his head, was drowned therein — after which sinners
descended into the water, and being sanctified by
his death, were thus made clean.1
According to the Hervarar Saga, King Heydreck
was in the habit of offering a boar to the goddess
Freya every February. It was first, however,
brought into the courtyard of the royal residence,
and all the chiefs and head - men were required to
lay their hands on its back bristles and renew their
oath of allegiance.2 An interesting parallel, though
opinions may differ as to its exact meaning.8
What now is the significance of this evidently
symbolical act ? The rite is not limited to sacrifices.
It is observed in connection with the giving of
blessings;4 with the communication of the Holy
Spirit ; ° with consecration to office alike under
the Old and New Covenant;6 with the miraculous
cures of Christ ;7 and, finally, in the case of one
accused of cursing, all who heard him were re
quired to lay their hands on his head before he was
stoned.8 Jewish views do not throw much light on the
1 Kleinert, p. 431. 2 Bahr, ii. 261.
3 Compare Virgil's words, " Unum pro multis dabitur Caput " {^En. v.
815), quoted by Kleinert, p. 430 f. Among the Syrians, punishment by
death is simply designated "laying on the head," Bahr, ii. 342. In
manumitting serfs or slaves, the Romans laid hands on the head of the
slave, thus signifying that he was handed over to himself, Bahr, ii. 343.
4 Gen. xlviii. 13 ; Matt. xix. 13-15. 5 Acts viii. 17, xix. 6.
6 Num. xxvii. 18 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Acts vi. 6 ; 1 Tim. v. 22.
7 Matt. ix. 18 ; Mark vi. 5; Luke xiii. 13 ; cf. Acts xii. 17.
8 Lev. xxiv. 14 ; cf. Susanna 34 ; Kurtz, Sacrifices, etc., p. 83.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. l8l
matter, even apart from their lack of agreement
with each other. We are told in the Mishna,
when the high priest made or used the form of
confession on the great day of atonement, he laid his
hands on the scapegoat and said, " I beseech Thee,
O Lord, Thy people the house of Israel hath sinned
and done iniquity, hath transgressed before Thee.
I beseech Thee, O Lord, naa, cover {remitte) now
the sins, and the iniquities, and the transgressions
which Thy people, the house of Israel, hath sinned,
done iniquity, and transgressed before Thee. As
it is written in the law of Moses Thy servant,
saying, On that day -\sy< shall an atonement be made
for you to cleanse you from all your sins." 1 Hands
were imposed on the head of the sacrifice when sins
were not confessed. Maimonides says that " sinners
and trespassers when they bring their offerings for
their sins and trespasses are not expiated by their
sacrifices unless they first repent and repeat the form
of confession."2 The rite did not denote merely
translation of guilt.
Philo says, " That hands were laid on the head of
the animal was a manifest token of innocence, and of
a life that could not have anything laid to its charge ;
that life had been spent agreeably to the laws of
nature and the divine commandments." 3
Abarbanel says, " The person that put his hand
upon the head of the beast by this rite confessed the
desert of his sins, and declared the blood of the animal
to be shed in lieu of his own, and that it was just and
1 Lev. xvi. 30 ; see Mishna, ii. 29, quoted in Essay, 154.
2 De Pcenit. i. ; see Essay, 26. 3 De Victim. 838 f.

1 82 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
right that the offender's life should be taken away, as
was that of the beast brought to the altar." ]
Without entering here on the various views which
have been taken of this rite, I will briefly explain my
own, which is an endeavour to combine some that
have hitherto been separately advocated. It seems
to me to lie in the very nature of a symbolical rite
that it should both admit of and be meant to have
various meanings — of which now the one and then
the other may be more distinctly present to the mind
of those who observe them. The act of laying
the hands on the head of the sacrificial victim by the
offerer2 expressed (i) first of all, the fact that the
animal was the man's own property which he had
brought to the tabernacle of Jehovah for the purpose
of presentation. This idea may not have been very
distinctly present to consciousness ; other ideas
probably overshadowed it ; yet it underlay the rest —
it was their presupposition ; without it, indeed, or at
all events apart from the fact which it represented, no
sacrifice could be valid. (2) The next thing denoted
by the act was the rapport between the person sacri
ficing and the sacrifice itself. In other words, it
symbolized the thought — "that am I," "this stands
for me." The man thus identified himself with
his offering ; let it take his place, stand for him. In
this way there was brought out and expressed the
1 Comment, in Lev. p. 301, quoted in Essay, 28.
2 The Rabbins call the act SemicJiah, from the Hebrew word *|DD,
and held that it was required to be performed with all the strength of
the body, which is probably an exaggeration. It would seem, how
ever, that a certain amount of pressure was implied. Cf. Oehler,
0. T. Theology, ii. p. 409.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 83
idea of substitution, which in some measure inheres in
all offerings, especially in all propitiatory offerings, —
an idea which is everywhere, present in sacrificial
ritual, whether formally indicated or not. Even a
thank- or loyalty - offering, whether presented from
man to man or from man to God, in proportion as it
is genuine, stands, as it were, in the place of the man
himself. Its real value lies, not in any intrinsic worth
it may possess, but in its representing the giver.
Under what aspect and with what design an offering
stands for the giver, will have to be determined in
other ways. (3) In the case of the offerings with
which we are here concerned, the rite further denoted
the consecration of the animal to Jehovah. We can
scarcely go wrong if we here follow the guidance of
the account given in Numbers of the consecration of
the Levites, " Take the Levites from among the
children of Israel. . . . And thou shalt present the
Levites before the tent of meeting ; and thou shalt
assemble the whole congregation of the children of
Israel. And thou shalt present the Levites before the
Lord ; and the children of Israel shall lay their hands
upon the Levites : and Aaron shall offer the Levites
before the Lord for a wave-offering on the behalf of
the children of Israel, that they may be to do the
service of the Lord. . . . Thus shalt thou separate
the Levites from among the children of Israel ;
and the Levites shall be mine." x At the same
time we are told that, " The Levites shall take
two young bullocks, and shall lay their hands upon
the heads of the bullocks ; and offer them, the one
1 Num. viii. 5-14.

184 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering,
unto the Lord, to make atonement for the Levites."1
If in the one case the laying on of hands denoted
consecration, devotion to Jehovah, it is scarcely likely
that the same rite performed at the same time, though
in another connection, should have a different meaning.
We may therefore accept as the chief point in the
significance of the laying on of hands — the devotion
or consecration of the animal to Jehovah. Consecra
tion implying ownership — without which the offerer
would have no right to consecrate ; and, further, in
volving the notion that in some sense or other the
victim offered stood for the offerer ; that, in other
words, the two were en rapport.
2. The offering in the case of an animal had to be
slain, and that generally by the offerer himself. When
the elders of the congregation brought their bullock,
we read, " the bullock shall be killed before the Lord,"2
probably by one of their number, and hence the in-
definiteness of the expression. The ruler was himself
to kill his offering in the place where they kill the
burnt-offering before the Lord.3 The common man,
too, was to " kill the sin-offering in the place of the
burnt-offering." 4 That the priest had to perform the
task in the case of pigeons was ordained probably to
the end that he might at once be able to press out the
blood on the altar; the quantity being too small to
allow of its being put first into a vessel.5 On the
great day of atonement there were two remarkable
1 Num. viii. 8, 12. 2 Lev. iv. 15.
3 Lev. iv. 24. 4 Lev. iv. 29.
6 See Oehler on " Opfer," in Herzog's Real-Encyl. p. 628 ; Bahr, Mas.
Cultus, ii. p. 343.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 85
deviations from the usual custom : first, that Aaron,
probably as the representative of the whole people,
was to kill the one goat ; and, secondly, that the other
goat was sent away alive, — an addition to the symbol
ism of sacrifice, which, perhaps more than anything
else, points forward beyond itself.1
The custom of offering bloody sacrifices, i.e. animals
which had to be slaughtered at the altar and in the
presence of deity, has been well-nigh universal ; and
it seems probable that where the custom does not
prevail, it has been dropped, either because of poverty
or other circumstances, or in consequence of a lowering
of the religious life.2 In India, notwithstanding that
the slaughtering of animals for food was forbidden,
the chief sacrifice was the Acmavedha, or Horse
Sacrifice. A horse having been selected, was let go
free for a whole year, though constantly under the
care of a guardian, and was then killed with great
solemnity. By its means all sins were supposed to
be expiated.3 Animals were also sacrificed to Siwa.4
No death is more welcome to a Hindoo than one
which involved the shedding of his blood, the idea
being that thus all his sins are cleansed.6
The Persians also, though their cultus was by no
means so rich in sacrifices, or indeed generally, as that
of the Hindoos, yet sacrificed horses and oxen; and
held that it was the tyvxn which deity demanded.6 In
Egypt, again, bulls or cows or even swine were offered
1 Note X. Appendix. 2 Kleinert, p. 429.
3 Bahr, ii. p. 218. * Bahr, ii. p. 223.
5 Bahr, ii. p. 223. Compare de Maistre in Bahr, ii. p. 270 ; and
Studien u. Kritiken, 1874, p. 448.
6 Bahr, ii. p. 225 ; cf. Kleinert, p. 422.

1 86 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
to Isis, or Osiris, and goats to Amun.1 Even in
China, animal offerings were presented, though by
some their propitiatory character is called in question.2
But that the idea of a substitutionary sacrifice was not
foreign to the Chinese mind, is evident from the fact
that after a drought and famine of seven years during
the reign of T'ang (b.c. i 766-1 760), it was suggested
by some one that a human victim should be offered in
sacrifice to Heaven, and prayer made for rain. Where
upon T'ang said, " If a man must be the victim, I
will be he. He fasted, cut off his hair and nails, and,
in a plain carriage drawn by white horses, clad in
rushes, in the guise of a sacrificial victim, he proceeded
to a forest of mulberry trees and there prayed, asking
to what error or crime of his life the calamity was
owing."3 So another fact, that when Wuwang, the
founder of the third dynasty, fell dangerously ill, his
pious brother Tcheu-Kung, in a solemn address to the
ancestral deities, offered to die for him : whereupon
he recovered.4 Among the ancient Germans the
sacrifice was designated Blot (blood) ; to offer sacrifice
was blotan (to bleed) ; and the priest was designated
by various names signifying literally bloodman.5 The
Lapps presented reindeer. Among the Swedes a
great festival was held every nine years, when for
nine days one human being and seven different
animals were offered; and the Danes sacrificed in
January every nine years, 99 human beings, 99 horses,
99 dogs, 99 cocks, and 99 hawks.6
1 Bahr, ii. 228-232.
2 Legge, Religions of China, p. 53 ; cf. Douglas, Confucianism, etc., p. 85.
3 Legge, l.c. p. 54. 4 Kleinert, p. 434, cf. 421.
5 Bahr, ii. 258. See Kleinert, p. 422. ° Bahr, ii. 259-262.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 87
In Athens an ox was offered to Zeus Polieus, the
chief patron deity of the city, under very peculiar and
solemn circumstances.1 Greek and Roman writers
make repeated allusions to the sacrifice of human
beings for their fellow-beings.2 When Nero was
alarmed by the appearance of a comet, he caused,
as was already mentioned, several of the principal
Romans to be sacrificed on his behalf, doubtless with
the intention of propitiating an offended deity.3 Homer
refers frequently to sacrifices, and in one place says, —
The Gods themselves, in virtue, honour, strength
Excelling thee may yet be mollified ;
For they, when mortals have transgress'd or fail'd
To do aright, by sacrifice and prayer,
Libations and burnt-offering, may be sooth'd.4
Amongst the Romans it was the duty of one of the
assistants of the Pontifex, a popa, at a signal from
the priest, to strike down the victim with a mallet, and
then to stab it with a knife.5
But now the question arises, What was the meaning
of the act of slaughter ? Had it a separate signifi
cance of its own ? Or was it merely a means to an
end — to the end of securing the blood? If it had a
significance of its own, what was it ? As is evident
from the variety of views prevailing on the subject,
the question is not without its difficulty. This, how
ever, is chiefly due to the words — " for the life of the
flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you upon
the altar to make atonement for your souls : for it is
the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the
' Bahr, ii. 253.
2 Kleinert, p. 431 ; cf. Note XI. Appendix. 3 Kleinert, p. 433.
4 Iliad, ix. 295, Earl of Derby's translation, i. 292, compare Bks. I. II.
5 Ramsay, Roman Antiquities, p. 167.

1 88 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
life." 1 This point is one of such importance that I
shall first refer to one or two of the views taken of it.
One writer regards the passage as a proof that " in the
Mosaic ritual the slaughtering of the offering had no
independent significance, and only served as a means
of obtaining the blood. It is at least not indicated in
the law of offering, that what the offerer deserved as
a sinner was inflicted on the animal when it was
slaughtered ; and that thus the death of the sacrifice
satisfied the divine punitive justice." 2 According to
another writer, on the contrary, " The slaughtering
was the consummation of the complete surrender
expressed in the laying on of hands. For it had to
be performed by the offerer and not by the priest.
Surrender reached its climax in mactation ; and as it
was a surrender to the Holy One of Israel, for the
behoof of sanctification, the animal was first truly
consecrated by death. Thus regarded, therefore,
mactation and sanctification, dying and being holy, are
in a certain sense synonymous terms." 3 The import
ance of the words quoted from Leviticus is confirmed,
not only in general by the stress everywhere laid in
heathenism on the blood, but also in particular by the
fact that to offer the blood and offer the life or soul
and slaughter a sacrifice are almost synonynious
expressions.4 Another view is, that " as the imposi
tion of hands denoted the consecration of the animal
1 Lev. xvii. 1 1.
2 Oehler, 0. T. Theology, i. 411; cf. Herzog, " Opfer,"p. 631 ; and Kurtz,
p. 123.
3 Bahr, ii. 343.
4 Bahr, ii. 225, 247. " Animam litare and sanguinem litare are
synonymous expressions. Even the word sancire is derived by Servius
from sanguis."

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 1 89
to be the medium of atonement for the sins of the
offerer, by means of a substitutionary transference
(according to the analogy of Num. viii. 10) of the
obligation to do or suffer in his stead that which his
God demanded from him on account of his sin ; so
the slaughtering expressed the completion of the act
or the endurance of the punishment in order that the
animal, or rather its blood, in which was its soul, might
thereby become fitted to be a medium of expiation." 1
A further view is that of Delitzsch, who says : " The
Schechitah merely answered the double purpose of
providing, first, the blood, which was the life of the
animal, for the expiation of the soul of the sacrificer ;
and secondly, the flesh as the fire-food of Jehovah ; " 2
and appeals in support, not only to the passage above
referred to, but also to such words as " sweet savour
unto the Lord ; " 3 " it is the food of the offering made
by fire unto the Lord ; " " it is the food of the offering
made by fire for a sweet savour ; all the fat is the
Lord's."4 Others again say that it was "an acknow
ledgment on the part of the person presenting the
offering that he gave the animal entirely up, renounc
ing for ever both it and its life." 5
There is a certain truth in each of these positions ;
but how are they to be combined ? The following
questions have to be faced. Why the animal that
had been solemnly consecrated to Jehovah should be
slain at all ? It might have been preserved alive,
1 See Kurtz, Sacrifices, p. 102 ; cf. 119 ff., 149.
2 See Kurtz, pp. 108, 147. 3 Lev. iv. 9, 12, 17, ii. 9.
4 Lev. ii. 11, 16.
5 See in Kurtz ; Hofmann, p. 141 ; Keil, p. 144 ; Neumann, " d. Opfer
des A.B.," Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1853, p. 343.

190 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
fostered, and honoured, as, amongst the Greeks, the
peacocks offered to Here and the swans offered to
Helios, or amongst the Persians and Germans, the
horses consecrated to the sun ? J Further, why should
the offerer himself slaughter the victim ? Is it not
strange that he who gives the life should at once take
it away or render it useless ? Then, again, if it were
his own life, the offering of which was symbolized by
the death of the victim, why should he stop at a symbol
and not go on to sacrifice himself? This has been
done in some cases, and would seem to be the most
natural course if God really demanded the giving up
of the life. Still further, if what was needed was a
symbol of the offerer's life on the altar, would that
purpose not have been best served by shedding a
portion, either of his own or of his victim's blood,
without absolutely taking away the life ? 2 And, lastly,
if the essential matter was the death as a.pcena vicaria,
what meaning can be attached to the words, " It is
the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the
life " ? To put the case into a nutshell — why should
it be necessary for a life given to be slaughtered ?
Why should death be the way to bestow life ? If the
life is what God valued, why should the giver thereof
first take it away ? The fact as it stands may be
stated thus : a spotless victim forfeits its life in order
that the offerer may be reconciled to or accepted by
God. I venture to think that the difficulty of combin
ing the two points of view is due, on the one hand, to
1 Schneider, " Die luther. Lehre u. Opfertode Christi," in Stud. 11.
Krit. i860, p. 695.
2 As would seem to have been the case on certain occasions among
the Mexicans. See Wuttke, Geschichte d. Heidenthums, i. 270.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 191
the false juridical idea that God's claims on men, the
neglect or violation of which is recognised by means
of sacrifice, can be met by the punishment, that is,
death, of either the offender or a substitute ; and, on
the other, to a superficial, a defective, not to say wrong
estimate of the moral conditions on which offenders
can find peace with God. For sinners the way to
life is through a process whose culmination can alone
be expressed by death. But if death in this sense is
to be the way to life, it must be first undergone by one
who himself has no need to undergo it. Thus viewed,
it is the life in very deed that atones, but a life which
goes through death ; i.e. which bears for the offender
the brunt of that anger of God against sin whose
supreme sign and expression is death ; and of which,
therefore, the death of an innocent victim is the
supremely fitting symbol.1
3. The next step was the sprinkling of the blood. The
modes of sprinkling varied according to the import
ance of the sacrifices. In the case of burnt-offerings,
guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings, the blood was to
be sprinkled upon the altar round about ; 2 in that of a
sin-offering for a ruler or a man of the common people,
the priest was to take of the blood with his finger,
¦ and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt-
offering, and the blood thereof shall he pour out at
the base of the altar of burnt-offering ; 3 in that of an
anointed priest and of the congregation, the blood of
the bullock was to be brought to the tent of meeting,
1 In order to make clear this somewhat enigmatical statement, I should
have to expound a view of the atonement which is at present not clear
enough to myself to fit me for presenting it to others.
2 Lev. i. 5, vii. 2, iii. 12. 3 Lev. iv. 25, 30, 34.

192 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and the priest was to dip his finger in the blood, and
sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord,
before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest
shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar of
sweet incense before the Lord which is in the tent
of meeting : and all the blood of the bullock shall he
pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering,
which is at the door of the tent of meeting.1 The
ceremonial on the great day of atonement was un
usually complicated. First, the blood of the bullock
offered for Aaron the officiating representative priest
was to be sprinkled with his finger upon the mercy-
seat on the east, and seven times before the mercy-
seat ; then he was to do with the blood of the
goat of the sin-offering that was for the people as
with that of the bullock for himself, namely, bring
it within the veil, and sprinkle it on and before the
mercy-seat ; and finally, we are told, " he shall go
out, i.e. from the holy place, unto the altar that is
before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and
shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the
blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the
altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the
blood upon it with his finger seven times." 2
The custom of sprinkling the blood of animal
sacrifices seems to have been not infrequently, even
if not generally, observed in other religions. The
Chinese, averse as they ordinarily are to anything
like mystic rites and ceremonies, observe a mysteri
ous ceremony called Hin, which seems to be a relic
of an earlier custom, and an evidence of the early
'Lev. iv. 6, 17. 2 Lev. xvi. 14, 15, 18, 19.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 193
and wide prevalence of sprinkling with blood. The
hall of ancestors, the drums and weapons, bells and
musical instruments, articles for divination and the
like, are smeared with blood.1 When swine and
fowls are offered in sacrifice their necks are cut, and
the warm blood is either sprinkled on or allowed
to run over the hands and feet of the image of the
god. It is also usual to sprinkle with blood the
things for whose sake a sacrifice is offered, as, for
example, ships or boats, when a sacrifice is made to
the river -god with a view to securing a fortunate
voyage.2 When a victim is presented in India to
Siva, the blood that streams from it is solemnly
carried into the presence of the image of the god,
as though to be presented to it. Then the cry is
raised, " Kali, drink the blood ; be thou adored : "
whereupon the worshippers, with a great shout,
smear their faces with the blood and roll themselves
in blood and dust on the ground.3 Amongst the
ancient Germans, too, the blood of sacrifices, being
deemed specially sacred and holy, was sprinkled on
lifeless things and on the wooden images of the
gods with the idea of giving them life and sensation.4
The Lapps, too, were in the habit of renewing the
image of their god Tiermes every year, and then
sprinkling it with the heart -blood of a sacrifice.5
Amongst the Romans, the blood was poured upon
the altar, together with wine, incense, and sacred
cake.6 The Greeks were in the habit of pouring
1 Kleinert, p. 448. 2 Bahr, ii. 245.
3 Bahr, ii. 223 ; cf. Kleinert, p. 431 ; see Bahr, ii. 220 f.
4 Bahr, ii. 258. 6 Bahr, ii. 259.
6 Ramsay, p. 167 ; cf. Ddllinger, p. 534.
N

194 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the blood of sacrifices into a hole near the altar,
whilst the flesh was being eaten by the worshippers,
or was laid aside as a sacrosanctum ; perhaps it was
given as food to the subterranean deities ; x but
whilst it may be doubtful whether this or other
ceremonies had anything to do with the idea under
lying the sprinkling of blood, there can be little,
if any doubt, that the Greeks recognised the expia
tory element in sacrifice. " The taurobolion was
the offering of a bull {kriobolion of a ram) to Cybele
the mother of the gods. A deep trench was dug,
and planks pierced with holes were placed over it.
Under these the person who was to undergo lustra
tion placed himself, whilst the beast, with its horns
gilded, was brought and slain upon the planks. The
blood flowed down upon every part of the man
below, who thus considered himself purified for
twenty years to come, or even for ever." 2 In
Mexico the blood of human sacrifices was sprinkled
on the lintels of the door of the temple and on the
image of the deity.3
Amongst the Nicaraguans the sun and other
deities were worshipped, and priests prescribed
1 Kleinert, p. 450 ; with references to Eurip. Hec. 536 ; and Pausan.
x. 4. Compare Ddllinger, p. 209.
2 Thomson's Atonement, p. 266.
3 Wuttke, Geschichts des Heidenthums, i. 274.
" When the Saba?ans sacrificed an animal, they were wont to collect
the blood in a hole in the ground, and sitting round it to eat the flesh,
imagining that whilst they were eating the flesh, the daemons did eat
the blood, and thus they contracted friendship together as eating at the
same table" (Maimonides, More Nev. 484).
Homer, too (Od. a. 25, 36, 42, 227, 231), in describing the sacrifice of
Ulysses, tells us how the souls of the dead gathered about to drink the
blood, and how by this means he consulted the dead. (Essay, etc., pp.
131, I32-)

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 195
festivals, solemnities, the modes of sacrifice, and forms
of prayer, etc. In sacrificing, the priest turned
thrice round the victim, who was always a prisoner
of war, singing at the same time in a most lament
able tone. After this he ripped up his breast, smeared
his face with the blood of it, took out the heart,
and then cut the body to pieces. The heart was
given by the sacrificer to the chief priest, the hands
and feet to the king, and the rest to the people. The
head was fixed on a stake which was called by the
name of the province against which they were making
war, and we may naturally suppose the victim to have
been of that country. They often sacrificed children
and even men of their own country on those stakes ;
but they were obliged to purchase them before they
could offer them as victims ; and a father was allowed
to sell his child for that cruel purpose. All their
religious ceremonies were intermixed with prayers,
vows, promises to the gods of sincere repentance,
and processions in their honour.1 The chief priest
walks at the head of the band carrying an image
of the deity of the country fixed at the end of a
lance. The priests sing till they reach the place
where the idol is to halt, when they strew the place
where it is set down with all kinds of flowers. Then
they leave off singing, and the chief priest draws
blood from some part or other of his body in
honour of the god. The rest follow his example,
some letting blood from the tongue, others from
the ears, and others a great deal lower, as they
think proper; but the blood, from whatever part it
1 Picart, Ceremonies and Religious Customs, etc., iii. 168.

196 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
be drawn, is always used in smearing the idol's
face.1 As to the general significance of this rite there can
scarcely be a reasonable doubt, in face of the very
distinct statements in connection with the great day
of atonement : " He shall make atonement for, i.e.
cleanse, the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness
of the children of Israel ; " and "he shall cleanse the
altar, and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the
children of Israel ; " 2 and of the various allusions in
the New Testament, especially the words, " the blood
of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." 3 It seems to
symbolize the cleansing, washing, doing away of the
sin which rendered a sacrifice of propitiation or expia
tion necessary. Sin is conceived as a source of
impurity ; the pure and holy God cannot admit to
His fellowship those who are impure ; hence the
need of cleansing. The question is, who or what is
conceived to be cleansed ? One would naturally in
the light of the New Testament think of the sinner.4
But in the way of this interpretation lies the fact that
the altar, or its horns, or the veil, or the mercy-seat,
is sprinkled, and not the offender. Let us see how
1 I may refer here to what Nagelsbach says in his Nachhomerische
Theologie, p. 359, about purification by human blood. Murderers some
times tried to purify themselves after the committal of a murder by
binding or laying pieces cut off from the hands and feet under their
armpits. This was termed f/.aa-jca.'hU^tv, from (iaa-^aKn, a word whose
meaning is doubtful. It was also a custom to wipe the sword used on
the head of a slain man, as though to transfer the stain or guilt to him.
In some cases, too, his blood was licked and then spat out again.
Water, however, was most commonly used for this purpose among the
Greeks, both for individuals and for large numbers. See examples, l.c.
2 Lev. xvi. 16, 19, 29-34 ; cf. viii. 15.
3 John i. ; cf. Heb. ix. 13 ; cf. Isa. Iii. 15 ; Lev. xiv. 7 ; Num. xix. 19.
4 Kurtz, quoted by Oehler in Herzog, Real-Encycl. p. 631.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 197
the rite has been explained by others. Among the
more striking explanations the following may be
adduced: " Sprinkling denoted that the slaying of a
living being which took place by way of atonement
was appropriated to, as it were made the property of,
the Holy Place through the blood which had been its
life. The Holy Place was sprinkled, not the sacrificer,
because it was the latter who made the payment, and
God to whom it was made. The sin of the sacrificer
made the Holy Place unclean, inasmuch as it was the
place of his communion with God. Hence what had
been done for the restoration of fellowship with God
was attributed to it, and thus the uncleanness caused
by sin was taken away." Or, " The essential pur
pose of the sprinkling was to bring to God what
had been the life of the sacrificial animal as a pay
ment rendered by its being shed, and by means of
that payment to deliver the abode and vicinity of God
from the defilement which sin had brought upon it." 1
Surely a strange symbol of the appropriation to
God of the payment of life ! Says another, " The
sprinkling of the blood could have but one end,
namely, to bring the nephesh or life to the place
where Jehovah's holiness is revealed, in order that
that holiness might act upon the nephesh, that is,
sanctify it, in other words, destroy, cover its sin,
atone it." 2 There is more in the following view :
" Strictly speaking, the only thing that can cover or
expiate the souls of the people is a soul. A man
may express his thanks or petition in a gift or
offering ; but as coming from an impure, sinful
1 Hofmann, quoted in Kurtz, p. 141. f. 2 Bahr, ii. 346.

I98 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
person, it must itself be impure. For this reason
God has provided something which shall take the
place of this self-surrender : He substitutes the soul
of the pure, innocent animal for the impure, sinful
soul of the offerer. Presented in the blood, it comes
between the offerer and the holy God ; the latter
beholds accordingly on His altar a pure life by
which the impure life of the worshipper is covered.
It serves in like manner to cover and do away with
the impurities which cleave to His sanctuary."1 Keil
says, " The power of covering the sinner before God,
or of making atonement for him, was due to the
circumstance of that blood being brought before God
as the element in which resided the soul of the
animal put to death in sacrifice, and also to the fact
that the soul of the man who had substituted the
animal for himself was received by God into His
favour." 2
None of these explanations seem to me quite to hit
the point ; nay more, they partially ignore the refer
ences to cleansing both in the Old Testament and
elsewhere. I venture also to think that the key to the
riddle may be found if we take as our starting-point
the words, " blood, it polluteth the land," i.e. the
blood shed by a manslayer or murderer : " and no
expiation can be made for the land for the blood
that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that
shed it. And thou shalt not defile the land which ye
inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell : for I the Lord
dwell in the midst of Israel." 3 When the land was
1 Oehler in Herzog, p. 632 ; cf. O. T. Theol. i. 417.
2 Archceology, i. 272. 3 Num. xxxv. 33 f.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 199
defiled by the blood of a murdered man, it became to
that extent impossible for God to dwell in it ; such
defilement drove Him away from it ; there could be no
fellowship between Him and it. If the right relation
between God and the land were to be re-established,
the land must be cleansed by the blood of the
murderer. But by the land was meant not merely
the territory, but also the people : both were included.
The nation was defiled, and needed to be cleansed
before God could again take up His abode in their
midst ; if it were not cleansed, He would cease to
dwell in their midst. The same idea, modified
according to the circumstances, is expressed in the
rite now under consideration. Every individual by
sinning defiled the temple or sanctuary of God ; still
more the ruler, the priest, the congregation, the
nation as a whole. Fellowship with God was thus
rendered impossible : God could not draw nigh to
them as long as the place of meeting was uncleansed.
But this cleansing really embraced the offender,
whether common man, or ruler, or priest, or nation.
This also seems to be exactly what the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews takes for granted when he
writes, " For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the
ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been
defiled, sanctify unto the cleansing of the flesh ; how
much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse your
conscience from dead works ; " x for surely the refer
ence is not exclusively to the "sprinkling upon him
that is to be cleansed from leprosy," mentioned in
Lev. xiv. 7, although it too may be included. In a
1 Heb. ix. 13 ; cf. ver. 21 ff.

200 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
word, the Holy Place with the furniture belonging
to it represented the Israelites in their specifically
religious aspect. It was as though God said, "Your
temple and you with it, it as representing you, are
defiled by your sins ; the temple is where I dwell in
your midst ; as long as it is defiled, I am shut out
from it, and you from me ; it and you must be
cleansed by the blood of the sacrifices which I
appoint." This idea harmonizes with the stage at
which the Israelites were ; but it prepared the way
for the higher idea set forth in the New Testament,
according to which the man himself is the place of
meeting between God and himself and the world ;
and he or his heart needs to be cleansed ere God
can enter into fellowship with him and he with God.
4. The next step of import was the burning of the
sacrifice either in whole or part on the altar and
elsewhere. In the case of sin-offerings brought by
one of the common people or a ruler, the fat, or one
of the two pigeons, or a handful of the fine flour
which was permitted as a surrogate, was to be
consumed on the altar.1 In the case of a priest, the
fat, the two kidneys, and the caul upon the liver were
burnt on the altar of burnt-offering ; and the skin of
the bullock and all its flesh, with its head, and with
its legs, and its inwards, and its dung, — even the
whole bullock was to be carried forth without the
camp into a clean place, where the ashes are poured
out, and to be burned on wood with fire.2 In the
case of the sacrifice for the congregation both on
ordinary occasions and on the great day of atone-
1 Lev. iv. 13, 26, v. 10, 12. 2 Lev. iv. 8 ff.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 201
ment, it was ordained that whilst the fat of the sin-
offering should be burnt on the altar, the rest of the
carcase should be carried forth and burned without
the camp.1
In other religious systems also it was more or less
customary to burn parts or the whole of animal
sacrifices, not to mention incense. In India, Agni
was conceived as the Fire-God, whose business it
was to devour the offerings, and thus bring them
for the satisfaction of the needs of the gods.2 In
the Bhagavad-gita we read, " Some devotees attend
to the sacrifices of the deities only ; others offer
sacrifice by the action of worship only in the fire
of the supreme Being. Some sacrifice the sense
of hearing and the other senses in the fires of
restraint ; some offer objects of sense, such as sound,
in the fires of the senses," — an indication, as it would
seem, of the existence of an authorized custom of
burning victims.3 The Chinese custom of burning
paper is, perhaps, also a relic of an earlier and more
serious rite. Perhaps, too, the letting off of fire
works on the eve of the New Year — which has also,
undoubtedly, a religious significance.4 The Peruvians
sacrificed at the greatest of their festivals, that held
in December, a great number of sheep and lambs,
which they burnt with worked and odoriferous wood.5
The Mexicans, too, when they offered human sacri
fices, tore the still throbbing heart with a stone knife
1 Lev. iv. 12, 20, xvi. 25, 27.
2 Kleinert, p. 444 ; comp. Bhagavad-gita, p. 23.
3 Bhagavad-gita, ch. iv. p. 33. Translation, by J. Cockburn Thompson
(Hertford), 1855.
4 Wuttke, ii. 66. s Amberley, Analysis of Religious Belief, i. 53.

202 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
out of the body, held it up to the sun, then laid it at
the idol's feet, or put it into its wide opened jaws,
and afterwards burned it.1 Homer alludes to the
custom as though it were common among the
Greeks : —
Next, proclamation through the camp was made
To purify the host ; and in the sea,
Obedient to the word, they purified ;
Then to Apollo solemn rites performed
With faultless hecatombs of bulls and goats
Upon the margin of the watery waste ;
And, wreathed in smoke, the savour rose to heaven.2
Again, in another passage, the whole ceremonial
is fully described : —
The sacred hecatomb
Around the well-built altar for the god
In order due they placed ; their hands then wash'd
And the saltcake prepar'd, before them all
With hands uplifted Chryses pray'd aloud.
The prayers concluded and the saltcake strew'd
Upon the victims' heads, they drew them back
And slew and flay'd ; then cutting from the thighs
The choicest pieces, and in double layers
O'erspreading them with fat, above them placed
The due meat-offerings ; then the aged priest
The cleftwood kindled and libations pour'd
Of ruddy wine ; armed with the fivefork'd prongs
The attendant ministers beside him stood.
The thighs consumed with fire, the inward parts
1 Wuttke, i. 273.
2 II. i. 301. Speaking of the Trojans offering a hecatomb to the
Gods, Homer, as quoted by Plato in the Alcibiades, ii., says : " The
sweet savour of it went up, but the blessed gods did not eat of it, nor
would they : for Troy was hateful to them, and so was Priamus and the
people of Priamus." The gods' eating of the sacrifice is therefore
made the mark or sign of their being in friendship with those that
offered : refusal, a sign of displeasure.
So Maximus Tyrius (Set: 38) reports that the Persians, in sacrificing to
the sun, used this form of words: "Bringing to him, as it were, the
meat of fire, O Lord Fire, eat " (vvp 'htaTrira., fodu).
If the smoke ascended, the heathen believed the sacrifice accepted ;
if it were beaten down, the reverse. (Essay, etc., p. 74.)

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 203
They tasted first ; the rest upon the spits
Roasted with care and from the fire withdrew.1
Amongst the Romans, too, it was customary to
take the choicest entrails of victims slain in sacrifice,
sprinkle with meal, wine, and incense, and throw the
whole into the fire.2
Whatever is given or offered in a solemn manner
immediately to God, so as that part of it or the
whole is consumed, is what is meant by the word
sacrifice. Whether on an altar or by fire, or whether
a libation of wine or other liquid is poured on the
earth or into the sea, or the entrails of an animal
are cast into the sea, is indifferent. Such is Virgil's
idea in SEn. v. 235 ff. : 3 —
Dii, quibus imperium est pelagi, quorum aequora curro
Vobis laetus ego hoc candentem in littore Taurum
Constituam ante aras, voti reus, Extaque Salsos
Porriciam in fluctus, et vina liquentia fundam.
The sea was the proper place for offering to the
Sea-Gods, in which their part of the thing sacrificed
was consumed. There was always to be such a
consumption of the thing offered to God that the
owner could never have or enjoy the whole again for
his own use.4
The savages of North America " offer tobacco
instead of incense, which they call smoking the Sun.
The chiefs of the families assemble by daybreak at
the house of one of their principal men. The latter
lights the calumet, offers it thrice to the rising sun,
1 Iliad, ii. 366. Earl of Derby's translation, 25 f. See also Bk. II.
(Translation, p. 56). Bk. VIII. 549.
2 Ramsay, Antiquities, p. 167.
3 See Essay on Nature, Design, etc., of Sacrifice (1748), p. 18.
4 Essay, etc., p. 5 ff.

204 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and, waving it with both his hands according to its
course, till he comes to the point from whence he
first began, he addresses his prayers at the same
time to the sun, implores his protection, beseeches
him to direct him in his undertakings, and recom
mends all the families of the canton or province to
his care. After which the chief smokes the calumet
and presents it to the assembly, in order that every
member of it may smoke the sun in his turn." 1 This
ceremony is never performed but on important occa
sions. In their common worship they merely address
their Manitou,2 which is given them by their jugglers.
" Certain savages who live towards the North
coasts believe that storms are raised by the spirit
of the moon's lodging itself in the bottom of the sea.
To pacify it, therefore, they sacrifice to it the most
valuable things they have in their canoe, and throw
everything into the sea, not excepting their tobacco.
This sacrifice is heightened with singing and certain
ceremonies, which they think efficacious in driving
out this evil spirit."
" Whenever the Virginians go a journey, they
burn tobacco in order to obtain the assistance of the
sun. When they cross a lake or river, they throw
tobacco into it, or the most valuable thing that they
1 La Potterie, History of North America, quoted in Picart, Cere
monies and Religious Customs, vol. iii. pp. 80, 81.
2 Manitou is the name given to a genius, which is held to reside not
only in living, but inanimate beings. They worship it in everything
that strikes their senses. A bird, an ox, a bear, an arrow, each has its
manitou. Every savage has his particular manitou, which he looks
upon as his tutelar deity. " They set it forth in their huts, and sacrifice
dogs or other animals to it. The warriors (of Illinois) carry theirs in a
mat, and perpetually smoke it to give them victory." Father Marest's
Letter to the Illinois, quoted in Picart, iii. 80.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 205
have, in order that the spirit who presides in those
places may grant them a safe passage over. Whenever
they return from hunting or any other considerable
enterprise, they offer part of their spoils, of their best
tobacco, of their furs, their colours with which they
paint themselves, nay, even fat and the best of their
" 1
game. " Every season of the year they offer to the wicked
spirit the first of their fruits, of their birds, fish, cattle,
plants, roots, etc., and repeat their offering every
time they have any extraordinary success in war,
hunting, or fishing." 2
" The moment the sun begins to shine, the Iouanas 3
sing forth his praises by falling several times upon
their knees ; after which they throw perfumes into
the sacred fire that is lighted before the gate of the
temple or grotto. These two acts of worship are
followed by a third no less essential. The priest
pours honey into a stone made hollow for the
purpose, and which stands before a stone table ;
and scatters about the stone a considerable quantity
of maize half-bruised and cleared from its chaff.
This is the food for certain birds who, the Floridans
tell us, sing the praises of the sun. Whilst the
priests are burning the perfumes and singing to the
honour of that planet, the people prostrate them
selves and pay their devotions. When the sun
begins to gild the edges of the table with his rays,
they throw all the perfume they have left into the
fire. After the last oblation of perfumes six Iouanas,
1 History of Virginia, quoted in Picart, iii. 1 14.
2 Ibid. iii. 117. 3 Iouanas — Floridan priests.

206 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
chosen by lot, stay by the table and set at liberty six
birds of the sun, which they brought in cages, in order
that they may act their part in the ceremony. Then
follows a procession of devotees, who come down from
the mountain of Olaimy with boughs in their hands
and go to the entrance of the temple, into which they
are , introduced by the Iouanas. Lastly, the pilgrims
wash their hands and faces with a sacred water." 1
As to the significance of this rite, whether in
Judaism or in the ethnic religions, very divergent
opinions have been expressed. Whilst there may
be ground for thinking that some of the heathen
meant to supply their gods with actual nutriment and
enjoyment, and regarded the burning as a means
of enabling them to partake of what was offered, we
may surely dismiss, as an exaggeration, the asser
tion of a celebrated philologian, "The gods are
hungry and wish to eat ; this is the root of all
sacrifice."2 The notion is at all events out of har
mony both with the spirit and teachings of Judaism as
represented in the Scripture. For only strong pre
possession can find a warrant or support for it in the
oft- repeated words, " The food of the offering made
by fire for a sweet savour unto the Lord." 3
By way of ascertaining the significance of the
rite, let us consider again what went before. A
subject of the great King has failed to render to
Him the service which he owed. For this cause his
Lord regards him with displeasure — there is aliena-

1 Picart, iii. 126, from Rochefort, Hist, of the Antilles, referring
especially to the Apalachites.
2 F. A. Wolf, quoted by Kleinert, p. 453. 3 Lev. iii. 16, iv. 31.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 207
tion between them. The offender comes to make
atonement in the appointed way. He has brought
a sacrifice ; by imposition of hands he has signified
that whilst it is his, and he identifies himself with it,
he devotes it to the purpose of making atonement.
Then he slew it in sign of the death which is the
condition of life. Afterwards the blood was sprinkled
to signify that the past is done away with, that he is
cleansed, and that he starts as it were afresh. What,
then, can be the further meaning of the burning ?
Surely it is impossible for it to symbolize the punish
ments -of hell.1 Nor am I satisfied with the view
advanced by another writer : "Its primary intention
was to consume or annihilate the gift so far as the
offerer was concerned. This design was, however,
merely subordinate and negative (for it might have
been destroyed in some other way) ; its proper and
positive end was that it should in the very act of
being consumed rise to Him who dwells on high : the
true goal of the sacrifice was thus indicated." 2 There
is an element of truth therein, but it seems to
me inadequate. Did it not rather symbolize that
complete reconsecration to the service of Jehovah,
the interruption of which had given cause for
sacrifice ? Nay more, a reconsecration in which
the free devotion of the offerer and the accepting
and enabling act of God met and united ? The
latter is symbolized by the fact that it was divine
fire — fire from God — by which the flesh was con-
1 Michaelis, Typische Gottesgelahrtheit ; de Maistre, Soiries, etc., and
others ; see Bahr, ii. 349 ; Kurtz, p. 151.
2 Bahr, ii. 347. Compare Kurtz, p. 153; also substantially Oehler in
Herzog, Real-Encycl. p. 632 f.

208 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
sumed ; l the former is symbolized by the act of
placing the flesh in contact with the fire. In this
way the establishment of normal relations is signified :
and what is thus signified is the spiritual reality.
(III.) The function discharged by the sacrificial
system, more particularly by the sin-offerings, whose
nature and ceremonial have just been considered.
This function was threefold — atoning, educative,
and prophetic. We have to do here exclusively with
the first-mentioned function.
Their atoning function was to re-establish normal
relations between the ruler and the subjects of the
kingdom. i. They were rooted in the consciousness of
disordered relations between either the individual
Israelite or the congregation, i.e. the nation as a whole
and the divine ruler. In Leviticus reference is made
to this when it is said, " If the anointed priest shall
sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him
offer for his sin which he hath sinned ; " 2 again, " If
the whole congregation of Israel shall err, and the
thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and
they have done any of the things which the Lord
hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty ;
when the sin, wherein they have sinned, is known,
then the assembly shall offer a sin-offering ; " 3 further,
" When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one
of all the things which the Lord his God hath com
manded not to be done, and is guilty ; if his sin,

1 See Ex. ix. 24; cf. Judg. vi. 21 ; I Kings xviii. 38; 1 Chron. xxi.
26 ; 2 Chron. vii. 1 ; Lev. vi. 5, 6.
2 Lev. iv. 3. 3 Lev. iv. 13 f.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 209
wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he
shall bring a sin-offering ; " x finally, " If any one of the
common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the
things which the Lord hath commanded not to be
done, and be guilty, or if his sin, which he hath sinned,
be made known to him ; then he shall bring an obla
tion for his sin which he hath sinned." 2 Other refer
ences are contained in the same and following chapters,
as well as in many other parts of the Old Testament.
We learn, however, from Numbers that for high
handed sin atonement was impossible : " But the
soul that doeth aught with an high hand, whether
he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth
the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among
his people. Because he hath despised the word of
the Lord, and hath broken His commandments, that
soul shall utterly be cut off : his iniquity shall be upon
him." 3 Wilful sin thus cost the offender his position
as a member of the divine commonwealth. He was
sentenced to expatriation, to outlawry from God and
His kingdom.
2. The design of the sacrifices was to atone.
This is set forth with equal distinctness in the
passages from which I have just quoted. "And the
priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall
be forgiven " 4— so as regards the congregation ; as
regards a ruler we read, "And the priest shall make
atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall
be forgiven ; " 5 and in the case of the common man

1 Lev. iv. 22-24. 2 Lev. iv. 27 f.
3 Num. xv. 30 f. See Weber, Zorn Gottes, p. 169.
4 Lev. iv. 20. 6 Lev. iv. 26.
O

210 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
we are told, " The priest shall make atonement for
him, and he shall be forgiven."1 As to the word
rendered " forgiven," little difficulty is felt. What
ever it denotes generally, it denotes here. The
chief difficulty is with the word 123, "Kipper"
whose radical signification is generally allowed to
be " to cover," " to cover up," the notion of which,
however, in the Piel form used in the passages
quoted, has passed from the literal to the figurative
sense.2 The question is, what is the force of this
word or idea, " cover," " cover up," in connection
with the offender, sin and sacrifice ? Sacrifices
"cover;" what do they cover? And what is
"covering"? A pretty general opinion is that
"the covering removed the sins from the sight of
Jehovah ; Jehovah saw them no more ; they no
longer provoked His anger and His punishment;
and thus they might be regarded as no longer
existing, as exterminated and altogether removed
from the wrath of God." 3 One eminent writer
makes it signify a payment, so that the means by
which the sin is expiated assumes the appearance of
a "compensation," without which the sinner could
not be set free from the captivity of sin ; in just
the same sense in which payment is made as a
redemption fee for deliverance from bodily captivity.4
Kurtz understands the covering of sin by the sacri
ficial worship as "a covering by which the accusatory
1 Lev. iv. 31 ; see also Lev. xvi. 6, n, 17, 24, ix. 7 ; cf. Ezek. xiv. 17 ;
2 Chron. xxx. 18 ; Weber, Zorn Gottes, p. 162.
2 Kurtz, p. 67 ; Weber, p. 161.
-, Kurtz, p. 68, referring to Bahr, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Oehler.
4 Hofmann in Kurtz, p. 7 ; Weber, p. 162.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 2 1 1
and damnatory power of sin — its power to excite
the anger and wrath of God — is broken ; by which,
in fact, it is rendered both harmless and impotent," x
and agrees substantially with Kahnis, who says,
"To cover up, i.e. to expiate, does not mean to cause
a sin not to have been committed, for that is im
possible ; nor to represent it as having no existence,
for that would be opposed to the earnestness of the
law ; nor to pay or compensate it by any perform
ance : but to cover it before God, i.e. to deprive it
of its power to come between us and God." 2
That Kipper refers to an effect on God Himself
seems clear from such passages as, " Make atonement
for them before the Lord ; " 3 " For on this day shall
atonement be made for you to cleanse you : from all
your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord." 4 The
original might be literally translated, " to cover them
or upon them to the face of Jehovah." God hides
away their sins even from His own face. Some
light may be thrown on the point by the prayers,
declarations, and threats relating to sin found in other
parts of the Old Testament : " Remember not the sins
of my youth, nor my transgressions."5 " I, even I,
am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine
own sake; and I will not remember thy sins."6 "I
will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember
no more." 7 " They consider not in their hearts that
I remember all their wickedness ; now have their
1 Kurtz, p. 70. 2 Kurtz, p. 70.
3 Lev. x. 17 ; cf. xiv. 18, 29, xv. 15. 4 Lev. xvi. 30. 6 Ps. xxv. 7.
6 Isa. xliii. 25 ; cf. Jer. xviii. 23, "Blot out their sin from before Thy
face." 7 Jer. xxxi. 34 ; cf. Heb. viii. 12, x 17.

212 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
own doings beset them about; they are before my
face."1 "Cast their sins into the depths of the
sea. i
It would seem, therefore, that one of the primary
effects of the sin-offering duly offered was to hide the
offence from God — to make Him forget it — to cause it
to be as though it had never been committed, so far as
His remembrance of the offence was concerned. For
giveness included forgetting : forgive and forget— that
is what God does. Men forgive without forgetting, or
forget without forgiving ; God does both. How both
are possible is another question : but who shall under
take to determine what is possible or impossible to
Him who has life in Himself, and who, therefore, has
absolute control over the depths of His own being ?
Perhaps, too, the correlate of the divine forgiving
and forgetting was self-forgiving and self-forgetting.
Or must the sins of the offender be " ever before
Him," 3 as David says his sin was. Hiding from God
by God involves surely hiding from man by God.4
But in what sense did these sacrifices atone ? If
they produced any real effect at all, what was the
nature thereof? In view of the words of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, " For the law having a shadow of
the good things to come, not the very image of the
things, they can never with the same sacrifices year
by year, which they offer continually, make perfect
them that draw nigh. Else would they not have
ceased to be offered ? because the worshippers, having
1 Hos. vii. 2 ; cf. viii. 13, ix. 9. 2 Micah vii. 19. 3 Ps. Ii. 3.
4 See those most remarkable words of Job, " Oh that Thou wouldest
hide me in Sheol, that Thou wouldest keep me secret, until Thy wrath be
past."

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 213
been once cleansed, would have had no more conscience
of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remem
brance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible
that the blood of bulls and goats should take away
sins," 1 it has become customary to deny that the
sacrifices had any real objective effect. " The whole
of the sacrificial ceremony, up to the act of expiation
itself," says Kurtz,2 "moved upon the basis of sym
bolism ; and the sacrificial blood, therefore, was
capable of nothing more than a symbolical atonement.
But Lev. xvii. 1 1 does not state that the atonement
was merely symbolized by the sprinkling of the blood ;
on the contrary, it assigns to it a real atoning power
Whence did the sacrificial blood acquire this ; and by
what means did its symbolical atoning power acquire
the potency of a real atonement, and the empty
powerless symbol a sacramental efficacy ? . . . The
genuine and essential atoning power with which God
endowed the sacrificial blood that was brought to the
altar, as the place of salvation and of grace, so as to
change the empty symbol into a true sacramental type,
was derived from Christ, whose self-sacrifice was to
God an ever present event, and the fruits and merits
thereof also objectively present before its actual
occurrence in the fulness of the times." 3
It seems to me impossible to read the passages
relating to sacrifices for sin without feeling that they
were prescribed for the purpose of effecting atonement,
and were offered in the belief that they actually did
effect atonement. The rites may have been sym-
1 Heb. x. 1-4 ; cf. Ps. xl. 2 Sacrificial Worship, etc., p. 119 f.
3 So Keil, Archeology, i. p. 278.

214 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
bolical ; the victim and its qualities typical ; but the
whole ceremonial — the sacrifice in its entirety — was
believed to have a real present value, a real present
efficacy : it secured forgiveness of sin, reconciliation
with God.
The difficulty will disappear if we look at the
subject from the point of view from which the atone
ment is being approached in these studies, and further
remember that the Israelites were still at a very early
stage of their moral and religious development.
Jehovah was literally their King ; the country in
which they lived, which they cultivated, whose fruits
sustained them, was His property, and held by them
in fief; all their institutions were of His appointment
or sanction ; their laws were the expression of His
personal will ; there was nothing abstract in their
relation to Him. All violations of law were therefore
offences against Him, more or less heinous ; and, as
I observed before, our modern distinction between
ceremonial, political, moral, and religious offences had
no existence for them. But their conception of God
and of their relation to Him was a very elementary
one — not indeed altogether external, but rather that
of a child or of an uncultivated man, who is not yet
alive to the distinction between external and internal.1
God's view of and relation to them answered in the
main to theirs. The worship and service expected
from them were not such as He expects from us.
Nor did He regard their offences as He may justly
regard ours. We may, nay, must apply to these
relations the analogy of human relations. The same
1 See Oehler in Herzog, p. 643.

HEBREW SIN-OFFERINGS WITH ETHNIC PARALLELS. 2 1 5
conduct has a different value and significance, and is
differently regarded and dealt with, according to the
age, circumstances, and development of the persons.
So is it in the history of the kingdom of God. That
the same words are used at the earlier as at the
later stages, need cause no difficulty. The meaning
and force of words grow and expand with human
development. Sin, ingratitude, rebellion against God
on the part of an Israelite, were something widely
different in intensity and significance from the same
things in us.
If this is true, it may be also true that atonement
could be accomplished in the case of Israelites by
means which, when Christ came, had become utterly
inadequate. When the Israelite came with his victim
— a lamb, or a goat, or a bullock, or even a pigeon, or
some fine flour — he made a real sacrifice. It was not
only real to him, but if offered in penitence and loyal
submission, accorded with the constitution of the
kingdom of God as then recognised. It was fitting
that a subject of the kingdom at that stage should be
restored to peace with his ruler by the fulfilment of
these God-appointed conditions. If we transfer our
present idea of God and man, sin, repentance, sub
mission, reconciliation to these early ages, the thing
becomes, of course, absurd. But the Israelites were
on a lower plane than we. It was impossible for
them either to do right or commit sin, as we can do
both.1 Their righteousness and their sin were related
to our righteousness and sin much as the conduct,
whether good or bad, of a child is related to the
1 See Mozley's sermon on this subject. Note XII. Appendix.

2l6 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
conduct of a mature human being. Answering there
to were the conditions of pardon and reconciliation.
This consideration does not at all nullify the reality of
their offences, or render unreal the transaction by
which their reconciliation is effected ; but it helps to
explain behaviour, both on the human and on the
divine side, which must seem very inconsistent when
regarded from the point of view of Christianity.

CHAPTER V.

THE ANGER OF GOD.

The treatment of the subject of the anger of God
by Christian thinkers has from the first been marked
by a singular inconsistency. When dealing with it
practically, they have unhesitatingly used the words
of Scripture in all the vigour of their anthropopathism ;
when dealing with it theoretically or theologically, on
the contrary, they have done their best to eliminate
the anthropopathic element everywhere present in the
words of Scripture. There have been exceptions
to the rule — men who either accommodated their
practice to their theory, or their theory to their
practice ; but the vast majority of theologians and
preachers have been open to the charge which I have
just mentioned. Were this the proper occasion, I
could quote passages in evidence from every age and
section of the Christian Church down to the present
day. We have to do here with the subject in its
theological aspect.
I. Scripture references to the divine anger.
(I.) Old Testament. A variety of terms is used to
denote the divine anger, of which the principal are the
following : — 1?k with its derivative *1« occurs in —
" Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause Thine

218 the redemption of man.
indignation toward us to cease. Wilt Thou be angry
with us for ever?"1 "The Lord, the Lord, a God
full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger : " 2 —
®$ in " For a fire is kindled in mine anger : " — M?J in
" God is a righteous God, yea, a God that hath indig
nation every day ; " 3 " The hand of the Lord shall be
known towards His servants, and He shall have indig
nation against His enemies : " 4 — *\Vl in " I will bear
the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned
against Him, until He plead my cause and execute
judgment for me :"5 — i""?n in " As they gather silver,
and brass, and iron, and lead into the midst of the
furnace to blow the fire upon it to melt it ; so will I
gather you in mine anger (f)x) and in my fury, and
I will lay you there and melt you : " 6 — fin in " Ye shall
not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If Thou
afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I
will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot,
and I will kill you with the sword : " 7 — friaj? or ">?? in
" Thou hast cast off and rejected, Thou hast been
wroth with Thine anointed : " s — tlVi? in " And it will be,
seeing ye rebel to-day against the Lord, that to-morrow
He will be wroth with the whole congregation of
Israel." 9 " Because they went and served other gods
and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not and
whom He had not given them, therefore the anger of
the Lord was kindled against this land to bring upon
all the curse that is written in this book : " 10 — Dja or

1 Ps. lxxxv. 4, 5. 2 Ex. xxxiv. 6. 3 Ps. vii. 12. 4 Isa. lxvi. 14.
s Micah vii. 9. 6 Ez. xxii. 20. 7 Ex. xxiii. 24 ; also )i"in.
s Ps. lxxxix. 39 ; cf. lxxviii. 59. 9 Josh. xxii. 18.
10 Deut. xxix. 26, 27.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 219
(noun) DJQ in " Ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord
to provoke Him to anger through the work of your
hands." 1 " They have moved me to jealousy with
that which is not God ; they have provoked me to
anger with their vanities." 2
(II.) The allusions in the New Testament are not
so numerous as in the Old ; but they are no less
significant and forcible. Two terms only are employed
— 6vp,6<; and opyrj. 'Opyy is used in the following
passages : — " He that obeyeth not the Son shall not
see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."3
" The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness."4 "Let no man deceive you with
empty words ; for because of these things cometh the
wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience."6
" Hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the
throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb : for the great
day of His wrath is come, and who shall be able to
stand ? " 6 &v/i6<; is used as follows of God or Christ:
" If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, he
shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God ; " " the
winepress of the wrath of God."7 "In these seven
plagues is finished the wrath of God ; " 8 " the fierce
ness of the wrath of God" (0i^ios t^? op-y^'v).9 If there
is a difference between 0v/t6? and opyr], it is that whilst
the latter means simply anger, the former denotes
fierce anger, hot indignation.10
II. Historical notices. — The views taken of the
divine anger may be arranged in three classes : — in
1 Deut. xxxi. 29. 2 Deut. xxxii. 21. 3 John iii. 36.
4 Rom. i. 18. 5 Eph. v. 6. 6 Rev. vi. 16, 17.
7 Rev. xiv. 10, 19. 8 Rev. xv. 1. 9 Rev. ix. 15.
10 See Weber's Theologie des Talmud on " Anger of God," p. 301.

220 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the first class may be placed those which maintain that
anger in God is the archetype of anger in man, that
the two are in essence one ; in the second, those which
deny this, and resolve anger as ascribed to God into
some other principle or relation ; in the third class,
the view of anger as an original factor or constituent
of the divine essence or nature.
(I.) Among the comparatively few who, either in
ancient or modern days, have regarded anger as a
determination of the life of God, or a divine state not
only analogous to, but essentially the same as possible
human anger, were Tertullian and Lactantius.
The former in his treatise Against Marcion — who,
like some very modern thinkers, held anger to be
incompatible with a truly Christian conception of God,
and accordingly distinguished between the God of the
Christians, who only loves and blesses, and the
Demiurge or God of the Jews spoken of in the Old
Testament, who is both angry and punishes — reasons
as follows : " Marcion and his followers refuse to
ascribe' to their God such emotions of mind as they
censure in the Demiurge. Now, if He is susceptible
of no feeling of rivalry, or anger, or damage, or injury
as one who refrains from exercising judicial power, I
cannot tell how any system of discipline can be
consistent in Him." " Most listless is He, since He
takes no offence at the doing of what He dislikes
to be done, although displeasure ought to be the
companion of His violated will. If He is offended,
He ought to be angry ; if angry, He ought to inflict
punishment. For such infliction is the just fruit of
anger, and anger is the debt of displeasure, and dis-

THE ANGER OF GOD. 221
pleasure is the companion of a violated will."1 " Even
His severity is good, because just : when the judge is
good, that is just. Other qualities likewise are good,
by means of which the good work of a good severity
runs out its course, whether anger, or jealousy, or
sternness. For all these are indispensable to severity,
as severity is to justice." " This is to be deemed the
likeness of God in man, that the human soul have the
same emotions and sensations as God, although they
are not of the same kind ; differing as they do, both in
their conditions and their issues, according to their
nature. Then again, with respect to the opposite
sensations, — I mean meekness, patience, mercy, and
the very parent of them all, goodness, — why do you
form your opinion of the divine displays of these from
the human qualities ? For we, indeed, do not possess
them in perfection, because it is God alone who is
perfect. So also in regard to those others (the
opposites), namely, anger and irritation : we are
not affected by them in so happy a manner, because
God alone is truly happy by reason of His property of
incorruptibility. Angry He will probably be, but not
irritated, nor dangerously tempted ; He will be moved,
but not subverted. All appliances He must needs use,
because of all contingencies ; as many sensations as
there are causes : anger because of the wicked, and
indignation because of the ungrateful, and jealousy
because of the proud. So again, mercy on account
of the erring, and patience on account of the impeni
tent. All these affections He is moved by in that
peculiar manner of His own, in which it is profoundly
1 Book I. c. xxvi.

222 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
fit that He should be affected ; and it is owing to Him
that man is also similarly affected in a way which
is equally his own." 1
Lactantius takes up substantially the same position.
In his treatise, On the Anger of God, he remarks
in substance, in opposition to the Stoics and Epicu
reans, " The common Father of all, you say very
pleasingly, is not subject to such littleness of mind
as to be angry ; He is only mild, calm, propitious,
beneficent. It belongs to Him to conciliate the
race of man by divine and heavenly benefits. These
things now are very specious, and allure many to
believe them ; but though they approach, they do
not reach the truth. For if God is not angry with
the impious and the unrighteous, it is clear that He
does not love the pious and the righteous. There
fore it is more consistent to deny of Him both anger
and kindness. For in opposite matters it is neces
sary to be moved to both sides or to neither. He
who loves the good hates the wicked ; he who does
not hate the wicked does not love the good ; because
the loving of the good arises from the hatred of the
wicked, and the hating of the wicked has its rise from
the love of the good. . . . They (the Epicureans),
on the other hand, ought not to reason that because
God is not liable to anger, therefore He is not
moved to kindness ; but rather, because God is
moved by kindness, therefore He is also liable to
anger  The truth is that God is angry be
cause He is moved to kindness. This opinion is
to be maintained by us ; for it is the sum and
1 Book II. c. xvi. ; cf. xi., xiii.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 223
turning-point on which the whole of religion de
pends." 1
(II.) The second class embraces views which regard
the words of Scripture as necessarily anthropopathic,
and explain them to mean either a principle, or a
mode, or an effect of the divine action. The immense
majority of Christian writers have taken up this
position. The first, so far as known, theologically to formu
late this opinion was Origen ; and he as well as
others who, like Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus,
took up the same position, though in a less formal
manner, most probably owed their impulse to the
Neo - Platonic philosophy, with its conception of
God as exalted above all human thought, yea, all
that actually has existence. No true idea of God
can be arrived at, so they held, unless all attempts
to construe the divine after the analogy of the human
be most rigidly abstained from. Consistently enough,
therefore, Origen says : 2 " When thou hearest of
anger in God, do not believe that there is such a
divine passion. God is represented as angry for
our benefit : in reality He is not angry. Thou wilt
be enduring the divine anger when thou endurest
the sufferings drawn on thee by thine own wicked
ness." Or again : " If on account of those expressions
which occur in the Old Testament, as when God
is said to be angry or to repent, or when any other
human affection is described, our opponents think
that they are furnished with grounds for refuting
1 Lactantius, pp. 7-9, Clark's translation.
2 Horn. viii. § 6 in Jerem. See Weber, p. 42.

224 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
us, who maintain that God is altogether impassible,
and is to be regarded as wholly free from all affec
tions of that kind, we have to show them that
similar statements are found even in the parables
of the Gospel. When we read either in the Old
Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we
do not take such expressions literally, but seek in
them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God
as He deserves to be thought of." 1 Again, in his
Refutation of Celsus, he says : " Celsus, not under
standing that the language of Scripture regarding
God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view,
ridicules those passages which speak of words of
anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings
directed against sinners. . . . We speak, indeed, of
the ' wrath ' of God. We do not, however, assert
that it indicates any ' passion ' on His part, but
that it is something which is assumed in order to
discipline by stern means those sinners who have
committed many and grievous sins. For that which
is called God's ' wrath ' and ' anger ' is a means of
discipline. . . . The language regarding the wrath of
God is to be understood figuratively. . . . Threaten
ings are intimations of the punishments which are
to befall the wicked. . . . Wrath is no passion on
the part of God, but each one brings it upon himself
by his sins."2
No less decided in his theological opposition to
anthropOpathisms and assertion of the impassibility of
God than any of his predecessors, was Augustine ;
partly, too, in consequence of the influence of Plotinus,
1 De Principiis, Bk. II. c. iv. 4. 2 Book IV. cc. lxxi.-ii.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 225
traces of the study of whose philosophy, and especi
ally of whose views of God, are plentiful in his
writings. His allusions to the subject are frequent,
and as clear as they are frequent, and demanded by
his general view of the divine nature. In the treatise
on the Manichtzan heresy he says : " God does not
suffer perturbation when He visits men in anger ;
but either by an abuse of the word or by a peculiarity
of idiom, anger is used in the sense of punishment." 1
" God is not enraged with a passion similar to human
anger, but is angry, not in the sense of desiring
vengeance, but in the peculiar sense of giving full
effect to the sentence of a righteous retribution."2
So in the Enchiridion : ' ' When God is said to be
angry, we do not attribute to Him such a disturbed
feeling as exists in the mind of an angry man ; but
we call His just displeasure against sin by the
name anger, a word transferred from the analogy
of human emotions." 3 "The wrath of God, that is,
their condemnation, — for it is this and not any
disturbed feeling in the mind of God that is called
His wrath, — abideth on those who are damned."4
To precisely the same effect we read in the work
on the Trinity. Treating of the words of Paul —
" God commendeth His love towards us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much
more then, being now justified by His blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through Him" 6 — he adds,
" Justified, he says, in His blood, — justified plainly
in that we are freed from all sin ; and freed from all
1 Book XXII. c. xviii. 2 C. xxi. 8 C. xxxiii.
4 C. cxii. 5 Rom. v. 8, 9.
P

226 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
sin, because the Son of God, who knew no sin, was
slain for us. Therefore, ' we shall be saved from
wrath through Him;' from the wrath certainly of
God, which is nothing else but just retribution. For
the wrath of God is not, as is that of man, a per
turbation of the mind; but it is the wrath of Him
to whom Holy Scripture says in another place, ' But
Thou, O Lord, mastering Thy power, judgest with
calmness' (Wisd. xii. 18). If, therefore, the just
retribution of God has received such a name, what
can be the right understanding also of the reconcilia
tion of God, unless that then such wrath comes to
an end ? ' Neither were we enemies to God, except
as sins are enemies to righteousness ; which being
forgiven, such enmities come to an end, and they,
whom He Himself justifies, are reconciled to the
Just One.'"1 In the following passage from The
City of God, he himself traces his view of anger
to its roots in his conception of the divine immut
ability, which again depends on the divine simplicity.
" The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of
His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is
inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration
also are the unchangeable reason which changes
things ; for He does not, like man, repent of any
thing He has done ; because in all matters His
decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain.
But if Scripture were not to use such expressions,
it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds
of all classes of men whom it seeks access to for
their good. " 2
1 Book XIII. c. xvi. 2 Book XV. c. xxv. ; cf. Bk. IX. cc. iii.-vii.

THE ANGER OF GOD. ' 227
Beyond Augustine, little, if any, advance has
hitherto been made by the great mass of Christian
writers. Substantially they are where he and,
indeed, Origen were ; though, since the Reformation,
greater care has been taken so to formulate the
matter as to cover over the contradiction between
theology and Scripture.
Gerhard, the greatest of the early Lutheran
divines, says: "Scripture ascribes anger to God
merely dv0paTroira0a><; ; for the effect of divine punish
ment is signified, not any turbulent emotion of
God."1 In answer to the question whether God
is subject to emotions, he replies : " Scaliger dis
tinguishes between passive and active emotion.
The former is always conjoined with change, from
which God dfbera^XrJTO'i, is totally free. Anger in
men is a certain perturbation of the mind, because
it is a passive emotion ; but the anger of God is
not a perturbation, because it is an active emotion.
For it is nothing but just aversion from sin, and the
will to punish offenders." 2 Indeed, he and those
who followed did not profess to go beyond Augus
tine and the scholastics as to this point. The same
holds true also of the majority of the Reformed
theologians, alike German, Swiss, French, and
English. Turretine, for example, who did more
than any other writer to mould the theology of
Presbyterianism and Congregationalism for at least
a century, expressly maintains that anger is attributed
to God merely dvOpwiroTraBm.3
1 Loci, ii. 176 ; Weber, p. 46. 2 Weber, p. 46.
3 De Satisfactions Christi necessitate, Pt. I. xx.

228 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
An eminent English theologian of the last genera
tion remarks to the same effect : " The terms anger,
indignation, wrath, threatening, punishment, remission,
reconciliation, propitiation, and similar expressions,
are, under all the circumstances, most proper to be
employed, and are the best calculated to produce a
just sense of the evil of sin and many other salutary
feelings ; yet we should be careful to understand them
as expressing modes of the divine administration and
effects of the divine counsels, but not affections
operating upon the divine nature, nor changes in it.
A creature who is under the guill; and dominion of
sin stands in that position, with respect to the
necessary and unchangeable attributes of God, which is
fitly expressed by terms denoting the strongest dis
pleasure and abhorrence." " We are not warranted
to understand passages which describe God now in
the language of love and approbation, and now in that
of anger and condemnation, as indicating a real change
in God." 1
Professor Crawford refers to the subject in the
following terms : " If by ' an obstacle on the part of
God to the forgiveness of sinners,' there be under
stood anything in the shape of personal resentment
or implacable vindictiveness, or unwillingness to show
mercy, it is perfectly true that there is no such obstacle.
But that there are what may be called ' obstacles ' of
another kind, arising from God's most holy aversion
to sin, His just condemnation, and His declared
purpose as the supreme Lawgiver and righteous
Judge to punish it, can hardly be denied by any
1 Pye Smith, Discourses, etc., pp. 131, 132.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 229
careful reader of the Scriptures. How else are we to
explain those frequent and express statements regard
ing the divine anger and so forth ? We cannot
literally ascribe to God those human passions and
emotions which such language denotes. But they are
not devoid of meaning. It is intended to make men
feel that there is somewhat on the part of God opposing
the reception of sinners into His favour, which may
be fitly depicted by comparing it to those dispositions
and feelings of the human heart under which in these
figurative expressions it is represented." 1 It is not
easy to say what Dr. Crawford's position exactly is ;
but he seems to me to go as near as may be to a
denial that anger, as ascribed to God, denotes a dis
turbing determination of the divine life, essentially the
same as that which men experience. I imagine,
however, that he pretty fairly represents the current
mode of treating the subject.
Dr. Wardlaw does not go deeply into the subject,
but I am not sure whether he is on the whole less
vague than his predecessors.2 " Has the countenance
of the Being with whom we have to do," he asks
those who oppose the atonement, " never worn any
other expression than that of kindness ? Very far
from it." Then, after quoting passages ascribing
anger to God, he goes on to say : " We are reminded,
it is true, that God is there spoken of after the manner
of men. And if what is meant by this be that the
infinite mind is free from all the agitation and
turbulence which the passions produce in the minds
1 Doctrine of Atonement, p. 406.
2 Cf. Gilbert, Atonement, p. 114 ; Alexander, Biblical Theology.

230 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
of His creatures, we admit the truth. But the ex
pressions must have some meaning. And is it not a
more than suspicious circumstance that this qualifying
consideration is applied all on one side ? We hear
little of it in regard to the exercise of the divine benevo
lence ; although there is in the minds of men such a
thing as the turbulence of ecstasy in the emotions of
love and joy as well as in those of indignation and
wrath. The truth is, that we know humblingly little
of the operations of the divine mind. That there is
the utter and eternal absence of all the variations of
painful, or even of violent excitation and emotion, is
clear ; but that there is nothing that bears any analogy
at all to what exists in the minds of His creatures, is
what we dare not affirm. At all events, granting that
wrath in God is not an agitating passion, it is incom
parably more dreadful when regarded as standing
figuratively, by anthropomorphism, for a principle or
a settled and determinate purpose, that under His
government sin shall not pass with impurity. And
this it must mean, if it mean anything at all." 1
Another view of the anger of God claiming the
character of greater objectivity, but in reality reducing
it as effectually to another divine principle or relation,
has been taken of recent years by many theologians
in all parts of Christendom. Their general position
has been summed up as follows : " God is love, and
what is not love is not in God. It is therefore not
permissible to admit an antithetical quality into God's
nature. Holiness and love are one in God. To
1 Wardlaw's Systematic Theology, vol. ii. pp. 362, 363 ; cf. Park's
Atonement, p. 525.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 23 1
recognise in God an anger which has to be satisfied
or appeased is heathenish, yea, devilish. The anger
of God is in reality nothing but the displeasure at sin
which God causes man to feel, in order that he may
repent and reform ; the end of punishment is improve
ment. Anger, therefore, is a form or mode of the
manifestation of love." l
As typical examples of this mode of treating anger
— which might perhaps be described as semi-objective,
semi-anthropopathic — I may quote Martensen, the
well-known Danish theologian ; and Schoberlein, a less
known but equally noteworthy German theologian.
Martensen says : " The fact that the relation of God
to the world is unsatisfactory, is expressed in the
notion of the divine anger. This notion is not merely
anthropopathic, but expresses the divine nrddo<; which
is necessarily involved in the conception of love,
whose manifestation is restrained and unrighteously
hindered. For anger is holy love itself when it feels
itself stopped by the turning away of the being with
which it was minded to enter into fellowship. What
may thus in one aspect be designated anger, in
another aspect may be described as a grieving of the
Holy Spirit of love, and thus passes over into com
passion. We can only speak of God's anger where
we can speak of God's compassion." These remarks
are made in elucidation of previous statements regard
ing the atonement, as to which he maintains that
whilst it is true that not only man but God is
reconciled, it is equally true that no alteration
metaphysically considered was produced in God, the
1 See Weber, p. 58.

232 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
eternal depth of whose love is without the shadow of
change.1 Schoberlein treats the question of divine anger very
beautifully, though he scarcely gets beyond the
general point of view which I am illustrating : " At
the first blush it might be thought that pure love
would ignore or do away with sin. But this would
be a very external view of the nature of sin and love.
A personal being can only be freed from its own act
by freely turning back into itself ; and as it is
absolutely dependent on God, it can only do this
when God turns into it. Were God to ignore man's
free act, He would be misregarding the native dignity
of personality ; were He to do man violence, He
would be destroying the very basis of loving inter
course. No : whilst He never loses sight of love's
goal, namely, the destruction of sin in man, which is
the real hindrance of union, He does not go to work
arbitrarily or with violence. One thing, however, Love
does — she refuses to let man alone ; she opens her
heart to the reactive force of his sin, and follows him
with all the energy of her devotion. In doing this,
however, she cannot but feel the attempted apostasy
as something hostile. Not only is her inner harmony
disturbed, but her living impulse to secure man's true
life by a complete bestowal of herself on him is also
impeded. But divine Love cannot abide in this passive
state of holy anguish : being love, and her nature being
to communicate herself, unless she is to deny her own
nature, she must set herself in hostile opposition to
the spirit which sets itself in hostile opposition to her.
1 Martensen's Dogmatik, p. 281, § 157.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 233
This pain of love at sin thus assuming an active
form, we designate anger. Anger is not hatred.
There is no hatred properly so called in God, at all
events not towards persons, but only towards sin, so
far as it is distinguishable from the sinner to whom it
cleaves. Anger, on the contrary, is the energy of
love against the sinner, the expression of its pain that
he should have become untrue to his better self ; and
he who cannot feel anger can have no hearty love for
another's true self."1
A very fascinating view of the subject ; one, too,
that brings out an important side of the truth ; but
scarcely objective enough, as it seems to me, to do
justice to the plain and strong words of Scripture.
(III.) A third view which may be briefly alluded
to, less for its own intrinsic importance than for
completeness' sake, is that which assigns to anger
or its equivalent a constitutive place in the divine
essence, — a place as real and essential as any other
attribute, for example, love.
The chief representative of this view is Jacob
Bohme ; 2 though, indeed, it may be questioned
whether he ought to be quoted in this connection at
all, inasmuch as his treatment of anger is rather
theosophic or philosophic than theological. The
fundamental thought which he takes for his starting-
point is that of a distinction, of a duality of principles

1 Schoberlein, Grundlehren des Heils, pp. 49, 50.
2 See Kernhaffter Auszug aller SchriJ 'ten, etc., Jacob Bbhmens, Amster
dam 1718. Jacob Bohme' s Leben und Lehre, von W. L. Wullen,
Stuttgart 1836, pp. 45-59. Compare Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl.,
"Zorn Gottes," p. 666 ; Baur's Gnosis, p. 558 ; Martensen's Jacob Bohme,
translated by Rhys Evans.

234 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
in the nature of God Himself. It is the old dualism
of the Gnostics and Manichaeans, with the difference
that what they conceived as a principle, outside and
independent of and opposed to God, Bohme repre
sents as inherent in God Himself. In the very divine
essence, according to him, there is an antagonism of
darkness and light, of grimness and gentleness, — a
duality which is the source of all the antagonisms of
nature and mind, yea, of good and evil themselves.
The former, indeed, the dark, grim, bitter, stern
principle, or however it may be designated, is not
God in the highest sense ; but yet it is also God, or
belongs in such wise to His essence, that it is the pre
supposition or condition of God. " Seeing that man
knoweth," says he, "that he is a twofold man, held
fast in good and bad, it is highly necessary for him to
learn to know himself, — how he is constituted ?
Whence cometh the good and evil impulse ? What
the good and evil in him really and truly is ? Whence
it springs ? What is the proper origin of all the good
and all the evil ? From or through what is the evil in
devil and man and in all creatures ? For, notwith
standing that the devil was a holy angel, and man also
was created good, yet such discontent is to be found
in all creatures that every one bites, smites, kicks,
crushes, and attacks the other ; yea, hostility is in all
creatures ; nay more, everybody is at discord with
itself, which may be seen to be the case, not merely
with living creatures, but with stars, elements, earths,
stones, metals, wood, foliage, and grass, — in all is
poison and mischief; nay more, this must be so, for
otherwise there were no life nor mobility, even as

THE ANGER OF GOD. 235
there would be no colour, virtue, thick or thin, or any
sort of sensation, but all would be a nothing. Enter
ing upon these lofty contemplations, we find that all
such things come from and out of God, and that they
are of His own essence which He Himself is, and that
He has thus created out of Himself, and that the evil
belongs to form and movement, and the good to love,
and the stern or contrarious to joy." 1 So again : " In
God there is, one may say, no distinction ; but when
one inquires whence come good and evil, one must
know what is the first and primal source of anger and
then also of love, because they both have one origin,
one mother ; yea, are one thing. Accordingly one is
compelled to speak after a creatural manner as though
it had a beginning, in order that it may become
matter of knowledge. For one cannot say that in
God there is fire, the bitter or the harsh, much less air,
water, or earth ; yet one sees that it is derived from
Him. Nor can one say that in God there is death, or
hell-fire, or sadness ; yet one sees that it is derived
therefrom. One must therefore search out the source
of causes, what is the prima materia for evil, and that
alike in the depths of God and in creatures. For in
the deepest depths all is one thing, all is from God,
all is made from His essence, according to the trinity.
— The harsh, the bitter, and fire are in the primal
ground in the first principium, the water-fount takes
its rise in them, and according to the first principium,
God is designated, not God, but grimness, anger, from
which arises evil, pain, trembling, burning." 2
1 Vorrede to the Drei Principien, quoted in Baui^s Gnosis, p. 558.
2 Princ. p. 4 f. See Drei Princ. c. iv. 45 f.

236 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
"In the primal depth one finds the most terrible,
severest generation, everything that is harsh, and
bitter, and fire. One cannot say, however, that it is
God, and yet it is the inner primal point which is in
God the Father, according to which He calls Him
self an angry, zealous God ; and the same point is
the first principium, and is God the Father in His
deepest ground, out of which this world originates. —
In this principium there is nothing but the most
fearful generation, the greatest dread, hostile joy, like
a sulphurous spirit, and it is just the gate and abyss
of hell in which Prince Lucifer has remained with
extinction of his light."
Bohme is hard to understand in detail, chiefly
because of his strange, uncouth terminology ; but the
general trend of his thought is pretty plain ; and that
is, that somehow or other there was an abysmal
nature in God before He became consciously, that is
truly, God ; that this nature was constituted by
antagonisms, which were necessary to each other ;
that one of these antagonistic principles was anger, or
that which expresses itself in anger ; that there was a
scene of tumultuous struggling, travailing which he
calls birth or begetting ; that out of this birth-travail
God issued forth ; and that creation is a reflection of
the constitution and struggles of the abysmal divine
nature. III. Doctrinal exposition. For my own part, I do
not hesitate to accept in substance the view which I
adduced first.1 Not, indeed, that I should be ready to
indorse all the expressions used to describe it by men
1 Cf. Lange's article, " Zorn Gottes," in Herzog, p. 658.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 237
of the fiery temper of Tertullian, writing against
heresies which they abhorred ; but that I believe that
the essential element in anger, as a specific determina
tion of the life, may be ascribed really and truly to
God. Human anger, like everything human, is affected
by human imperfection and sin; but in itself it is
neither imperfect nor sinful. Stripped of its defects,
exaggerations, and corruptions, it is an emotion which
under certain circumstances is as normal to God as it
is to man : — abnormal, indeed, per se to both ; yet of
such a nature that God would not be God, nor man
truly man, if either were incapable of it.
The translation of anger as predicated of God into
such terms as condemnation or judicial punishment
and the like, is altogether opposed to the usage of
Scripture. Four normal relations on the part of man
to sin, or four aspects or stages of his normal relation
thereto, may be distinguished : — The recognition of sin
as sin, that is, its implicit or explicit condemnation ; a
sense of aversion rising to abhorrence with regard to
sin, as also with regard to the sinner in the measure
in which he identifies himself with sin ; more or less
intense emotion, that is, displeasure, resentment, anger,
fierce indignation accompanying or following thereon ;
and finally, corresponding action, or manifestation of
the inward relation in an outward relation, which will,
of course, vary according to the position, circum
stances, rights, duties, in short, general relations of
the parties concerned.
Now these several aspects are distinguished in
Scripture when the divine relation to sin is referred
to; not, of course, in a formal way, not with the

238 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
precision and uniformity of usage that would mark
a scientific treatise or a code of laws, but clearly
enough. The places are well-nigh innumerable in which God
is represented implicitly if not explicitly as regarding,
recognising, looking upon, judging, condemning sin
as sin. But one need not for this purpose go beyond
the catena supplied by Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans.1 How frequently, too, is God represented as turning
away from, not being able to look upon sin, as hating,
loathing, abhorring, abominating sin — according to its
intensity, its blackness.2
The resentment, anger, wrath of God are also
mentioned. And, finally, in passages far too numerous for quota
tion, even if it were necessary, outward expression is
said to be given in various forms to the divine judg
ment, loathing, anger ; as, for example, in entreaties,
warnings, threats, reproaches, sacrifices ; in chastise
ments, afflictions, punishments; in declarations of active
hostility ; in affirmations even of mockery ; and in the
destruction of the finally and wilfully impenitent.
Not unfrequently, too, do we find two or more of the
phases in question conjoined whilst distinguished
in the same passage, the one being treated as the
cause or the natural precursor of the other.
All this has to be ignored, so far at all events as the
one element of anger is concerned — the element of
emotion — if a view be taken of it such as has been
1 Chap. iii. 10-18.
2 Compare Prov. vi. 16-19, xv- 9 i Jer- xuv- 4j " ; Deut. xxv. 16.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 239
customary among theologians. But with what right
can we regard the divine judgment and condemnation,
or aversion and abhorrence, or reproach and threat, or
chastisement and punishment, literally, realistically, if
we put a merely figurative unreal interpretation on
other terms associated with, yet plainly not meant to
be synonyms of or tautological repetitions of the rest ?
And all this because we cannot at once see our way
into the consistency of the use of the one, imagining,
meanwhile, that we can do so in the case of others.
Let us now then try to enter a little more fully into
the nature and function of anger. The objections
raised against its ascription to God, I propose to
notice afterwards ; though some of them, if indeed
not all, owe a part of their force to lack of insight
into the true nature and genesis of the emotion. I
will deal first with the constructive part of my task.
1. What is anger as a phenomenon of human ex
perience ? Let us approach the subject genetically.
One of the primary and fundamental aims and
impulses of a living being is the maintenance of its own
integrity. As an organism, it is a whole ; its whole
ness constitutes its perfectness. If the integrity of
its constitution, or functions, or activities be interfered
with, it ceases to that extent to be itself. This
cannot be said of non-living things, with the excep
tion, perhaps, of crystals, which hold a kind of mid
way position between non-living and living things.
All living things open to human observation illustrate
what I have said. So far as is within their power,
they ward off injury or repair injury : and injuries
of a certain kind that cannot be repaired are in some

240 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
way or other compensated or covered over. This
is the case both in the vegetable and in the lower
regions of the animal world.
Animals of a higher type are made capable of
pain more or less acute and varied, in order that
they may by its means be warned of the presence
and action of causes tending to the destruction of
their integrity — integrity of constitution or of life.
This is the true function of pain. In a system of
things where interferences never took place, where
relations were perfectly harmonious, there would be
no need of pain — it would have no function to dis
charge. But in our present world it is an absolute
necessity. It is a sort of self-acting signal to us, or
even brake upon us, when we ourselves or others
are endangering any side of our organism.
All animals probably, certainly a large majority
of those open to observation, react in some way or
other as soon as they are threatened with injury or
are really injured. They do this frequently before
they can have been warned by pain ; possibly in
some cases when they are incapable of pain. Notice
the worm when pressed or trodden on, how it twists
and turns about : or the earwig when touched or
even approached — how it turns up its horned tail
as if ready to repel an assailant. The stings of
wasps and bees are inflicted in supposed self-defence.
There is no deliberate purpose ; there is no emotion ;
it is simply reaction against real or apprehended
danger, the approach of which is generally, possibly
always, indicated by some sort or degree of nervous
or quasi-nervous excitement, not to say of pain,

THE ANGER OF GOD. 241
Amongst animals capable of emotion, the phe
nomenon becomes more complex. A dog, an
elephant, a horse, not only shrinks from, reacts
against, threatened or actual injury, not only feels
pain, but experiences a further something which
resembles and anticipates what in ourselves we
call resentment, anger. Dogs show this emotion
by growling, snarling, barking. These things do
not express pain : — If a dog is simply pained or
hurt, it yelps or howls, or whines or groans : they
are the physical equivalent or correlate to the
nervous or muscular reaction of which I spoke
above ; whereas whining, yelping, howling, groaning,
are the expression of pain, or fear, or some such
thing. Sometimes, as we know, the very sight of a
man or other being which has once before inflicted,
or only threatened or seemed to threaten, injury
to a dog, awakens violent anger, followed by corre
sponding threats or attempts to drive off or even
injure the foe. Nay more, this anger occasionally
becomes an abiding attitude of the dog, which we
then call hatred, — " That dog hates me or him," we
say. This attitude is not under the animal's control ;
sometimes, indeed, it may yield to proofs of friendli
ness, provided it has not become too fixed or decided ;
but the animal cannot help itself, nor can its attitude
be influenced by considerations which we term
rational. With some animals, injury threatened or
inflicted on their young offspring, and in some rare
cases on others mated or closely associated with
them, excites what may be termed altruistic anger.
They resent not only what prejudicially affects
Q

242 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
themselves, but also what threatens to harm
others. 2. In man we find naturally all this and more
To some extent, especially in the earlier and in the
less developed and cultured stages or states of his
existence, his nervous and muscular system reacts
automatically for the purpose of warding off or
repelling injury. He also experiences pain of
various kinds, which, as was already remarked,
warns him of danger, or checks him in its midst.
He further experiences resentment or anger ; but,
so far as we can judge, whilst there is a general
resemblance, there are also remarkable differences
between his anger and that which is observed in
the lower animals. Let us look at it a little closer.
(1.) It is differentiated in accordance with the
varied aspects or functions of man's nature.
We resent corporeal injury threatened or real : —
we further resent intellectual injury, or what we
deem such, though this is mostly very slight, if not
in some non-existent : — we resent also slights and
the like done to our affections,- to our heart. All
men are more or less on the qui vive for enemies to
their interests ; they guard their self-interest, as we
term it — a general expression, which may embrace
all the aspects or functions of our being, though
ordinarily it relates to those which are lower or less
important. And naturally enough, at any particular
moment our anger may be really or apparently
complicated, through being called forth by threatened
injury to more than one side of our nature at one
and the same time.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 243
(2.) Our altruistic resentments are much more
varied and intense than any to be found in the
highest animals below us. Rightly constituted, men
resent injuries inflicted on the lower animals ; yea,
even on nature generally. Still more do they resent
their infliction on their fellow-men ; but specially on
their relatives and friends. They resent injuries,
too, inflicted on their fellow-men in all the respects
in which they resent their infliction on themselves ;
though not perhaps with the same intensity.
Sometimes, too, though perhaps not as often as
they should, they resent dishonour done to Him
in whom they live, and move, and have their
being. (3.) The fact that our relations to other beings —
natural, human, divine — are partly under our own
control, and that just those relations are under
control which are fitted to foster our and their well-
being, gives rise to another form of resentment to
which presumably lower creatures are perfect
strangers — namely, moral resentment. Morality, as
we term it, is a quality of those relations or of those
of our activities which are under our own control.
This moral quality excites emotion : if the relations
or activities are right, we approve ; if wrong, we
disapprove ; yea, our disapproval may rise to resent
ment or even to anger. This is a completely dif
ferent form of resentment from that which we feel at
injury, whether inflicted on ourselves or on others ;
though the two may be and often are conjoined and
so blended that they can scarcely be discriminated.
Nay more, we feel moral resentment not only at

244 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
wrong relations or activities, but also at the wrong
habit or character which such wrongly controlled
activities necessarily generate. And the stronger
such a character, the greater normally is our resent
ment. At last we may come to feel what is called
resentment against sin as a disturbance of the moral
order of the world, against sin in the abstract, and
against sin as contrariety to the will of God. This
highest form of anger is not unknown ; perhaps it
was felt by David, and expressed in some of the
Psalms known as imprecatory. At a lower level
something akin thereto may be found in the indigna
tion that fills the soul of, a true patriot when he sees
his country's laws scorned, its welfare spoiled, and
its glory and honour trampled under foot by ignorant,
self-seeking, and vain demagogues.
(4.) Now all these varied forms of resentment,
and others not touched upon, relate to one and the
same thing, namely, the preservation of integrity,
both static and dynamic as it may be termed, or
otherwise expressed, of being, function, activity.
The differences between man and the lowest creature
are rooted in the greater variety and complication
of his functions and activities, and of their corre
sponding roots or bases. Corporeal integrity, intel
lectual integrity, integrity of the heart, moral integrity
— each and all in its measure may become an
occasion of resentment. And as injury done to
the moral nature and activity is the most serious,
we might surely expect that the fiercest resentment
would normally be called forth against any one who
should seem to be its antagonist ; though, naturally

THE ANGER OF GOD. 245
enough, the lower the morale of a man, the less keen
will be his anger against those who seek his moral
corruption. Indeed, the same holds true regarding
the other sides of our nature — regarding the intellect,
the affections, and even the body.
3. What, then, is the exact nature of anger ? If
we observe ourselves when angry, we shall find two
elements commingled — a corporeal and a psychical ;
frequently, at all events, if not always. We are
sensible of a quickening of the beating of the heart, of
a rush of blood to the head, of a flush in the face, and
of general bodily excitement, followed by action more
or less unusual and violent, either objectless or with a
definite object. These are the common and usually
noted characteristics of anger. But it has in all cases
its psychical side ; by which I mean not the ideas
or representations or fancies which give rise to it,
but a properly psychical excitement, answering to
the corporeal excitement ; though undoubtedly the
psychical is in very many, perhaps most cases,
completely swallowed up in, overborne and obscured
by, the nervous or corporeal. Yet the reverse is
sometimes the case. The psychical may be supreme,
and keep the corporeal under perfect control. There
is none the less anger, but it need not manifest itself
in ebullitions, or gestures, or strong language, or hasty
movements, still less in violence against others ; on
principle, in the very interest of the integrity, the
attack on which excites it, it may possibly remain
perfectly calm. This, indeed, is the profoundest and
intensest form of resentment. Sometimes the very
absence of the usual signs of anger may lead to its

246 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
being confounded with what we describe as being
swayed by principle, adherence to principle, and the
like. The two things are very distinct from, though
certainly not incompatible with, each other. The
psychical in us is never absolutely alone ; indeed, as
long as we are in the body, psychical changes must
always have corporeal correlates of some kind or
degree. This follows from the relation between body
and soul. But the higher the man, i.e. the more
vigorous the psychical, the more the corporeal
correlate is kept under control ; the lower the man,
the more the corporeal overshadows and sways the
psychical. Descriptions of psychical experiences are
useless, save to those who have had them ; but I
presume we all know something of the indignation,
more or less intense, which arises when truth is being
perverted ; when men's intellects are obfuscated by
superstition or bewildered by sophistry; when men's
hearts are played with, or wounded, or corrupted ;
when morality is treated as an old wife's whim or
fancy, or prudishness ; when religion is scorned as
mere weakness or superstition ; when trust in Christ
is represented as trust in a mere idea ; when prayer
is decried as an unmanly whine into vacuity, like the
midnight howling of a dog, and so forth. Even if
these things do not directly affect ourselves, we resent
them ; especially if we find seducers invading the
sacredness of our own home, and our children, whom
we have anxiously tried to train up in the fear of God
and faith of Christ, led away — are we not angry ?
do we not burn with indignation ? And can we be
blamed ? Does God blame us ?

THE ANGER OF GOD. 247
The subject of human anger is further com
plicated because of the hereditary imperfection and
taint of human nature, its acquired evil bias, and its
ignorance. If man were in a normal condition, his
anger might be normal ; that is, he might be perfectly
justified in feeling resentment, or even wrath, against
enemies who should seek to invade and violate the
integrity of his being and life. But man is not in a
normal condition ; and, accordingly, when we under
take to form a moral estimate of his anger, we need
to take into consideration his irritability, his over
weening complacency, his selfishness, his suspicious
ness, his fancies, his fears, his failings of temper, the
injustice he may have unintentionally or intentionally
previously committed, and a hundred other things
which cause his resentments to be hasty, or exag
gerated, or even undeserved ; and on the ground of
which, therefore, we condemn what we otherwise
might excuse or even commend.
4. We are now prepared to consider more closely
the question of anger in relation to God, wherein it
consists, what calls it forth, what justifies it. The
nearest approach to the divine anger is to be found in
the psychical indignation to which I referred. In the
sense in which we are corporeal, God is incorporeal ;
there can therefore in Him be no corporeal affections
such as we experience. Perhaps we, too, shall not
experience them, or they will take a higher, purer form
when we are clothed upon with our house which is from
heaven, — the glorified body fashioned after the like
ness of Christ's own glorious body. But the spiritual
indignation of God may be none the less real — so real

248 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
as to deserve being described as a consuming fire. We
cannot, of course, describe it further : we can but try
to abstract from anger in ourselves all that even we
recognise as due to imperfection and sin, and transfer
the remainder with all due humility and modesty to
God. But if it seem to be not only right, but necessary
in us ; nay more, if we seem actually blamable when
under circumstances such as I referred to we do not
feel anger, surely it may be permitted us without
inconsistency to ascribe it to God — to ascribe to Him
not any mere general principle of justice, or resolution
to resist sin, or judge-like condemnation of offenders ;
but a veritable, genuine emotion or uprising of resent
ment, or anger, or wrath, or fiery indignation, according
to the heinousness of the offence committed, and the
degree in which the sinner sins wilfully, boldly, con
sciously — with a high hand.
Analogously to the case of man, it is in the integrity
of the divine nature and life, and, one may add,
cosmos, that we must seek the justification of the
divine anger ; though we need to make modifications.
The divine nature as such is clearly exalted above
the possibility of injury ; but the divine life — especi
ally the affectional life of God, the heart of God, and
the cosmos which has issued forth from His hand
— may be prejudicially affected by man. Should not
God resent the introduction and spread of disorder,
of sin and evil, of wickedness and suffering, into this
fair world, which He intended to be the manifesta
tion of His eternal glory and beauty ? Should He
not resent the disappointment and sadness which
the apostasy and sin cause him on whom He

THE ANGER OF GOD. 249
purposed to bestow His love ? Should He remain
unmoved under the necessity laid on Him of inflicting
pain where He designed only to give pleasure ?
Should He be undisturbed by the misrepresentation
of Himself, the distortion of His character, the utter
caricature of His image, and the total or partial
ignorance of His mind and purposes which have
resulted from sin ? He resists all this — that surely is
manifest ; for is not the suffering of men the effect of
the divine reaction against interferences with the
integrity of His life and of His works ? Does He
take note of it all ? does He resist it all ? and between
or accompanying the two is there no equivalent of
that which in ourselves we designate resentment — no
stirring, more or less profound, of the depths of divine
feeling ? We ascribe to Him a welcoming of sinners
at their return ; a welcoming of the love and worship
of His saints : He notes all that, He responds to all
that ; but the welcome is something beyond. And as
the one form of emotion is ascribed to Him, so also is
the other.
Now, the integrity which we have found to be the
inward reason of recoil, resistance, pain, resentment;
all up through the hierarchy of the organic sphere,
and which I have ascribed to God, is but another
mode, as it seems to me, of describing divine holiness,
to which so frequent allusion is made in the Scriptures.
Not mere purity, or separateness, or exaltedness and
the like, — all which are either negative or merely
relative descriptions, — but static and dynamic integrity
— wholeness — wholeness of being and life. The
fundamental law of an organized being is the mainten-

250 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
ance of itself intact, in harmony with its indwelling
idea. This, too, is the great law of the divine being
and life. " Be ye holy, as I am holy." And when
we remember that the integrity of the divine life
means the integrity of the whole world, especially of
humanity, which lives, and moves, and has its being in
God, we shall see that the one great condition of the
well-being and orderly development of creation is the
preservation and assertion of the divine holiness.
Accordingly, the resentment felt by God against those
who sin, i.e. who violate the integrity of His life first,
so far as it is in themselves, and then as it is in the
system to which they belong, and who bring grief
and dishonour on God Himself, is a resentment of an
essentially altruistic character, as much more pro
found and more perfect than anything found among
men, as the relation between God and His children
is more radical and more vital than that which can
subsist between any creatures, however closely related.
IV. We now come to the examination of the diffi
culties which have suggested themselves to various
thinkers. The force of some of them has been
already, in part at all events, weakened ; but it may
be well briefly to touch on them in order.
i. The first arises from the condemnation pro
nounced by Scripture on human anger. This con
demnation is pronounced in various ways, indirect
and direct. " Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrage
ous ; but who is able to stand before jealousy ? " J
" Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry ; for anger
resteth in the bosom of fools."2 " Make no friend-
1 Prov. xxvii. 4. 2 Eccles. vii. 9.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 25 I
ship with a man that is given to anger, and with a
wrathful man thou shalt not go." x " An angry man
stirreth up strife, and a wrathful man aboundeth in
transgression." 2 " Cease from anger and forsake
wrath." 3 " The works of the flesh are jealousies,
wraths." 4 " Let all bitterness, and wrath, and
anger." 5 " Put away all these ; anger, wrath, malice,
railing, shameful speaking." 6 "I desire that men pray
in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath
and disputing." 7 " Let every man be swift to hear,
slow to speak, slow to wrath ; for the wrath of man
worketh not the righteousness of God." s
It must not be forgotten, however, that wrath is, of
all the determinations of human life, of all the forms
of human activity, the most liable to be perverted by
the corruption which cleaves to our nature. The
boundary line between necessary and right regard
for the integrity of our nature in the best sense on
the one hand, and selfish and corrupt regard for our
supposed interest on the other, is one that is easily
blurred, and which only he will mark who has in the
truest sense a single eye. Accordingly, righteous
resentment and indignation may only too easily be
supplanted by that which is unrighteous and sinful.
So subtle is the temptation to offend in these two
ways, and so difficult is it to discern and keep the
right path, that we do well to follow the counsel of
Scripture, and shun anger as though it were sin,
in the assurance that in the present condition of

1 Prov. xxii. 4. 2 Prov. xxix. 22. 3 Ps. xxxvii. 8.
4 Gal. v. 20. " Eph. iv. 31 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20.
6 Col. iii. 8. 7 1 Tim. ii. 8. 8 Jas. i. 19.

252 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
human nature it is far more frequently wrong than
right. But that there is such a thing as justifiable anger
even in men, Scripture itself testifies. " Be ye angry
and sin not, " x we are told ; it must therefore be
possible to be angry without sinning. Examples also
of anger which incurred no reproof occur in Scripture ;
as, for example, that of Moses, of whom it is said that
when on coming down from the mount he saw the calf
which the Israelites were worshipping, his " anger
waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands,
and brake them beneath the mount." 2 Would God
have dealt with Moses as He afterwards did had his
wrath been a sinful wrath ? 3 The Lord Jesus Christ
Himself is also said to have been " moved with indig
nation," for the words evefipiprjcraTO TTvevpiaTi teal irdp-
a%ev eavrov seem to describe with almost literal exact
ness the state of emotion called anger ; and fipifioi or
fipifir), the root of evefipifMJo-aTo, denotes primarily anger,
wrath, and is akin to the Latin fremere, fremitus,
low, suppressed indignation, expressing itself in a
sort of growl.4 And surely in Him it must not be
counted sin. It is true the Revised Version renders
the passage "groaned in the spirit and was troubled,"
but that may be due to the mistaken view of anger
which I am combating.
2. The next objection is drawn from the immutability
of God, with which anger is held to be inconsistent.
1 Eph. iv. 26 ; cf. Ps. iv. 5. 2 Ex. xxxii. 19.
3 Weber, p. 23. God gave new tables. So also His wrath against
Korah's company.
4 John xi. 33. See Weber, p. 23, and Passow, sub voce. So Meyer
and others.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 253
As regards this point, I cannot do better than
quote the following words : " The conception of
the divine unchangeableness, traditional in Protest
antism as inherited from the Romish Church, is
essentially Epicurean or Deistic, though buttressed
up by the false Neo- Platonic notion of deity as
altogether unlike and out beyond the creature ; for
Scripture lends no sanction to a lifeless and motion
less identity or self-sameness. All depends on our
idea of change. In the sphere of the eternal, that is,
of the ethical, change denotes change of principles.
Vital movement ought not to be called change ; for be
it ever so manifold, it may have, nay, ought to have,
for its correlate the utmost fixity of moral principle.
It has therefore been justly remarked by Schenkel :
' We do not consider a man changeable because
he acts variously, but only when he becomes unfaith
ful to his principles and to the character which those
principles have formed ; that is, when the essence,
not the mere form of his actions, varies. The life of
God must be pronounced unchangeable if it is always
truly divine ; that is, if it be a real manifestation of
the essential nature of the absolute Spirit, if it reveal
absolute love and goodness, if in all that God wills
and works He will and work only redemption. Only
then could He be said to be changeable if the end of
His will and working became alternately the life of
spirit and the transitory life of sense, love, and sinful
hatred, the perfect good and moral evil.' " 1
Scripture supplies concrete proofs enough that its
1 Dogmatik v. Standp. des Gewissens, ii. 32. See Bartholomai in
Jahrbiicher, etc., p. 263, vol. vi. 1861.

254 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
writers were not taught to think of the divine un-
changeableness as excluding variety of action and
manifestation. God is not only said to repent ; 1
but repeatedly also He omits to do what He
had threatened to do, and does what He had
threatened not to do ; 2 nay more, we are expressly
told : " When I say to the righteous, he shall surely
live ; if he trust to his righteousness, and commit
iniquity, therein shall he die. Again, when I say to
the wicked, Thou shalt surely die ; if he turn from his
sin, and do that which is lawful and right ; he shall
surely live, he shall not die." 3
3. A kindred objection to the last is, that to ascribe
anger to God is to interfere with His absoluteness ;
on the one hand, because it involves His being sub
ject to the influence of the creature ; on the other,
because an emotion like anger, if not, indeed,
emotion as such, is impossible to the Absolute.
How can the infinite be thus determined by the
finite ? How can the Absolute be perturbed ? Is
it not altogether unworthy of God ? To the first
part of this difficulty I would reply : If the beings
who thus determine God are the work of God's own
hands, and He knew when He created them what
He was creating, then surely He must have willed
that their free activity should have a determining
influence on Him. If He did not will that, either
He created not knowing what He created, or the
1 1 Sam. xv. 11, 35 ; cf. ver. 29 ; Mai. ii. 17-iii. 6.
2 Jonah and Nineveh. See Bertheau, "Weissagung iiber Israels
Reichsherrl.," in J ahrbiicher, etc., vol. iv. See Bartholomai, ubi sup.
p. 264.
3 Ezek. xxxiii. 13-15.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 255
whole of creation has a mere show of reality. If
men existed in absolute independence of God, i.e.
were self-existent, or were the creatures of another
God or Demiurge, then their determination of God
would be a limitation of God, and unworthy of Him ;
but this cannot be if He is the one sole creator of
heaven and earth. God is but conceding to His
creatures the reality and exercise of the powers with
which He Himself endowed them ; in other words,
He is but acting consistently with Himself when He
lays His life open to be affected by the conduct of
men, whether it be good or evil.1
As to the second part of the difficulty, namely, that
emotion of any kind, being a sort of perturbation,
much more, an emotion like anger, is incompatible
with the absoluteness and self-sufficiency ascribed to
God, it must suffice to make the following reply :
If emotion in itself is unworthy of God, then the
emotion of joyous glad approval with which He
is supposed to welcome a returning prodigal, and to
greet him who fights the good fight of faith, must be
also an anthropopathism. If God must be essentially
impassible, unless He is to cease being God, then all
our talk of His Fatherly sympathy with us and joy
at our faithfulness and the like has no real meaning.
But it may be thought that there is in the emotion
of anger an element essentially differentiating it from
the corresponding reverse emotion, however it may
be named ; and that on this ground it is incompatible
with absoluteness, not simply as emotion or perturba
tion. This is doubtless the vague surmise, where it
1 Cf. Weber, p. 49 ; Dorner on the Divine Immutability.

256 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
is not the distinct conviction, of such as raise the
objection. What, now, is this something ? Suppose
anger to be, as I have maintained, the emotion which
arises when the integrity of the being or life is
threatened with injury, — in the case of God, the life
alone, because His nature is not susceptible of injury.
How can a feeble creature like man — nay, how can
a creature at all, owing as it does its very being and
power to God — interfere with God ? How can God
be the perennial sustainer and Lord of man, and yet
be at the very same time, in a certain sense, in man's
power ? Men are angry, it is said, because they more
or less distinctly fear loss or resent loss : what loss
can God fear or resent ? And if He is capable of
loss, can He be absolute ? This, however, brings us
back to the point touched on in the last section. We
are made by God Himself capable of interference
with the divine life ; nay more, that God should have
made such creatures is the supreme proof of the
absoluteness of His creative power ; and He will
show that He has life in Himself by finding in the
unfathomed depths of that life the energy necessary
for converting the loss inflicted by the creature into
an eternal gain.
4. It has also been objected, in the fourth place,
that in the case of men anger is frequently due to
surprise ; whereas God cannot be surprised. If men
knew beforehand that a certain thing was going to
happen, there would be no tendency to anger — no
possibility of it ; though we might take appropriate
action relatively to the thing in question after it had
happened, or even before. So with God. He may act

THE ANGER OF GOD. 257
towards offenders as their offences warrant or require,
either beforehand or afterwards ; but as He never can
be taken unawares, the offences cannot excite in Him
anything that corresponds to anger in man.
This objection, however, seems to me to be unten
able. For, in the first place, I am not at all prepared
to concede that foreknowledge or certainty of the
event would entirely prevent men feeling resentment,
indignation, anger at wrong when it happened, — nay,
even in anticipation of its happening. It may be
urged, indeed, that in our case there is surprise at
some point or other, — the intention or the inclination
that is manifested in the conduct may be a surprise,
even if the conduct itself be expected ; and that it is
this that explains our anger. Whereas, it will be
added, God knows the end from the beginning : God
searches hearts before those hearts exist to be
searched ; He, therefore, can never be surprised at
anything, and therefore never angry. Yet is it not
true that we feel anger at what our fellow-men are, as
well as at what they purpose and do ? Nay more,
is it not at all events frequently rather they them
selves than their conduct that excite our resentment ?
— on the supposition, of course, that they themselves
are in some way or measure responsible for what
they themselves are. Where this is not at all the
case, we too feel no anger ; or if for a moment such
a feeling possess us, we reproach ourselves either for
foolishness or for sin ; then, too, we may possibly be
angry at ourselves.
But, secondly, the objection carries us too far. If
God foreknows everything, as the objector assumes,
R

258 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and if foreknowledge of wrong-doing prevents resent
ment or anger being caused by it when it occurs, then
for the very same reason we must deny to God any
semblance of feeling with regard to human conduct.
Does God rejoice when a poor tempted mortal
struggles against sin, cries to Him trustfully for help,
gains a hard victory, and then thankfully raises his
Ebenezer ? There is surely no Christian thinker who
would not answer, " Yea, certainly ! " But how can
that be ? God knew it all from eternity. We rejoice
because we look on with trembling and uncertainty,
it should be said ; if we were certain of the result,
why should we have any special feeling at all ?
In fact, the objection would reduce us to saying of
God — not a little of the formal, official teaching of
the Christian Church has tended thereto — as Xeno-
phanes said : ovXo1; opa, ou\o? Be voel, ovkos Be t dicovec ;
or, crvfiTravrd t elvai vovv koX (ppovrjaiv /cat dtBiov.
5. A fifth objection is based on the fact that human
anger depends largely on what may be described as
the circumstances under which a wrong is committed.
" If we see no possibility of mending matters, we may
feel very angry ; but if we see that the intended
injury or ingratitude, or whatever else the wrong may
be, has rather improved than worsened the position,
rather tended to good than to evil, we do not, cannot
feel angry. Such, now, is God's relation to sin. His
will cannot be hindered by man. Nay more, man's
sin is His opportunity — the opportunity especially for
self-revelation." Here, too, again I cannot but regard the objection
as mistaken.

THE ANGER OF GOD. 259
In the first place, a right-minded man should feel
resentment, more or less intense, at conduct or acts
because they were wrong, even though their results
should be good. It is the evil intention, or the
carelessness that implies indifference, that excites
anger. Unintended evil and unintended good alike
do leave, or, as all allow, should leave, men unmoved.
Human anger may indeed be somewhat miti
gated — nay, in many cases even counteracted — by
the circumstance mentioned ; but that is because of
the imperfect or wrong element in our anger, not
because the anger itself is absolutely out of place.
So that the objection is not grounded even in human
experience. In the second place, is it true that God's will cannot
in any respect, or in any degree, or for any length of
time, be hindered by human perversity ? Is the
course of history and nature just what He meant it
to be ; just what was necessary for His self-revelation ?
If so, what becomes of evil or sin ? The worst that
can then be said regarding it is, that it is the shadow of
the good, its foil, so to speak ; the dark frame needed
to throw it up to let its light and beauty be duly seen.
But then it is not what the Bible, the Christian Church,
and the ethnic conscience has believed and declared
it to be. Or, if the objector should refuse to go so
far, and say, " That is not my meaning ; all I intended
was that, in the long-run, God's will is sure to be
done ; that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill,
To pangs of nature, sins of will,
Defects of doubt, and taints of blood :

260 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
That nothing walks with aimless feet ;
That not one life shall be destroyed,
Or cast as rubbish in the void,
When God hath made the pile complete :
That not a worm is cloven in vain ;
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivel'd in a fruitless fire,
Or but subserves another's gain.
That good shall fall
At last — far off — at last to all,
And every winter change to spring ; " —
my reply would then be, Is God unmoved to com
placency by the efforts of His creatures for each
other's good, and to anger by their efforts to harm
each other ? by their joys and sorrows, because the
former naturally, and the latter compulsorily, fit into
His plan, and promote His final designs ? What a
God would He be ! But if He rejoices with men in
their present joys, sorrows with them in their present
sorrows, and is pleased with their present good con
duct, must He not be displeased with their bad con
duct — nay, even resent it and be angry with it — when
it is marked by conscious and wilful purpose ?
6. A sixth objection is, that if God is angry, He
cannot be love.
This difficulty, like a good many others, is partly
rooted in the use of abstract terms. Love and anger
per se are mutually exclusive. But the same being
may easily love and be angry at one and the same
/j time. He cannot, indeed, be angry with and be
I actually loving the same being at the same time ; for
\ his anger arises from some cause which renders love
[ inconsistent — which checks the flow of love. In pro
portion to the strength of the anger is the feebleness

THE ANGER OF GOD. 26 1
of the love for the particular being who was loved,
and who is now regarded with anger. But it is very
possible that God should at one and the same time
love one who loves Him and His holiness, and be
angry with another who turns away from and despises
Him and His holiness. A father here may become \
angry with one of his children, and to that extent !
cease loving him, without therefore ceasing to love
the rest. At the moment of intensest indignation
with the one, he may turn with deepest tenderness
to the rest. Not otherwise with God. Nay more,
as has often been pointed out, it is just the man who
loves most intensely, who may also be most highly
indignant. If his true and pure love encounters
undeserved indifference, contempt, aversion, can he
be otherwise than angry ? — though he will also, even
whilst angry, carefully search for means of vanquish
ing the indifference, and converting the contemptuous |
aversion into loving regard. This is what a loving i
being, a loving God, can do ; but it is misleading to '
ascribe it to love.
Another mistake is the identification of anger with
hostility, active enmity. No doubt anger at its in-
tensest, and evoked by wilful, conscious, high-handed
rebellion, will manifest itself in, or, at all events, lead
to active hostility. At such a stage it is not true to
say, with Baader, that "the negativity of God towards
the negative is nothing but love ; for He repels the
evil in the creature solely because it stands in the
way of the creature's union with Himself."1 That
1 See Clausen's Baader 's Leben und Ideen, ii. 155 ; and Bartholomai
in Dorner's Jahrbucher, etc., p. 364.

262 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
may be true at the earlier stages of a sinner's relation
to God ; but when the sinner reaches the point of
sinning with a high hand and an outstretched arm,
sinning against light and knowledge, sinning from
hatred of God, God's anger passes over into, or
becomes the accompaniment of hatred ; and divine
hatred is a consuming fire. We are apt, however,
to forget that God's dealings with His creatures are
individual. The relationship between Him and us
is personal, and therefore varies as we vary. There
is a sense, no doubt, in which He is the same to all ;
there is a sense in which a true man should be the
same to all ; and God does not require men to love
every man alike ; nor does He love every man alike.
He has doubtless cause to be angry with all men ; but
He is as far as possible from being equally angry with
all ; and, accordingly, whilst from some He does but
for a moment hide His face, and others are chastened,
others, again, have to feel the weight of His hand, —
there may be those whom He is compelled by
self-consistency and holiness to cast into the outer
darkness.

CHAPTER VI.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

In the Old and New Testaments forgiveness is
almost, if indeed not quite, without exception con
nected with sin ; it is scarcely ever, if indeed ever
at all, connected with punishment, penalty. Yet
in the history of Christian thought there has been
an ever strengthening tendency, not only to associate
penalty with sin as the direct object of forgiveness,
but even to treat forgiveness of penalty as identical
with forgiveness of sin. There is no doubt such a
thing as forgiveness of punishment — we hear and
know of it in ordinary life ; but it is a remarkable
fact that, as far as God is concerned, the Bible never
associates forgiveness and punishment.1
By way of substantiating the two statements made
above, I will adduce, first, the chief references to for
giveness in the Old and New Testaments ; and
secondly, a few passages from the works of Christian
writers down to our own day. After having done this,
I will briefly inquire into the reason of the general
deviation from Biblical usage, stating what seems
to me the true Biblical conception of forgiveness.
I. References to forgiveness by God in the Old
1 This does not pretend to be a full treatment of this important question.

264 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Testament. Various terms are used in the original
Hebrew, with their derivatives, to signify forgive
ness. The chief of them, at all events, are -isa
{caphar), rfo {salach), ksso {nasa). rbo and mi seem
to be the proper technical terms for forgiveness.
Whether nsa also had that meaning is doubtful ;
in the majority of cases, at all events, it rather
denotes the transaction which conditioned forgive
ness, whether conceived as effected by God or
by man. Some of the passages, however, as to
which there may be doubt, will be adduced. The
passages in which the references occur are quoted
according to the Revised Version : —
n?D in Ex. xxxiv. 9. And pardon our iniquity and our sins, and take
us for Thine inheritance.
Num. xiv. 20. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy
word. 1 Kings viii. 34. Then hear Thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of
Thy people Israel, etc.
1 Kings viii. 50. And forgive Thy people which have sinned against
Thee, etc.
Ps. xxv. 11. Pardon mine iniquity, for it is great.
Jer. xxxiii. 8. And I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have
sinned against me, etc.
Jer. xxxvi. 3. That I may forgive their iniquity and sin.
Lam. iii. 42. We have transgressed, and have rebelled : Thou hast
not pardoned.
Deut. xxix. 20. The Lord will not pardon him.
2 Kings xxix. 4. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the
Lord would not pardon.
Isa. Iv. 7. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man
his thoughts ; and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have
mercy upon him : and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.
Num. xiv. 19. 'Pardon, I pray Thee, the iniquity of this people, accord
ing unto the greatness of Thy mercy, etc.
Amos vii. 2. O Lord God, forgive, I beseech Thee.
Num. xxx. 5. And the Lord shall forgive her, because her father
disallowed her.
2 Kings v. 18. The Lord pardon Thy servant in this thing.
2 Chron. vii. 14. And will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 265
Jer. v. 1. If there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth ; and I
will pardon her.
Jer. 1. 20. For I will pardon them whom I leave as a remnant.
Ps. ciii. 3. Who forgiveth all thine iniquities.
Lev. iv. 20. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they
shall be forgiven.
Lev. xix. 22. And he shall be forgiven for his sin which he hath
sinned. Num. xv. 25. And the priest shall make atonement for all the con
gregation of the children of Israel, and they shall be forgiven.
KBO in Num. xiv. 19. And according as Thou hast forgiven this
people from Egypt even until now.
Ps. xxxii. 5. And Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.
Ps. lxxxv. 2. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people.
Ps. xxv. 18. And forgive all my sins.
Ex. xxiii. 21. For He will not pardon your transgression : for my
name is in him.
Josh. xxiv. 19. He will not forgive your transgression nor your sins.
Job vii. 21. And why dost Thou not pardon my transgression, and
take away mine iniquity ?
Isa. ii. 9. And the mean man is bowed down, and the great man is
brought low : therefore forgive them not.
Hos. i. 6. For I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel,
that I should in anywise pardon them.
Ex. xxxiv. 7. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and
transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.
(See also Num. xiv. 18.)
Ps. xcix. 8. Thou wast a God that forgavest them.
Micah vii. 18. Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity ?
Ps. xxxii. 1. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven.
Isa. xxxiii. 24. The people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their
iniquity. 133 in Ps. Ixxix. 9. And purge away our sins, for Thy name's sake.
Ps. lxxviii. 38. But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity,
and destroyed them not.
2 Chron. xxx. 19. The good Lord pardon every one that setteth his
heart to seek God, etc.
Ps. lxv. 3. As for our transgressions, Thou shalt purge them away.
Isa. vi. 7. And thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Prov. xvi. 6. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged, etc.
Deut. xxi. 8. Forgive, O Lord, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast
redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Thy
people Israel. And the blood shall be forgiven them.
As to whether nn» (macha), -im {dakar), and ino
{tahar) also mean forgiveness, opinions may differ.
They seem to signify, at any rate, something that is

266 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
very like pardon — very closely associated therewith.
For this reason the chief passages in which they
are used follow here : —
Pino in Isa. xliv. 22. I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy trans
gressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins.
Ps. Ii. 1. According to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out
my transgressions. Ver. 9. And blot out all mine iniquities.
Isa. xliii. 25. I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for
mine own sake.
Neh. iv. 5. And cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be
blotted out from before Thee.
Jer. xviii. 23. Yet, Lord, Thou knowest all their counsel against me
to slay me : forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from
Thy sight.
"OT in Ps. xxv. 7. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my
transgressions. Isa. xliii. 25. And I will not remember thy sins.
Isa. Ixiv. 9. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember
iniquity for ever.
Jer. xxxi. 34. And their sin will I remember no more.
"HIE in Ps. Ii. 2. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse
me from my sin.
II. The following are the chief, if not all the refer
ences to forgiveness in the New Testament : —
a.Kohiu in Matt, xviii. 27. And the Lord of that servant released him,
and forgave him (in this case, debt).
Luke vi. yj. Release, and ye shall be released.
a.iro'KvTpaaii in Col. i. 14. In whom we have . . . the forgiveness of
our sins.
Heb. ix. 15. A death having taken place for the redemption of our
transgressions (1).
xapi^ofiai in Eph. iv. 32. Forgiving one another, even as Christ also
forgave you.
Col. ii. 13. You did He quicken together with Him, having forgiven
you all your trespasses.
Col. iii. 13. Even as the Lord forgave you, so also do ye.
izapusit in Rom. iii. 25. Whom God set forth to be a propitiation
through faith by His blood, to show His righteousness, because of the
passing over of the sins done aforetime.
&<plr)f*i in Matt. vi. 12. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven
our debtors (in Luke xi. 4, sins).
Matt. vi. 14, 15. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 267
Father will also forgive you ; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matt. ix. 2. Thy sins are forgiven.
Matt. ix. 5, 6. Whether is it easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven . . .
The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sin.
Matt. xii. 31, 32. Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoso
ever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ;
but whosoever shall speak a word against the Spirit, it shall not be
forgiven him.
Matt, xviii. 21. How oft shall my brother sin and I forgive him ?
Matt, xviii. 35. So shall also my heavenly Father do to you, if you
forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.
Mark ii. 5. Son, thy sins are forgiven.
Mark ii. 7. Who can forgive sins but one, even God ?
Mark ii. 9, 10. Whether is it easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven . . .
The Son of man hath power to forgive sins.
Mark iii. 28, 29. All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men
. . . but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never
forgiveness. Mark iv. 12. Lest haply they should turn again and it should be for
given them.
Mark xi. 25, 26. Whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have
aught against any one ; that your Father also which is in heaven may
forgive you your trespasses.
Luke v. 20, ei. Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. Who can forgive
sins, but God alone ?
Luke v. 23, 24. Whether is it easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee
. . . But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power to forgive
sins. Luke vii. 47-49. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many,
are forgiven. . . . And He said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And
they that sat at meat with Him began to say within themselves, Who is
this that even forgiveth sins ?
Luke xi. 4. And forgive us our sins.
Luke xii. 10. Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit, it
shall not be forgiven.
Jas. v. 15. If he hath committed sin, it shall be forgiven him.
1 John i. 9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John ii. 12. Your sins are forgiven for His name's sake.
olquais in Acts v. 31. Him did God exalt with His right hand to be a
Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins.
Acts viii. 22. Pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall
be forgiven thee.
Acts xiii. 38. Through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins.
Acts xxvi. 18. That they may turn from darkness to light, from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins.

268 ,1,-sVtHE REDEMPTION OF MAN.

^^TH

Eph. i. 7. In whom we have our redemption through His blood, the
forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.
In Luke xxiii. 34. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do (dtpiyipn). III. View of forgiveness taken by Christian writers.1
(I.) Pre- Reformation Writers. The earliest Chris
tian writers express themselves indefinitely, and are
most frequently content with the simple quotation of
Scripture language. When, however, they speak, as
one may say, on their own account, there is a mani
fest inclination to translate ' ' sin," when connected
with "forgiveness," by "penalty."
Justin Martyr, after warning the Jews through
Trypho against deceiving themselves by fancying
that because they are the seed of Abraham after the
flesh they shall inherit the good things announced
through Christ, exhorts them to " hasten to know in
what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of inheriting
the promised good things shall be theirs. But there
is no other [way] than this, — to become acquainted
with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken
of by Isaiah for the remission of sins ; and for the
rest, to live sinless lives."2
Tertullian is equally naive in his references to the
subject : " Sins we divide into two classes — remissible
and irremissible ; in accordance wherewith it will be
doubtful to no one that some deserve chastisement,
some condemnation. Every sin is dischargeable
either by pardon or else by penalty : by pardon as
the result of chastisement ; by penalty as the result
1 The catena that follows lays, of course, no claim whatever to com
pleteness ; but it will perhaps suffice to indicate the general drift of
systematic, not to say practical, thought on the subject.
2 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, c. xliv. ; see also c. xiii.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 269
of condemnation. Touching this difference, we have
not only premised certain antithetical passages of the
Scriptures, on the one hand retaining, on the other
remitting sins (see John xx. 23) ; but John, too, will
teach us : 'If any knoweth his brother to be sinning
a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be
given to him ; ' because he is not ' sinning unto death,'
this will be remissible. ' There is a sin unto death ;
not for this do I say that any is to request' (1 John v.
16), — this will be irremissible. So, where there is the
efficacious power of 'making request,' there likewise
is that of remission ; where there is no [efficacious
power] of ' making request,' there equally is none of
remission whatever."1
In Lactantius, as having been more of a systematic
theologian than most of his predecessors, we should
expect clearness ; yet his language is ambiguous,
and may be taken, at all events in one passage, as
suggestive of transition : " When any one is moved
[by anger], and through unseasonable leniency grants
pardon more frequently than is necessary, or at all
times, he evidently both destroys the life of those
whose audacity he is fostering for greater crimes, and
furnishes himself with a perpetual source of annoy
ances. Therefore the restraining of one's anger in
the case of sins is faulty." 2 The connection shows
that anger is conceived as the immediate source of
punishment. Elsewhere, too, he says : " A judge cannot pardon
1 Tertullian, On Modesty, c. ii. ; compare c. xix. On Repentance,
cc. vii., viii.
2 Lactantius, On the Anger of God, c. xviii. ; compare Institutes, Bk.
VI. cc. xiii., xxiv.

270 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
offences, because he is subject to the will of another.
But God can pardon, because He is Himself the
judge and arbitrator of His own law; and when He
laid down this, He did not surely deprive Himself
of all power, but He has the liberty of bestowing
pardon." The position of Augustine is not easy to determine ;
the reason perhaps being that he took up no definite
position on the subject. Many passages might be
adduced from his works in which, to all appearance,
he identifies forgiveness with the remission of
penalties ; others, again, where he draws no distinction
between the two ; still further, passages which seem
thoroughly scriptural alike in expression and meaning.
As an example of the- first class, the following may be
quoted : "What is implied in the clause, They which
receive abundance of grace and righteousness, but that
the grace of remission is given, not only to that sin in
which all have sinned, but to those offences likewise
which men have actually committed besides, and that
on those [happy recipients of the grace] so great a
righteousness is freely bestowed, that, although Adam
gave way to him who persuaded him to sin, they at
any rate yield not even to the coercion of the same
tempter. Again, what mean the words, Much more
shall they reign in life, when the fact is that the reign
of death drags much the more down to eternal punish
ment, etc. ? " J The following passage is perhaps a
little more distinct : " The children of wrath God
punishes in anger; whereas it is in mercy that He
1 Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, etc., Book I. c. xvii.,
in the Anti-Pelagian Writings (Clark's translation).

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 27 1
chastises the children of grace. . . . However, there
are no punishments . . . but what are owing to sin,
except in the case of Him who prepared His back for
the smiter in order that He might undergo all our
experience in our likeness without sin, in order that
He might be the saintly Priest of saints, making
intercession even for saints, who, with no sacrifice of
truth even, say each one for himself, Forgive us our
trespasses, even as we also forgive them that trespass
against us." ^ The following passages rather suggest
the scriptural view of the matter : " Inasmuch as
there are not wanting persons of such character, just
as we say in answer to those who raise this question
that the punishments of sins are as such before
remission ; whereas after remission they become trials
and trainings of the righteous. ... It ought to
surprise no one that the death of the body could not
possibly have happened to man unless sin had been
previously committed, of which it was to become even
the penal consequence ; and that after the remission of
sins it happens to the faithful," etc.2 " The Physician,
who is not needed by the sound, but by the sick,
knows how to heal us, and by healing to perfect us
unto perfect life ; nor does He in this world actually
take away death, though inflicted because of sin, from
those whose sins He remits, that they may enter on
1 L.c, Book II. c. xxv. See also his Exposition of the Sermon on
the Mount, Book II. cc. viii., compared with Book I. cc. xix., xx.
Enchiridion, c. lxv., where pardon is referred to future judgment ;
City of God, Book XXI. c. xii. ff., specially c. xxvii. See further,
Book XXII. cc. xxii., xxiii., where "forgiveness" is closely connected
with escape from evils of various kinds, here and hereafter. But, indeed,
the interchange occurs frequently.
2 L.c, Book II. c. liv.

272 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
their conflict, having to overcome the fear of death,
with full sincerity of faith." 1
(II.) Let us see now what some of the great
Protestant Confessions of Faith, of which the sixteenth
century was so productive, have to say regarding for
giveness of sin. In the main, it is referred to as it is
in Scripture ; and as frequently as not, is treated as
identical with reconciliation. Very rarely, if indeed
ever, is there an approach to the identification thereof
with remission of penalty. In fact, the two are not
infrequently distinguished, in so far as they seem to be
referred to as co-ordinate results of the death of Christ
on behalf of men. Not, however, that the Confessions
or the earliest theologians expressly distinguish the one
from the other ; but evidently the one inestimable
blessing of Christ's work present to their mind was
the fact that the anger of God was propitiated and
peace with God attained.
In the Confessio Augustana we read : " Quid
potest enim esse gratius conscientiae afflictae ac pavidse
in veris doloribus quam audire hoc esse mandatum
Dei, hanc esse vocem Sponsi Christi, ut statuant
certo donari remissionem peccatorum seu reconcilia-
tionem, non propter iiiostram dignitatem, sed gratis per
misericordiam, propter Christum, ut beneficium sit
certum. Significat autem justificatio in his Pauli sen-
tentiis remissionem peccatorum seu reconcilationem,
seu imputationem justitiae, hoc est, acceptationem
persons." 2
The Apologia Confessionis Augustancs constantly
1 L.c, Book III. c. xxiii.
2 See Sylloge Confessionum, Oxon. 1821, art. "de Fide," p. 145.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 273
associates remissio and reconciliatio ; and the meaning
attached to both words is sufficiently clear from the
following passage, which is only a sample of many to
the like effect : — " Promissio offert nobis oppressis
peccato et morte gratis reconciliationem propter
Christum quae accipitur non operibus sed sola fide.
. . . Hsec igitur fides specialis qua credit unus
quisque sibi remitti peccata propter Christum et
Deum placatum et propitium esse propter Christum,
consequitur remissionem peccatorum et justificat
nos." x
Again, the Formula Concordice says : " Credimus
vocabulum (justificare) phrasi scripturse sacrae in hoc
articulo idem significare quod absolvere a peccatis."
" Credimus quod Dominus nobis peccata remittit ex
mera gratia."
In the Apologia Confessionis Wurtembergicce we
read : " Quum Deus remittit peccata, simul donat
Spiritum sanctum inchoantem novas virtutes, tamen
mens perterrefacta primum quaerit remissionem et
reconciliationem. De hac angitur, de hac dimicat
in veris pavoribus ; non disputat quae virtutes infusae
sint, quae etsi comitantur reconciliationem, tamen
nequaquam judicandum est, nostram dignitatem aut
munditiem causam esse remissionis peccatorum."2
Further, in the Confessio Saxonica we also read :
" Cum autem hac voce (legis) arguente mens perterre
facta est, audiat promissionem Evangelii propriam de
Filio Dei, et statuat sibi remitti peccata gratis propter
1 J. T. Miiller, Die Symbolischen Biicher der evang. luth. Kirche,
1869, art. "de Justificatione," pp. 94, 95.
2 Quoted in Heppe, Dogmatik des detitschen Protestantismus im
sechzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. ii. p. 279.
S

274 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Filium Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum pro-
pitiatorem. . . . Hac fide cum erigitur, certum est
donari remissionem peccatorum, reconciliationem et
imputationemjustitiae, propter ipsius Christi meritum." '
So far the German Lutheran Confessions. Re
markably enough, however, as soon as we pass over to
the Reformed Confessions — the Confessio Helvetica,
the Confessio Belgica, the Catechesis Heidelbergensis,
— we find ourselves in a different atmosphere. The
words remissio peccatorum, reconciliatio occur, indeed,
but the context and the associated expressions show
that they are acquiring a new sense.
(III.) We will now turn to the Theologians.
Luther s judgment is clearly enough expressed in the
Confessio Augustana, which was mainly his work ;
but I may quote a brief passage or two in which he
speaks in his own person : " What we need to learn
is that we become righteous and are released from
sins by the forgiveness of sins ; " " necesse est fidei
tribuere justificationem seu remissionem peccatorum : "
" Christian righteousness is nothing without the for
giveness of sins ;" " justitia est quando non observantur
peccata, sed ignoscuntur, condonantur et non reputan-
tur." 2 These hints are in harmony with Luther's
general treatment of Christ's work as having for its
supreme end the personal reconciliation and union of
man and God ; although passages enough may un
doubtedly be found where he lays the strongest stress
on the fact that punishment, especially that of hell, is
taken away by the atoning death of Christ.
1 Sylloge, etc., art. "de Remissione," etc., p. 216.
2 Quoted by Kdstlin, Luther's Theologie, vol. ii. 445.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 275
MelanchthonJs treatment of the subject is at one
with that of the Confessio Saxonica, of which he was
himself the author. But he expresses himself to quite
the same effect in his Loci: " Quum fide se mens erigit,
donantur remissio peccatorum et reconciliatio." J
" Justificatio est acceptio remissionis peccatorum." 2
Commenting on 2 Tim. i. he says : " Quod autem
aliqui dicunt, nos esse justos inhabitatione divinitatis,
sciendum est, inhabitationem esse effectionem
novitatis. Haec effectio eta fit, cum cor prius
apprehendit remissionem peccatorum et consolationem
intuens in mediatorem Filium Dei et statuens, te
propter ilium mediatorem habere remissionem et
justum esse, i.e. placentem Deo. . . . Ita manet vera
propositio : Paulus conversus habet remissionem
peccatorum et est Justus, i.e. acceptus Deo propter
meritum Christi seu propter propitiatorem sola fide."3
Similar language is used by the one and the other
theologian of the Melanchthonian school. But a
change slowly crept in — crept in unawares. What
had originally been regarded, or at all events naively
treated, as a result of reconciliation or forgiveness,
namely, deliverance from punishment, came gradu
ally to be associated and co - ordinated with it ;
till eventually forgiveness was regarded as pre
eminently, if not exclusively, dispensation from the
reatus paence}
Calvin s treatment of the subject is substantially
1 Quoted by Heppe, l.c. ii. 274.
2 " Ex ord. Ordinandorum," in Heppe, l.c. p. 275.
3 Quoted by Heppe, l.c. p. 279.
4 Compare Gurlitt, " Worin besteht die Vergebung der Siinden ? " in
Studien u. Kritiken, 185 1, p. 327.

276 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
that of Luther and Melanchthon. Thus he says,
" We simply interpret justification as the acceptance
with which God receives us into His favour as if we
were righteous ; and we say that this justification
consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ." x " Paul declares the
sum of the gospel message to be reconciliation to God,
who is pleased through Christ to receive us into
favour by not imputing our sins (2 Cor. v. 18-21).
... He understands by reconciliation nothing else
than justification." 2 " Justification by faith is
r. reconciliation with God, and this consists solely in
the remission of sins." 3 Yet there is a certain some
thing in Calvin which is absent from his German
contemporaries — the element of personal relationship
is not so prominent ; one feels that the official God is
beginning to supplant the personal God, the God who
is heart to heart : of whom one can say, both, Like as
a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them
that fear Him ; and, God is angry with the wicked
every day.
This becomes more and more perceptible in the
divines of his school. Note, e.g., how Ur sinus, a con
siderable theological authority, speaks of justification.
In explaining the notion of the "application of the
righteousness of Christ," he distinguishes between
the divine or objective and the human or subjective
application : " (1) Deus ipse nobis applicat, h.e. imputat
justitiam Christi, acceptans nos pro justis, propter
illam, non secus ac si nostra esset. (2) Nos appli-
1 Calvin, Institutes, Book III. c. xi. 2.
2 L.c. c. xi. 4. 3 L.c. c. xi. 21.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 277
camus nobis, dum accipimus justitiam Christi, per
fidem, h.e. statuimus quod Deus earn nobis donet et
propter earn nos reputet justos et absolvet ab omni
reatu et culpa." x
He distinguishes four effects of faith, the first two
of which are, Justificatio coram Deo ; and laetitia
acquiescens in Deo et pax conscientiae.2
Another Reformed theologian of the first half of the
seventeenth century, Heinrich von Diest, moving
further still in the direction indicated, thus defines
justification: "Justificatio est sententia dei judicis,
qua ex gratia propter satisfactionem Christi turn
passivam, turn activam, sola fide vera apprehensam
sine ullo operum merito partim peccata remittens a
condemnatione absolvit, partim justitiam imputans
vitam aeternam adjudicate 3
Turrettine may be regarded as having almost
completed the task at which his predecessors had
unconsciously laboured : " Sunt qui sola Remissione
peccatorum totam Justificationem absolvi contendunt ;
ut tunc nos justificare Deus censendus sit, quando
peccata nostra nobis condonat et ab omni poena
absolvit." Others, he adds, showing how far things
had already gone, " vero duas partes in justificatione
ponunt, Remissionem peccatorum et Imputationem
justitiae, Mam, quce eximit peccatorem a poena, istam,
quae eum reddit procemio seu vita dignum." In a
word, forgiveness is identified with freedom from
penalty, and imputed righteousness with worthiness

1 Heppe, ii. p. 310. 2 Heppe, ii. p. 309.
3 Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehre der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche
dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, 1884, vol. ii. p. 420.

278 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
of reward or life. He himself is not quite satisfied
with either position, because "ad justificationem
plenam non sufficit a poena absolutio, sed requiritur
etiam juris ad vitam communicato," — i.e. not merely
release from punishment, but also the bestowal of
right to life, is requisite to justification. " Remissio
peccatorum, quae pcenae liberationem importat," he
adds shortly afterwards, when defining more exactly
his own view of justification.1
The German theologian Reinhard, a representative
of the eighteenth century, defines justification by faith,
or the righteousness of faith, as the "judicium Dei
peccatorem propter Christum innocentem declarantis,"
or more completely, "justificatio est decretum Dei de
condonandis peccatori, propter Christum, delictorum
pcenis ac tribuenda vera felicitate." 2
The Rev. Caleb Burge, an eminent representative
of the New England or Edwardean School of divinity
in the United States, constantly identifies pardon with
remission of penalty. For example : "If God had
given up the penalty of the law, and offered pardon
to guilty man without an atonement, He would have
treated the law precisely as a bad law ought to be
treated. ... If, then, the penalty should be remitted,
something else must be done, which would manifest
for the law as much respect as the complete execution
of its penalty. . . . Then God might grant pardon
to sinners without doing any injustice to the law ;
because, in bestowing pardon in this way, He would
1 F. Turrettini Institutio Theologia; Elenciica, 1683, vol. ii. Loc. xvi.
De Justificatione, qu. iv. 2-6 ; cf. 10. Qu. v. 5. 10.
2 Reinhard, Dogmatik, 18 12, § 125. Compare also Bretschneider,
System. Entwickelung, etc., p. 635.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 279
show as much respect for His law as He could show
by executing its penalty." 1
Dr. John Pye Smith tells us, " The question
whether sinners shall be pardoned is . . . one of law
and government." As moral Governor, God must
mark " sin with a suitable demonstration of its moral
evil ; . . . and this is punishment. Threatening and
punishment impress justly and necessarily with the
idea of the displeasure of the Lawgiver and Judge.
Pardon, when on any consideration it takes place,
brings the true and just idea of a change ; but that
change, in the great case before us, is not in the mind
or character of the Supreme Ruler ; but it is in the
administration of His government, and in those out
ward acts by which that administration is indicated ; "
these outward acts being, of course, threatenings and
penalties. Elsewhere Dr. Pye Smith strikes another
chord, but this seems to be his doctrinal position.2
Professor Crawford seems to regard the subject in
the same light. I have not been able, indeed, to find
a passage in which he distinctly identifies forgiveness
and release from penalty ; nor, perhaps, would he have
done so in the full sense ; but his mode of reasoning
certainly looks and leads in that direction. For
example, replying to Bishop Ewing and Dr. John
Young, who maintain that penalties can only cease
with the cessation of sin, he says : " Another ground
on which it has been maintained that an atonement is
unnecessary — nay, even that it is impossible — is the
1 The Atonement : Discourses and Treatises. Edited by Edwards A.
Park, p. 445 et passim.
2 The Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ, p. 129 f. Compare
p. 70 f.

280 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
allegation that all the penalties annexed to sin flow
from it inevitably in the way of natural consequence,
and hence that these penalties can only be averted by
the deliverance of the transgressor from sin itself,
which is their cause. . . . By the removal of sin we
could obtain exemption from ' these natural evils,' but
' it would still be necessary for us to be delivered
from the righteous displeasure and merited judgment
of God.'"1 But such deliverance demanded an
atonement ; and the object of the atonement or of the
sacrifice of the Son of God was that God might be
enabled to extend to " transgressors a free and full
pardon " consistently with the claims of law and right.2
Dr. C. Hodge leaves us in no doubt as to his view
of the matter, though one cannot but be surprised
how little is said expressly on the subject of the
" forgiveness of sin," — nay more, how rarely the
expression occurs, — considering the stress laid on it,
not only in the Scriptures, but also by the early
Protestant divines. The official conception of God
and His relation to men may be said to have reached
¦ its climax in his system : " Men may philosophize
about the nature of God, His relation to His creatures,
and the terms on which He will forgive sin, and they
may never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion ; but
when the question is simply, What do the Scriptures
teach on this subject ? the matter is comparatively
easy. In the Old Testament and in the New, God
is declared to be just, in the sense that His nature
demands jhe^punishment of sin : that, therefore, there
can be no remission without such punishment, vicarious
 ¦  .j — y
1 Atonement, pp. 409—412. 2 L.c. p. 408 et passim.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 28 1
or personal ; that the plan of salvation symbolically
and typically exhibited in the Mosiac institution, ex
pounded in the prophets, and clearly and variously
taught in the New Testament, involves the substi
tution of the incarnate Son of God in the place of
sinners, who assumed their obligation to satisfy divine
justice, and that He did in fact make a full and perfect
satisfaction for sin, bearing the penalty of the law in
their stead." *
" Redemption is deliverance from evil by the pay
ment of a ransom. The price paid for our ransom is
Christ."2 "Justification cannot be mere pardon,"3
for justification is a forensic procedure, a "judicial
act." 4 "A pardoned criminal is ?wt only just as much
a criminal as he was before, but his sense of guilt and
remorse of conscience are in no degree lessened. Pardon
can only remove the outward and arbitrary penalty.
The sting of sin remains." 5
And this is the theology that claims to be par
excellence Biblical and " orthodox," according to the
recognised standards and divines of Protestantism !
Dr. A. A. Hodge reproduces in this, as in other
respects, the doctrine and spirit of his father : " Two
effects," he tells us, "are secured by the imputation
of Christ's righteousness to the believer — (1) the re
mission of the penalty, the pardon of sin; (2) the
recognition and treatment of the believer, as one with
respect to whom the covenant is fulfilled, and to whom
all its promises and advantages legally accrue.
1 Systematic Theology, vol. ii. p. 478 f. 2 L.c. p. 514.
3 L.c. vol. iii. p. 125. Compare what Calvin says above.
4 Vol. iii. p. 126. 5 Outlines of Theology, 1879, p. 502.

» 5

282 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
"To 'pardon' is, in the exercise of sovereign pre
rogative, to waive the execution of the penal sanctions
of the law. . . . Pardon is remission of penalty in
absence of satisfaction. If justification were mere
pardon, it would simply release us from penal suffer
ing, but would provide no further good for us."
In Dr. Dale's work on the Atonement, a whole
lecture is devoted to the subject of "the remission of
sins ; " but, so far as I can gather, notwithstanding
one or two passages pointing in a different direction,
his view is substantially that which has dominated
Protestant thought for something like two centuries.
This is sufficiently clear from the general aim of the
chapter, which is the confutation of Dr. Young's con
tention, that "spiritual laws are self-acting; that
punishment or reward, visible or invisible, or both,
dispenses itself, and in the amount in which either is
merited ; that all their penalties and sanctions are
self-acting." "If this is a true conception of the
order of the moral and spiritual universe, the idea
of the Atonement must be given up ; " for its purpose
is " to create an ' objective ' ground on which remis
sion of sins may be granted to the penitent. On
this theory such remission is impossible. . . . God
is as powerless to forgive sin as He is to reverse
or even to modify the eternal and necessary distinc
tion between good and evil."2 The theory itself
breaks down in face of the actual course of history.
" Some more coherent argument, therefore, is neces
sary before we surrender the hope to which the hearts
of men have clung in all ages, that it is possible to
1 L.c. p. 507. 2 Atonement, ist ed. pp. 318-320.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 283
escape from the penalties of wrong-doing. Nothing
that this theory contains can cause us to hesitate
in receiving the declaration of Christ's infinite love,
that He came into the world and died on the cross
in order that the remission of sins [' escape from
penalties '] might be actually conferred on us." 1
" Forgiveness may include something more than the
cancelling of guilt, if guilt is defined to be 'liability
to punishment on account of sin' — namely, 'restora
tion of fallen character,' as Bushnell holds.2 But a
sense is thus imposed on the language of Christ and
His apostles concerning the Remission of sins which
it was never intended to convey."3 As to which
latter point I quite agree with Dr. Dale ; but neither
"remission of penalty" nor "restoration of fallen
character " was what was meant by the language of
Christ and His apostles. The former conception of
their meaning has given rise to all the unrealities of
the forensic view of the Atonement ; the latter would
lead straight back to the legal bondage of the Romish
system, whither, in point of fact, not a little of our
most "advanced, broadest teaching" is rapidly con
ducting us, with a certainty which is only equalled
by the ignorance of the agents in the task.
Only one other sentence need be quoted from Dr.
Dale, — a sentence which must surely fill any one with
melancholy who comes to it direct from the perusal of
the references to forgiveness quoted even from the
Old Testament, not to mention the New, and of the
statements of the early Protestant divines : " That
the Remission of sins, if it stood alone, would leave
1 L.c. p. 335. 2 L.c. p. 336. 3 L.c. p. 336.

284 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
us unsaved, is one of the commonplaces of Christian
theology ; but (!) it does not follow that the Remission
of sins includes the blessings which are necessary to
complete our salvation, or is to be confounded with
them."1 In a certain respect, indeed, the above statement
and the corresponding ones of Drs. C. and A. A.
Hodge are nearer the truth, are more evangelical,
than some that have a much less harsh sound. They
logically involve the recognition of the fact, that what
is rectified by the work, and specially by the passion,
of Christ, is a relation— -a relation between God and
man. In a very true sense nothing is given to God,
nothing is rectified in God : God suffered no injury
from sin. Man had suffered from sin : death was
on him — death of the whole nature. He needed
rectifying from the crown of the head to the sole of
the foot. But, as I shall have occasion to remark
hereafter, and have already remarked in an earlier
part of this book, real rectification — rectification of
character, constitution, state — can only take place on
the basis of a rectification of the relation to Him
without whom nothing in the cosmos can be orderly,
healthy, — Him in whom all things live, move, and
have their being. To treat rectification of constitu
tion, character, state, as a condjlien of the right
relation to God, is implicitly to make man his own
redeemer, and to drive him either into~nioraTindiffer-
ence, or the moral unrest whose culmination in the
sixteenth century was the chief cause of the wonderful
success of the Reformation. The primal and essen-
1 L.c p. 336.

FORGIVENESS OJ^ SIN. 285
tial end of Christ was to establish such a relation'
between us and God that it might be possible for
us to be made healthy. So far, then, I agree with
the positions criticized.
My disagreement concerns the nature of the rela
tion rectified. According to the writers adduced
above, it is a legal relation to the moral Governor
of the world. Perhaps Dr. Dale would scarcely con
sent to this ; so much the better, but then he would
be happily inconsistent. As to the others, there can
be little question. Now, a legal relation may be
rectified, and yet leave the person affected thereby
in essentially the same state as he was before. A
rectification such as I have in view carries with it, as
by a moral necessity, the rectification of the whole man.
But this leads me to the next point.
IV. What is the true Biblical meaning of forgive
ness f And what is the explanation of the deviation
from Biblical truth with which I am charging so much
of the theology of the Church ?
(I.) Forgiveness and acceptance (or adoption) may
be defined as the negative and positive sides of one
and the same act or process, — the act or process of
establishing, or rather re-establishing right normal
relations between two persons ; in the case with which
we are concerned, God and man ; or forgiveness itself
may be said to have these two aspects. God therein
acts as a person, in a strictly personal manner, towards
man — the person. Not with God, in any capacity
save that of the personal God, who has all personal
claims upon him, has the sinner to do in forgiveness ;
God does not forgive us as Sovereign, or as Ruler,

286 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
or as Judge, but as God, who, as God, is Creator,
Father, Ruler, Judge ; and, as such, in all these
aspects expects and claims the holding of all the
specifically personal, normal relations, especially those
which are described by such terms as reverence, trust,
love.1 Forgiveness relates to the past, acceptance to
the present and the future. God treats the past rela
tion with its failings and sins as though it had not been;
and treats the sinner again as His friend and son.
The relation is what it should be after having been
what it should not be. I say the relation; not the
character, not the state, not the mere feelings. Cha-
racter^jstate^ feelings, as was observed already, can
only be what they should be, on the basis of a right
relation, either always existent or restored. The
results of sin — that is, of past wrong relations, whether
conceived as punishments or as natural consequences,
and whether seen in an abnormal character or in a
diseased condition of the inner man, or in wretched
ness of feeling, or in any other sufferings and evils —
may be only partially set aside, at all events in this
world and life,2 when sin is forgiven ; but the condition
of theirremovftl is fulfilled. For surely all will agree
in this, that the ultimate root of the evils with which
humanity is afflicted, is a wrong relation to God — that
is, sin.3
The word forgiveness is doubtless used amongst
men, perhaps, too, occasionally in the Bible, in
1 See Chapter III. of this work.
2 On this subject much that is true is very forcibly said by Dr. Dale
in the chapter on the " Remission of Sins."
3 As I have touched on this point before, I will not further pursue it
here.

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 287
another sense, that of remitting debt or penalty.
We distinguish clearly, however, between the two
senses. Does it not happen often enough that an
offender is forgiven his personal offence, without
being forgiven his punishment or debt incurred
along with or in and through it ; or he is forgiven
his debt or punishment, without being forgiven his
personal offence ? In other words, the evil results
of the wrong personal relation are done away with,
though the personal relation may not be rectified ;
or the personal relation is rectified, without the evil
results being done away with. In the case of God,
the two things are essentially inseparable, if not
now, yet in the long-run ; so, at all events, we hope
and believe. But this is because the relation of I
man to God necessarily, absolutely, and eternally
conditions his well or ill being. The place of God ,
in the universe of being and life is unique — is such
that personal beings and lives can only be normal,
as their personal relation is normal to Him, the great
personal source and sustainer of all things.
(II.) What, then, is the rationale of the deviation
of which illustrations have been given ?
I may first call attention to what I believe to be
a historical fact, namely, that whenever there have
been great religious upheavals, stirrings, revivals,
new emphasis and prominence have at once been
given to the personal relation between God and;
man as compared with what I have ventured to
term his official relation. Condemnation of sin \
has been felt to be personal indignation, personal
anger ; forgiveness of sin has been felt to be equiva-

288 TllE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
lent to personal reconciliation. The relation, in
both cases, assumed a thoroughly personal aspect.
In fact, the human heart at its deepest is not more
able to be content and satisfied to the full, apart
' from a true relation between itself and God — God
to it and it to God, that is, without the specifically
personal relation between God and itself to which
I have been referring — than is a true child able to
be content in its home without a right personal
relation between its parents and itself. God's world
ft might be in perfect accord with us and our claims
upon it ; we might have its resources at our complete
command. Yet, constituted as we are, we need
Him over and beyond — Him with His fellowship
and love, consciously enjoyed. As home is the
mockery of a home, however gilded and luxurious,
without the personal affection displayed and proved
in personal intercourse ; so the cosmos is the mockery
of a cosmos to the human soul — not to a brute —
without the personal affection of its great orderer,
manifested in personal fellowship felt and known
to be His.
If this statement be correct, shall we be far wrong
in tracing the deviation under consideration to that
relaxation of spiritual intensity which, as is well
known, followed on the great outburst of life under
Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their contemporaries
and coadjutors ? Whilst it is true that theology —
including under that now most vaguely used and
frequently abused term, not merely the scientific
explanation, but the scientific formulation of the
objects, facts, truths of the faith — exercises the pro-

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 289
foundest influence on the genesis, nourishment,
direction, and colouring of the spiritual life ; it is
also equally true that the spiritual life, or its relative
or total absence, exerts the profoundest influence
over theology. My people will have it so — that is
another way of stating the same thing. Externalize
the relation of man to God : the result must be a
corresponding externalization of the conception of
God Himself and His relations to man, especially
of what He may have done or be doing for the
re -establishment of right relations. And when an
external or official conception of God and His
relations to man has thus been generated, it not
only fosters the externality of the life in which it is
rooted, but, what is infinitely more perilous, supplies
for it a kind of rational justification. This is just
what seems to me to have happened to the Church
of Christ. Its political view of God's relation to 1
man, and the corresponding forensic theory of the
means necessary for man's redemption, have tended
not only to generate a life of religious legality, but
to surround it with a halo of Biblical correctness and
Church orthodoxy. In saying this, I am as far
as possible from intending to insinuate that all
who advocate the theory I am combating do so
because their spiritual pulse beats languidly, and
their tone is low. m yevono ! Many, very many of
them, possibly the majority, have been and are
men whose own real, inward relation to God is
essentially personal ; whose experience of divine
grace is as far as possible from being adequately
expressed or explained by the forensic, "political"

290 JTHE REDEMPTION OF MAN.,
-theology which they expound and defend ; but their
intellect has not escaped from the meshes of the
traditional system ; indeed, they have never assumed
/ towards it the truly critical attitude; nay more, the
externality to which I object lends it a kind of
clearness, definiteness, mathematical exactness, which
has a special charm for certain minds, and gives
them a pleasurable sense of knowing what they
are about, and where they are, with a corresponding
feeling of surety and safety.
Undoubtedly, too, the vast majority of men find it
much easier to appreciate the relation to a monarch
whose claims are met by the payment of a debt, or
the endurance of a penalty on their behalf, than
Nthe personal relation to a God who is displeased
or angry because of sin, whose ariger is turned away
.by the intervention of Christ, and whose personal
displeasure and personal grace may be, yea are,
alike matters of direct personal experience and
cognizance. The former falls in with lower phases
of human experience ; the latter can be truly under
stood only in the light of its higher phases. Above
all, the realization of personal relations to God
implies a whole self- surrender and spiritual self-
discipline from which men generally shrink, on the
one hand, because it is painful ; and, on the other
hand, because it somehow seems unreal.
I scarcely need add another element which has
unquestionably co - operated in bringing about the
result we are considering, namely, that the ordinary
mind can easily understand and appreciate the
removal of a penalty or the payment of a debt;

FORGIVENESS OF SIN. 291
whereas it is apt to exclaim in a sort of bewilder
ment, " Personal relations between God and man !
God forgiving me, and I to know it ! How can that
be ? " And when the possibility of these things is not
disputed, the question is apt to be dubiously asked,
" And even if it be so, what can it matter ? What is
its value ? I can appreciate salvation from pains and
penalties here and hereafter ; but mere deprivation
of the sensible favour of God — is that much of a
loss ? " Most Christian believers are too carnal
to enjoy divine fellowship, too carnal to appreciate
its supreme value and profound significance ; and
a's to the " natural man " — he, of course, discerneth
not the things of the Spirit. How inevitable, then,
that those references in the Bible to the work of
Christ, which, superficially regarded, point in the
direction of legal, forensic, governmental relations
between God and man, should be pressed and
taken as the key to the entire divine method ;
whilst the more personal references were gradually
ignored or explained away, — a result promoted also
by the fear of anthropopathisms which has haunted
the Church from the beginning, and which is
unfortunately now well-nigh as lively as ever.
One word more — until this question of forgive
ness is thoroughly grappled with, and that in the
light of the Biblical hints previously presented, it is
hopeless to look for a truer estimate of the doctrine
of the Atonement, and of that "articulus stands et
cadentis Ecclesiae," the article of justification by
faith, and faith alone.

CHAPTER VII.

PASSIO CHRISTI.

I. The original relation of Christ to humanity}
He is the natural mediator between God and
creation. (I.) We are told by John in his Gospel that " all
things were made by Him, and without Him was not
anything made that hath been made." 2 " The world
was made by Him."3 "There is but one God, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him ; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
and we through Him."4 "All things have been
created through Him and unto Him, and in Him all
things consist." 5 " Through whom also He made the
worlds." 6 " By whom all things consist." : " Uphold
ing all things by the word of His power." 8 " He is
the power of God and the wisdom of God." 9 "He
is the head of all principality and power." 10 From
these hints it would appear that Christ is the mediator
1 On this subject may be compared, Plitt, Glaubenslehre, pp. 187, 361 f .,
369, 372 ; Mehring, Religions-Philosophie; Martensen's Dogm. p. 240 f. ;
F. D. Maurice ; R. W. Dale, Atonement; Dorner's Glaubenslehre.
2 John i. 3. 3 John i. 10. 4 1 Cor. viii. 6. 6 Col. i. 16.
6 Heb. i. 2, cf. 10 ff., iii. 3, 4 ; Rev. iv. 11.
7 Col. ii. 17. 8 Heb. i. 3. 9 1 Cor. i. 24.
10 Col. ii. 10 ; cf. Col. i. 20 ; Eph. i. 10. Calvin says, " Had man re
mained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate
to God witnout a mediator," Instit. Book II. xii. 1. See also, " Notandum

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 293
through whom the creative, sustentative, and guber-
native action of God is exercised. It is important to
remember this. Christ's mediatorial relation is from
the beginning ; it is, as we may call it, a natural, and so
far as we can discern, a necessary relation. The divine
energy becomes active force in and through Christ.
Further, Christ is in a special sense the channel
through which communication goes on from God to
man, and man to God. This relation is rooted in the
former one ; or rather it is one of the aspects thereof.
" There is one God, and one mediator between God
and man, the man Christ Jesus."1 " I am the way,
the truth, and the life : no one cometh unto the Father
but by me."2 " In Him was life, and the life was the
light of men;"3 "and the life was manifested;"4
"He is eternal life."5 "He is the true light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world ;
He was in the world, and the world was made by
Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto
His own, and they that were His own received Him
not."6 " I am the light of the world."7 " No man
knoweth the Father, save the Son, and He to whom
soever the Son willeth to reveal Him." 8 What is
thus and elsewhere declared concerning Christ, must
not be taken to relate exclusively to His temporal
mission. Much that is said in the Scriptures,
est filium dei ante etiam assumtam carnem semper fuisse mediatorem et
multa mediatoris officia jam inde a condito orbe fecisse," Zanchius,
quoted by Schweizer, Glaubenslehre, etc., vol. i. 362. The idea is a
familiar one in the Reformed Theology, at all events of the seven
teenth century.
1 1 Tim. ii. 5. 2 John xiv. 6. 8 John i. 4. 4 1 John i. 2.
5 1 John v. 20. 6 John i. 9-1 1. 7 John viii. 12.
8 Matt. xi. 27 ; cf. John i. 18, vi. 46, x. 15.

294 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
especially in the New Testament, and most of all
in the Gospel of John, relates to what is eternal,
unchanging, essential, natural, grounded in the
very constitution of the world. The mediatorial
work of Christ as the Saviour of mankind was under
taken in pursuance of this eternal relation : though
its special form was due to the new conditions arising
out of sin. Christ persisted in His work, notwith
standing the sins of men, and therein displayed His
love and the love of the Father.1 This holds good,
not only of the divine relation to man, but of man's
relation to God. Man has access to the Father alone
through the Logos, not merely as the result of sin, —
though sin has, of course, if possible, intensified his
dependence on the mediatorship of Christ, — but
according to the primeval constitution of things.
Every true prayer, confession, aspiration, desire,
ascended to God through the channel of Him who
became incarnate, though the men whose souls
breathed them forth knew not of His existence.
Even as the air was the vehicle by which men spake
to each other, before science had discovered the fact ;
as ether may be the medium by which light, either
direct or reflected, affects our sight, though its very
existence is still a mere hypothesis ; and even as
there may be other media by which what are called
telepathic communications pass from soul to soul : so
has it been from the very creation of man — yea, we
might say of all intelligences. In the profoundest

1 Plitt speaks of an " Umgestaltung der Menschwerdung aus einer
lichten und friedreichen zum schmerzlichen Kreuzesgang," etc., Glau
benslehre, ii. 370.

PASSIO CHRISTI. 295
and broadest sense, therefore, is it true that — no man
cometh to the Father but through the Son ; and no man
knoweth the Father, save He to whom the Son revealeth
Him. (II.) From the beginning God has never ceased to
seek the establishment of right relations between
Himself and man ; in other words, He has been
endeavouring to fulfil and secure the fulfilment of the
conditions necessary to that end. Before the Flood,
we are told, God's Spirit strove with man ; 1 though
the wickedness of man became so great, and the
imaginations of the thoughts of his heart so evil
continually, that it repented God making man, and it
became necessary to destroy him.2 The constitution
of the natural world, the constitution of human society,
and man's own individual constitution, brought home
to him in all ages the fact that it was an evil and
bitter thing to forsake the Lord God ; yea, their own
wickedness corrected them, and their backslidings
reproved them? In addition, as living, moving, and
having their being in God, they could not but be
darkly sensible, in the depths of their being, of the
divine resentment : the natural reaction of the divine
holiness and love against their sin and alienation
could not but give rise to disturbances of their un
conscious mental life, showing itself in the sad and
melancholy moods to which men in all ages have
been subjected. But this was not all. His Spirit has
striven with men : — has sought to convince them of
sin and to move them to penitence — to show them
what sin was to God, and to stir them up to the
1 Gen. vi. 3. 2 Gen. vi. 5, 7, 13. 3 Jer. ii. 19.

296 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
fulfilment of the conditions necessary to reconciliation.
" The Gentiles, which had no law, were a law unto
themselves ; and they showed the work of the law written
in their hearts, their consciences bearing witness there
with, and their thoughts, one with another, accusing or
else excusing them." 1 Goodness, and forbearance, and
long-suffering were shown to men with a view to
leading them to repentance.2
This twofold inward action found also a twofold
outward embodiment in the punishments and
blessings with which men were visited. God left
not Himself without witness, in that He did good,
and gave from heaven rains and fruitful seasons,
filling their hearts with food and gladness? Unto
them who were factious and obeyed not the truth, but
obeyed unrighteousness, God sent wrath and indigna
tion, tribulation and anguish — yea, upon every soul of
man that worketh evil?
The experiences of Israel were but in a more
definite and specific form the experiences of men
generally ; the latter became clear on the light of
the former. The history of Israel, in this as in
other respects, serves the purpose of the Greek
chorus in the great drama of human history. What
God did for them in the depths of their life was
reflected in the external severities and kindnesses
with which their conduct was visited. Their
religions, especially their sacrificial system, supplied
a kind of running commentary, both on the inward
1 Rom. ii. 14, 15. 2 Rom. ii. 4.
3 Acts xiv. 17 ; cf. xvii. 24 ff.
4 Rom. ii. 8. See especially Heb. iii. 6-1 1.

PASSIO CHRISTI. 297
and outward dealings with God. The sacrifices,
in particular, wonderfully typified all the stages of
the relation between God and man.
The same purpose was in a measure served by
the religious, and especially the sacrificial rites that
prevailed outside Judaism — in ever less measure,
however, as error regarding God more fully darkened
the minds of men. For they came more and more
to be regarded merely as means of buying off the
displeasure and vengeance of powers who, 'twere
best for men that they should cease to exist, or at
all events to rule. And what the law and the
prophets did for Israel, that in a less perfect way
the legislators, poets, historians, and philosophers did
for the more cultivated nations ; and the magicians,
wizards, medicine men, and so forth for those who
were more degraded,
(III.) If this is true, in other words, if God has
all along been compassing in divers ways the fulfil
ment of the conditions of the establishment of His
kingdom, and if it be true that humanity subsists
in the Logos, draws all its life from God and gives
its life to God through the Logos ; then it follows
that all along the Logos must have been acting
as the mediator for sinners, with regard alike to
the relation of God to men, and the relation of men
to God. As the living channel between God and
man, He could not but sympathize alike with God
and man. On the one hand, He shared the effects
produced by the revelations of the divine displeasure
in the depths of the human soul ; on the other, He
entered along with men — so far His work in them

298 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
to this end was successful— sympathetically into the
divine estimate of sin, justifying God in, with, and
through men for His action towards sinners.
Here, again, Israel and its history throws light on
the otherwise dark history of mankind. Not surely
without ground are the theophanies of the Old Testa
ment regarded as appearances of the Logos. Paul
hints thereat when he says that the spiritual rock which
followed Israel in the wilderness, and of which they
drank, was Christ.1 He was the Angel of the Presence,
concerning whom Isaiah says, " In all their affliction
He was afflicted : in His love and pity He redeemed
them; and He bare them, and carried them all the
days of old." 2 May we not apply to Him also the
remarkable words which precede those just quoted :
" / have trodden the wine -press alone ; and of the
peoples there was no man with me. I looked, and
there was none to help ; and I wondered that there was
none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought
salvation unto me." 3 May we not, too, regard the
descriptions given by the same prophet, of the
sufferings of the Servant of the Lord,4 as relating
not merely to the future, but also to the present
and the past, — sometimes more to the one than
to the other ? " Surely He hath borne our griefs,
and carried our sorrows. All we, like sheep, have
gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own
way: and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity
of us all." The Logos, the Servant of the Lord,
1 1 Cor. x. 4. 2 Isa. lxiii. 9. 3 Isa. lxiii. 3 ff.
4 Isa. Iii. 13-liii. 1-12 ; cf. Rev. xiii. 8, "Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world."

PASSIO CHRISTI. 299
was even then bearing the heaviest of human
burdens and the sorest of human sorrows ; for the
sake of men He was being afflicted.1 And at a
later period would be fulfilled what the prophet
foretells, namely, that He should sprinkle many
nations ; that kings should shut their mouths at Him :
for that which had not been told them they would
see, and what they had not heard they would under
stand? What was specially true of Israel, was in
its measure true also of all mankind. The higher
their privileges, the larger their culture ; the fuller.
their knowledge, the intenser became the sufferings
of the Logos ; so long as His object remained un
accomplished, and He saw not the fruit of His travail.
Notwithstanding all, the world's sin grew more
grievous, the world's gloom more profound, the
world's suffering more intense.3 The travail of

1 See an interesting passage quoted from the Sohar by Tholuck in
his Wichtige Stellen des rabb. Buches Sohar, etc., 1824 : "When the
sufferings of the descendants of Israel in the dispersion are told the
Messiah, and it is at the same time said that they have deserved them,
because they have not been minded to know their Lord, He lifts up
His voice and weeps over their sins. Hence it is written in Isa. liii. 4,
' He is wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities.1
Their souls are converted and go to their places (to bliss). The
garden of Eden is an apartment which is called the sick-room. Into
this room the Messiah then goes, and calls all evils, all diseases, all the
pain of Israel, that they may come upon Him ; and, in fact, they all do
come on Him. And but for His taking these pains from Israel on
Himself, verily, no man would be able to endure the pains of Israel,
the punishment because of the law. Hence it is said, 'Verily, He
hath borne our sicknesses,' etc. So long as Israel dwelt in the -Holy
Land, it warded off all evils and pains from the world by its worship
and sacrifices ; but now the Messiah wards these off from men." Life of
Tholuck, i. 359.
2 Isa. Iii. 15.
3 See Tholuck's Heidenthum; Neander's Introduction to Church
History; Rom. i.

300 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
ages seemed to be in vain. Even the chosen people
to whom He might have said at a very early period,
''How long shall I bear with this congregation?" x
and to whom He often had to exclaim, "/ am weary
to bear you"— -had at last to be cast off as too hard
and stiff- necked. What should be done ? The
divine displeasure was increasing ; the inward resist
ance to the striving of the Logos was becoming more
obstinate ; the judgments of God were more marked ;
His blessings were less understood ; and yet the
needs, yea, the yearnings of the human soul, were
perhaps deeper than ever. Should the race be cast
off — cut off entirely from the vine that bore it, and
cast in the fire to be burned ? Or should the efforts
hitherto put forth find their culmination in some
special work ? The fulness of the time had come.
A grand crisis was approaching; either the race must
perish, or God's own arm must bring salvation?
Heretofore, as we have seen, the \cyos dadpicos was,
on the one hand, bearing, i.e. helping man to bear,
not only the natural results of sin, but also the
exhibition of the divine estimate of sin, of the
divine grief, of the divine claims ; and, on the other
hand, was energizing and persuading man to justify
God, to enter by penitence into the divine grief,
and to offer a worthy sacrifice. This He had done
hitherto ; what more could He do ?
II. The Logos takes flesh and thus becomes man. —
Heretofore the work of the Logos had been unknown.
This was " the mystery which had been kept in silence
through the ages, but now is manifested, and by the
1 Num. xiv. 27 ; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 20. 2 Isa. lxiii. 5.

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 301
Scriptures of the prophets, according to the command
ment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the
nations, unto obedience of the faith" x Dimly declared
it had been to the higher minds of the Israelites, and
dimly discerned by the more earnest and devout ; but
no one had apprehended the fact in its full truth. It
was believed that God was dealing with them in various
ways ; but they had only the most passing glimpses,
even when they had them at all, into the wonderful
fact that the Logos, the Son of God, was working as
Mediator for their salvation. This fact needed to be
set forth distinctly, palpably before the world.
Man never appreciates what lies in the depths
even of his own nature until it find expression. His
thoughts, or those intellectual stirrings which issue in
thoughts, are not his until (they clothe themselves in
words. This is the least requirement of his constitu
tion. The case is similar with the other movements
of the inner man. Nay, more, if he is fully to recog
nise and appreciate them, they must take outward
form and substance. Not till then is his own inner
being clear to him ; not till then does he properly
possess himself. This applies with equal, perhaps
with greater, force to the working of God within
him through the Logos. Had he been in a normal
condition, possibly the word of an elect seer or poet,
or words of the " Word" spoken within, might have
served to reveal to him the presence and activity of
the Logos,2 — for the work of the Logos in humanity
1 Rom. xvi. 25. See Redepenning's Origen, on the necessity of the
incarnation, pp. 380, 402.
2 See on this Plitt, Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. 369.

302 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
did not originate with, though it was modified by,
sin, — but experience had shown it to be insufficient.
Even the little that had been declared regarding the
work of the Logos to Israel had been misunderstood,
or not understood, and at the fulness of the times men
were less capable than ever of being helped in that
way. The truth needed to take body ; the dadpKo%
must become ivo-dpicos, — the acarnate, incarnate.
All along, indeed, as I have already remarked,
embodiment had been given to the divine displeasure
and the divine love in the joys and sorrows, the pains
and pleasures, the judgments and blessings, which
had fallen to men's lot. These experiences were
ever interpreted, too, as signs either of divine favour
or hostility. But, save in Israel, they were never
connected with the twofold inward work of God ; and
even in Israel were rarely, if ever, properly appre
ciated and affiliated to the inward mediatory action
of the X070? do-dpicos. On the contrary, a tendency
showed itself ever in Israel, and worked strongly in
heathendom, to ascribe the several kinds of experience
to separate deities, good and bad, kindly and envious,
hostile and friendly.
But what further embodiment could be found, save
one in a human life ? This, at all events, is the most
intelligible of all the means that can be adopted. In
other words, the Logos, who was working, as it were,
diffusedly in all men, — working below consciousness,
subordinating Himself to the human personality, con
descending to act the part of an impersonal energy
in men, according to their various capabilities and sus
ceptibilities, — must concentrate Himself, so to speak,

PASSIO CHRISTI. 303
into an individual man, whose life should be, as it
were, an epitome or "recapitulation"1 of what the
Logos had done and suffered, and should do and
suffer, through the ages, until the redemption of the
race shall be accomplished, and God shall be all in all.
This must not put a stop to His inward action.
That work must go on ; but it needed its external
correlate, i.e. its thoroughly congruous correlate.
Then the one would interpret the other. Whoso
beheld Christ, having already yielded to His inward
stirrings, he would recognise in Him the one whom
his soul desired. Even as men at one and the same
moment, by one and the same act, recognise in an
artistic work the embodiment of the ideal after which
they have been unconsciously craving : — the work
interprets their soul, and their soul is the key to the
work.2 Christ was in this sense the true desire of
all nations. The X0709 eVo-ap/co? was seen to be the
same as the \cyos dodpico*;. The Logos in whom and
by whom our higher nature subsists was seen to have
taken flesh in Christ. " It behoved Him to be made
like unto His brethren." 3
Implicitly we have touched here the question
whether the Logos would have become incarnate
had not man sinned.4 I am inclined to think that
1 An expression of Irenaeus, used here, however, in a somewhat
different sense.
2 "Das Sprechen ist urspriinglich eine Art des Handelns. Das
Sprechen ist eine Arbeit," says Herbart, Psych, ii. 233. Compare
Griffith, Gospel of Divine Life, p. 334.
3 Heb. ii. 17.
4 See Kreibig, p. 195 f. ; also Plitt, i. 369 ff. ; Dorner, Christologie, ii.
1229 ; Muller, Deutsche Zeitschr. fur christliche Wissenschaft und christi.
Leben, 1850, p. 41 ff. ; R. W. Dale, Atonement. Calvin, Institutes, Bk. II.
c. xii. 4, opposes it.

304 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
we must answer it in the negative. It was accord
ing to the original constitution of humanity that the
normality of its life should be conditioned by the
co-operation — especially the inward co-operation — of
God through the Logos. This relation of dependence
was not created, it was only intensified by the incom
ing of sin. But may we not fairly suppose that, apart
from sin, man would not only have received to the
full all the energy he needed, but have discerned with
growing clearness, as his development advanced, the
source whence, and the channel through which, it was
coming ? In other words, he would more and more
have known the indwelling Logos as the personal
Son of God. To what end, then, an incarnation ?
But after sin entered the case was altered. Men's
understandings were darkened ; and if they ceased
to know God, whose eternal glory and power were
manifested in the things seen, how much more must
they cease to recognise the presence and action of the
Logos in their own nature ? For not only did He,
as it were, empty Himself in them of His glory, but
their own inner life was corrupt. So that we may
well say that though the identification of the Logos
with the inner nature of humanity was a part of the
original divine plan, the incarnation of the Logos
was the fruit of sin.1 It is necessary not to confound
two things which are often confounded, namely, the
humanification of the Logos and His incarnation. The
Logos did not become human when He came to earth : 2
1 Compare the remarkable words of Irenseus, Bk. V. c. xvi. 2, on The
Word as the archetype, etc. See also Plitt, l.c. supra.
2 See Plitt, as above.

PASSIO CHRISTI. 305
He is eternally manlike. It was He in whose
image man was specifically made. He was, so to
speak, the human in God. But He was not flesh ;
He became or was made flesh, as John tells us,
thus manifesting to us what He eternally was. He
entered also into special union with an individual ;
in a sense, He individualized His eternal humanity,
and thus became a man like unto other men, subject
ing Himself to the limitations of ordinary human
nature, though without sin.
As such the Logos was in the truest sense a man of
men, the Son of man, the man. No other man could
ever lay claim to the designation with equal justice.
He was the archetype of man ; His presence in
humanity had sustained and quickened the capability
of becoming man in every man ; He had been the in
dwelling idea towards which as a goal the development
of men tended, and by which it was directed. How
He could take the form of an individual without
giving Himself up, is a mystery which we shall perhaps
never be able to solve ; but after all, it is but the
culmination of a line of mysteries, each connected
with and growing out of, yea, all rooted in and
prefigured by, the mystery of creation itself.
III. The specific sufferings of the Logos as in
carnate. The work of the Logos as incarnate did not inter
fere with His work as do-dp/cos; on the contrary, it
intensified and supplemented, yea, completed it. It
is a mistake to regard the sarchical work as some
thing totally new ; its conditions are new ; it is
new so far as a full-grown oak is new relatively to
u

306 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the acorn or the tender plant ; but as to essential
characteristics it is the same. Yet it was necessary;
unless this last step had been taken, the previous
ones would have been in vain. They required it ;
it involved them. The previous work was, if I
may so say, chiefly or exclusively generic ; now it
became both generic and individual, each in and
with the other.
(I.) The very limitation to which the Logos sub
jected Himself in taking flesh was a form of suffering.
As such it is spoken of in the New Testament : " When
the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son,
born of a woman, bom under the law, that He might
redeem them that were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons ; " J " In His humiliation
His judgment was taken away ; His generation who
shall declare ? " 2 " Being in the form of God He emptied
Himself, taking the form of a servant ; being made in
the likeness oj man, and being found in fashion as a
man, He humbled Himself ."* "Since, then, the children
are sharers in flesh and blood, He also Himself in like
manner partook of the same ; — -for verily not of angels
doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of
Abraham? M As was prophesied of Him, He grew
up before Him as a tender plant, as a root out of a
dry ground ; He hath no form nor comeliness, and
when we see Him there is no beauty that we should
desire Him.5
A tremendous mystery is here, — a mystery, as
seems to some, amounting to an impossibility or a
1 Gal. iv. 4. 2 Acts viii. 33. 3 Phil. ii. 7, 8.
4 Heb. ii. 14, 16. 6 Isa. liii. 1-3.

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 307
contradiction. If true, a tremendous humiliation,
which, though voluntary and therefore lacking the
element of shame or degradation, that for us com
monly accompanies it, is yet real. The Logos, the
eternal Son of God consenting for the time to perceive,
think, feel as a real man, — what a strange and terrible
experience ! When men here have to descend from
a higher sphere to a lower, even in mere outward
matters, as, for example, from an imperial throne to
that of a principality ; from the position of a ruler
to that of a simple subject ; from a large social circle
to a narrow one ; from a large house to a very small
one, — how troubled and distressed they are ! Still
worse would it be if a man should have to descend
from, knowledge to ignorance, from culture to un-
culture, and so forth, retaining all the while a dim
consciousness of the sacrifice he had made or of the
loss he had endured. But what are these things
compared with the descent made by the Son of God !
Surely it must have cast an inexplicable gloom over
His whole life, — given Him the sense of being
imprisoned in an impalpable prison-house.
(II.) The fleshly organism which He assumed brought
its own share of inconvenience, not to say suffering.
He came into close relations with a domain where the
law of heredity holds sway. " Each infant brings into
the world with it a flesh and blood which have been
specialized by the channel in which they have been
moulded since man appeared upon the earth. They
have been manufactured in a family factory which has
been at work since the family existed. All that St.
Paul would call the flesh is built up and modified

308 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
by all — bad and good, moral and physical — which has
passed in the lives and habits, nay, in the habitual
thoughts of its progenitors to the first generation.
Every infant comes into the world charged and
saturated with these antecedent conditions stamped
with an immemorial history, penetrated through and
through with imperishable influences." x Even though
we believe that Christ was born of a virgin without
the intervention of a human father, all this is no less
true qualitatively ; for the Virgin herself came into
existence under the influence of the law in question.
Not even by accepting the Romish dogma of the
immaculate conception of the Virgin can we get rid
of the fact. Her flesh was still the flesh in whose
constitution the antecedent generations had co
operated. In its measure, therefore, it inherited
whatever corruption, or at all events disorder, may be
transmitted by its means. As a result of the life of
past generations, it certainly is not in any case the
plastic, obedient, transparent organ of spirit that it
was meant to be ; and in very many cases it is the
seducer and tyrant as which so many mystics and
ascetics have denounced it. When the Logos took
flesh, therefore, He exposed Himself to any hindrances,
oppressions, difficulties that might arise from the
source just referred to ; for He, no less than any finite
spirit, became so one with flesh, so penetrated
and pervaded it, so constituted it His organ and
himself its animating controlling principle, that what
stirred in and affected it stirred and affected Him. I
am not now referring to inherited disease, or weakness,
1 Church Quarterly Review, Jan. 1880.

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 309
or defect, for we have no reason for supposing that
the body of our Lord was other than normal ; but to
profounder and more subtle discords. If, now, we men
are sensible of these disadvantages and have cause to
groan over our bodies, — even though partly because
of our conscious neglects and sins,— how much more
sensitive to them must have been the Lord of life and
glory! Well may it have been said of Him, He
" took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses? x —
though in a profounder sense than may often be
attached to the words.
(III.) Positive physical sufferings also befell Him as
the result of the relation into which He entered. How
far He experienced pain resulting from the passing
illnesses and disorders to which human beings are
subject, we do not know : — few details are furnished
us about the more specifically personal experiences of
our Lord. But He suffered from hunger, thirst, heat,
cold, weariness, and finally on the cross itself. " We
do not forget, indeed, that martyrs have not only hung
upon the cross, but, as in the case of Simon Peter,
have borne cruelties superadded to those of the fatal
wood. Their tortures have been prolonged by
cunning devices ; refinements of agony have been
thought out for them ; the nail, the knife, the saw,
the screw, the pincers, the rack, the fire, the ice,
reptiles, and vultures, and beasts of prey have been
studied in their capabilities, so that they might all be
applied in slow succession to the victim who was
made by artificial means to linger until every muscle
was sundered with a cautious violence, and not a nerve
1 Matt. viii. 17.

310 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
could stir without its appropriate pang."1 Nor do
we forget a voluntary martyr like St. Simeon Stylites,
whom Tennyson lets say, — Thrice ten years
Thrice multiplied by superhuman pangs,
In hungers and in thirsts, fevers, and cold,
In coughs, aches, stitches, ulcerous throes, and cramps,
A sign betwixt the meadow and the cloud,
Patient on this tall pillar I have borne,
Rain, wind, frost, heat, hail, damp, and sleet, and snow.
Show me the man hath suffered more than I.
For did not all Thy martyrs die one death ?
For either they were stoned or crucified,
Or burned in fire, or boiled in oil, or sawn
In twain beneath the ribs ; but I die here
To-day and whole years long, a life of death.2
As has often been observed, however, degrees of
suffering cannot be determined by any outward
standard. Among men, susceptibility to pain varies
often according to the degree of their spiritual
refinement. Many a rude barbarian will pass un
moved through tortures appalling enough to weary
out the life of a Fenelon or Cowper. The filaments of
our nature which transmit sensations to the mind are
in some men so delicate as to vibrate like the strings
of a wind-harp to the slightest touch. Who then can
tell what sensitiveness a man may acquire whose
human attributes have become united with the divine?
Who can imagine the delicacy of fibre which he may
possess whose feelings have never been blunted by
one sin, and whose whole system has been quickened
by the indwelling of the divine mind ? 3 The Christ

' Park's Discourses, " The Sorrow of the Redeemer," p. 338.
2 " St. Simeon Stylites."
3 Park's Discourses, " The Sorrow of the Redeemer," p. 339.

PASSIO CHRISTI. 311
may have been, nay, in the nature of things must have
been, infinitely more sensitive to physical suffering
than any mere man can be, not merely in virtue of
His refinement, but in virtue also of the clearness and
vigour of His self-consciousness, of His appreciation
of the abnormality of suffering, and His discernment
of the disorder that involves suffering. So that,
whilst quantitatively, as one may say, His sufferings
have been often exceeded, qualitatively He endured
more than any man.
(IV.) As the Christ, the Logos entered more fully
into sympathy with the sufferings of men. He was
"touched with the feeling of our infirmities!^ He
endured keen sufferings through sympathizing with
the pains of His fellow-men — pains both of body and
mind. The New Testament contains many proofs of
His commiseration for the woes alike of friends and
foes. He had none of that affected spirituality
which pretends to overlook the physical pains of men
for the sake of concentrating the regard upon their
mental troubles. He was quick to suffer with any or
every member of the race ; even when children were
needlessly rebuked, it was as if a dart had pierced the
apple of His eye.2 How significant the emphasis laid
by Him on the gift of a cup of cold water to the
lowliest of His followers;3 and His assurance that
before the assembled world He will say to them on
His right hand, "I was an hungered, and ye gave
me meat • thirsty, and ye gave me drink!' i A few
1 On the suffering of Christ as a suffering of sympathy, see Edwards
in Park, Atonement, xxix. and xxxviii. Compare Heb. iv. 15 ; cf. ii. 11,
16 ; Matt, xxviii. 10 ; John xx. 17 ; Rom. viii. 29.
2 Mark x. 14. 3 Matt. x. 42. 4 Matt. xxv. 31 ff.

312 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
minutes before He was nailed to the cross He was
touched to the heart by the tears of those who
sorrowed for Him;1 and on the cross itself showed
that He was thinking of His mother, and the sword
which was to pierce through her soul.2 As He felt
with individual sufferers, so also did He take into His
comprehensive view the sicknesses and dying pains of
the whole race with which He had joined Himself in
brotherhood. If He were thus sensible to the frailties of the
body, how poignant must have been His griefs as He
embraced in one and the same thought all the mental
woes of men past, present, and to come, — the
suspense, the hope deferred, the fear, the disappoint
ment, the despair ! 3
For sacrifice they die, through sacrifice
They live, and are for others, and no grief,
Which smites the humblest, but reverberates
Through all the close-set files of life, and takes
The princely soul that from its royal towers
Looks down and sees the sorrow.
Those who have here much to do with men in their
sufferings testify how cast down, sorrowful, troubled
they themselves, however healthy and otherwise
happy, are apt to become. It is found, too, that but
for a certain callousness which comes over the sensi
bilities, the sights they see would soon wear out their
very life. Few things are more painful and exhaust
ing than keen and persistent sympathy with the
sorrows and sufferings of others. Yet even at their
1 Luke xxiii. 28. 2 Luke ii. 35.
3 Park's Discourses, "Sorrow," etc., 340 ff. Lewis Morris, Epic of
Hades, " Andromeda."

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 313
very best, men have a sense of being outside each
other ; in special cases we would fain enter into the
very heart, but find that all we can do is to utter
words or shed tears ; and how hard and hollow do
the words sound ; how vain seem the tears ! All this
was other with Christ. He made our burdens, our
pains, our anxieties His own, as no one could who did
not hold his relation to our inmost being, and who
was not endued with divine strength.
It needs scarcely be remarked that He entered
vividly into what may be described as more properly
the moral and spiritual woes of the race. If Paul,
who deemed himself the chief of sinners, could exclaim,
" / have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart :
for I could wish that I myself were anathema from
Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according
to the flesh," — how much more truly might Christ
have said this to Himself, who was bound to every
child of Adam by ties infinitely closer than those
which bound Paul to his Jewish brethren ! And,
doubtless, the tears shed by Him over Jerusalem, as
He cried in agony, " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how
often would I, and ye would not l"1 were forced from
Him, certainly not alone, nay, rather chiefly by His
sense of the awful moral tribulations which He foresaw
must come on the sacred city. Let any man try to
take into his heart all the sinners whom he knows,
and to realize what necessarily awaits the impenitent
and hardened ; let him try to constitute himself their
inward mediator and advocate ; let him put himself
alongside of them and in their place, and he may
1 Cf. Park, l.c. p. 543.

314 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
perhaps get a glimpse of what Christ must have
endured, of what He is still enduring on our behalf.
(V.) The evil of sin was brought home to Him in a
new way through His individual human contact with
sinners. " Consider Him which endured such gain
saying of sinners against Himself." J Scarcely a form
of human weakness, imperfection, folly, hardness,
wilfulness, depravity can be mentioned that He did
not personally encounter. And He suffered from
them all. We ourselves suffer when we encounter
them ; we do so notwithstanding our dulness and
deadness ; notwithstanding that perhaps we are our
selves chargeable with the very faults that are a
trouble to us in others. How much more must they
have pierced His soul, perturbed His spirit, and
caused Him to groan within Himself! How irritating
to find men incapable or unwilling to understand or
appreciate truth that they need, and that ought to
inspire them with enthusiasm ! How distressing to
be met with unbelief and scepticism ; to have our
motives misrepresented, to be counted in our best and
holiest undertakings co-workers of wicked men, or
even protege's of Beelzebub ! How disheartening is
blind antagonism to efforts for men's own good ; and
brutal indifference to the good of others if it seem to
involve a sacrifice to themselves ! How heartbreaking
to discover that one's most intimate companions,
those to whom we had opened our hearts, and who,
we thought, understood us, betray a lack of sympathy
when our real conflicts begin, desert us in the hour of
peril, and even lend themselves as tools to our bitterest
1 Heb. xii. 3.

PASSIO CHRISTI. 315
adversaries ! We may even reproach ourselves, and
feel as though we were blamable when the friends
who vowed to stand by us, and to lay down their
lives for us, show themselves cowards and liars. And
how we seem to break down when for all our sincere
desires and efforts on men's behalf we are repaid with
ingratitude, hatred, and hostility! In all these, and
in many other ways did the Saviour suffer. How
fearful must have been to Him, even as in its measure
it must be to every man, the mockery of justice which
marked His trial and condemnation by Pilate! How
awful the falsity, perjury, and diabolical malice dis
played by those who ought to have been the leaders
of their nation in all that was true and noble ! If
ever public degradation and shame could crush any
soul, must not the soul of Christ have been well-nigh
crushed by the insults and shame that were heaped
upon Him, the innocent and perfect One, prior to and
in His being hung on the accursed tree ! And what
conceivable blow could fall more heavily than when
the very men for whom He had lived and for whom
He was dying, cried out, "He saved others ; Himself
He cannot save!" and made the utterance wrung
from Him by the agonies of the cross — " Eloi, Eloi,
lama sabachthani!" — an occasion for insinuating that
He had been playing the part of a deceiver and
impostor.1 If all these things would distress us, how
much more must they have distressed the incarnate
Logos, who had taken flesh for the express purpose of
seeking and saving the lost, and to whom these sins
of men meant far more than they could possibly mean
1 Cf. Park, l.c. p. 340.

3 16 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
to any mere man, however pure, noble, and gifted
with moral and spiritual insight !
(VI.) By becoming a member of the great body of
humanity, the Logos laid Himself open further to
organic influences from His fellow-members? If it
be true that men are fellow-members united into one
great organic whole, surely it follows that there must
be links of connection between us besides those which
are open to conscious observation. Must we not be
bound each to each by some system of spiritual nerves,
even as are the various members of our individual
fleshly bodies ? Along these are constantly being trans
mitted pulsations, inarticulate communications, which
affect our moods, our feelings, and oftentimes our
conduct. These influences gain entrance below con
sciousness, in the dark depths of our being, and there
become so blended with the results of our own activity
that most of us are unable to distinguish the two
elements, and may therefore sometimes praise, some
times blame ourselves for what is but very partially
to be laid to our credit. Some men are more sensi
tive to this action of their fellow-members than others,
and are apt either to suffer profoundly from them, or
perhaps occasionally to be filled with a gladness which
they themselves cannot explain. Now, the Logos
became accessible to these generic influences to a
degree which mere men are totally incapable of appre
ciating. He may be said to have been sensitive to
the movements of all men, without exception ; their
envies, jealousies, malice, uncharitableness, cruelty,
greed, hardness, impurities, selfishness, streamed in
1 See Gess, iii. p. 734.

PASSIO CHRISTI. 317
upon His great soul by these subconscious channels
in one well-nigh unbroken stream, — a stream, at all
events, of whose vast tide generosity, tenderness,
kindness, love, purity, and the other virtues formed
but a slightly colouring element. Had not divine
energy been associated with divine sensitiveness,
surely such an assault on His life from the side
where it was most hard to repel must have been
overwhelming. Perhaps the sad overthrow and
downfall of many of the more finely organized among
our fellow-men may be traced in part to the mass
of corruption which sweeps in on the unconscious
depths of their life by the channels referred to, —
channels which in them are both more numerous and
more open than in others.
In addition, we must remember the connection of the
Logos with the inner life of men, to which reference
was made above. This primal relation lent, of course,
additional force and intensity to the new relation ; each,
indeed, intensified the other. What a burden must
accordingly have been laid on the shoulders of the Son
of man ; what conflicts must He have had to endure ;
what a fierce fight of inner afflictions must have been
His lot ; and how ceaselessly must there have risen
within Him from this instreaming flood of sin the
mists which tended to hide the face of God, and thus
to produce deep anguish of soul, — an effect which was
unavoidable save as He pierced them and traced them
to their true source ! In us, the flood I have spoken of
blends so naturally with the congruous waters of our
own life, that at certain moments we naturally seem
to ourselves to be filled with the corruption of a world,

318 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
and find then no attitude so fitting as to cast ourselves
into the dust, crying, " Unclean, unclean ! "
Nay, may we not account thus in part for the
terrible cry, " My God, my God, why hast Thou for
saken me ? " whose dark mystery angels and men
alike endeavour to pierce ? At that dread moment,
when He was assailed by all possible forms of suffer
ing, — sense of limitation in its intensest degree ;
sympathy with other sufferers, specially stirred by the
agonies of the malefactors between whom He hung;
physical pains of the most excruciating kind ; the
contradiction of sinners in its most revolting shape,
when He was therefore most accessible, as we also
find ourselves to be, to organic influences, — the de
pravity of the race seemed to become for the moment
His very own ; it occupied the entire horizon of His
consciousness; its dark vapours obscured His sky;
He " became sin " for a sinful race ; it seemed accord
ingly as though the Father had forsaken Him ; yet
being unable to charge Himself with fault, He ex
claimed, in agony, " Why, why hast Thou forsaken
me?" Then, too, did He also approach nearer than
at any other moment of His career to the very border-
ground of sin itself. For was not doubt of God the
very beginning of sin ? and is not doubt of God still
the most vigorous branch of the root out of which it
grows ? Doubt, that is sin, begins of course with a
doubt in the intellect ; which, in the case of a sinless
being, must be suggested from without, i.e. must arise
from that over which the doubter has no control.
And did not Christ realize for the moment what it
was to have doubt suggested to the soul, and that

PASSIO CHRISTI. 319
under circumstances that lent it the greatest force,
and fitted it for producing the direst consequences ?
(VII.) Christ was further exposed, as none ever
before or after, to the assaults of the powers of dark
ness. At the beginning of His career, and at its
close, He was specially assailed, — at the former, by
the temptations in the wilderness ; to the latter He
Himself alludes on at least two occasions : " The
prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me ; " J
" This is your hour, and the power of darkness ; " 2 but
doubtless He was constantly more or less thus beset.
Indeed, we may perhaps say that this was natural.
Special sensitiveness such as we must predicate of
Christ to all subtle spiritual influences, human and
divine, laid Him open also in a special measure to
the assaults of the prince of the power of the air and
his invisible army. This is, in fact, ever the case.
To be constitutionally dense, unappreciative, is not
an unmixed disadvantage, any more than to be con
stitutionally sensitive to all manner of influences is
an unmixed blessing. The former realize the in
visible with greater difficulty, but are perhaps less
liable to the attacks of the unseen powers of evil ;
the latter realize the invisible more easily, taste more
of the blessedness of fellowship with God, and receive
more of His communications, but are for the same
reason more open to the approaches, insinuations,
suggestions, and action of the evil part of the invisible
world. There is no blessing without its perils ; there
is no defect without its safeties. That the devil had
nothing in Christ on which to fasten was, of course,
1 John xiv. 30. 2 Luke xxii. 53.

320 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
a wonderful safeguard. Yet He would not have truly
shared our humanity had He not been as accessible
to these influences as to the organic ones previously
referred to, and that, also, in the exact proportion of
His general sensibility. It seems to be in the power
of the evil one, acting either himself or through fitting
agents, so to darken and permeate the inner atmo
sphere of sensitive souls by his presence and influence,
that for the time they are forced to regard themselves
as well-nigh utterly given over to evil ; or if not that,
at all events to be agitated by doubts and perplexities
as to what it means. The devil so fills, so occupies
the inner man ; so floods him with his suggestions,
impulses ; so distracts and agitates thought ; so pre
vents discrimination by the multitude of questions
which are forced on the attention ; so blends his
energy with our inner energy, — that a feeling of
desperation is apt to come over us. In our case, all
this action is linked on to some besetment which then
acquires fresh force, and the entire condition of things
seems to be of one piece with the besetment, — the
guilt thereof diffuses itself, as it were, like colouring-
matter through the whole. Christ had not, of course,
this experience ; but perhaps the perplexity which
found vent in the cry, " Why hast Thou forsaken
me ? " may have been partially rooted too in this.
The influences referred to under the last head, and
the diabolical action on the nerves, especially of the
heart, generating an inexplicable yet properly physical
fear, alarm, yea, even terror, blended naturally with
these to produce a kind of confusion and darkness,
which, conjoined with the remaining circumstances,

PASSIO CHRISTI. 321
suggested the thought, not, indeed, of personal sin,
for that could not arise, but that God was abandoning
Him to possibilities before which His pure and holy
soul shrank back appalled.
(VIII.) There is a further source or channel
through which Christ stood in relation to the sin of
mankind. If the Logos is generally the mediator of the
divine immanence in creation, especially in man ;
if men are differentiations of the effluent divine
energy ; and if the Logos is the immanent control
ling principle of all differentiation, i.e. the principle
of all form, — must not the self-perversion of these
human differentiations necessarily react on Him
who is their constitutive principle ? In a very real
sense He Himself is the root of humanity. The
men who were abusing their power of self-control —
and we must beware of pantheistically annulling
human freedom J whilst recognising the divine
immanence, yea, we must say as Paul does, in Him
we live and move as well as have our being — had
their power in and through Christ. It was His
power they wielded, His life they were living in a
very special sense. Must not this have been the
source of a peculiar and specific trouble and dis
comfort to Him from the very entrance of sin into
the world ? Was the grief felt by God that He had
created man at all not to some extent grounded
herein ? Transcendently God saw sin with anger
and grief; immanently the divine life was also
in its measure darkened by the use to which its
1 See Gess on this.
X

322 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
energy was put in those who were designed to be
a source of gladness and glory to God. Until we
have a fuller understanding of the relations between
the transcendent and immanent action of God, we
shall not be able fully to appreciate this side of the
matter. Speaking after the manner of men, we
may say that human corruption sent up into the
conscious life of Deity certain disturbing elements
through that sub- conscious side by which He was
in immediate, generative, creative, sustentative, i.e.
immanent, contact with the intelligent creature. The
same thought is suggested even if we avoid the
word immanent and speak only of sustentation,
remembering that the divine sustentation is not an
outward or mechanical, but an inward and vital
relation to the world He brought into existence.
When the Logos became an individual man,
these darkening influences must have flooded His
inner sub - conscious nature with well - nigh over
whelming force. His human nature may be com
pared to the narrow strait between two stormy
seas from which rush in contrary currents — on the
one side from the displeasure of God, on the other
from human evil ; and the deepest contrariety of
the latter was, as it were, below the surface directly
exposed to the light of consciousness. The influence
we here have in view is analogous though also prior
to and deeper than that arising from the properly
organic connection with humanity into which He
entered at His incarnation.
A faint adumbration of this influence may be
found in the relation between parent and child.

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 323
That relation has not only a conscious but an un
conscious side ; it is organic and vital as well as
individual and intelligent. And somehow or other
the child's conduct affects the parent's inner state,
through the unconscious organic connection as well
as through the medium of what presents itself
before the forum of consciousness. Hence also a
vague but sometimes very oppressive sense of
responsibility for its misconduct, of which no
adequate explanation can be found in the fear that
neglect or mistakes of training and example may
have partially caused it. The uneasiness is more
deeply seated than that. Can it be that some
influence of an analogous kind contributed its share
to the darkening of the soul of Christ, and that in
this mysterious depth we have to seek the fullest
interpretation of that wonderful word of the Apostle
Paul, "He who knew no sin was made sin for us,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in
Him " ?
(IX.) Whilst in all these ways Christ was entering
into and bearing the sins and woes of men, He
was also passing through the darkness and pain
caused by the divine relation to sin. The more
men sinned, the sterner became the divine condem
nation of sin and the divine grief; the heavier,
accordingly, the burden of Christ. For as human
sin passed through Christ to God, so the divine
action towards sin passed through Christ to man.
He Himself became the innocent occasion of darker
sin than men had ever committed before; for the
rejection of Him who went about doing good con-

324 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
tinually, who, when reviled, reviled not again ; who
sought out the degraded and lost; who healed the
sick and raised the dead ; whose meat and drink
it was to reveal the Father's love to men, and lead
them to the Father who alone could suffice them, —
was the blackest in the long list of human crimes.
This in its turn kindled anew the divine displeasure,
and pierced the divine heart with a fresh and more
poignant pain. Both intensified the sorrow and
darkness of the Son of man ; for, as already remarked,
in Him as the natural mediator the stream from
below met the stream from above, each in turn
swelling- the volume of the other. And this went on
through His whole life on earth, the burden growing
ever weightier, the gloom ever deeper, the sorrow
ever intenser, till it culminated on the cross. The
unutterable depravity and woes of man, and the
assaults of the powers of darkness working through
His awful physical suffering, seemed well-nigh to take
possession of Him and sweep him away on the
one side ; and, on the other side, the divine wrath
against an apostate world, surely never burned
as it burned when that world crucified amid insults
and jeers the beloved Son whom He had sent to
redeem it from death unto life : both met in the
soul of the Son of man, the incarnate Logos, and
both conjoined wrung from Him the terrible cry,
"My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"
What was said in partial explanation before, here
finds its supplement and full expression. The
state of mind of Christ was nothing artificial, no
make - believe. The position of natural mediator,

PASSI0 CHRISTI. 325
referred to above, rendered this experience possible ;
the consummation of that relation in the assumption
of our flesh rendered the experience probable ; and
His death on the accursed tree under its precedent
and attendant circumstances, rendered the experi
ence inevitable. Through all Thy brother's sins upon Thee laid ;
And through that darkest and most awful hour
When doubt of God springs on Thee, to deflower
The soul it cannot vanquish, and Thy prayer
Hangs on the verge of bottomless despair.
He passed alone the untrodden awful way,
He understood not, but we understand —
God hid His face, but held Him by the hand.1
1 Mrs. King, The Disciples.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN.
In the course of the preceding studies I have re
peatedly touched on the relation of Christ and Christ's
work to man ; I will here approach it more closely.
Not, indeed, in the expectation of solving the problem,
but simply with the desire of putting it more in
harmony with the hints given in the New Testament.
Every attempt to explain how what Christ did and
suffered can become man's doing and suffering, hither
to made, has left a residuum of unilluminated darkness
more or less great ; and inasmuch as the transaction
is a divine transaction, we may expect this to continue
to be the case. But we may hope to narrow the
domain of darkness ; and if an individual thinker can
but convert a small part of the darkness into a kind
of twilight or penumbra, he may well feel that he has
done his share in this great and glorious inquiry.
I. Let us glance, first of all, at the allusions in the
New Testament to the link or links between Christ's
work and man ; or to the mode in which Scripture
teaches us to think that what He wrought out for us,
is as though wrought out by us. The following are
some of the more striking passages : " If we have
become united with Him by the likeness of His death,

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 327
we shall be also by the likeness of His resurrection :
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with
Him, that the body of sin might be done away, that
so we should no longer be in bondage to sin. If we
died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live
with Him. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to
be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus."1
" I have been crucified with Christ ; yet I live ; and
yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me."2 " I glory
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which
the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the
world."3 " Having been buried with Him in baptism,
wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith
in the working of God, who raised Him from the
dead. And you, being dead through your trespasses
. . . did He quicken together with Him." * " For
ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God." c
" If we died with Him, we shall also live with Him." 6
" I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up
on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of
Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the
Church." 7 " If Christ is in you, the body is dead
because of sin ; but the spirit is life because of
righteousness." 8 " If ye were raised together with
Christ, seek the things that are above. . . . When
Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also
with Him be manifested in glory."9 "That I may
know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and
1 Rom. vi. 5-1 1. z Gal. ii. 20 ; cf. 2 Cor. v. 14.
3 Gal. vi. 14 ; cf. Col. ii. 20. 4 Col. ii. 12, 13.
5 Col. iii. 4 ; cf. ii. 20. 6 2 Tim. ii. 11.
7 Col. i. 24 ; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 7-11. 8 Rom. viii. 10.
9 Col. iii. 1, 4 ; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 14.

328 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the fellowship of His sufferings, becoming conformed
unto His death." 2 "If any man is in Christ, he is a
new creature." 2 " Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who was made unto us wisdom from God, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."5
" Him who knew no sin He made to be sin for us,
that we might become the righteousness of God in
Him."4 "Found in Him, not having mine own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through faith in Christ." 5 " Christ in you the hope
of glory." 6 " Forasmuch, then, as Christ hath
suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the
same mind ; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin." 7
According to the New Testament,8 therefore, men
suffer in Christ's sufferings, die in Christ's death, rise
again in Christ's rising, live in Christ's life, righteously,
wisely, sanctifiedly, redeemedly. What He did,
suffered, and is, we do, suffer, and are.9
II. The question still, however, arises, How does
this death, resurrection, quickening, sanctification take
place ? That the result is brought about we know.
I have already referred to the fact.10 But how is it to
be explained ? At the one end we have the incar
nation of the Logos, with all that it involved and
accomplished ; at the other, men actually humbling
themselves before God, confessing their sins, grieving
1 Phil. iii. 10. 2 2 Cor. v. 17 ; cf. Eph. ii. 10, iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 10.
3 1 Cor. i. 30. 4 2 Cor. v. 21. 5 Phil. iii. 9 ; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 1 f.
0 Col. i. 27 ; cf. ii. 10. 7 1 Pet. iv. 1, 2.
0 Cf. Dale, pp. 409-427.
0 See Luther's strong language, quoted in Stud. u. Krit. i860, p.
639- 10 Cf. Dale, pp. 412, 422.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 329
for God's grief, reconciled to God, trusting in God,
loving God, serving God in newness of life : what lies
between ? What are the links of connection ? The
full solution of the problem is a hopeless task ; but we
may perhaps get some glimpses of its inner reason
ableness. III. We may find in the conscious relation of men
to Christ a part of the secret. That relation is
summed up in the profound and very elastic word
faitK;, which connotes far more than it positively
denotes. Let us see what Christ signifies to men,
what He presents to their gaze.
The inmost secret of sin, its true essence, its
genuine meaning, was never before brought close
to human consciousness. Considered even as an
ordinary crime, there surely never was one darker
than the rejection of Christ. His Jewish foes betrayed
the noblest and purest of their countrymen to the
power which they detested, descending so low as to
profess concern for Caesar in order to gain their ends ;
the Roman, frivolous and cruel as he was, never so
wilfully and deliberately perverted justice as when he
crucified Christ professedly to please those whom he
despised, and by whom he knew he was abominated.
Where else, again, can be found so wondrous an
embodiment of all that is true, generous, good, noble,
as in the Christ, and His death for sinful men ? Did
ever one witness to the truth like He ? did ever
one show such generosity, tenderness ? was ever
one so forbearing, considerate, loving? Did ever
one make a sacrifice so great for those who least
deserved it, and who made themselves the willing

330 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
exacters of the sacrifice ? Never, surely, since time
began. But there was more in it than even this. Wicked
ness is never so horrible and loathsome as when it
vents its spite and cruelty on purity that is seeking its
good. This all confess. And where have we such
an example of it as in the crucifixion of Christ ? The
only-begotten and well-beloved Son of the Father,
against whom men had sinned, and who had come
into the world to seek and save the hopeless and lost,
He is despised, persecuted, defamed, and hunted to
the most awful and most degrading death by the very
men whom He loved : where can sin be seen in all its
blackness and darkness so plainly as on Calvary ?
And this is its true nature, this is its legitimate out
come. Whether it could reach a deeper depth we
need not here inquire : Christ's own prayer for His
persecutors might be taken to suggest the possibility.
At all events, human history records nothing so nearly
approaching the unpardonable sin as the crucifixion
amid mockery and cruelty of the blessed Son of God.
And last, not least, is a greater proof of the mercy
and grace of God conceivable than that which has
been given to us in the mission and passion of this
perfect Son ? " Herein is love, not that we loved
God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be
the propitiation for our sins." "Scarcely for a
righteous man will one die ; yet peradventure for a
good man some would even dare to die : but God
commendeth His love to us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us." *
1 Rom. v. 7, 8.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 33 1
Where, again, can such insight be gained into the
incompatibility between sin and God, between men
who love sin and God, as under the shadow of the
cross, and through the person of Christ ? Experience
of the most varied kind tells men that the laws of
God, natural and moral alike, cannot be violated with
impunity ; that the cosmos arrays itself against the
disorderly; that God cannot away with sin. But His
intense abhorrence thereof, and hostility to it — His
absolute and eternal antagonism to it — were never so
clearly brought out as when His own Son, sent by
Him, consented to let wickedness wreak its vengeance
on Him, in order that sin might be vanquished and
purged away. The greatness of the divine sacrifice
casts a lurid but revealing light on the hatred felt by
God for the sin by which this fair province of His
empire had been desolated.
Considerations like these doubtless exert a great
influence on human souls ; they are fitted to open the
eyes of the most ignorant, to soften the heart of the most
obdurate, to subdue the will of the most obstinate and
self-willed. These, too, are the considerations most
commonly urged ; but there is something more — far
more, far other — in the words I quoted from the New
Testament. The action of Christ for us is more vital
and organic than this ; more complete, substitutional,
vicarious than this. That, too, is vicarious ; we
cannot get rid of the vicarious element. Every bit
of work, whether intellectual, moral, religious, or
physical, done by another, by which I profit; still
more, every form and degree of suffering that smooths
my faith or relieves my pain, is to all intents and

332 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
purposes vicarious.1 But in Christ's work it touches
deeper depths — the deepest depths; depths deep in
correspondence to the profundity of the relation held
by the divine Logos to the life and constitution of the
human race. And it is down into those depths we
are called to gaze when the New Testament tells us
that we die, rise, and live with Christ.
IV. The effect actually produced on men by the
proclamation of the crucified One is enhanced by a
further consideration. Let it not be forgotten that
He who thus lived and suffered in the flesh was the
same Logos who always had been and still was work
ing in men's souls, — the Logos to whom they owed
whatever of consciousness of sin, of penitence, of
yearning towards God they experienced, and which
they could not but count the highest and best in
themselves. They had not known their source ; they
had ascribed all to themselves ; least of all had they
known that He it was who had ever been helping
them to bear alike their self-imposed burdens and the
divine displeasure, and that but for Him they must
have been consumed. Now, however, that He had
taken flesh, and that His inner relation to them was
set forth plainly before their eyes in the life and
passion of the Christ, their eyes were opened. They
became aware of strange stirrings within ; the very
depths of their nature rose, as it were, to embrace its
Lord. The inner Redeemer and the outer were one ;
the inner substitute and the outer were one ; the inner
atoner and the outer were one ; the inner provided
the key to the outer, the outer provided the key to the
1 See Gess, p. 164 ff. Dale, p. 415 f. Dorner, ii. p. 642 ff., § 122a.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 333
inner ; and so man accepted and submitted to Christ
by no merely reflective process, but, as it were, by a
necessity of nature. Analogous phenomena are every
where occurring. The outward enters us in virtue of
a corresponding inward ; the inward becomes known
to us in virtue of a corresponding outward. The
Logos in us had been crucified from the very entrance
of sin, and had brought nigh to us all the truths that
I have referred to ; but we could not see. We never
know what is deepest in and most essential to our
selves till it takes body ; then we begin to know and
also to get possession of ourselves : the body and its
idea marry and become one, —
So the soul, that drop, that ray
Of the clear fountain of eternal day,
Could it within the human flower be seen ;
Remembering still its former height,
Shuns the sweet leaves and blossoms green,
And, recollecting its own light,
Does in its pure and circling thoughts express
The greater heaven in a heaven less ;
Dark beneath, but bright above.1
So is it in the present case. This is one of the mean
ings of faith. We could not lay hold of Christ out of
us, but for the Logos in us. What the Logos does
out of us becomes verily ours, because the Logos in
us is seeking to make it ours. Faith is formally the
revelation in consciousness of the fact that the Xo'709
ivadpicos and the X070? do-dp/cos have met and recognised
each other as one. But we are still not really beyond
the properly intellectual domain — i.e. the presentation
of facts or considerations to consciousness which stir
1 A. Marvell, The Dewdrop.

334 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
the soul and mould the life in the ordinary way —
though the latter is a profounder and more immediate
form thereof than the one referred to in the previous
paragraph. We may compare the two, though they
are by no means identical, with the state of mind
referred to in Wordsworth's " Ode on Immortality " on
the one hand, and the reflective logical arguments
which the grown-up thinker adduces to himself on
the other : — Seer blest
On whom those truths do rest
Which we are toiling all our lives to find.
O joy, that in our embers
Is something that doth live,
That nature yet remembers,
What was so fugitive !
V. By becoming man, — by being made as " it
behoved Him," "like unto His brethren," — and thus
entering into organic relationship to the human race
as such, the Logos, as we saw, rendered Himself
accessible to influences from the race — i.e. to the influ
ences which stream in through the channels connecting
men subconsciously with each other. But if the life
of the race could thus influence Him, clearly He must
also by the same channels influence the race. What
men were and did became His ; and so what He did
and was became men's. Indeed, this was the more
truly the case from His side, as what He was and did
was in harmony with the divine idea, the essential
nature, the deepest needs, and the intensest yearnings
of humanity. Superficially, indeed, evil seems to gain
readier access to the human soul, through all channels,
than good ; and so we might imagine that the action

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 335
of Christ would be but feeble, whilst the inrush on
Him would be strong though it encountered absolute
resistance. Yet it must surely also be true, that the
deepest affinities of human nature are with God ; and
he who knows how to find them will discover them.
A bodily disease may lie very deep, and the whole
frame and constitution may have come so thoroughly
under its sway as to suggest the thought that so it
was meant to be ; yet there may be a medicine for
it ; and if there be, it only needs to be applied and
the entire organism will respond. So with sin-sick
humanity. Even merely human vitalizers quicken
it to some extent ; even their life — their thought,
emotion, resolution — communicates itself to them and
carries them along with it ; even what they do and
are becomes the property of the race, though it may
be diffused through a mass so great, compared with
its intrinsic quality or quantity, that it is soon lost
sight of. How much more must this be true of the
divine man, who realized all that is deepest and truest
in man, whose work on our behalf goes on still, —
whose self-generating life is constantly streaming in
on the race !
VI. But we have still not exhausted the force of
either the words of Scripture or the terms which the
Church has employed to express its faith. They
both seem to imply that in some sense the work is
actually accomplished — accomplished once for all.
Christ suffered and died once — once for all ; once for
all He made a sacrifice ; the work of reconciliation
is accomplished ; forgiveness is secured. He has not
to keep on suffering, dying, and so forth in every

336 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
sinner in just the same sense. Yet Scripture and
the Church also teach that men have individually to
become partakers in Christ and His work by faith.
Each man has to die and rise with Christ. So that
though Christ in a sense has done His part, that does
not imply that therefore every man now is that which
Christ aimed to effect. If justice is to be done to
Scripture and the Church, we must show how, from
our point of view, the work has both been completed
and is yet being completed. The old view taught
that, a certain satisfaction having once for all been
offered to justice or to the law, God was free to
bestow pardon according to His own good' pleasure.
I shall not now attempt to criticize this position, but
try to point out how the claim is met in a different
but more real way from my position.
We shall find what we want if we duly consider the
nature of the relation in which He who has acted for
us stands to us and we to Him. Those who ordin
arily represent and act for men, who do or suffer
vicariously on their behalf, are too distinct and
separate from them to allow of their work or suffer
ing being spoken of as we speak of Christ's. In a
sense it is the work or suffering of those whom they
represent ; it stands as theirs ; the ends of human
authorities and laws are thus subserved ; the dignity
of the offended, their rights and so forth, are thus
guarded and asserted ; but we want something more
real — something veritably real — in dealing with the
relations of God and man. As are the relations to
be established, so the means by which they are estab
lished. The relations on earth are external or super-

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 337
ficial, so the means. In the case of God, the relations
are real, inward, deep ; and the means must be of the
same character. In fact, the representative must so
fulfil the conditions that the desired relations are
established, so far, of course, as is compatible with
the freedom of those for whom he acts. There is
always this limit. We need, especially at this point,
to bear in mind the fact referred to before, that
humanity is an organism constituted by organisms,
each of which is within certain limits self-controlled.
Neither of these poles must be overlooked, — or can
be overlooked without fatal confusion.
Men have always had a dim idea of a representa
tive such as Christ is. They have felt that he
who was to act for them in such a way that his acts
should be theirs, must in some sense express them ;
that they must put themselves, as it were, into him ;
that the whole must be present in him. Some men
fulfil this condition more nearly than others ; still none
can do it completely. All are outside the rest, merely
co-ordinated to or with them ; they have also to be
selected ; and however instinctively a community may
act, mistakes may be made and are made. And at the
best there is not the identity which is the condition
of truly vicarious action. There must, in fact, be
identity with distinction ; identity with the whole, yet
distinction from the whole, — two conditions which no
individual in the very nature of the case can possibly
fulfil. Now the Lord Jesus Christ does fulfil these con
ditions, if what I have previously advanced be true.
He is as the Logos the man in men, the humanity in

338 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
mankind. He is the formative principle ; the con
stitutive, indwelling idea ; the living energy. Every
individual man is rooted in Him ; is what He is as man
in virtue of that inherence. Just as the branches are
what they are because they grow out of the stem, so
we relatively to Christ or to the Logos.
Our consciousness of individuality, which is apt to
mislead us, is a consciousness of the surface of our
being and life. Its depths, its roots are hidden from
view. We — who are we? Not merely the ever-
changing thoughts, affections, feelings, purposes, and
so forth. No ; but what ? We are all that ; but more
— more. Scripture seems to hint to us that that more
is God in whom we live, and move, and have our being,
between whom and ourselves the Logos mediates.1
And what we are thus really, we are also to God
in God's view. We do right to lay stress on our
individual relation to God — that must never be
relegated to a subordinate place in our thinking ; but
it is not all. We shall never understand ourselves
if we take it for all. Nor does God leave it out of
sight. To Him we are not merely a vast mass of
distinct individuals. No, He also regards us as that
which He created us — namely, an organization of
organisms. Accordingly what the whole does, He
regards as having been done once for all by the whole.
The Logos, who, as I said, is the whole — the human
in man — stands for man, — really and not assumedly
or forensically, or by any fictitious, arbitrary process
whatever, as the whole : and what He therefore does
1 On individuality in relation to personality and humanity see
Mehring, Geschichtsphilosophie, and Dorner, Glaubenslehre.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 339
or suffers for the whole is, and is regarded as, the
.doing or suffering of the whole.
Remember, men have not first to engraft themselves
into Christ, the living whole. If they had to do that,
the position of matters would be different — very dif
ferent. They subsist naturally in Him. They have '
to separate themselves, cut themselves off from Him,
if they are to be separate. This is the mistake which
is made by the "Life in Christ" theory. Men are
treated as in some sense naturally out of Christ, and
as having to get into connection with Christ. Christ
is the leaven, the life of the world. Every man will
be leavened and quickened by him who suffers him to
work. It is not that we have to create the relation ;
we have simply to accept, to recognise, to ratify it.
Rejection of Christ is in its deepest root not so much
refusal to become one with Christ as refusal to remain
one with Him, refusal to let Him be our life. " Ye
have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ; " " He
came unto His own, but His own rejected Him."
This is the kernel of the old and genuinely
Protestant position that salvation is a completed
thing which we have simply to recognise, to accept ;
not to refuse, not to put aside. We may, of course,
by our act nullify what Christ has done ; nay more,
owing to our corrupt state we shall not ratify what
Christ has done on our behalf unless special influence
is brought to bear on us — the influence of God's Holy
Spirit, which, however, is given to all who hear of
Christ in measure sufficient for their specific need.
He takes, as it is said, of the things of Christ and
shows them to us.

34O THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
To approach the subject from another point of
view : — c'est le premier pas qui coute. Christ, on
behalf of the organism of which He is the head, has
done and suffered what I have described. When a
man takes a decisive step on his own behalf, he is
committed, as we say ; he has given himself a deter
mining direction ; that determination is taken up into
the vital activities of his organism, and unless
hindered reproduces itself; even if it have to be
ratified and repeated, the ratification and repetitions
are something different from the first step. So in a
very true sense with the work of Him who is the life
and light of men. The new relation He has created
for us grows as it were in us, — not, of course, without
our co-operation ; but it creates whilst it is accepted ;
it conditions whilst it is conditioned ; it becomes the
natural basis on which the spiritual raises itself and
works. Yet what Christ accomplished on men's behalf,
though really accomplished, finished, cannot avail
them unless it carry them with it. He cannot be our
substitute in such a manner that He is righteous
and so forth for us, whilst we can remain unrighteous
and yet be freed from penalty and inherit heaven.
He came to save us, to redeem us unto Himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works, not merely
to set aside the penalties of sin ; He came to reconcile
us to God, not merely to save from torment. What
ever He has accomplished is supposed to be ours,
though it is His work. This true principle lies at the
back of the doctrine of imputed righteousness, of our
being clothed in Christ's righteousness, though as

THE PASSION OF CHRIST THE PASSION OF MAN. 34I
ordinarily presented that doctrine takes into considera
tion solely the active righteousness of Christ or His
obedience, and not His passive righteousness or suffer
ings. What is needed is to include both. By doing
so we shall find ourselves more in harmony with the
very words of Scripture, as well as nearer the heart
of the great mystery. Christ is to us wisdom,
righteousness, sanctification, redemption. What He
has done becomes ours ; it could not be ours if it were
not first of all His ; but it would be of no use to us
unless it became ours ; nay, indeed, in view of the
relation between Him and us, it could not be His
without being potentially ours.
According to Scripture, which in this is as true to
human nature as it is to the moral cosmos, Christ
becomes ours, and we become His by faith.

CHAPTER IX.
THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER : AN ARGUMENTUM AD
HOMINEM.l
Man is a dependent being ; he is not sufficient to
himself ; in a word, he has not, like God, life in him
self. As he is not self- existent, so is he not self-
sustained. Not only does his being rest on another
than himself, but his life also is rooted in what is
other than itself — his life not as a mere abstraction
or potentiality, but as an actuality, in all its varieties
of form and degree. Whatever control he may
have over his life — that is, over his activities — he
cannot originate the energy of which they are the
manifestation. He directs the energy, but another
provides it.
Expressed in the technical language of modern
biological science, — and we are here in the domain
of biology, physical and psychical or pneumatical, —
man owes his existence, and especially his growth and
development, to a previously existent environment.
The functions of environment may be briefly and
summarily said to be the following : — to bring into
1 A part of what follows is quoted from a paper headed " The Atone
ment and Prayer," published in the Expositor Tor 1877. Coincidences
with Professor Drummond's Natural Law in the Spiritual World are
accidental.

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 343
existence the various living creatures ; to sustain them
in existence as the source of energy ; to evoke and
stimulate them to activity ; to guide and supply
objects for their activity ; to correct and punish, or
even destroy, when there is misactivity or wrong
relation, or inactivity and refusal of relation ; and
finally, curative and restorative action when wrong
activity or inactivity has induced disease or atrophy.
These functions of environment are discharged in
two chief ways — one by action from without on the
living being, the other by action from within. There
is activity from without that goes no farther; the
activity from within is preceded by activity from
without — in man's case mostly by an appeal to his
intelligence and by evoking his co-operation — pre-
hensive and assimilative.
Now, man's relations to his environment have their
ground — their real ground — in the relations of his
environment to man. Any energy expended on it
by him is energy which he has previously received
from it. He may be able to select the mode in which
he will relate himself to the environment — select out
of a very large, though still definite number of rela
tions, in themselves as fixed as those possible between
sun, moon, and stars ; but the power put forth is
derived originally and continuously from his environ
ment. Speaking broadly, it is the sun itself which
has furnished the astronomer with the energy he
expends on its observation and investigation. The
botanist is enabled to botanize by the very plant-
world which he analyses and classifies. In a word,
it is our environment that energizes in us when we

344 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
act on it. I his is the case when our relation to the
world is normal and we ourselves are healthy ; but
no less so when, in consequence of wrong relations,
we have become unhealthy. If we are to be restored
to health and to right relations to our environment,
the world, energy from that world must enter into
us to restore order, supply deficiencies, and correct
excess ; in a word, to cure and make whole. So that
our environment has not only to provide us with
energy for normal action, but also to supply curative
energy when by our abnormal action we have got
into disease. It has to enable us to act normally,
and has to restore us to normal action when we are
suffering from abnormal action. In fact, we live,
move, and have our being in the universe, in health
and disease, in weakness and strength.
What is true generally is true specifically — is true
specially of God, who is the great factor of the en
vironment of our spiritual nature. From Him comes
our spiritual being and our spiritual energy or life.
The energy we manifest towards Him comes from
Him. We direct it ; but what we direct originates
with Him. I am speaking, of course, of spiritual
energy in the spiritual-physical, not in the ordinary
moral or religious sense. I mean our power to know,
trust, love, serve God, which we may refuse to use
for Him. That power has Him for its fountainhead
as certainly as the power to walk and speak has the
sun for its fountainhead. God sends His energy
into us, gives us the control of it, and expects us to
use it on, towards, for Himself, in certain definite ways.
This is the case normally. But it is none the less so,

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 345
nay, rather, it must be all the more so, when man has
acted abnormally towards God, and therefore himself
fallen into an abnormal state. What shall restore
him to normal relations ? Not himself. Else must
he be spiritually self-sufficient. Or rather, strangely
enough, he would have become self-sufficient as to
the highest or deepest aspect of his nature, by turning
against and away from Him in whom he spiritually
lives, moves, and has his being. That verily were
the miracle of miracles. Were that true, the tempter
who led our first parents astray would be justified —
" they did become as gods " in the deepest of all
senses, that of having life in themselves — by disobey
ing ; and the Scriptures from beginning to end would
be a delusion and a snare. No ; according to the
constitution of man and the universe, man can only
enter into normal relations out of his abnormal rela
tions to God, when God Himself energizes in him
to change the abnormal to normal. Startling as the
conclusion may seem, and objectionable as it may
be found by all who love to dwell on the surface
and hate the region where paradoxes abound, it is
unquestionably, yea, blessedly true.
God's entry into man is not, of course, against
man's will or without his consent ; nor does His
energy work without man's co-operation ; yet He has
first to move, and we can no more resume true rela
tions to Him without Him, than without Him we
could have given ourselves being and life.
The relation which I have just described to God
is explicitly recognised in prayer. Prayer, in fact, is
but man's conscious and voluntary formulation in

346 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
words of the biological law, that his environment
must give what he needs, both for the support of
being and the exercise of activity, so far as it includes
God within its compass. Towards the non-intelligent
and non-voluntary world we simply act — we take and
use ; of the intelligent and voluntary world we ask,
recognising its power to withhold or to give, and its
consequent demand that we shall ask. Prayer is
therefore as correct and natural a mode of laying
hold of divine energy, as taking bread into our
mouths is of laying hold of mundane energy. The
thought I am here presenting is profoundly expressed
by Robert Browning, —
'Tis Thou, God, that givest, 'tis I who receive ;
In the first is the last, Thy will is my power to believe :
All's one gift : Thou canst grant it, moreover, as prompt to my
prayer
As I breathe out this breath, as I open these arms to the air ;
From Thy will stream the worlds, life and nature, Thy dread
Sabaoth.1
This is, of course, emphatically the case with prayer
for inward, spiritual blessings of all kinds. As such,
it has been presented in all ages.
When Cleanthes, B.C. 300, wrote in his " Hymn to
Zeus," —
But Jove all bounteous ! who in clouds
Enrapt, the lightning wieldest.
May'st thou from baneful Ignorance
The race of men deliver !
This, Father ! scatter from the soul,
And grant that we the wisdom
May reach, in confidence of which
Thou justly guidest all things ;
That we, by thee in honour set,
With honour may repay thee,2 —
1 Dramatic Lyrics, " Saul."
2 See F. W. Newman, Phases of Faith, p. 74.

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 347
he was unconsciously recognising the principle laid
down. So, too, is it recognised by Cicero, when
he says that "all things should be begun with the
immortal gods ; " 1 by Pliny, when he says that prayer
should precede all speech and action, because
nothing can be done rightly or prudently without
the help of the immortal gods ; 2 by Epictetus, when
he encourages men to approach the gods in confi
dence as counsellors ; 3 by Plato, when he introduces
Socrates praying that the gods may grant him to
be made fair within ; 4 and even by a Juvenal,
when he says that "we ought to pray for a sound
mind in a sound body ; for a strong spirit that
fears not death ; and to be ignorant of wrath and
low desires." 5
Now the principle underlying prayer is identical
with the principle embodied in the atonement.
Logically considered, both stand and fall together :
I say, logically considered.
For the sake of clearness, and in order to prevent
the suspicion that the use I am here making of
prayer may be based on ambiguities or consist of
tricks of subtlety, I will begin by defining as plainly
as I can, in general terms, the senses in which I
shall speak of prayer and of the atonement.
First, then, Prayer. There are two main views
of the nature or bearings of prayer, {a) According
to the Church or orthodox view, prayer, to use very
general terms, is a mode of human activity by which
1 See the interesting volume, " Christliche Kldnge, aus den griechischen
und romischen Klassikern," von R. Schneider, Gotha 1865, p. 301.
8 Christliche Kldnge, p. 302. 3 L.c. p. 303.
4 L.c. p. 304. s L.c. p. 305.

348 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
God is determined or influenced, as He would not
be determined or influenced without it. In more
concrete phrase, when we pray we ask God to be
towards us, or do for us, what, without our prayer,
He would not be or do. As the schools have it,
prayer here is assumed to have an objective effect.
{b) According to the other view of prayer, — if view
of prayer it deserve to be designated, — words in the
form of petition or request are addressed to God,
not with the expectation or intent of influencing
Him, but partly for the purpose of expressing sub
mission to His will, and partly for the purpose of
affecting our own inward state. To this class of
thinkers • — ¦ and it is a class which has long been
numerous in Germany, and which is rapidly growing
in our own country — prayer is essentially une gym-
nastique spirituelle, as it has been aptly described.
Its philosophy is that the petitioner unconsciously
influences himself, and either fits himself for doing
without what he thinks he needs and desires, or for
assimilating that which comes to him in the regular
course of nature, but which, apart from this prepara
tion, might possibly escape him. In the language
of the schools, prayer is here a purely subjective
process. Of the orthodox view there are again two modi
fications, {c) Some hold it to be right and of use to
pray to God in relation to external things, such as
recovery from sickness, seasonable weather, provision
of food and clothing, protection from dangers by
land and water, and other similar blessings. (d)
Others, again — and their numbers are rapidly in-

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 349
creasing — would restrict prayer to what are termed
spiritual blessings, such as light for the understand
ing, invigoration for the will, stimulus for the
emotions, and comfort and support in suffering
and sorrow.
For the sake of not burdening my position with
unnecessary difficulties, I shall speak of prayer
solely in this second sense. I might almost say
that I make this restriction, not because prayer for
spiritual things is less encompassed with difficulties
than prayer for external things, but because to my
mind it is either equally or even more perplexing.
At any rate, as this aspect of prayer is still accepted
by many, it will serve my present purpose to leave
the other aspect out of consideration.
Let us now turn to the Atonement. There are
two main views of the saving work of Jesus Christ.
{a) According to the Church or orthodox view, to
use very general terms, the humiliation, sufferings,
and death of Christ were undertaken for the purpose
of producing a change in the relation of God to man
as well as of man to God. However varied may be
the modes of representing the effect produced on
God, and of explaining how it was produced, all
agree in the one point that something was done
apart from which no reconciliation between Him
and man could have been brought about. This is
the essential element. In the phraseology of the
schools, this is the objective view of the atonement.
(b) According to the other view, the humiliation,
sufferings, and death of Christ were undertaken for
the purpose of simply producing a change in the

350 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
relation of man to God. He came to scatter the
darkness and correct the errors of the human mind
touching God ; His mission was so to exhibit the
divine character — its holiness, truth, and love — and
the evil of sin, that men should be constrained to
return in humble penitence and loving trust to their
Father in heaven. The Scripture expression of
this view is, " God was in Christ, reconciling the
world to Himself." This is the essential element.
As worded by the schools, it is the subjective or
moral view of the atonement.1
It is in the first-mentioned sense that I shall speak
of Christ's work, especially of its Godward aspect.
Now, what I affirm and wish to show is, that who
soever allows the utility of prayer, in the modified
sense referred to above, has no logical right to object
to the orthodox view of the atonement. One and
the same principle underlies both.
Having thus defined our terms, let us proceed to
inquire into the significance of prayer, and to ascer
tain the principle involved in it.
We will restrict our inquiry to prayer for divine
aid in the discharge of our primary or direct duty to
God and man ; that is, the duty of cherishing certain
affections and avoiding others. All duty may be said,
in common phrase, to begin in the region of the heart.
If we have a God and Father in heaven, and if
we owe Him anything at all, we surely owe Him
reverence, trust, and love ; or, to comprehend the
whole in one word, we ought to love Him with all
1 Compare the classification of views of the atonement given in the
Introduction to this work.

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 35 I
our heart and soul, and mind and strength. This,
as Christ taught, is the first and great commandment.
In truth, this is all we have it in our power to give
to Him whose are the heavens and the earth, and
the fulness thereof. Now, when we become con
scious of falling short of the reverence, trust, and
love we owe to God, what course do we take ?
What is our remedy ? Where is our hope ? We
cannot help ourselves, for it is " we " who need the
help ; our fellow-men cannot help us, for they are
in like case with ourselves. To whom then are we
to look ? Christian teachers and believers send us
to God in prayer. From our indifference, and dis
trust, and coldness we ask God to free us. We pray,
" Inspire us with reverence, with holy awe ; enable
us to trust, give us faith ; fill our hearts with divine
love." We entreat God by His Holy Spirit to work
-in us to will and to do His own good pleasure
relating to Himself.
How forcibly, too, is this expressed in Michael
Angelo's " Sonnet to the Supreme Being," —
The prayers I make will then be sweet indeed,
If Thou the spirit give by which I pray :
My unassisted heart is barren clay,
Which of its native self can nothing feed.
Of good and pious works Thou art the seed,
Which quickens only where Thou say'st it may.
Unless Thou show to us Thine own true way,
No man can find it : Father, Thou must lead :
Do Thou then breathe those thoughts into my mind
By which such virtue may in me be bred,
That in Thy holy footsteps I may tread :
The fetters of my tongue do Thou unbind,
That I may have the power to sing of Thee,
And sound Thy praises everlastingly.1

1 Wordsworth's translation.

352 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
I have quoted expressions which are in common
use by Christians of all sections of the Church uni
versal — some of them have been used by those who
never heard either of Christ or His Church. What
do they signify ? Remember it is our duty to cherish
such emotions toward God. This is the law binding
on us. God being what He is, and we being what we
are, this is how we should behave — we namely, we
ourselves. And we ask God to help us to fulfil this
law; we ask Him to do for us what we cannot do.
He is to enter into us, and to honour, trust, and love
Himself on our behalf, in, with, and through us. God
in man is to obey God out of man, and the obedience
thus rendered by God to Himself is our obedience.
God's relation in us to Himself is counted as, nay,
verily is, so far as our consciousness is concerned,
our relation to Him. This position should be
distinctly apprehended. When we ask God to
enable us, to energize in us, that we may honour,
trust, and love Him, we are really asking Him to
honour, trust, and love Himself in us, and to make
this His loving and honouring of Himself ours — ours
in the truest and most real sense, ours as absolutely
as though it were in the ordinary sense ours. It is
His, and yet ours ; it is ours, and yet His.
And now let us turn to man. I suppose I may
take for granted that we owe to our fellow - men
respect, trust, love, in the various degrees and modifi
cations conditioned by relations and circumstances.
I refer here, again, solely to the affections, not to
their manifestations in act : to the inward relation,
not to its outward and visible embodiment. This is

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 353
the law binding on all of us. No man can be what
his nature requires him to be unless he renders to his
fellow-men and receives from them such respect, trust,
and love.
As a matter of fact, however, we find that we fall
wofully short of our duty, and therefore of our ideal.
.Pride, with its correlates contempt, distrust, suspicion,
envy, hatred, and uncharitableness, take possession
of our hearts. Nor do our own efforts, even when
we put them forth, suffice for the cleansing of our
hearts. Even if we vanquish an enemy for a moment,
it returns ; and while we are battling with one form of
these inward evils, another instals itself in the high
places of our soul. What then are we counselled
to do ? To pray ; to pray to God, — " Cleanse Thou
the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of Thy
Holy Spirit." We ask God again to work in us to
will and to do His good pleasure, but now relatively
to our fellow-men — to enable us to think and feel
toward them as we ought. But what again is this ?
Surely it is to ask Him to fulfil His own law in us ;
to honour, trust, and love our fellow - men for, in,
with, and through us, and to make His conduct our
conduct. If it do not mean this, I am unable
to say what it does mean. In thus interpreting our
ordinary expressions I use no violence ; I do but
bring out an aspect of them which is too frequently
overlooked. The principle involved in prayer for spiritual
blessings has been already indicated, but it may be
generally expressed as follows : God obeys His own
law in our stead; or, somewhat differently and still

354 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
more generally expressed, God fulfils His own law
on our behalf, and His fulfilment stands as ours, or
rather really becomes our fulfilment.
Enoch as a brave God-fearing man
Bow'd himself down and in that mystery,
Where God-in-man is one with man-in-God,
Prayed for a blessing. . . -1
How God can do this, or how we can have it done,
is a mystery. That it takes place is a matter of
personal experience. My purpose is not now to
explain the position just described ; but, whether
understood or not, it is a fact that God does work in
us to will and to do ; that He thinks and feels and
wills in us and for us ; and that His thinking, feeling,
and willing are in the truest sense our own. Nay
more, it might almost be said that what is thus
wrought in us by God is more truly our own than
what we work by and for ourselves.
Then will I trust on Him alone,
Nay, e'en to trust in Him was also His ;
We must confess that nothing is our own,
Then I confess that He my Saviour is :
But to have nought is ours, not to confess
That we have nought. I stood amazed at this,
Much troubled, till I heard a friend express
That all things were more ours by being His?
The same thought is no less beautifully than truly
expressed by Madame Guion, —
I love my God, but with no love of mine,
For I have none to give.
I love Thee, Lord ; but all the love is Thine,
For by Thy love I live.
I am as nothing, and rejoice to be
Emptied, and lost, and swallowed up in Thee.
1 Tennyson's Enoch Arden.
2 George Herbert, p. 148 (Pickering's edition).

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 355
In a very real sense, indeed, what has been affirmed
regarding divine help is in its measure true of the
help rendered by man to man. He who aids me in
the solution of a problem, in the unravelling of a
perplexity, in the clearing up of a difficulty ; he who
by his exhortations, or warnings, or example, or
stimulus, strengthens me to vanquish evil or to
discharge duty, may be said to have done my work
for me. He has wrought what it was my business
to have wrought, and his effort, and the results
thereof, become mine whilst yet they are his. God's
work for us, however, is as much more real, more
intimate, and more truly our own, than that of man,
as his relation to us is more profound, more inward,
more vital. "In him we live, and move, and have
our being."
Let us now turn to the consideration of the atone
ment. I have already defined in general terms the
view of the atonement to which I here refer.
Both in the New Testament and in the writings
of the teachers of the Church various modes of
setting forth the two aspects of the work of Christ
have been adopted.
In the former we find descriptions such as, God
" hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in
Him ;" " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us ; " " Now once in
the end of the world hath He appeared to put away
sin by the sacrifice of Himself;" " Being now justi
fied by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through Him;" "Whom God hath set forth to be

356 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare
His righteousness, that He might be just, and the
justifier of him who believeth in Jesus;" " In whom
we have redemption through His blood, even the for
giveness of sins;" " The Son of man came ... to
give His life a ransom for many ; " " By His own
blood He entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption for us ; " " Who His own
self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." In
various modifications and combinations the same de
scriptions have been employed by the teachers and
preachers of Christianity.
At the bottom of all these representations lies the
idea that Christ took our place and bore what it was
just and right that we should bear. His humiliation,
sufferings, and bitter death were endured for our
sake, in our stead — not merely to show us His own
feelings, or the mind of God, or the nature of sin, or
all these, though this was part of His design ; but
because, unless He had endured them, corruption,
misery, and eternal death must have been our por
tion. In a word, He was our substitute. Christ
being, in the belief of the Church, the Son of God,
the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, what He
did for us was done by God.
Now surely we have here the very principle which
we found underlying prayer — God taking our place,
enduring our sufferings, and His endurance standing
as ours. In the case of divine help given in answer
to prayer, God obeys His own law for us, and His
obedience becomes ours : in the case of the atone
ment, God endures the penalty of the transgression

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 357
of His own law for us, and His endurance becomes
ours. But there is a difference, — the difference between
active obedience and passive endurance, — and per
haps this difference may be an essential difference.
Let us see.
I have already observed that, God being what He
is, and we being what we are, we ought to cherish
certain affections toward Him. This is the law bind
ing on us in virtue of His nature and of our relation
to Him. The reverse side of this position is : The
natural relations between God and man being such
as they are, if man neglect to cherish certain affections
toward God, such-and-such sufferings must come upon
him. From these sufferings no escape is provided
either by man's individual constitution, or by the
system of which he forms a part' — so far as we know.
Now, in the last instance, the suffering in question is
no less required by God than the obedience. His
will is as really and truly expressed in it as in His
positive commands. The sufferings are as natural as
the claims. In a very true sense man is normally
related to God when he endures suffering after or in
sinning : if he could sin with impunity, his abnor
mality would be double. Suffering is the normal
effect produced by the divine law on him who is
guilty of abnormal conduct. But unfortunately this
suffering means to man, misery, ruin. It is he who
sins and suffers, who suffers in sinning.
So, then, suffering is God's law for man's passivity ;
obedience, for man's activity. The one as really as
the other, therefore, is obedience to the divine law.

358 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN. ,
Hence, too, Christ is said to have rendered " obe
dience unto death, even the death of the cross"
When, therefore, Christ takes our place in the
atonement, He does — that is, God does — in principle
the same thing that is done when, in answer to
prayer, He helps us to render unto Him due obe
dience. In both cases the righteousness of God be
comes our righteousness: it is His, yet ours; it is
ours, yet His. For the expression of the principle
in this application we may again use the general
terms : — God fulfils His own law on our behalf ; and
His fulfilment stands as ours, or rather really becomes
our fulfilment.
So far from the endurance of our penalty involving
greater difficulty than the performance of our duties,
it might be considered to involve less difficulty. It
seems easier to conceive of a substitute bearing our
burden than doing our work. In the latter case a
more complete incorporation with the will of him
who is aided seems to be requisite than in the former.
That relatively to which I am and must be passive
seems more readily transferable than that relatively
to which I am and must be active. Be this, however,
as it may, the principle in both cases appears to me
one and the same.
I am aware of the objections that are raised against
the substitutionary view of Christ's work. We are
told that it is an unreality. We are told that it is a
monstrous perversion of truth and rectitude that the
innocent should be treated as guilty ; and the guilty,
on that ground, as innocent. We are told that it is
impossible for a penalty to be transferred ; that,

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 359
though we commonly enough suffer with and for each
other, such suffering is in no strict sense substitu
tionary ; that each back must bear its own burden ;
that God Himself, the loving Father, cannot require
a substitution such as is involved in the orthodox
view of the atonement : and much more of a like
character. All I can reply at present is : If God can
be righteous on our behalf in the form of obedience,
why not in the form of suffering? If it be untrue
and perverse for Him to endure our penalty and count
it as ours, nay, make it our endurance, why is it not
untrue and perverse for Him to render obedience to
Himself on our behalf, and make His obedience ours ?
But the identity of the principle of prayer and the
atonement will become still more clear when I call
attention to another equally common subject of
prayer, not included in those already considered.
We do not restrict our petitions for inward blessings
to light, invigoration, and stimulus : we also ask for
support and comfort in suffering and sorrow. Now
what do we mean by " divine support and comfort " ?
Surely, that God in some way should, as it were,
take our suffering and sorrow on Himself. I do not
now refer to prayer for the removal, for the taking
away of suffering and sorrow, — that is a totally
different thing, — but for help in bearing them. We
beg not only for divine sympathy — though that is
much, and true sympathy, even in man, aims at far
more than mere fellow-feeling, even at veritable
participation in, and, were it possible, transference of,
the suffering and sorrow — we beg also for real help,
assistance. Men are able to assist us really in bearing

360 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
a load that presses on our shoulders or hands ; when
we become weary, they can put themselves more or
less in our place ; but they cannot touch the inward
burdens. This is God's privilege ; and as really as a
brother man can relieve us in carrying a physical
burden, so really can God relieve us in carrying a
spiritual burden. But not even God can do this,
without in His measure feeling our suffering to be
suffering to Him, our sorrow, sorrow to Him. In
these relations, too, He must be "touched with the
feeling of our infirmities." There is no such thing in
the moral world as bearing a burden without feeling
it to be a burden.
Remembering now that inward suffering and sorrow
are, at all events for the most part, the fruit of sin,
either directly or indirectly, — the fruit of the sin
either of the individual sufferer or of the race to
which he belongs, — is it not clear that, when God in
His condescension answers our prayers for support
and comfort, He undertakes to bear for us the results
of the violation of His own law ? Inasmuch, further,
as these results are of His own ordering, nay, in the
last instance, of His own inflicting, are we not com
pelled to say that, in helping us to bear our sufferings,
He is indirectly in its measure inflicting suffering on
Himself for our sake, offering a sacrifice to Himself
in our stead, and making propitiation to Himself for
our sins ?
If what has just been advanced hold good, then the
so-called "moral" view of the atonement is open to
essentially the same objections as the orthodox view,
whatever its protestations to the contrary. Even its

THE ATONEMENT AND PRAYER. 361
advocates will not dream of questioning that the
humiliation, suffering, sadness, and death which were
endured by Christ in carrying out His mission of
enlightenment and love — which were, in fact, not
merely an accidental accompaniment, but a necessary
feature of that mission — were endured, not on His
own account, but on ours ; not for His own sake, but
for ours. Nor will they question that the sufferings
from which He delivers us would have been justly
ours — that in our case they would have been a
penalty for sin.1 And, further, they will not deny
that the humiliation, sufferings, and death He endured
were veritably painful and distressing to Him : some
of His sufferings, too, the direct effect of the dis
pleasure which God feels, and must feel at sin. But
if all this be true, how can they avoid saying of
Christ — He became our substitute, He endured our
penalty, and His endurance is constituted our endur
ance ? 2
1 See F. W. Robertson ; also Stopford Brooke's beautiful sermon on
" The Atonement."
2 This study is strictly an argumentum ad hominem; not intended at
all to supply an adequate principle for the development of a theory of
the atonement. The idea of it arose in me, I have no doubt, as the fruit
of my study of Schoberlein's Grundlehren des Heils, etc., and GdschePs
Zerstreute Blatter, etc., though at the time I was not aware of the fact.
There is nothing new under the sun.

CHAPTER X.

THE HISTORICAL INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.1

I propose, first, to call attention to the contrast
between the estimate formed of the crucifixion of
Jesus of Nazareth by His contemporaries, and the
position it has actually held in the history of mankind
for the last eighteen hundred years ; and secondly, to
inquire into the reason of this phenomenon. Out
wardly considered, few events have had less signifi
cance than the death of Jesus on Calvary ; and yet
His death has formed one of the principal factors in
the life of humanity ever since it occurred. What is
the explanation ? There is not another phenomenon
of human history remotely comparable to it — not
even that very remarkable phenomenon, the rise and
progress of Buddhism. The existence of the contrast
cannot be denied, save by an ignorance so dense that
its opinions are worthless. It is therefore the duty of
the philosophical historian to seek to account for it.
Nor, considering the important practical bearings of
the question, ought any man to rest until he has
found a solution. Especially ought those philosophical
historians to recognise their obligation, one of whose
1 This chapter is reprinted from the American Bibliotheca Sacra of
October 1868.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 363
fundamental principles is, that the course run by the
human race has been the development of the highest
reason, and one of whose prime axioms is : Where
reason is, there must reason be found.
Attempts without number have been made to solve
the problem to which we refer; and one solution has
seemed to satisfy thousands and tens of thousands of
the wisest and best men who have lived. Is that
solution the true one ? Or does the problem still
await a solution ?
We shall discuss the subject before us under three
heads : —
I. In what light was the crucifixion of Jesus re
garded by most of His contemporaries ?
II. What position has His death actually held in
the spiritual history of humanity ?
III. What is the explanation of the contrast between
the two ?
Let us then consider —
I. The light in which the crucifixion of Jesus was
regarded by most of His contemporaries.
(I.) How it appeared to the Romans and Greeks.
Those who were immediately concerned with the
crucifixion of Jesus evidently regarded it as in itself
an event of slight consequence.
Pilate, for example, by the very readiness which he
evinced to let Jesus go, showed that he attached little
importance to His life ; and if His life were of small
consequence, of how much less His death ! He, for
his part, found no fault in Him ; he felt that to
execute Him would be needless cruelty. He saw

364 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
clearly that the objections brought against Him, so
far as they came under his cognizance, were false,
and that His accusers were stirred by envy ; and yet
he delivered Jesus to be crucified ! The fact was, he
had an opportunity of meeting the wishes of the
Jewish people, and thus securing a little popularity
without risk and at little cost, and therefore let them
have their way. For a man in his position to " take
water, and wash his hands before the multitude,
saying, ' I am innocent of the blood of this just
person ; see ye to it,'" 1 was to show for his victim
and everything relating to Him a profound indiffer
ence, or even contempt.
The general sentiment is reflected clearly enough,
also, in the conduct of the officials who had to see
to the carrying out of the sentence. The simple
details given by the evangelists2 betray a cold
blooded cruelty and unconcern such as the slightest
sense of the significance of the transaction would
have rendered impossible : " They stripped Him,
and put on Him a scarlet robe ; they platted a
crown of thorns and put it on His head, and a reed
in His right hand ; and they bowed the knee before
Him, and mocked Him, saying, Hail, king of the
Jews ! And they spit upon Him, and took the reed
and smote Him on the head. And after they had
mocked Him, they took the robe off from Him, and
put His own garment on Him." While He hung
on the cross, they parted His garments among them,
1 See Matt, xxvii. 24 sq. ; Mark xv. 15 sq. ; Luke xxiii. 22 sq. ; John
xix. 6 sq.
2 The momentary qualm of conscience, or perhaps superstitious fear,
to which John alludes, must have disappeared again directly.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 365
casting lots; and sitting down, watched Him. It
is true the bitterness and scorn felt for Christ's
person by the Jews seems to have passed over to
the Roman soldiers ; but that the death they were
bringing about with such a brutal spirit was in
itself more than the death of the malefactors who
shared Jesus's fate, they had not the remotest
conception. To one man alone, to the centurion,
does a passing glimpse seem to have been vouch
safed into the character of Him who hung before
his eyes on the cross ; but he too did not dream
that "the Son of God," as he termed Him, was,
at the moment of giving up the ghost, accomplishing
that reconciliation of heaven and earth which had been
the object of the deepest yearnings Of all the ages.
Nor did the higher Roman authorities — the
authorities to whom Pilate was answerable — attach
any importance to the crime he committed in putting
Jesus to death. For this event he was certainly
never called to account. On the contrary, to judge
by analogy, one may imagine that he would rather
earn praise than blame for preventing a disturbance
by sacrificing Jesus. So long as peace and the
semblance of contentment were preserved, the life
of this or that man was of little consequence.1
Contemporary Roman and Greek writers, both
by the way in which they mention the event and
by their silence, treat the death of JesUs as a trivial
occurrence.
1 Pilate was removed from office by Vitellius the president of Syria,
in consequence of the disturbances to which his violence and tyranny
gave rise, and which could only be suppressed by force of arms. See
Josephus, Antiquities, xviii. 3. I sq. ; Jewish War, ii. 9. 2 sq.

366 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
Tacitus (a.d. 61-117), in his account of the great
fire of Rome during the reign of Nero, tells us that
the emperor, "in order to suppress the reports
which charged him with the deed, accused other
people of it, and inflicted on those who went by
the name of Christians the most exquisite punish
ments. The originator of this name was one
Christ, who was punished with death during the
reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate the procurator."
He afterwards speaks also of Christianity as a
superstitio exsecrabilis, and refers to both Christians
and Jews as being in many cases taken into custody,
not so much for the crime of setting fire to Rome
as because they were haters of the entire human race.
The death of Christ had obviously no meaning to this
most philosophic historian, save that of the merited
end of a wretched impostor.
Suetonius (a.d. 54-110) refers in his Life of
Claudius to the banishment of the Jews from Rome,
assigning as the reason that they were constantly
exciting uproars at the instigation of Chrestus
(Christ) ; and in the Life of Nero informs us that
the Christians — a sect given up to a new and
pernicious superstition — were punished with death.
So far was the death of Jesus from being to him
of any weight, that he does not even seem to be
aware of its having occurred prior to the great
fire of Rome. He speaks as though Chrestus
was personally the exciter of the tumults in
question. Pliny the younger (a.d. 62-117) describes the
Christians as holding a pravam et immodicam super-

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 567
stitionem, but makes no allusion to the crucifixion
on Calvary.1
Lucian (a.d. 120-200) introduces into his Life of
Peregrine 2 a reference to the worship paid by the
Christians to the crucified impostor, and terms Jesus
ironically, "the great man who was impaled in
Palestine." But that such a death should or could
have any great significance never occurs to him.
How difficult it was, and must always have been,
for Greeks and Romans to attach any import
ance to this event, we may learn also from the
mode in which their writers allude to the Christian
belief on the subject. Celsus, for example, who
probably lived early in the second century, bases
on the death of Christ arguments against His
having the elevated characteristics ascribed to
Him by Christian believers. The notion of their
worshipping as the Son of God a man who had
been so ignominiously put to death was in his eyes
intensely absurd. And that His death should be
for the destruction of the devil and sin, he is quite
unable to admit. The worshippers of the captured
and dead Christ he compares to the Getae who
worshipped Tmolus.3 Tertullian (a.d. 160-220)
says that the pagans called Christians crucis
religiosi, crucis antistites, crucicolcz, by way of
nickname.4 In the dialogue of Minucius Felix,
between Caecilius and Octavius, the former, the
representative of heathen objections to Christianity,
1 See Pliny, Epist. ix., x. 2 Peregrinus Proteus.
3 Orig. Contra Celsum, lib. ii., iii., vi.
4 Tertull. Apolog. c. xvi. ; Ad Nationes, lib. i. c. xii.

368 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
is introduced as speaking with abhorrence of those
who worship one punished with the extreme
penalty of the law for the crimes he had committed,
and ridiculing the reverence of Christians for the
cross.1 Lactantius (a.d. 330) writes : " It is made
a matter of opprobrium against us, both that we
worship a man at all, and that we worship one who
was tortured and put to death." 2 And Arnobius
(a.d. 300) expresses the views and feelings of the
heathen in the words: "We [the heathens] are not
angry with you because you worship the omnipotent
God, but because you pay daily homage to a man
whom you maintain to have been God, and who
was put to death in a way that is a disgrace even
to the vile." s These testimonies, selected from
among many others, are surely clear proof, if proof
were required, that the heathen, at all events,
were as far as possible from attaching importance
to the death of Christ. Nor was it possible, con
sidering the estimate in which death by crucifixion
was held, that anything but contempt should be
felt for the man who underwent such a punishment.
Seneca styles the cross, infelix lignum ; Livy, infelix
arbor; Apuleius, crux damnata ; others, infamis
stipes. The punishment is spoken of by Cicero
as crudelissimum deterrimumque supplicium ; by
Apuleius as extrema pcena ; by Tacitus as servile
supplicium. (II.) How it appeared to the Jews.
The priests, scribes, and elders of the Jews, who
1 Minucius Felix, Octavius. 2 Lactantius, lib. iv. c. xvi.
3 Arnobius, Adversus Gentes, lib. i.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 369
had been the means of securing Christ's condem
nation, undoubtedly regarded His death as a
triumph, as the removal of a danger. No thought
of its being the divinely foreknown and foreordained
completion of their enemy's mission ever entered
their minds. The advice given by Caiaphas — " It
is expedient that one man should die for the people "
— meant, so far as the words expressed the views
of himself and companions, " to avert the peril this
man threatens to bring on us and the nation, it is
better that he be put out of the way; it is better
that one suffer, rather than that the many suffer."
How far any of them were from discerning the
significance of the death of Jesus is sufficiently
clear from their conduct on Calvary. The chief
priests, we read in Matt, xxvii., with the scribes
and elders, mocked Him, saying : "He saved
others, himself he cannot save. If he be the
king of Israel, let him come down from the cross,
and we will believe him. He trusted in God ; let
Him deliver him now if He will have him ; for
he said, I am the Son of God." The passers - by,
too, " reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying,
Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it
in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son
of God, come down from the cross." Even one
of His fellow-sufferers "railed on Him, saying, If
thou be Christ, save thyself and us" (Luke xxiii.
39). Not the vaguest idea that the Son of God
could not descend from the cross — could not in
their sense save Himself — without failing to accom
plish the work committed to Him, crossed their
2 A

370 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
minds. It was His life they feared ; it was to
His life they attached importance : dead, He was
dead. The request of the chief priests and Pharisees,
that the sepulchre might be made sure (Matt, xxvii.
64) until the third day, lest the disciples should
come by night and steal Him away, and say unto
the people, He is risen from the dead, and the
last error be worse than the first, shows also that
the death in itself was to them a trivial affair,
These were the enemies of Jesus Christ among
the Jews.
(III.) How it appeared to His friends and
disciples. But He had friends, well-wishers, and disciples;
in what light did His death appear to them? As
a most sad and cruel event, but certainly not as
an event of the profound significance which they
afterwards saw it to possess. Joseph of Arimathea
went to Pilate, and besought him that he might
take away the body of Jesus ; and he took it, and
laid it in a new tomb hewn out of the rock ; thus
paying, as he supposed, the last honours to his
friend and master (Matt, xxvii. 60 ; John xix. 38).
Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by
night, brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about
a hundred pounds weight, and wound the body of
Jesus in linen clothes, with the spices, as the
manner of the Jews was to embalm ; wishing at
all events to preserve the mortal remains of his
rabbi as long as possible (John xix. 39). Mary
Magdalene and other women prepared spices and
ointments for the same purpose, and, not finding

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 37 1
the body of Jesus, supposed the gardener or some
other person had removed it. But no one of them
breathes a syllable indicating insight into the true
nature of the death Jesus had endured. Nor is a
different impression made upon us by the simple
and touching story of the walk to Emmaus. As
the disciples tell their unknown companion, in the
most artless possible way, how Jesus of Nazareth
had been a prophet mighty in deed and word
before all the people ; how they had trusted that
it had been He which should have redeemed
Israel ; how the chief priests and rulers had delivered
Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him ;
and how certain of their number had astonished
them all by saying that they had been early to
the sepulchre where Jesus was laid, had not found
His body, but had seen a vision of angels which
said that He was alive ; nothing can be clearer
than that they had never dreamed of the cruci
fixion, — which robbed them of their beloved master,
blasted their brightest hopes, and quenched the
purest joys their lives had known, — having a pro
found, an universal significance.
Confirmatory evidence that these were the lights
in which the death of Jesus appeared to contemporary
Jews, foes and friends, and that it could not well be
otherwise regarded, is supplied also by Jewish works
written and opinions reported during the succeeding
two or three centuries. Philo Judaeus (who was born
twenty years before Christ, and died about a.d. 50),
the Alexandrian, never so much as mentioned the
name of Jesus or any circumstance connected with

372 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
His life or history; and yet he can scarcely be sup
posed to have remained in ignorance of what passed
in Jerusalem. Josephus (a.d. 37-93) does not allude
to Christ with a single syllable in his History of the
Jewish War, although he gives a-detailed account of
the Procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. In his later
work, that on the Jewish Antiquities, occur two
passages in which Christ is mentioned. The second
one,1 in giving an account of the martyrdom of James,
simply says that he was the brother of Christ. The
first passage 2 is one of great importance, if it be not
a Christian interpolation. It runs as follows: "At
that time lived also Jesus, a wise man — if it be allow
able to call him a man — for he was an accomplisher
of wonderful works and a teacher of men who receive
the truth with pleasure ; and drew to himself many,
both Jews and Greeks. This was Christ ; and
although Pilate punished him with the death of the
cross at the complaint of our chief men, those who
loved him at first did not cease : for he appeared to
them on the third day again alive, the divine pro
phets having declared these and myriads of other
wonderful things about him. To the present day
the tribe of Christians, called after this same man,
has not failed." Supposing Josephus himself to have
written these words, which we greatly doubt, still they
evince no sense of the importance of the death of
1 Antiq. lib. xx. c. 9. I.
2 Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 3. 3. A small library might be formed of the
treatises discussing this passage. Some consider it altogether spurious ;
others maintain merely portions of it to be interpolations ; and others
believe the whole to be genuine. We, for our part, agree with the first
mentioned ; but this is not the place for examining the point. It has no
special bearing upon our present argument.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 373
Christ. The Mishna, although it introduces many
rabbis who lived at or about the time of Christ, never
mentions the name of the latter or refers to any one
of His sayings.1 Both in the Babylonian and the
Jerusalem Gemara are passages relating to Jesus.2
The former adduces a tradition that " Jesus was
crucified on the day of preparation for the Sabbath.
Forty days long an herald walked before him who
proclaimed aloud, ' He is to be stoned because he
has practised magical arts and excited and seduced
the Israelites.' Whoso is able to advance anything
to prove him innocent, let him come and declare it !
As no evidence of his innocence could be adduced,
they crucified him on the day before the feast of
Passover." 3 The other passages either do not allude
at all to His death, or else in a manner even more
superficial than in the one just quoted.4 Justin
Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho? represents the
Jew as objecting : " Be assured that all our nation
waits for Christ ; and we admit that all the Scriptures
which you have quoted refer to him. Moreover, I
do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the
son of Nave (Nun) was called, has inclined me very
1 The Mishna was probably collected about a.d. 219 ; but portions of
it are certainly as old as, if not older, than the Christian era.
2 The Jerusalem Gemara was collected about A.D. 390 ; the Baby
lonian, about 500 ; but both include much that is centuries older. See,
for example, Tract. Sanhedrim 43, 67, fol. 107 ; Sota, fol. 47 ; Sabbath,
fol. 104.
3 Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 43.
4 We quote these authorities because there is little doubt but that
they contain much precipitated Jewish sentiment of far earlier date,
which, considering the conservative tendency of the nation, need not
occasion surprise.
5 Dial, cum Tryph. c. 89, 90. We quote the translation published by
Clark of Edinburgh.

374 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ
should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt
about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law
to be accursed ; so that I am exceedingly incredulous
on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scrip
tures announce that Christ had to suffer ; but we wish
to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by
the suffering cursed in the law. Prove to us whether
he must be crucified and die so disgracefully and so
dishonourably by the death cursed in the law. For
we cannot bring ourselves even to think of this."
There is every reason for assuming that Trypho's
words express the feelings most natural to, and most
widely cherished by, the Jews.1
1 We might have quoted also the Toldoth Jeshu, or Jewish "History
of Jesus ;" for, although first brought to light in the thirteenth century,
it contains fragments of a tradition which was probably current among
the Jews at the time of Justin Martyr, and parts of which we find in
Origen's work against Celsus. As some of our readers may not be
acquainted with the Toldoth, we will add a word or two about its cha
racter and contents. There exist two versions of the book ; but who
were their writers is totally unknown. Both of them contain the most
extravagant stories and frightful blasphemies. According to the version
first published by Huldrich in Leyden in 1705, under the title, Historia
Jeschua Nazareni a Judceis blaspheme corrupta, Jesus was a son of
adultery — the son of Miriam a Friseuse, wife of Papus, by Joseph Pandira
of Nazareth. Jesus, when he was grown up and heard that he was an
illegitimate child, is said to have crushed his mother's breasts between
the door and the door-post, and to have killed his father. As a sample
of the stories it contains, we may quote the following : " One day Jesus
asked a shepherd the way. Too lazy to get up, the man simply pointed
with his foot in the direction which Jesus and his disciples ought to take.
Shortly after, they meet a shepherdess ; and she, being asked the way,
accompanied them till they came to a stone that served as a sign-post.
Jesus blessed the girl, and wished that she might become the wife of the
shepherd. Peter asked : ' Why didst thou bless the shepherd, by wish
ing that this woman might become his wife?' Jesus answered: 'Be
cause he is idle, and she, being active, will be able to keep her husband,
who would otherwise fare ill ; for I am a compassionate God, and appoint
marriages according to the works of men. David prophesied of me in

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 375
If there is one thing clearer than another in connec
tion with the history of Christianity, whether viewed
with the eye of hostile criticism or of loving belief,
it is that neither its friends nor its foes originally saw
any special significance in the death of Jesus, the
founder. His death, as such, was no more than the
death of His companions in tribulation. We might
even question whether His friends deemed Him a
martyr to the truth.
II. We come now to the second part of our
task, which is briefly to review, the position held
by the death of Christ in the spiritual history of
humanity. (I.) The view taken by the personal disciples of
fesus.
Scarcely had three months elapsed when we find
the men whom Jesus had appointed apostles, and
who had followed Him as disciples — men almost
exclusively drawn from the uncultivated classes —
who, though their souls had been touched by the
spiritual power, life, and light of the Master, had
probably been mainly spurred on by dreams of real
izing their country's hopes, and thus promoting their
own temporal interests ; who had hoped against hope,
notwithstanding the strange, and to them foolish,

Ps. cii. 24, He weakened my strength in the way.'" One of his miracles
was rowing about on the sea seated on a millstone ; a power which he
had in consequence of uttering the name of God, to which the Jews
ascribe a magical force.
Further details may be found in Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Judenthum,
in Origen's work against Celsus, and in a little book entitled, Die Urtheile
heidnischer und jiidischer Schriftsteller iiber Jesus und die ersten Christen,
to which we are indebted for several references, though we have used
them for a purpose directly opposed to that of the anonymous author.

376 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
ideas and words of Jesus, as long as He lived ; but
who were scattered like sheep without a shepherd
by His death ; — these men, we find, giving utterance
to conceptions totally opposed to all that we know
of them before. We find them proclaiming publicly
that the Jesus who had been ignominiously nailed
to the cross was a man approved of God, though
according to the law every crucified man was ac
cursed ; that God had showed before by the mouth
of all His prophets that He, the Christ, should suffer
(Acts iii. 1 8) ; that He was delivered by the deter
minate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts ii.
23), being the Prince of Life (Acts iii. 15); that
there is no salvation in any other, none other name
being given under heaven among men whereby we
must be saved (Acts iv. 13). Nor can there be any
reasonable doubt that the teachings of the apostles
regarding the crucifixion very soon acquired the
clearness and definiteness which we find in the
Epistles of Peter and of John ; where the former
speaks of the blood of Jesus Christ as the blood of
sprinkling (1 Pet. i. 2) ; of our being redeemed with
the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot, from our vain conversa
tion (1 Pet. i. 18, 19); of His suffering for us and
bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, healing
us by His stripes (1 Pet. ii. 21-24); °f His having
once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that
He might bring us to God (1 Pet. iii. 18); while
the latter, the beloved disciple, tells us that He is
the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John ii. 2) ;

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 377
that He laid down His life for us (i John iii. 16).1
Now, even supposing that the Tubingen view of the
Epistles of John and Peter as the products of a later
age, and the reflections of a later phase of thought,
had been established, there would still be satisfactory
reasons for assuming that the conception of the death
of Jesus just quoted was the one germinantly, if not
substantially, held at the early date to which we are
alluding. Such passages as Acts ii. 23, " delivered
by the determinate counsel of God;" or Acts iii. 18,
" those things which God before had showed by the
mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer,
He hath so fulfilled ; " or Acts iii. 26, " God sent
Him to bless you in turning every one of you from
his iniquities;" or lastly, Acts ii. 38, "Repent and
be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission
of sins," — are the vague expression of a state of feel
ing which must recognise in the statements of the
Epistles the distinct expression of its real essence.
This is the first problem presented by the history
of Christianity : How came these disciples to enter
tain such views of the death which had been the
death-knell of their hopes and joys ?
(II.) Not only did these uneducated, dispirited men
1 It seems to us that neither Scripture nor the psychological constitu
tion of man warrants us in supposing that the first teachings of the dis
ciples were as clear as their later ones. The later were not opposed to,
but they certainly were a development of, the earlier. And it strikes us
that a most powerful argument for the genuineness of the Acts of the
Apostles might be drawn from a comparison of its doctrinal teachings
with those especially of the First Epistle of Peter — a comparison show
ing how Peter's mind grew to fuller clearness, and how what he is
reported to have preached at first was just such a basis of what he wrote
later as to the nature of the human mind and the circumstances of the
case would have led us to expect.

378 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
proclaim a conception of the ignominious event to
which no one had at first dreamed of attaching any
special significance, that ran counter to all their own
and their countrymen's prejudices ; but, what is even
more surprising, actually persuaded a considerable
number of their antagonists to accept the same view.
The very men who had made a mock of the apostles,
became pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter
and the rest, " Men and brethren, what shall we
do?" (Acts iii. 37); and formed themselves into a
community which recognised Jesus as the corner
stone, in whose name alone there is salvation (Acts
iv. 11, 12), and as the " Saviour who giveth repent
ance to Israel and the remission of sins " (Acts v. 31) ;
— in a word, whose constitutive principle and bond
of union was belief in the death of the Nazarene as
a death for human sin. The Acts of the Apostles
tells us that three thousand souls were added in one
day ; but even if this were an exaggeration — which
there is no reason whatever for believing it to be —
one thing is clear : the newly - formed community
was sufficiently large and important to excite a
severe persecution. No critic has called in question
the reality of the persecution spoken of in Acts
viii. 1 ; and one can scarcely imagine that the
Jewish leaders were foolish enough to stir up a
persecution merely because a handful of men were
preaching a view of Christ's death which to the
natural mind must always appear absurd.
This is the second problem : How came Jews,
either inhabitants of, or sojourners in Jerusalem, or
both, who probably knew all about the condemna-

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 379
tion of Jesus, and had possibly witnessed and mocked
at His crucifixion, to consent to do after His burial
what they refused to do before — namely, take upon
them the reproach of His name and expose them
selves to rejection, expatriation, imprisonment, and
death on His account ?
(III.) Within three years of the death of Jesus, we
see the principal and most zealous agent in the per
secution to which we have referred, suddenly allying
himself, body, soul, and spirit, with the community
against which he had " breathed out threatenings and
slaughter" (Acts ix. i). Saul of Tarsus, who said of
himself at Jerusalem before his countrymen (Acts
xxii. 3), " I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in
Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, brought up in this city, at
the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect
manner of the law of the fathers, and zealous toward
God, as ye are this day ; " who afterwards, in perfect
harmony herewith, wrote to the Galatians (Gal. i. 14) :
" I profited in the Jews' religion above many my
equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of the fathers ; " who after
his conversion loved his countrymen so passionately
that he could use the strong words : " I say the truth
in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me
witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heavi
ness and continual sorrow in my heart ; for I could
wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my
brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh " (Rom.
ix. 1-3) ; who had probably known Jesus, and if he
were not present at, was fully aware of the fact and
circumstances of His crucifixion, and who had "verily

380 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
thought with himself that he ought to do many things
against the name of Jesus of Nazareth " (Acts xxvi. 9);
— this same Saul burst all the ties of blood, custom,
country, belief, religion, and adopted, and began to
preach with most fiery energy, such ideas as that
" I am crucified with Christ ; nevertheless I live ; yet
not I, but Christ liveth in me ; and the life which
I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me"
(Gal. ii. 20) ; " Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree "
(Gal. iii. 13) ; " God commendeth His love toward us,
in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us
. . . being justified by His blood, we shall be saved
from wrath through Him" (Rom. v. 8, 9). And so
possessed was he by the unfathomable significance
of that apparently most unimportant event, that in his
Epistle to the Galatians he gave vent to his feelings
in the almost ecstatic words : " God forbid that I
should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I
unto the world" (Gal. vi. 14).1
This is the third problem which calls for solution :
How a man of Paul's training, ability, intelligence,
sincere attachment to the faith of the fathers, and
burning contempt for the new sect, should come to

1 We have purposely quoted solely from the four principal Epistles of
Paul — namely, those to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, —
because even the wildest criticism is compelled to acknowledge their
genuineness and authenticity. We shall refer farther on to the ex
planation of Paul's conversion given by Dr. Baur of Tubingen and his
school.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 38 1
make that yery thing his glory which was once in his
eyes the uttermost ignominy ?
(IV.) During the next two hundred and fifty years we
find the view of the death of Jesus which the apostles,
including Paul, had preached, further adopted and
advocated by thousands and tens of thousands of men
of all classes and conditions, and in all countries ; and
that in the face of every species of opposition and
persecution that subtle cruelty could devise or strong
political authorities carry out. Hundreds of communi
ties were formed whose constitutive principle was the
recognition of the death of Jesus as a propitiation
for the sins of the world. If we only cast our eye
superficially over the pages of the Church writers
of the first three centuries, we shall be surprised at
the singular unanimity with which they reiterate, not
slavishly, but under forms suggested by their own
peculiar training and circumstances, the teachings of
the first apostles on this central and vital theme. It
will be of interest, however, to adduce the principal
names and let them speak for themselves. Clement
of Rome (about a.d. 97), a man of appreciative, if not
productive mind, sound, practical judgment, and
general culture, says, in his Epistle to Corinthians : J
" Let us reverence Jesus Christ, whose blood was
given for us" (chap, xxi.); " On account of the love
He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for
us by the will of God ; His flesh for our flesh, and
His soul for our souls" (chap, xlix.) ; "Let us look
1 With the majority of authorities at the present day, we regard the
Second Epistle of Clement as spurious. But, whoever may have been
its author, its teachings on this matter are identical with those of the
other writings of this period.

382 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN,
stedfastly to the blood of Christ and see how precious
that blood is to God, which having been shed for our
salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the
whole world" (chap. vii.). In the so-called Epistle
of Barnabas1 (about a.d. 107-120) we read: "The
Son of God who is Lord, and who will judge the
living and the dead, suffered that His stroke might
give us life : — the Son of God could not have suffered
except for our sakes" (chap. vii.). Ignatius, writing
about a.d. 107 or 116,2 speaks of Jesus as "giving
Himself an offering and sacrifice to God " (Eph. i.) ;
as being nailed to the cross for us in the flesh, and
suffering all things for our sakes, that we might be
saved (Smyrna, i. 2) ; as having died for us (Rom. vii.).
Polycarp the martyr (before a.d. 107), who, according
to Irenaeus his disciple, was instructed by the apostles
and brought into contact with many who had seen
Christ,3 uses in his Epistle to the Philippians such
words as, " who for our sins suffered even unto death"
(chap, i.); "who bore our sins in His own body on
the tree ; who did no sin, neither was guile found in
His mouth, but endured all things for us, that we
might live in Him " (chap. viii.). In the calmly
philosophic but also deeply earnest Epistle to Diog-
netus (during the second century), whose writer is
unknown, we find the following noble passage — than
which a nobler is scarcely to be found in any Christian
1 It is scarcely likely that this Barnabas is the Barnabas mentioned
in Acts iv. 36 and elsewhere ; nor would it be a gain to the Church and
Christianity to establish their identity.
2 We have quoted passages only which are found both in the short
and the long version of the Epistles of Ignatius.
3 The Epistle of Polycarp, with the exception perhaps of chap, xiii., is
now generally allowed to be genuine.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 383
production : " He Himself took on Him the burden
of our iniquities ; He gave His own Son as a ransom
for us — the Holy One for transgressors, the Blameless
One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the un
righteous, the Incorruptible One for the corruptible,
the Immortal One for them that are mortal. For
what other thing was capable of covering our sins
than His righteousness ? By what other one was it
possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be
justified, than by the one only Son of God ? Oh,
sweet exchange ! Oh, unsearchable operation ! Oh,
benefit surpassing all expectation ! That the wicked
ness of many should be hid in a single righteous One,
and that the righteousness of One should justify
many transgressors!" (chap. ix.). Justin Martyr, a
Samaritan by birth, trained in the schools of philo
sophy, but afterwards converted to Christianity, and
put to death in Rome about a.d. 161-168,1 expresses
himself as follows : " It is He who bears our sins and
is afflicted for us ; He was wounded for our trans
gressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the
chastisement of peace was upon Him, by His stripes
we are healed " — quoting the words of Isaiah the
prophet ; 2 "He became man for our sakes, that
becoming a partaker of our sufferings He might also
bring us healing;"3 " The Father of all wished His
Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him
the curses of all ; " * " the lamb which was commanded
1 Three works alone attributed to Justin Martyr are probably genuine,
 the two Apologies — one addressed to Antoninus Pius, about 138, the
second to Marcus Aurelius soon after A.D. 161 — and the Dialogus cum
Tryphone. 2 Apol. i. 50. s Apol. ii. 13. 4 Dial. c. Tryph. c. 95.

384 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of
the cross which Christ would undergo ; " * " Christ
served (as Jacob did Laban) even to the slavery of
the cross for the various and many-formed races of
mankind, acquiring them by the blood and mystery
of the cross."2 Irenaeus,3 the greatest teacher of the
Church before Clemens Alexandrinus, the first who
combined philosophical insight, breadth of mind, and
liberality of spirit with due regard to the history and
earnest belief in the truths of Christianity, speaks of
"Christ being made obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross, that He might do away with the
disobedience of man ; " of His destroying death, doing
away with error, exterminating corruption, dissipating
ignorance, leading captivity captive, and vanquishing
the devil by His death ; of His redeeming us ration
ally by His own blood, giving Himself a ransom for
those who had been led into captivity, giving up His
soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh.4
Clemens Alexandrinus (died a.d. 220), one of the
most genial, learned, and cultivated of the early
Fathers of the Church, a man who had drank at the
purest, nay, perhaps at all, the fountains of heathen
wisdom, but had been unable to quench his soul's
thirst save in the Scriptures ; who refers also to the
" foolishness of the cross," 6 says that Christ was
immolated a sacrifice for us, being typified by Isaac ;6
1 Dial. c. 40. 2 Dial. c. 134.
3 Irenasus was Bishop of Vienne and Lyons from a.d. 177 to 202.
The only work of his extant is the Adversus Hareses in five books.
4 See lib. v. 16. 1, 2 ; ii. 20. 3 ; v. 1. Irenasus was the first to attempt
to theorize about the death of Christ.
0 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, c. 1 8.
6 Padagogtcs, lib. i. c. 5.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 385
that we are redeemed by His blood ; 1 that He gave
His life a ransom for many;2 that as a good
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep, so He gave
Himself a sacrifice for us ; 3 that we are healed by
His stripes.4 Tertullian (a.d. 160-220), the fiery
African rhetorician, the Tacitus of the young Chris
tian Church, represents Christ as expiating the sins
of men by every kind of satisfaction.6 He says, it
behoved Him to become a sacrifice for all nations ; 6
Christ our passover is sacrificed ; 7 who can free
another from death by dying himself, save the Son of
God? — He, being Himself free from fault, underwent
all suffering for the sake of sinners ; 8 Christ redeemed
man by His blood ; He was delivered unto death,
even the death of the cross, that He might free us
from our sins.9 Origen (a.d. 185-254), the founder
of philosophical theology and the learned com
mentator and critic, the chief originator of the
celebrated Alexandrian school, discusses the death
of Christ in numerous passages, and represents it
under the most varied forms, all, however, in harmony
with the view we have hitherto described. Our Lord
and Saviour, being led as a lamb to the slaughter and
offered as a sacrifice on the altar, obtained remission
of sins for the whole world ; 10 He made propitiation
by the shedding of His own blood ; u we are cleansed
by the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless

1 Peed. lib. i. c. 6. 2 L.c lib. i. c. 9.
3 L.c. lib. i. c. 11. * Stromata, ii. p. 388.
5 De Cultu Fcem. i. 1. 6 Adv. Jud. 13.
7 Cont. Marcionem, iv. 7. " De Pudicit. 22.
9 De Fuga, 12. 10 Origen, In Num. horn. xxiv. 1.
11 Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. iii. 8. 2 B

386 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
victim;1 God so loved the world that He gave His
only-begotten Son for the life of the world.2 Cyprian,
bishop of Carthage from a.d. 248-258, a celebrated
rhetorician and pleader till his conversion, and to the
end a man of insight, experience, and earnestness,
speaks of Christ undergoing death on the cross,
redeeming believers with the price of His own blood,
and reconciling man to the Father;3 of His being
wounded, that He might heal our wounds ; of His
being made subject to bondage, that He might bring
those who were bound to liberty ; of His enduring
death, that mortals might have immortality ; 4 of
His offering Himself up a sacrifice to the Father;5
of our being redeemed and quickened by His
blood.6 These, and many others who speak in the same
tone, and express the same view of the death of Jesus
on Calvary, spoke not merely for themselves, but for
myriads of Christians scattered through Arabia,
Parthia, Persia, India, Italy and Rome, Africa and
Carthage, Asia Minor, Gaul, Armenia, Germany,
Britain, Spain, and many other countries. On this
point there was perhaps more agreement than any
other. From all parts of the then known world the
eyes of sin-sick men were directed to the dying
Nazarene uplifted on Calvary, and the sight brought
comfort to their guilty hearts, light to their under-
1 In Lcvit. horn. iii. 8. 2 hi Num. horn. xxiv. 2.
3 Cyprian, Ad Demetrium, p. 196. * De opere et elemos.
5 Epist. 63.
6 Epist. 63. We need scarcely remark that we have no intention of
giving anything like an exhaustive view of the teachings of the Church
during the period in question. See Baur's Geschichte der Lehre von der
Versbhnung Christi.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 387
standing, strength to their will, and purity to their
entire being. This is the fourth problem.
(V.) About the year 305, the Emperor Diocletian,
instigated by his vicious colleague Galerius, inaugu
rated a last, cruel persecution of the Christians,
designed to exterminate the religio crucis and to
rehabilitate Paganism. But neither the one nor the
other end was gained. The immediate successors of
the retired Diocletian, namely • Galerius, Maximian,
and Constantius Chlorus, were soon superseded by
Licinius in the East, and Constantine in the West.
In 313 both emperors issued edicts of toleration, in
virtue of which the crucicolcs, the cross-worshippers,
were recognised as a religious party, having equal
rights with all others. As emperor of the West until
a.d. 323, Constantine treated the Christian Church
ever with more and more favour, conferring upon it
privileges, wealth, security ; and when he became sole
possessor of the empire, he openly avowed his wish
and design to constitute Christianity the one undivided
religion of the State. And this purpose he executed.
Henceforth we find the cross, which three hundred
years before had been spoken of, especially in
connection with the low-born Nazarene, by the high
in station, the refined in taste, the lofty in genius, the
profound in thought, the philosophic in insight, the
learned in knowledge, the devout in religion, as crux
damnata, infelix lignum, infamis stipes, occupying the
highest place of honour that the universal Roman
Empire could assign it : it was stamped on the coinage,
it formed an integral part of the labarum or imperial
standard borne before the emperors, and it raised its

388 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
head on the temples and other buildings recognised
by the authorities. Surely a marvellous revolution 1
And what a powerful commentary on the paradoxical
but profound words used by the Apostle Paul relatively
to Jesus the crucified One in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians : " God hath chosen the foolish things of
the world to confound the wise ; and God hath chosen
the weak things of the world to confound the things
which are mighty ; and base things of the world, and
things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and
things which are not, to bring to nought things which
are." Whatever view we may take of the motives that
animated Constantine, and whether we may regard
the event as beneficial or harmful to the Church and
Christianity, it cannot be denied to be one of the
most striking phenomena presented by the history of
the world ! It is a fifth problem arising out of the
course run by the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
(VI.) The death of Christ constitutes from this
time onwards one of the most important factors in the
life of civilised humanity. Its history is, to no small
extent, the history of what is profoundest in human
thought, what is purest in human feeling, what is
noblest in human endeavour, what is loftiest in human
self-sacrifice, nay more, we might add, of what is best
in human life — whether in the family, the society, or
the State.
Paganism made a last attempt in the person of
Julian the Apostate to recover the position from which
it was rapidly being driven by the religio crucis. If
ever there were a man fitted for extirpating a hollow

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 389
belief, it was Julian — a valiant soldier, a man of
philosophic culture, a comparatively pure and generous
character, an intense lover of his country, and a
thorough devotee of the ancient superstition. All
that man could do, and that man an emperor, with
every conceivable human means at command for
realizing his aim, was done. He ridiculed, reviled,
controverted, and discouraged the Christians in every
possible way, without positively persecuting them ;
he extolled, praised, defended, encouraged the old
idolatry and its priests in every possible way, by
example, precept, and favour ; but all was in vain ;
and when he died (a.d. 363) he is said to have ex
claimed : " Nazarene, thou hast conquered." Whether
these were his words or not, they undoubtedly express
the fact. What his predecessors had failed to accom
plish by brute force, seconded by the blind hatred
of the mob, the fanatic hostility of the superstitious,
the scorn of the refined, the satire of the poets, the
misrepresentations of the historian, and the subtle
refutations of the philosophers when the Christians
were as yet a very feeble folk, Julian also failed to
accomplish. The cross has pursued an almost un
hindered course of conquest down to the present day ;
and we should but express the thorough conviction of
myriads of souls were we to describe it as " the salt of
the earth and the light of the world." But we must
as heretofore limit ourselves strictly to bare facts, —
facts which all acknowledge to be such, whatever
opinion may be entertained as to their rationality or
worth. 1. No inconsiderable portion of human thought

390 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
has been devoted to this event, from the days of
Anselm, who first opened up the ethical problems it
involves, down to Hegel and Baur, who after their
manner also constituted it one of the main pillars of
their speculative historical edifice. To enumerate the
writers who have made it the subject of some of their
profoundest inquiries would be to tell the roll of the
greatest thinkers of their respective ages ; and these
all, with rare exceptions, have recognised the fact that
the cross is the salvation of humanity, even when
they were either unable to explain how, or fell on
explanations logically incompatible with the fact.
Prior to Anselm we find it discussed most zealously
by Augustine, whose influence on Christian literature
is traceable even to the present hour ; by Leo, justly
designated the Great, a churchman of most vigorous
grasp of mind and will ; by Gregory of Nyssa, noted
for philosophical subtilty ; by John of Damascus,
the comprehensive summarizer of the results of theo
logical thought up to his time ; by Basil, great in his
zeal alike for science, monkery, and the Church ;
by Gregory Nazianzen, theologian and orator ; by
Athanasius, mighty in faith, in word, in deed, and in
suffering ; by Theodoret the learned ; by Hilary, the
Athanasius of the West ; and by Scotus Erigena, one
of the profoundest thinkers of the Christian era.
After Anselm had given a new direction to inquiry
by his immortal treatise, Cur Deus Homo? we find
the subject taken up in all earnestness by Abaelard,
once the most popular teacher of philosophy and
theology in Paris ; by Bernhard, saint and hero ; by
Hugo St. Victor, scholastic and mystic ; by Peter

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 39 1
Lombard, the learned master of sentences ; by
Bonaventura, the seraphic doctor ; by Thomas
Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, who aimed at com
bining Aristotle, Plato, and Augustine in one compre
hensive system ; by Duns Scotus, Doctor Subtilis ;
by Wyclif, the morning star of the Reformation ; by
Wessel, the reformer before the Reformation ; by
Luther the Reformer ; and by a host of thinkers of
all classes, and in all the countries of the civilised
world, since his day down to the present moment.
And never did the crucifixion on Calvary under
Pontius Pilate attract more thought and speculation
than it does at this present moment. So much for its
position in the history of human thought. A thousand
times tabooed as a problem beneath the notice of
philosophic minds, and a thousand times imperiously
claiming the most concentrated attention of the
simplest and the profoundest !
2. But, besides engaging the intelligence of man,
it has also awakened in him feelings, stirred him to
efforts, and manned him to self-sacrifice as pure, as
high, as lofty — we should be justified in saying im
measurably purer, higher, and loftier — as any recorded
on the whole page of human history. What was it
that led to the establishment of the hundreds of
monasteries, convents, and similar institutions, which,
whatever they may have been in the days of their
degeneracy, were founded by men of the purest zeal
for their own and others' welfare, and were for
generations a source of refining, elevating, and civilis
ing influences to the districts around them ? It was
the cross. What was it that drove hundreds of the

392 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN. '
best men of their respective generations from their
native lands to traverse pathless wilds, and seek out
unknown and barbarous tribes for the purpose of
saving them from temporal and eternal ruin ? It was
the cross in their hearts, whose image they often bore
in their hands. What gave the signal for the move
ment of those immense masses of men of all classes
and ages from all parts of Europe on Jerusalem
during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries
— to the Crusades, which, however else we may judge
of them, must be confessed to have been rooted in
an enthusiasm such as the world had never before
witnessed ? It was the cross. What was it that
inspired Italian art, at the noblest period of its
existence, with its grandest thoughts and colours and
forms ? Was it not the cross ? In whose honour
were raised the finest monuments of the most spiritual
style of architecture that human genius has conceived?
Surely the cross, which they exhibit in their form —
the cross, that towers aloft on their summits ! Under
what sign arose and laboured the numerous orders
and associations of the Middle Ages — cleric and laic,
civil and military— for the defence of the Church and
for the care of the sick and needy ? Under the sign
of the cross. Why was it that the Romish Church
gradually lost so much of its quickening and purifying
influence on the world, and became at its very centre
a mass of festering corruption ? Because it had
dimmed the brightness of the cross, substituting other
sacrifices for the one sacrifice offered by the Nazarene.
What was it that gave light and life to Luther's soul,
and lent his voice an almost magical influence on the

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 393
hungering and thirsting peoples of Europe ? It was
the message of the cross. To what do the tens of
thousands of churches, whose spires adorn the land
scapes of Europe and America, and other parts of the
world, owe their existence ? To the cross. To what
purpose are devoted the vast majority of the bene
volent associations which exist all over the civilised
world ? To the preaching of the cross. Whatever
may be said to the contrary, and however many
defects and weaknesses may be pointed out in its
bearers, can it be denied that the message of the
cross is at the present moment as powerful and stirring
as ever ?
Throughout Christendom, notwithstanding that
many maintain it to be surfeited of the cross,
wherever that cross is held up distinctly, simply,
faithfully, it never fails to speak to the human
conscience, heart, and will with a power which,
unexplained as it may be, is none the less indubitably
great. And the victories it gained over the
heathenism of Greece, and Rome, and Egypt, and
Carthage during the early years of its proclamation,
it is still gaining, and likely to gain, in India, China,
Africa, and Polynesia.
Here we have a sixth problem, or rather a series
of problems, which await the solution of the philo
sophical historian.
Such, then, is a brief and very imperfect view of
the position occupied by the death of Jesus in
the history of humanity during the last eighteen
hundred years. It has been believed in by millions
as the propitiation for the sins of the world, and as

394 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
such has stimulated thought, awakened hope and
love, strengthened volition, and restored life to an
extent unparalleled within the known existence of
humanity. III. We have now to inquire: What is the
reason that the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth,
which, as we have shown, no one regarded as an
event of special significance when it took place,
came to be believed in — first by the disciples, then
by natives of Jerusalem, then by Paul, and after
wards by millions throughout the length and breadth
of the world — as a sacrifice for sin ; and as such
to take so strong a hold as it undeniably has done
on the human intelligence, the human heart, the
human will, the human conscience, in a word, on
human life ? Or, to put the matter in another form,
what conclusion are we justified in drawing from
the contrast between the supposed and apparent
insignificance of the event and the marvellous
influence it has had on the course of human
history ?
Throughout all the centuries of the Church's
existence, attempts have been made to explain the
phenomenon under consideration in a way different
from that adopted by Christian believers and
apologists ; but the only success achieved has been
to saddle mankind with a degree of folly and hallu
cination such as to render all inquiry alike futile
and absurd. To review these attempts would be
a labour as tedious as unprofitable. Whatever
form the explanations may have taken, they have
all issued in the one or the other of the following

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 395
alternatives : those who first taught that Christ's
death was a sacrifice for sin — whether they were
the original disciples, or Paul, or later writers —
must either have been labouring under a hallu
cination, or have wilfully propagated what they
knew to be erroneous ; and their successors, whether
in the belief or in the propagation of the
belief, must either have deceived themselves or
been deceived, or been deceivers and deceived
together. By way of at once confirming what we
have just remarked, and furnishing a sample of
the kind of shifts to which eminent men have
resorted, we will here notice the account given by
Dr. Baur of Tubingen, of the way in which, first,
the immediate disciples, and then Paul, arrived at
their belief. With regard to the former he says : L
" As long as Jesus lived there was still a possibility
of the Jewish people recognising Him as the Messiah,
notwithstanding the antagonism between his idea
of the promised deliverer and theirs. But after
enduring the death of the cross it was totally
impossible for a Jew, so long as he remained a
Jew, to recognise Him as the Messiah. Whoso
believed in Him as the Messiah after such a death
must have cast aside all the carnal elements of the
ordinary Jewish expectations. In fact, what could
a dead Messiah possibly be to a Jew ? Either,
therefore, the faith in Him must be extinguished
by His death, or, if it were firm and strong enough,
it must break the bounds of death, and pierce
1 We quote from Dr. Baur's Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahr-
hunderte, pp. 39 sq. and 45 sq.

396 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
through from death to life.1 Nothing but the
miracle of the resurrection could have scattered the
doubts which seemed necessarily to involve the
extinction of faith. What the resurrection was in
itself is not a subject for historical inquiry. It is
sufficient for the historian to know that the disciples
believed it to be a fact. The fact of the resurrec
tion is not necessary to the explanation of what
follows, but only the belief of the disciples in the
fact." Dr. Baur elsewhere denies that the resurrec
tion was or could have been a fact. Expressed in
plain English, Baur's view is just this : the hallu
cination into which the disciples fell as to the
significance of Christ's death, was a consequence
of the hallucination under which they laboured
that He had risen again.2
Let us now hear what he has to say about Paul.
After affirming that the miracle (Wunder) of Paul's
conversion was nothing but an inner spiritual process,
though Paul himself laboured under the hallucination
of having actually seen Jesus, he goes on to say :
" The very thing which rendered it impossible
for a Jew to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, to
wit, His death on the cross, was converted by Paul's
deeper thinking mind into its very opposite ; the
thought dawned upon him that that which is
most opposed to the carnal mind of man may be
the profoundest truth ; that the very death which
1 We think it proper to assure our readers that we are not caricaturing,
but quoting.
2 It would lead us aside from our present purpose to attempt to point
out the absurdities contained in this pre-eminently philosophical and
rational account of the rise of Christianity, as it claims to be.

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 397
is apparently the strongest argument against the
Messiahship of Christ, may have been a part of
His mission, and, as ordained by God, have a
special religious significance." 1 How Paul's mind
came to perform so extraordinary a somersault
Dr. Baur does not at all explain. The sentences
immediately preceding what we have just quoted
indicate so extraordinary a power of performing
logical and psychological somersaults on the part
of Dr. Baur himself, that we cannot help further
referring to them : " No analysis, whether psycho
logical or dialectical, is capable of clearing up the
mysterious act by which God revealed His Son
in Him. Still we are justified in asking whether
his conversion was not brought about by the
mighty impression which the great fact of the
death of Jesus all at once made on his soul. From
the moment when the Son of God was revealed in
him, he lived in the contemplation of the crucified
One ; he knew of no other ; he was crucified with
Him ; and his entire system of thought hung on
this one fact. The death which was to the Jews
a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness,
was to him the sum and substance of salvation."
Unpleasant as it is to us to refer to a man of Dr.
Baur's eminence in such terms, we must say the
above passage is as conspicuous an instance of
perversity as can be found in any work that has
ever come into our hands. i. He speaks of God
revealing His Son: a "God" who, according to
Baur, is not a God in any sense warranting His
1 See also Baur's Neutestamentliche Theologie, p. 130.

398 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
being represented as revealing ; and a " Son " who
in no sense whatever suitable to the connection,
deserves the name. 2. What he immediately before
describes as purely a process of Paul's own mind,
he here describes as a revealing act of God. 3. The
death of Jesus, that is, the very event, which we
have every psychological reason for believing to
have been one of the chief grounds of His righteous
scorn and wrath at those who trusted in Him as
the Messiah, became the principal link in his
conversion. Baur's is, confessedly, one of the ablest attempts
of modern times to account for the rise of the idea
that Christ's death was a sacrifice in a way different
from that recognised by the Church ; and with what
result ? Surely, to add hallucination to hallucination,
improbability to improbability. In point of fact, as
we have already remarked, every explanation save
one issues in the imputation of either hallucination
or imposture, of self-deception or the wilful deception
of others. Either it was the fact, or not the fact, that
Christ died a propitiation for sins. If it were not the
fact, the propagators of the idea must either have
persuaded themselves of its truth, or have propagated
it, knowing it to be an untruth, or have been mis
understood by those to whom they spake. Let us
look for a moment at each of these alternatives.
Were the first propagators self-deceived ? No one
of the first preachers of Christ did so much to per
suade men that He died for sin as Paul. He him
self lays special stress on his not having received his
gospel of man, and pronounces accursed all who

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 399
should preach any other gospel than that which he
had preached (Gal. i. 8, 12). Is it possible to suppose,
then, that he was self-deceived ? One of the subtlest
attempts to show how he might have arrived at the
conviction he entertained although it was groundless,
is the one made by Dr. Baur ; and what perversities
it is chargeable with we have seen above. Eccentric
as the human mind sometimes is, and capable as it is
of cherishing strange delusions, an eccentricity and
a delusion like this of the disciples of Christ has never
been witnessed, — apart altogether from the improba
bility that their very enemies, who were as well
acquainted with what had occurred as themselves,
should be also persuaded to accept the delusion.
Nor have we another example in the entire religious
history of the world of such a significance being
attached to the death of a mere man, either by his
own friends or by later generations, — not even among
heathens, how much less among Jews ! As to the
second alternative, that the first followers of Jesus
wilfully propagated what they knew to be untrue,
such a thing lay, of course, within the range of
possibility. Abstractly considered, we allow they
might have combined for this purpose. But it would
have been a folly of unparalleled senselessness and
purposelessness. They had all to lose, and plainly
nothing whatever to gain, by adopting such a course.
And surely we can scarcely suppose that the enemies
of their Master and of themselves would be persuaded
to accept the lie that was offered to them, and risk
for its sake the loss of all things. The third alter
native, that the first preachers of Christ were mis-

400 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
understood, seems more plausible ; but, often as it
has been advanced, it is hollow to the core. We are
told that, as Orientals, and particularly as Jews, they
may have used much stronger language than Occi
dentals are in the habit of using ; and that, accord
ingly, they may merely have intended to represent
Jesus as dying a sacrifice for us in essentially the
same sense as that in which all sufferers for the truth,
for right, and for love, are sacrifices both for men
and for sin. Or they may have regarded Him and
themselves — nay, the whole world — as forming a
veritable, vital, solidaric unity ; 1 and in this sense
have believed in Christ as a propitiation for the
sins of the world. Apart altogether from the diffi
culty of explaining how they could have risen even
to such a view of their Master's crucifixion without
some hallucination like that of the resurrection, and
while we may allow that Western hearers might
possibly have attached to some of their words a
1 One of the ablest members of the Tubingen school, Dr. Th. Keim,
Professor of Theology at the University of Zurich, expresses himself
in his Der Geschichtliche Christus as follows : " Strongly as many
object at the present day to recognise in Christ our substitute both
in obedience to the law and in the payment of our debts, and much
as they try to loosen the connection between what He did and what
humanity has gained, faith demands and facts recommend its recogni
tion ; although not in the coarse sense in which the Middle Ages under
stood His substitution. Faith is not quieted before God by an ideal in
the soul which never becomes a reality, nor by the penitence which is
always imperfect, and which would not atone for the irrecoverable
burdens of our life, even if it were perfect, nor by the certainty that
Jesus has revealed the heart — the love, grace, and compassion — of God.
In view of the holy God, faith cannot be content with what is imperfect ;
and the soul cannot think of God's love without also thinking of His
righteousness, — that righteousness which Jesus also proclaimed. It
calls for facts instead of wishes, and finds them in Christ. The perfect
Christ, being ours, consoles us for our imperfection. The Christ suffer
ing innocently, being ours, calms us relatively to the divine and human

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 401
fuller meaning than they naturally bore, we must
still ask: Did, then, the inhabitants of Jerusalem
who believed in Jesus not understand them ? Was
Paul, who sets forth the view in question with greater
definiteness, fulness, and variety, than any other of
the sacred writers, incapable of rightly apprehending
what was intended ? And was he never brought to
correct his own language by his intercourse with
Greeks and Romans, to whom his preaching was
foolishness ? Did the converts from heathenism
never make the discovery that the doctrine they
had accepted was based on a misapprehension ; not
even those who, like Justin Martyr, Clemens Alex
andrinus, and others, had gone through the schools
of philosophy prior to their conversion ? The entire
supposition is absurd.
There is but one hypothesis fitted to account satis
factorily for the phenomena we have passed in review.
This hypothesis does fully and satisfactorily account
remembrance of our sins and guilt. Is it a mere matter of religious
fancy thus to base on persons and facts what is essentially an inner
experience ? Not so ; for all people in all times have believed in sub
stitution. God was gracious to Israel for the sake of the faithfulness of
Abraham, Moses, and David. For the sake of unrighteous sufferers,
but still more for the sake of righteous sufferers, are people delivered.
The greatness of great men is diffused, as it were, over the entire nation.
The scene of a martyrdom lightens the hearts of those who surround it,
as though it were a means of purification and propitiation before God.
And here is more than a great man, more than a human martyr. What
history teaches is confirmed by reason. There is a veritable, vital unity,
a solidaric obligation between the members of the same people, between
all the members of the human race. As the vital process rises and falls,
the one lives and suffers with the other ; the weak lean on the strong,
the strong bow down to the weak ; and when the strong man dies for
the weak, the latter can courageously rise again. The life of Jesus is an
illustration of this league between the strong and the weak." An inte
resting approximation to the doctrine of the atonement on the part of
a man who logically ought to have rejected it in every form.
2 C

402 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
for every one, whatever difficulties it may itself in
volve. The hypothesis in question is, that what was
preached was true,— that what was proclaimed as a
fact was a fact. If the death of Jesus really was the
propitiation for the sins of the world, and, as implied
therein, the world needed a propitiation, then nothing
could be more natural than that it should produce the
effects ascribed to it ; nothing would have been more
unnatural than for it not to stir the deepest depths of
the intellect, heart, conscience, will, and whole life of
mankind. And as the hypothesis fully explains the
facts, so the facts require the hypothesis. Every
single step in the history of the position actually
occupied by the crucifixion of Jesus in the life of
humanity becomes as simple and natural as possible,
the moment we accept the double supposition above
mentioned. If either the one or the other be denied,
the history of humanity, not only during but even
before the Christian era, becomes a huge labyrinth
of confusion. Under these circumstances, there is
only one other question that the philosophical his
torian, the man of science, has a right to put, — the
question, namely, whether the acceptance of the
hypothesis lands us in greater difficulties than its
rejection ? If it does, we must of course reject it.
We cannot here enter on a discussion of this very
important question, but must content ourselves with
one remark. The difficulties which present them
selves when we deny that Christ actually made
propitiation for our sins are appreciable, tangible,
demonstrable ; the difficulties in the way of the
acceptance of the fact of the propitiation are almost

INFLUENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 403
all a priori, theoretical suppositions, and of such a
nature as to give the lie to other important phenomena
of human history which are altogether independent of
Christianity and of the Bible.1
1 It is clear enough, that if the phenomena described warrant us in
concluding the death of Christ to have been actually what it was believed
to be, they warrant also other conclusions, or require other hypotheses,
as, for example, the divine-human nature of Christ ; that He rose again
from the dead ; that the disciples were supernaturally enlightened to
see the significance of the outwardly insignificant event, and so forth.

APPENDIX.

Note I. p. 12.
Baur is decidedly of opinion that many of the early
writers believed in a real transaction with the devil,
and gives the following account of the mode in which
the two essential points, namely, the conception of
justice and that of deception, were handled : * —
1. It was universally taken for granted that the
sin to which the devil had seduced man gave him a
right over them ; though it is not always affirmed with
the same distinctness as by Augustine, who maintained
his claim to be grounded jure tzquissimo? Gregory
the Great, whilst not denying the reality of his claim,
yet declared it to be a mere show of right — quasi
juste tenuit hominem? Most of their successors con
tented themselves with the indefinite notion that man
was in the power of the devil, and did not lay special
stress on the idea of justice.
The more the right of the devil was recognised,
the more necessary must it appear that he should
be treated no otherwise than according to the law
of righteousness. Accordingly, men must not be
forcibly withdrawn from him by divine omnipotence.
In explaining the procedure, they started with the
assumption that man could only be justly freed from
the power of the devil by a man who should victori
ously battle with him. The following were their
chief reasons : — (1) The dominion of the devil could
1 Versohnungslehre, p. 68 ff. 2 Baur, p. 68. 3 P. 69.

APPENDIX. 405
last only until he should put to death a righteous One
in whom he found nothing worthy of death. Such an
one was Christ. (2) He was vanquished in the same
way in which he himself had vanquished man, namely,
through the medium of the free will. As man fell
into his power with his own consent, so Christ as
man vanquished him by the power of his free will.
(3) In place of men whom he was compelled to let
go, the devil received hot merely an equivalent, but
even a much greater and more valuable ransom.1
At this point, however, the idea of deception neces
sarily suggests itself, and it becomes clear that whilst
violence is avoided out of regard to justice, so much
cannot be said of cunning.
2. The second point was the trick played on the
devil. No hesitation was felt, strangely enough, in
characterizing the divine plan for man's delivery as
a deception — "he is deceived, who deceived man,"
says Gregory of Nyssa: "oportuit hunc fraudem
diabolo fieri," says Ambrose. The former Father tries
to explain how the devil came to accept the ransom.
The root of his wickedness being selfishness, he was
not likely to take anything of less value than man ;
nay more, his pride would be a further motive for
endeavouring to secure something of greater value.
Never having known of any one with so great excel
lences as Christ, who had wielded such miraculous
powers, he thought to make a good bargain in accept
ing Him. But the question suggested itself even to
Gregory, How came the devil to fancy that he
could get hold of Jesus, who was endowed with
attributes which he must recognise as divine ? The
answer he finds in the infleshment. Owing to the
flesh, the devil held Christ for a true man ; and the
divine powers wielded by Him only made him there
fore all the more eager. Accordingly, the humanity
is compared by him to the bait by which fish are
1 vipYihoTspav xxi ftsifyvo; a.ma.'KKa.y fA.a.rrt(, Gregory of Nyssa. Ambrose,
" pretium nostras liberationis erat sanguis Christi quod necessario sol-
vendum erat ei, cui peccatis nostris venditi eramus." See Baur, p. ¦/3.

406 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
drawn to the hook. Origen had spoken of the being
caught in the net of the cross ; but Gregory spins the
idea out into still fuller detail. The notion of an
dvTd\\ayp,a given by divine justice, with which he
started, is obviously inconsistent enough, and it was
dropped by both Leo the Great and Gregory the
Great, who made no pretence of treating the humanity
of Christ as anything but a means of deceiving the
enemy. The former compared him with the leviathan
whom the Redeemer caught with the hook : the
human nature was the bait, the deity the hidden sting
which bored him through. Isidore of Seville adopted
the image of a bird caught in a net ; and Peter the
Lombard, outstripping all who had preceded him,
represented the devil as a mouse caught in the trap
set for him in the Saviour's cross : " tetendit et mus-
cipulam crucem suam : posuit ibi, quasi escam, san-
guinem suum." 1
Of Luther's way of regarding the relation of
Christ's work to the devil, the following extracts will
convey an idea : " The devil was caught in his own
net when he thought within himself — all men
descended from Adam and Eve I have killed. Here
comes a poor carpenter's son who pretends to be a
king and to rule — I will kill him also like the rest.
But over this innocent, eternal person, neither the
law, sin, nor death had any power, because He was
without sin. . . . Hear what Job says about the
leviathan (xii. i ) : ' Canst thou draw out leviathan
with a hook, or bind his tongue with cords ? '
Gregory makes a fine use of this image, as though he
would say, ' It will be much too large for thee ; thou
wilt need another sort of hook : this will not do it.
Then God took a sharp fish hook, hung a worm on
it, and cast it into the sea. Christ is the worm, the
hook is His deity. The worm, i.e. the humanity or
flesh of Christ, deceives the devil. He thinks within
himself, "Am I not able to swallow that little
worm ? " but not seeing the hook, he seizes hold and
1 Baur, p. 79. "Illusus est diabolus morte domini quasi avis."

APPENDIX. 407
is caught."'"1 Elsewhere, he goes into the rights of
the matter : " Then Christ takes the devil, sin, and
death, and brings them before the court, and charges
the devil thus, ' Why hast thou sat in judgment on
and condemned me as a rebel, seeing that I am the
Son of God, eternal righteousness itself?' Against
such a charge the devil remained dumb. Then is it
demonstrated with power that Christ, who hung on
the cross and was killed, was eternal righteousness,
wisdom, and life. By rights, therefore, the devil lost
his authority and power. Previously, indeed, he had
the right to destroy us ; he was our executioner, and
made use of his right. But what can he do now ?
This man Christ has done no sin ; yet he has
murdered Him for nothing. Then Almighty God
pronounces judgment, and saith, ' Devil, thou hast
misused thy function in the case of this man ; I shall
take thy life : thou hast had too great an appetite;
and taken too large a morsel.' The sentence runs,
that the devil, with sin and death, shall be subjected
to Christ."2
In another passage Luther represents Christ as
conquering by non-resistance : " Death and the devil
regard Christ as if He were a Lazarus, or Isaiah,
or some other prophet, and think within themselves,
' We have devoured all these, great and high as they
may have been ; now we will eat and swallow up this
man ; he will be little more than a morning snack.'
But they made a mistake, for they attacked a man
who neither could nor was under obligation to die.
But they did not find this out at first, and assail Him
with all their might. Christ takes neither sword nor
armour, neither gun nor other weapon, but stands
quite still, lets the devil and death rush upon Him,
and does not stir a finger ; and by this very means
vanquishes sin, death, devil, and hell." ,!
The following "passage is perhaps the most highly
coloured of all his descriptions of the struggle between
Christ and the devil : " The devil had gained power
1 Heppe, ii. p. 193. 2 L.c. ii. p. 194. 3 L.c ii. p. 194 ff-

408 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
over the world by means of sin, death, and law.
Cum fortis armatus (Luke xi. 21). No one but
Christ could vanquish him. The devil had therefore
raised a banner with the inscription, ' I am the Lord
and God of the world, and all men are mine.' Christ
tears his banner down. The devil is angry, and
rushes after Jesus; Christ says to him, 'What these
people have done wrong, avenge on me.' This the
devil does to the utmost, and eggs the whole world —
saints, authorities, Pilate, Caiaphas, Herod, H annas
— on Jesus, in order that He may die for the people.
He opens wide his jaws to swallow Him, but he
swallows death in swallowing Him. For Christ
pierces him through his belly, and robs him of his
power. Hell binds the Saviour with its pains, but it
cannot hold Him (Acts ii. 42 ; Ps. xvi. 16). God
fetches Him forth."1

Note II. p. 13.

Luther represents Christ as dealing with the Law
as follows : 1 " The law sets on this innocent, holy,
righteous, and blessed One, even as on us. Nay,
indeed, it raged and showed its tyranny much more
fearfully against Him than it ever did against men,
although they are sinners — cursed and damned. For
He was accused as though He were the worst of blas
phemers and rebels ; nay more, as though He were
guilty of the sin of the whole world. Yea, it so filled
Him with sorrow and fear that He sweat blood.
And at last it condemned Him to death — and that
not mere death, but the most shameful death of the
cross. The law having acted in this monstrous and
calumnious manner, it must submit to be brought up
for judgment. Then Christ Himself appears, and
says, ' Mistress Law, you may be a mighty, invincible
ruler, and have wielded a cruel tyranny over the
1 Studien u. Kritiken, 1860, p. 637 f. 2 L.c.

APPENDIX. 409
entire human race ; indeed, you had a right to do so.
But what have I done to you, that you should so
horribly and calumniously accuse, terrify, and condemn
me ? ' To this the law, which had previously con
demned the whole world, having nothing to answer,
was forced to submit to condemnation and execution ;
so that from henceforth it has no right nor power
either against Christ or against those who believe in
Him."1 Elsewhere he answers the question, "How came it
that Christ took the law prisoner ? " as follows :
"Paul teaches us in Gal. iv. 4, iii. 11, 13. There
thou learnest that Christ crept into the prison where
we all were kept under lock and key. How so ? He
was a man full of grace, righteousness, life; yea, He
was life itself, and was yet made under the law.
Then comes the law, and wants to treat Him as it
treats other children of Adam. Christ keeps silence,
lets the law, which had ruled like a cruel tyrant over
the whole human race, and had pronounced sentence
of death on it, rule over Him, and falsely accuse Him,
and condemn Him as an accursed sinner. Nay, He
bears the title of being Himself a curse, is overthrown,
dies, and is buried. Victory ! cries the law. But it
knew not that it had made a terrible blunder. For
thus condemning Him who was innocent, and over
whom it had no right, even the Lord of the law and
the Creator of all, the law is now compelled to go to
prison, to be nailed on the cross, and to lose all
power ; nay more, to be eternally trodden under foot
by Him it had itself condemned." 2

Note III. p. 2:

Dr. C. Hodge states as the "orthodox" doctrine,
whose essential features are common to the Latin,
Lutheran, and Reformed Churches, this, "That the
1 Heppe, ii. p. 196. 2 L.c. ii. p. 195 f.

4IO THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
work of Christ is a real satisfaction, of infinite inherent
merit, to the vindicatory justice of God; so that He
saves His people by doing for them and in their
stead what they were unable to do for themselves,
satisfying the demands of the law in their behalf, and
bearing its penalty in their stead ; whereby they are
reconciled to God, receive the Holy Ghost, and are
made partakers of the life of Christ to their present
sanctification and eternal salvation." 1
The exposition of Dr. A. A. Hodge is in the main
a summary of that of his father, and has the advantage
over that of the latter of being less wrapped up in
verbiage, and bringing out into clearness the true
features of the theory.
In order to appreciate this summary statement, we
must go back to the elaborate definitions given of the
various terms employed.
A distinction is drawn between justice and law.
The former is defined as " that form of moral excel
lence which demands the righteous distribution of
rewards and punishments, which renders it certain,
under the government of God, that obedience will be
rewarded and sin punished. This is also called
vindicatory justice — not vindictive." 2 Law, on the
contrary, is " a more comprehensive term than justice.
It demands far more than the punishment of sin; and
satisfaction to it includes more than the satisfaction
of vindicatory justice — namely, obedience as well as
sufferings, active as well as passive righteousness." 3
We are here concerned specially with justice, which
means, "not simply general rectitude or rightness of
character and action ; nor simply rectoral justice,
which consists in a due regard to the rights and
interests of subjects in relation to order ; much less
does it mean commutative justice or honesty" (as
shown in the payment of debts of a quid pro quo) ; 4
1 Perfection of Christ's Satisfaction, p. 484. Elsewhere it is called
" full," p. 495 ; a real satisfaction of infinite inherent dignity and worth?
p. 495.
2 Vol. ii. p. 489. 3 P. 493 f. 4 P. 470.

APPENDIX. 411
but "that form of moral excellence which demands
the righteous distribution of rewards and punishments,
which renders it certain, under the government of
God, that obedience will be rewarded and sin punished.
This is also called, especially in its relation to sin,
vindicatory justice, because it vindicates and main
tains the law." x Another term is frequently used in
this connection, and as such, though it does not occur
in the statement quoted, is carefully defined, namely,
guilt {reatus) : " Guilt expresses the relation which
sin bears to justice, or to the penalty of the law.
This relation is twofold. First, that which is ex
pressed by the words criminality and ill-desert or
demerit. This is inseparable alike from the sin and
the sinner ; it cannot be transferred. Secondly, it
means the obligation to satisfy justice ; and this may
be transferred from one person to another. It is in
this sense that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to
us." 2 " To impute sin is (in scriptural and theological
language) to impute guilt ; and by guilt is meant not
criminality or moral ill-desert or demerit, much less
moral pollution, but the judicial obligation to satisfy
justice." " When it is said that the sin of Adam is
imputed to his posterity, it is not meant that they
committed his sin or were the agents of his act ; but
simply that in virtue of the union between him (the
federal head) and his descendants, his sin is the judicial
ground of the condemnation of his race." 3
What, then, are we to understand by penalty?
" By the penalty of a law is often understood a specific
kind or degree of suffering." " On the contrary, any
kind or degree of suffering judicially inflicted in
satisfaction of justice is penalty ; and the very same
suffering might be calamity, or chastisement, or
penalty, according to the reason of its occurrence.
The design of the infliction of suffering alone _ is
expressed when we speak of penal or penalty ; nothing
is declared concerning its nature. When, therefore,
Christ's sufferings are described as penal, nothing is
1 L.c. p. 489- 2 p- 476. 3 P- i95-

412 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
said as to their nature or degree ; we simply say that
they were designed to satisfy justice. Not, however,
that their kind or degree was a matter of indifference.
There must be some proportion between the evil
endured and the benefit to be secured. There must
be enough of self-sacrifice and suffering to give dignity
and inherent value to the proffered atonement." '
According to Scripture, death, yea, " eternal death,"
is the wages or penalty of sin or disobedience,
demanded by the law or by justice.2 Death as used
in Scripture includes all kinds and degrees of suffering
inflicted as the punishment, reward, or wages of sin.3
The next term to be considered is satisfaction, of
which Dr. Hodge distinguishes two kinds, the one
pecuniary or commercial, the other penal or forensic.
The former is a simple matter of quid pro quo ; if a
debt is paid, it matters not by whom, and the debtor
is at once freed from obligation. The latter is a
question of crime. In this case the demand is on the
offender ; and in human courts no one else can meet
it. The essential point is not the penalty, but the
person who is to suffer. The soul that sinneth, it
shall die. The penalty need not be of the very
nature of the injury inflicted ; but it should be a just
equivalent.4 Let us finally see what is said about the important
word Vicarious. Vicarious suffering is not merely
suffering endured for the benefit of others, such as are
the sufferings of martyrs and a thousand others. It
is suffering endured by one person in the stead of
another, i.e. in his place. When a man dies in the
place of another to save him from a deserved penalty,
that is vicarious.5
Under the heading Expiation and Propitiation,
which in his view are correlative terms, the former
referring to the sinner or his guilt, the latter to God
or justice, he states his position in another form as
follows : — The incarnate Son of God substituted
1 Vol. ii. pp. 473, 474. 2 Pp. 494, 491. 3 Pp. 474, 201.
4 P- 47°- 5 Pp- 475, 476.

APPENDIX. 413
Himself in the place of sinners, assumed their obliga
tion to satisfy divine justice, and made a full and
perfect satisfaction for sin, bearing the penalty of the
law in their stead.1
Before going on to criticize Dr. Charles Hodge, it
will be well to quote Dr. A. A. Hodge's summary.
He puts the case, first, negatively: "(1) The suffer
ings of Christ were not a substitute for the infliction
of the penalty of the law upon sinners in person,
but they are the penalty itself executed on their
substitute.2 (2) It was not of the nature of a
pecuniary payment, an exact quid pro quo. But it
was a strict penal satisfaction, the person suffering
being a substitute. (3) It was not a mere example
of punishment. (4) It was not a mere exhibition of
love or of heroic cpnsecration.
" Secondly, positively. (1) Its motive was the ineff
able love of God for the elect. (2) As to its nature.
{a) Being a divine person, He assumed the legal
responsibilities of His people under the conditions of a
human being, {b) He obeyed and suffered as their
substitute. His obedience and suffering were vicarious.
{c) The guilt or just legal responsibility of our sins
were imputed to Him, i.e. charged upon and punished
in Him. {d) He did not suffer the same sufferings,
either in kind, degree, or duration, which would have
been inflicted on them, but He did suffer precisely that
suffering which divine justice demanded of His person
standing in their stead, {e) His sufferings were those
of a divine person in a human nature."3
The criticisms which I have now to make will
relate, not so much to the general point of view
considered in itself, as to the manner in which the
subject is treated. Notwithstanding a great apparatus
of definitions, much use of logical terms and wonderful
professions of agreement with "Catholic" opinion,
the exposition seems to me confused in reasoning,
inconsistent with itself, and out of harmony with the
1 Vol. ii. pp. 478, 479. 2 The italics are my own.
3 Outlines of Theology, by A. A. Hodge, D.D., 1879, p. 405 f.

4H THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
earlier, still more with the earliest Protestant teach
ing. According to Dr. C. Hodge, the penalty of disobedi
ence is " eternal death." x In assuming this he agrees
with the symbols of the Reformed Churches from
which he quotes.2 Man is hell - deserving ; 3 merits
"damnation."4 "The wages of sin is death."5 A.
A. Hodge puts it, " The entire penalty of the law,
including all the spiritual, physical, and eternal conse
quences of sin, is called death in Scripture. Hence,
when Christ bore the penalty of sin, it was necessary
for Him to die."6 Eternal death is therefore the
penalty due by the sinner to the divine law, or claimed
by divine justice.7 Further, our guilt, that is, our
legal responsibility for penalty, was laid upon Christ
as our substitute ; in other words, He undertook to
endure " eternal death " for our sakes, in our stead ;
it was charged upon and punished in Him.8 We are
further informed that " the sufferings of Christ were
not a substitute for the infliction of the penalty Of the
law {i.e. not a substitute for ' eternal death'), but the
penalty itself (viz. ' eternal death ') inflicted on their
substitute."9 This is language strenuous enough to
satisfy a Gerhard or Burman ; but let us look farther.
What then was the real nature of Christ's sufferings ?
Notwithstanding that they were a "strict penal
satisfaction," 10 — words which surely suggest endurance
of the strict penalty, namely, " eternal death," — we
are assured that Christ " did not suffer the same
sufferings, either in kind, degree, or duration, which
would have been inflicted on them." u He did, how
ever, " suffer precisely that suffering which divine
justice demanded of His person standing in their
stead ; " — but if this was not the penalty which was
1 Vol. ii. p. 473. 2 P. 480. 3 P. 189. * P. 491.
5 P. 516. c Outlines, p. 548. 7 C. Hodge, pp. 491, 494.
8 A. A. Hodge, p. 406.
9 Ut supra, p. 405. " He bore their guilt, and suffered the penalty of
the law in their stead," C. Hodge, p. 499 ; cf. p. 492.
J0 A. A. Hodge, p. 405.
11 A. A. Hodge, p. 406. On the meaning of death, see also C. Hodge,
ii. 120, where it is made to include both " spiritual and eternal death."

APPENDIX. 415
imputed to Him on our account, i.e. justly imputed
to Him, how can it be "precisely" what divine justice
demanded ?
Still further, to the Socinian objection, " that Christ
did not suffer the penalty of the law, because that
included essentially {a) remorse, {b) eternal death,"
Dr. A. A. Hodge replies, " The penalty of the law is
essentially simple divine displeasure, involving the
withdrawal of the life-giving communion of the Holy
Ghost. This in the case of every creature {a) leads
to spiritual death, {b) hence is naturally everlasting.
Christ suffered this displeasure and desertion (Matt.
xxvii. 46) ; but being a divine person, spiritual death
was impossible." Implicitly the penalty due to man,
i.e. "eternal death,"1 which was charged on our
substitute, is here converted into something that leads
to spiritual death ; and this something that leads to
spiritual or eternal death is borne by Christ. This
may be quite true ; in fact, this explanatory statement
is more satisfactory than the original statement ; but
the two are not in agreement — the one explains
the other away, or at all events whittles it down. In
the same connection as above, we are also told that
Christ " suffered precisely that kind, and degree, and
duration of pain which divine wisdom, interpreting
divine justice, required in a divine person vicariously
suffering the penalty of human sin ; for the same
reason, the temporal suffering of one divine person
is a full legal equivalent for the ill-desert of mankind."2
Originally, Christ endured " the penalty itself," " not
a substitute for the penalty;" now it is "that kind
or degree which divine wisdom interpreting divine
justice " 3 requires ; in other words, if words have any
meaning, " a substitute for the infliction of the
penalty," and not "the penalty itself— which in point
1 A. A. Hodge, p. 414.
2 L.c. p. 414 ; cf. C. Hodge, p. 473 : " The perfection of the satisfaction
of Christ is due, not to His having suffered, either in kind or degree,
what the sinner would have been required to endure, but principally to
the dignity of His person," p. 483-
3 A. A. Hodge, p. 4 '4-

416 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
of fact Christ could not endure." As Dr. C. Hodge
puts it, " there must be enough of self-sacrifice and
suffering to give dignity and inherent value to the
proffered atonement." 1 But surely to use words like
"enough" about sufferings which are elsewhere de
scribed as a " full and perfect satisfaction," as a
" bearing of the penalty of the law," 2 and as " in
finitely transcending in value" the sufferings of
sinners,3 is, to say the least, an incongruity. The
fact is, some of these expressions and whittlings smack
strongly of the acceptilatio theory, on which both
writers pour out the vials of their theological indigna
tion.4 And what shall we make of words like the follow
ing ? " All that the Church teaches when it says
that Christ satisfied divine justice for the sins of men
is, that what He did and suffered was a real adequate
compensation for the penalty remitted and the benefits
conferred. His sufferings and death were adequate
to accomplish all the ends designed by the punishment
of the sins of men ; " 6 and of a statement such as that
the sufferings inflicted on sinners are inflicted in execu
tion of the penalty of the law, and for the infinitely im
portant object of maintaining its authority.?6 Taken
in conjunction with ambiguous terms, like " enough,"
"adequate," "equivalent," already referred to, the
whole exposition seems to wear a certain air of un
certainty. It has a sort of facing-both-ways character.
How different the position taken up by older theo
logians like Gerhard ! That was, at all events,
intelligible. Eternal death they assumed to be the
penalty to which man was liable, and which his sub
stitute undertook to pay to the broken law. Justice
requires the exact penalty, i.e. to quote again A. A.
Hodge's words, "the penalty itself, not a substitute,"
— the full, perfect penalty. Christ paid that penalty,
not indeed extensively, but intensively ; not as to
1 C. Hodge, vol. ii. p. 475. 2 P. 479.
3 P. 471. 4Seep. 486 ff.
c P. 471. c P. 205.

APPENDIX. 417
duration or quantity, but as to quality. The brevity
of His pains were outweighed by the intensity of the
suffering which He was capable of enduring because
He was the Son of God. They did not say that His
"dignity" made up for the lack; but that His
"dignity" enabled Him to suffer as much in the
short time He was engaged in His earthly mission as
man would have endured throughout all eternity, i.e.
an infinite measure of suffering. By the surreptitious
substitution of this term "dignity" and others, a
departure is effected from the doctrine of a real, full
satisfaction to justice, to which the Hodges attach so
much importance.
The modifications on which I have just remarked
seem to me to lead logically to the Governmental
position. The feeling, or thought, or mental attitude
which gives rise to them is one that will find no rest
till landed there. Not that there is any intention of
the kind, but there is a consistency which is indepen
dent of the intention or even resistance of individual
minds. The two extremes of the juridical point of
view are, that of the early systematic theologians of
the Continent to one or two of whom reference was
made, on the one hand, and the Governmental scheme
represented, say by Gilbert,1 on the other. The
"Old School" Presbyterian view, represented by the
writers just criticized, is neither one thing nor the
other, a half-way house occupied by travellers whose
faces are set " New School " way.

Note IV. p. 33.
I am glad to see that Dr. Shedd has dared to
express in vigorous language what seems to me the
real Scripture position on this subject; nay, not
merely the teaching of Scripture, but that also of any
1 Gilbert, Atonement, elsewhere referred to, seems to me to be the
most thoroughgoing Governmentalist who has yet appeared.
2 D

41 8 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
philosophy that penetrates into the true significance
and substance of the ethical and the personal.1
" Christ's priestly work has an objective reference,
namely, it affects and influences the Divine Being. . . .
Whatever be the effect wrought by the vicarious
death of the Son of God, it is wrought upon the
divine nature.2 If it appeases, it appeases that nature;
if it propitiates, it propitiates that nature ; if it satisfies,
it satisfies that nature ; if it reconciles, it reconciles
that nature. A merely subjective reference requires a
forced exegesis of Scripture.
" At the same time, revelation plainly teaches that
the author of this atoning influence and effect upon
the Divine Being is the Divine Being Himself. God
propitiates, appeases, satisfies, reconciles God. None
of these are the acts of the creature. In all this work
of propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption, God
Himself is the originating and active agent. He is
therefore both active and passive ; both agent and
patient. God is the Being who is angry at sin ; and
God is the Being who propitiates this anger. God is
the offended party, and He is the One who reconciles
the offended party. . . .
" The doctrine of vicarious atonement consequently
implies that in God there exist simultaneously both
wrath aud compassion. . . . The propitiation is no
oblation ab extra, no device of a third party, or even
of sinful man himself, to render God placable towards
man. It is wholly ab intra a self- oblation on the
part of the Deity Himself." So far I agree, save
perhaps as to some turns of expression, with Dr.
Shedd : the end of Christ's passion was to affect the
relation of God to man, and of course man's relation
to God ; and God Himself it is, not another, who
does what is needed to be done in order to bring
about this change.3
1 In his just issued Dogmatic Theology, 2 vols. T. & T. Clark,
Edinburgh. 2 1 should, for myself, prefer saying, one aspect of its twofold effect.
3 See vol. ii. p. 398 ff. Our dilettanti indeed, who largely owe their
theology to hysterical novels like Robert Elsmere, Donovan, et hoc

APPENDIX. 419
But my agreement stops at this point, and after
wards becomes disagreement. His view of the modus
operandi seems to me not to fit his view of the end.
As to the end to be accomplished so far as the' above
statements go, Dr. Shedd belongs decidedly to the
personal subdivision of the objective class : in treating
of the mode of accomplishment I should have to apply
to him a good deal of the criticism applied to Turre-
tine, Drs. C. and A. A. Hodge, and others. If I
may indicate the kernel of my objections in a word, it
is this : — he tries to show how an essentially personal
ethical end— the appeasement of moral indignation in
God — can be accomplished by legal or forensic pro
cesses. The legal is not of course unethical, still less
anti-ethical; but it is a low stage of the ethical. There
is a point, I think, at which even an analogy to the
forensic or to " public justice" may enter, but it cannot
take the place assigned it in Dr. Shedd's system.1
I am disposed to think that Dr. Shedd does not
consistently keep to the personal Godward end,
which he so well brings into view in the passage I
quoted. In fact, the view he takes of the modus
operandi would prevent his doing so.

Note V. p. 104.

As Mr. Gladstone well puts it, —
"A Koivwvla, a common life : a common life in the
family, in the nation, in the tribe, and in each of the
relations which each of these contain, was, apart from
direct manifestations of the divine will, the grand
counteractor of the disorganizing essence of self-wor
ship. . . . Yet there can be no doubt that, as the
records of ancient history too plainly testify, the
genus omne, and to Aufkldrung newspapers and periodicals, will
naturally discharge the usual volley of adjectives at Dr. Shedd s repre
sentation. Be it so ; let them settle the matter with the New Testament,
especially with Christ and John.
1 See p. 422 ff.

420 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
ordinary and habitual relation of man to man, when
independent of any form of positive affinity or fellow
ship, was one of hostility. . . . The rights of hospi
tality might, indeed, create reciprocal obligations
between individuals who were personally strange
to one another ; but they always had reference to
community of race or of nation, or to some specific
acts, as their basis. . . . There was a law that in
various degrees bound father to son [among the
Greeks] ; but there was no law that bound man to
man and nation to nation. And we find only the
partial reconstructions of primitive obligation in the
several divinely ordained forms of a common life,
constituted by the union of men into bodies."1

Note VI. p. 107.
" The universe everywhere bears testimony to one
ness of life and action. . . . The Grecian tongue
spoke with an unbiassed simplicity in giving it the
name of Koafios, or essential order : arrangement
everywhere referred to a single and prevailing law.
Plato has delivered, in the noblest manner, the con
ception of that fellowship which sustains the universe
and controls the tendencies to disorder : (pa&l B' ol
crorfioi, a) KaXXtKXej?, koX ovpavov, ical yr)v, ical 0eoi)<}, ical
dv6pd>Trov<;, tt)v Koivwviav ^vve^etv, ical <f>t\iav, teal Ko<7ficrrjTa,
ical crcocppoavvTjv, ical BiKaioTrjTa' ical to oXov tovto Bid ravra
Koa-pov KaXovaiv? The Latins retained in their lan
guage, and have conveyed into ours, the fundamental
notion of to Trap, of a fixed point and a revolving
system, the universum? The idea is that expressed
in the fine lines of Virgil : —
1 Relations of Church and State.
2 Plat. Gorg. i. 137, quoted by W. E. Gladstone, State in its Relations
with the Church, i. 46 ff.
3 Cic. de A'at. Deor. i. 43.

APPENDIX. 421
Coelum ac terras, camposque liquentes
Lucentemque globum Lunae, Titaniaque Astra,
Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.1
The noblest of heathen minds referred the law of
mutual association to our nature, and not to any
device of the conscious understanding : —
mundi
Principio indulsit communis conditor illis
Tantum animas ; nobis animum quoque ; mutuus ut nos
Affectus petere auxilium et prasstare juberet ;
Dispersos trahere in populum, migrare vetusto
De nemore, et proavis habitatas linquere sylvas.
Juvenal, Sat. xv. 148." 2
See also the following remarks expressing Mr.
Gladstone's own views : —
" This joint or common life is what is ordinarily
intimated by the phrase, the personality of societies.
That phrase becomes applicable when the community
of law, sentiment, and interest assumes the deter
minate form of incorporation, and becomes subject
internally to a deliberative regulating principle. It is
not any mere metaphysical or theological abstraction,
nor a phrase invented for the purpose of discussion,
but a reality, having its own palpable exponents in
the persons of those who are the organs of the
societies." 3
Compare also E. Burke : —
" Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate con
tracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be
dissolved at pleasure ; but the State ought not to be
considered as nothing better than a partnership agree
ment in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco,
or some such other low concern, to be taken up for
a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the
fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other
reverence ; because it is not a partnership in things
subservient only to the gross animal existence of a
temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership
1 ALn. vi. 724. 2 Gladstone, l.c. p. 54.
3 L.c. p. 65 ; cf. also l.c pp. 108-1 10, 84, 86 f., 90.

422 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
in all science ; it is a partnership in all art ; a partner
ship in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the
ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in
many generations, it becomes a partnership not only
between those who are living, but between those who
are living, those who are dead, and those who are to
be born. Each contract of each particular State is
but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal
society, linking the lower with the higher natures,
connecting the visible and invisible worlds, according
to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath
which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in
their appointed place. This law is not subject to the
will of those who, by an obligation above them and
infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to
that law.
" He who gave our nature to be perfected by our
virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfec
tion ; He willed therefore the State; He willed its
connection with the source and archetype of all per
fection. Thev who are convinced of this His will,
which is the law of laws and the sovereign of sove
reigns, cannot think it reprehensible that this our
corporate fealty and homage, that this our recognition
of a signiory paramount — I had almost said this obla
tion of the State itself, as a worthy offering on the
high altar of universal praise — should be performed as
all publick solemn acts are performed — in buildings,
in musick, in decoration, in speech, in the dignity of
persons, according to the custom of mankind, taught
by their nature ; this is, with modest splendour, with
unassuming state, with mild majesty, and sober
pomp." 1
Coleridge expresses himself as follows : —
" The records of the Hebrew polity are rendered
far less instructive as lessons of political wisdom by
the disposition to regard the Jehovah in that universal
and spiritual acceptation in which we use the word as
Christians. For relatively to the Jewish polity the
1 E. Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution, 1790, pp. 143 f., 146.

APPENDIX. 423
Jehovah was their covenanted King ; and if we draw
any inference from the former or Christian sense of
the term, it should be this : that God is the unity of
every nation ; that the convictions and the will, which
are one, the same and simultaneously acting in a
multitude of independent agents, are not the birth of
any individual ; that when the people speak loudly
and unanimously, it is from their being strongly im
pressed by the Godhead or the demon. Only exclude
the idea of a demoniac possession, and then vox
populi is vox Dei. It was in the character of the king,
as the majesty or symbolic unity of the whole nation,
both of the State and of the persons ; it was in the
name of the king, in whom both the propriety and the
nationality ideally centred ; and from whom, as from
a fountain, they are ideally supposed to flow ; it was
in the name of the king that the proclamation through
out the land, by sound of trumpet, was made to all
possessors : The land is not yours, saith the Lord,
the land is mine ! To you I lent it ! " 1
" The correspondence between the body politic
and the body natural holds even in the detail of
application."

Note VII. p. 118.
The ethical or personal law alluded to in the text
is touched on in passing by David Hume, when he
writes, " It is not conceivable that any human creature
could ever seriously believe that all characters and
actions were alike entitled to the affection and regard
of every one." 2 Professor Calderwood also refers to
it in still more significant and pregnant terms, as
follows : " Affections take the form of Love or Hate
(antipathy) according as the objects of them are
1 Coleridge, Church and State, 1852, pp. 47-49, IO°- Compare
Herbert Spencer's Sociology.
2 " Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals." Essays, section 1.
p. 1. (Vol. ii. p. 215.)

424 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
esteemed, in any sense, good or bad ; and the form
of Reverence or Pity, according as the object is
esteemed either superior or inferior in nature and
experience. Desires invariably seek what is accounted
a personal gain. But affections are of two classes,
seeking either the benefit or the restraint of others.
In the latter class, affections have an element of self-
protection, which is of great moral significance." Y
The law spoken of in the text is easy enough to
understand, its application, too, plain enough, as long
as men are normal, and their relations normal. That
every one should render to his neighbour or fellow-
man the respect, trust, and love — not to speak of the
modes in which these inward activities, or sentiments,
or feelings embody or manifest themselves — which
are his due, all right-minded men will at once allow.
The difficulty begins when the respect in any case
becomes disrespect, the trust, distrust, the love,
aversion. Suppose my fellow-man cherish (and ex
press more or less distinctly) towards me disrespect,
distrust, dislike, which I have consciously done nothing
to deserve, what shall be my inward relation to him ?
Can I go on regarding him as I regarded him before
his mode of regarding me underwent a change ?
Ought I to do so ? If I think his conduct due to
involuntary misunderstanding on his part, it will be
my duty to do what I can to clear up the misunder
standing, and thus to render possible a normal relation
between us. But what about my " feelings " till I
succeed ? Can they, ought they, to remain unchanged ?
If his conduct is due to some fault of my own, of
which I had been unaware till I saw its effect on him,
it will clearly be my duty to confess it ; and shall I
not say to myself, " I deserved that he should thus
regard me ; he did right to regard me thus ; it was
good for me to be regarded thus " ? But if it should
be impossible to put such a construction on the
conduct of my fellow-man ; if I have to give a less
1 See Professor Calderwood's most comprehensive Handbook of M oral
Philosophy, 13th ed. p. 155.

APPENDIX. 425
favourable account of it, what then ? Can I, should
I, go on regarding him as at first ?
The reply will possibly come quickly, Did not
Christ command us to love our enemies — to love and
not to hate ? Undoubtedly. But one may also ask
the question in return, Did Christ regard His enemies
with exactly the same "feelings," i.e. respect, trust,
love, as He regarded His friends ? Was " that fox "
Herod just the same to Him as the "beloved disciple" ?
Judas as Peter? Peter denying Him, and 'Peter
penitent ? If not, what was the nature of the differ
ence ?
Two considerations need, however, to be kept in
view, when dealing with the application of the law, or
rather with conformity to the law — supposing it to be a
law — " I to thee as thou to me." The first is, due
care should be taken that the relation be proportionate
alike in quality and quantity. " I to thee as thou to
me ; that is, as thou really art to me, not more nor
less ; not other." It is the manner of men who carry
out this principle, — and most men do, in fact are only
too ready to carry it out, — first, to neglect inquiring
whether they may not have done something to cause
their fellow-man's abnormal relation ; they either
assume that they are perfectly clear and innocent, or
ignore the reverse fact ; secondly, they exaggerate
the feelings which they condemn ; thirdly, they
attribute feelings which are not cherished ; and as a
result, they pronounce a moral condemnation which is
not deserved. In view of these dangers to which
even the best of men are exposed, a broad rule like
that of Christ is needed. Probably, too, the reason
of our Lord's injunction is to be sought here. The
second consideration is this, that if the resentment felt
by us is what it should be, resentment at injustice, at
wrong — truly moral resentment ; if we are not merely
stirred by the inconvenience or pain caused to our
individual selves ; if, on the contrary, this latter —
which in itself is, of course, inevitable and legitimate
enough as far as it goes — is taken up into, or rather

426 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
is never dissociated from, but blended with the former,
transfigured, immanently ethicized by it : then efforts
will of necessity be at once put forth to put an end
to the wrong relation, as wrong, as unjust. How can
true resentment against wrong, and aversion to relations
which are wrong, be felt by a man of right moral
character, without his being stirred up to do his best
to rectify them ? In other words, whilst conforming
to the law, " I to thee as thou to me," in its abnormal
phase, he will do his best to bring about a relation on
the part of the offender that shall render possible the
normal realization of the law. He who is unjustly
treated must show in his conduct that he is sensible
of the injustice ; but inasmuch as it is injustice he
resents, he must at the same time seek to put an end
to the injustice, — which will be possible only by
changing the attitude of the offender, inducing the
offender to alter his behaviour.
We are therefore brought face to face with a
strange antinomy : — The law of our personal being
compels us to treat the undeserved disrespect of our
fellow-man with disrespect, his undeserved distrust
with distrust, his undeserved aversion with aversion,
in due proportion ; yet, inasmuch as these relations of
ours, according to the law, are relations to injustice, to
moral wrong as such, the same law demands of us
that we do all in our power to convert the disrespect
into respect, the distrust into trust, the aversion into
love. One other point I would just touch on before
closing this very fragmentary note : — • The law in
question is rooted in the essential and distinctive
nature of personality as self-controlled. Persons are
bound to take persons as they give or reveal them
selves. No one has a right to say of a man, " I will
treat him as I think proper." I have to accept his
self-controlled decision primarily as his, as self-con
trolled. If I refuse, I treat him as if he occupied a
lower level than myself; I violate his rights as a free
being. When, then, I duly reciprocate his personal

APPENDIX. 427
relation, I am giving him his due — the due which is
of all dues most sacred, least to be withheld. But as
the giving of his due involves me in abnormality,
caused by his prior abnormality ; and as, further, so
long as the relation lasts, I am robbed of my due :
clearly a due regard for right, in every respect, will
impel me to do my utmost to bring the offender to a
right mind.

Note VIII. p. 142.
" The more eminent the great heroes of the Bible
are for holiness of life, the more intensely do they
realize their oneness with the people whose pastors
and priests they are, and take upon themselves the
burden of their nation's transgressions and sins.
Listen to Abraham interceding on the plains of
Mamre for the guilty inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Gen. xviii. 23) ; to Moses pleading the
cause of rebellious Israel (Ex. xxxii. 31); to Jeremiah
(Lam. iii. 42), Nehemiah (i. 5-1 1), Daniel (ix. 20),
all identifying themselves in their sublime prayers
with their sinning countrymen, and charging them
selves with their iniquities. Themselves blameless in
the midst of an idolatrous race, they forget their own
righteousness, while they accept for themselves the
consequences of the falls and sins of Israel. ' We
have sinned,' they exclaim, ' we have transgressed,
we have rebelled against Thee ; to us belongeth con
fusion of face, because we have sinned against Thee.'
And St. Paul, last of the heroic line of Scripture
heroes, 'could wish that he himself were accursed from
Christ, for His brethren, his kinsmen according to
the flesh ' (Rom. ix. 3)." x
1 Bersier, Solidarity of Humanity.

428 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.

Note IX. p. 146.
" How natural in all decisive circumstances is
symbolic representation to all kinds of men ! . . . A
whole nation gathered in the name of the Highest,.
under the eye of the Highest ; Imagination herself
flagging under the reality ; and all noblest ceremony
as yet not grown ceremonial, but solemn, significant
to the utmost fringe " (Carlyle, French Rev. vol. ii.
Bk. I. c. ix., quoted by Cave, Sacrifice, etc., p. 110).
The pleas advanced in favour of a national recog
nition of religion draw their force from such facts as
have been under consideration. A nation should
show reverence and love to God in its corporate,
national capacity. If the history of Israel teaches
any lesson at all, it is the lesson that God required of
it, national loyalty, as well as the loyalty of individuals;
that to be faithful to Him in its national capacity,
rendering unto Him the reverence, love, worship,
homage due unto His name, was to ensure His favour
and blessing: whilst to go a- whoring from Him as a
nation, was to bring upon themselves misery and
ruin. The experience of Christian nations read in
the light of the promises and threatenings of the Old
Testament supplies ample confirmation of the prin
ciple. A State as such ought to be a Christian State.
Christ is as truly the Lord of men in their corporate
as in their individual relations and activities. The
only question is how this recognition of the national
relation to God is to be made, and made under exist
ing conditions. By making the ministers of religion,
whether of all sections or of only one section of the
Christian Church, guaranteed servants of the State ?
Or by having a chaplain to offer prayer at the open
ing of the deliberations of the Houses of Parliament or
representatives ? Or by occasional days of humilia
tion and rejoicing ? Yes, if a nation were as much
one in belief, sentiment, purpose, as was Israel : but a
modern European nation! No one of the methods

APPENDIX. 429

mentioned and actually in operation can be regarded
by unprejudiced eyes as tolerable.

Note X. p. 185.
" In the law, Lev. i. 5, no mention is made of the
sons of Aaron in relation to mactation, but it has left
that to every one's own pleasure. But for the purpose
of taking the blood the priest is necessary ; for our wise
men have determined that the sacerdotal office begins
at the receiving the blood " (Maimonides in Mishna
v. 15, Essay, etc., p. 207). We read further, that
" the killing of holy things may be lawfully done by
strangers ; even of the most holy things, whether they
be the holy things of a particular person or of the
congregation." So Maimonides in Brath Hamikdash
ch. ix. § 6. The Mishna also says, " The slaying
done by all profane persons, i.e. those who are not
priests, is lawful, because slaying is lawfully done by
strangers, women, servants, and the unclean, even
in the most holy things, provided the unclean do not
touch the flesh" {De Sacrificiis, vol. v. p. 15). "All
may kill their sacrifice, and their mactation is lawful,
except a deaf man, a fool, and a minor" (Mishna,
tit. de profanis, v. p. 114, Essay, etc., 207 ff).
" Priests were not originally employed among the
Gentiles to slay the victims ; but only to interpret
signs or prognosticate. In Homer the lepers is never
represented as concerned with mactation ; but the
offerer always killed the victim, burnt it, and prayed.
Orpheus is described as knowing the ways of beasts,
and birds, and the position of the entrails, and what
dreams portend, and the solutions of signs and
prodigies, and the course of the stars, and purifica
tions, and the appeasements of the gods, and the
various gifts of men" {Orphei Argon. 1. 33 ff.) ; . . .
" but it is nowhere represented as his duty to sacrifice
or slay victims, or to pour out or offer the blood or

430 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
burn the parts of the animal to any of the gods."
On certain solemn occasions, however, priests did
perform the office. Thus Laocoon, priest of Thym-
brsean Apollo, was chosen by lot Priest of Neptune,
and he Solennes taurum ingentem mactabat ad aras.
JEn. ii. 202.
That this was the custom of the Greeks is clear from
Homer, Odyss. iii. 439-460.
By degrees, however, as priests became more
expert than others, and as niceties with regard to
victims increased, — perhaps, too, because in general
men disliked the task, — the whole business came to be
relegated to them ; till at last the idea grew up that it
was their proper function, and necessary to the efficacy
of the sacrifices.1

Note XI. p. 187.
Representative Sacrifices for the Nation.
" When the Spaniards conquered Mexico they found
a gigantic and elaborate system of human sacrifices,
which exceeded all that had appeared in history. The
annual ceremonies consumed several days, and the
immolations of victims counted, not by thousands, but
by tens of thousands. It was the function of the
Mexican Government, and devolved upon what might
be called the Home Office, to expiate the sins of the
whole population of Mexico ; and so radically was the
sacrificial system made a State object, that it affected
even the foreign policy of the empire. . . . The
blood of human victims thus flowed in such torrents
that not a single sin could escape expiation in the
whole empire of Mexico ; and the monarch as repre
sentative of the interests of his subjects could point to
most conspicuous success. 1 Essay, etc., p. 214 f.

APPENDIX. 43I
" Human sacrifices originated in the idea that what
justice required was so much suffering, vicarious or
otherwise. Assuming that the more suffering the
more expiation, careless whether it was voluntary
or involuntary, the idea of sacrifice could not rest in
brutes as victims, but must go on to men, who could
suffer more intensely." 7

Note XII. p. 215.
If we may take the ideas of the later Jews as laid
down in the Talmud and elsewhere as at all repre
sentative of what their forefathers believed, there can
be little doubt that objective efficacy was attributed
to the sacrifices. In the popular estimate, no sacrifice
was more efficacious than that which was offered for
the people at large every morning and evening. "In
Midrasch Rabba on Num. xxi., we read, ' No man
could pass the night in Jerusalem laden with sin.
How was this ? The daily morning sacrifice expiated
the sins committed during the night, and the evening
sacrifice expiated the sins committed during the
day. ' Again, in the oldest Palestinian Midrasch on
Num. xxviii. it is said, ' Why did the daily sacrifice
consist of sheep ? What was their symbolical mean
ing ? ' The School of Schammai taught D'to^D't!^ =
Pressers down, suppressers of the sins of Israel, as it
is said in Micah vii. 19, ' He (God) will suppress
our sins.' The School of Hillel, on the other hand,
teaches, that which is suppressed comes to light
ao-ain ; but the significance of the sheep of the sacrifice
reminds us of the verb D33, to wash, they purify all the
sins of Israel and make Israel free from all sins, just
like a child of a year old. Two of these sacrifices are
appointed for each day as irapdic\7]Toi,, on the particular
day of which it is said in Mai. iii. 1 7, ' They shall be
1 Mozley's Sermons, "Atonement," pp. 164, 165.

432 THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
my property, saith the Lord Sabaoth, on the day
which I will make! " 1
" The blood of the sinner in equity ought to have
been poured out and his body burnt, as was the blood
of the victim poured out and its body burnt " (Moses
ben Nachman). " God in His mercy and goodness
took the victim instead of, and an expiation for, the
offender" — "Blood for blood, soul for soul" (Rabb.
Bechai).2 Amongst the Hindoos, " The design of sacrifices
varied according to the circumstances. By the
sacrifice of a horse everything desirable was secured.
The Brahmanas have a tradition, however, that its
proper end was the ransom of the offerer's own person.
Some hold the original meaning of animal sacrifices to
be that they were substitutes for human sacrifices.
It was sought to deprive the rite of the character of a
bloody sacrifice ; the blood which was once offered to
Rudra is no more applied to this purpose, but conse
crated to the evil spirits, quite contrary to the custom
of other Indo-Germanic peoples."
" The killing of the victims is as it were symbolic
ally nullified ; for through Agni, in which they are
presented, they are conceived as being born anew, and
as therefore coming alive to the gods.
" When a man vows a vow, he is forfeited to the
gods, and ransoms himself by a sacrifice ; in like
manner as a corpse is born anew when it is burnt, and
enters heaven therefore alive. The animals sacrificed
act as his representatives in heaven."3
1 Biesenthal, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 250.
2 See Essay on Sacrifice, p. 149 ; cf. Outram, De Sacrificiis, pp.
274-277. 3 See Schwalb, Thieropfer, etc., pp. 16-20 ; compare p. 100 ff. on the
mactation of the animal.

INDEX.

Abarbanel, 154, 181, 182.
Abelard, 44, 109, 390.
Aben Ezra, 144.
Absoluteness of God, 254.
Acceptilation, 20, 22, 23, 416.
Adam Bremensis, De situ Dania;, 176.
Adoption, 285.
Advanced school, I.
Alexander the Great, 138.
Alexander, Dr., Biblical Theology,
154, 229.
Amberley, Analysis of Religious Belief,
201.
Ambrose, 405.
Andrews, Latin Dictionary, 165.
Angels, 82, 83.
Anger, genetically considered, 239 ; in
the animal world, 240 ; in man, 242 ;
corporeal and psychical elements in,
245 ff. ; condemnation of, in Scripture,
250 ; discussion of the same, 250,
423 ff. ; justifiable in certain cases,
252. See Resentment.
Anger of God, 33, 34, 59, 217 ff. ;
Scripture references to, 217-219 ;
anthropopathic conception of. 223 ;
doctrinal exposition of, 236 ff. ;
objections thereto, 250 ff. Views of,
taken by Augustine, 224 ff. ; Bohme,
233 ; Clemens Alexandrinus, 223 ;
Crawford, 228 ; Gerhard, 227 ;
Irenceus, 223 ; Lactantius, 222 ;
Martensen, . 231 ; Origen, 223 ;
Pye Smith, 228 ; Schoberlein, 232 ;
Tertullian, 220 ; Wardlaw, 229.
Animal world, principle of individuality
in, 108.
Anselm, 55, 390 ; his Cur Deus Homo,
55-58.
Anthropopathism, in relation to anger
of God, 223 ff. ; and forgiveness of
sins, 291.
Apologia Confessionis Augustana?, 31,
157, 272.
Apologia Confessionis Wurtemburgicse,
273- 2

Apuleius, 368.
Architecture, Gothic, 392.
Aristotle, 108.
Arnobius, Versus Gentes, 368.
Art, Italian, 392.
Arthur, W., Physical and Moral Law,
III.
Athanasius, 390.
A thenars, 161, 1 75.
Atonement, day of, 144 ; and prayer,
342 ff. ; objective and subjective
views of, 349 f. See Theories of
Atonement ; also Crucifixion of
Christ, Death of Christ, End of
Christ's Work, Forgiveness of Sins,
Mediator, Passion of Christ, Pro
pitiation, Ransom, Reconciliation,
Redeemer, Relations of Man to God,
Sacrifices, Sacrifice of Christ, Sub
stitute, Sufferings of Christ, Vicarious
Element in Christ's Work.
Augustine, 390, 404 ; on Manichsean
Heresy, 225 ; Enchiridion, 225, 271 ;
on Trinity, 225 ; City of God, 226,
271 ; on Merits and Forgiveness of
sin, 270; Exposit. of 'the Sermon on
the Mount, 271.
Bahr, Symbolik desMosaischen Cultus,
'53> 170, 174, 179. 180, 184-188,
193. !97> 207; 2I°-
Bain, A., 13.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 382.
Barnes, Albert, 49.
Bartholomai, 253 f., 261.
Basil, 390.
Baumgarten-Crusius, on Anselm, 55.
Baur, 12, 380, 390; Gnosis, 233;
Kirchengeschichte, 395 ff. ; N. T.
Theology, 397 ; Versohnungslehre,
404 ; Views on the Resurrection of
Christ, 395 ; on Death of Christ,
396 ; criticism of these, 397.
Bechai, Rabbi, 432.
Biesenthal, Epistle to the Hebrews, 432.
Bernhard, 390.

434

INDEX.

Bertheau, Weissagung iiber Israels
Reichsherrl, 254.
Bersier, Oneness of the Race in its Fall
and in its Future, 107, 427.
Bhagavad-gita, 201.
Biedermann, Dogmatik, 64.
Binney, T., View of Christ's Work, 59.
Blood - sprinkling in sacrificial rites,
191 ; meaning of, 196.
Bohme, Jacob, 63, 233.
Boissier, La Religion Romaine, 170.
Bonaventura, 391.
Bretschneider, System. Entwickelung,
278.
Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, 153.
Brooke, Stopford, Sermon on Atone
ment, 361.
Browning, R., Christmas Eve, 119;
Dramatic Lyrics, 104, 346.
Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, 101.
Burge, Caleb, Scripture Doctrine of
Atonement, 28.
Burke, Life of, by John Morley, 137.
Burke, Thoughts on the French Revo
lution, 136, 422.
Burning of sacrifices, 200 ; meaning of,
206.
Bushnell, 7, 39, 283 ; Life and Light
of Men, 39 ; Vicarious Sacrifice, 39.
Caird, Introduction to the Philosophy
of Religion, 98.
Calderwood, Handbook of Moral Phi
losophy, 424.
Calvin, 7, 31, 288, 292 ; Institutes, 31,
276, 3°3-
Campbell, M'Leod, Theory of Atone
ment, 38.
Candlish, Lectures on Kingdom of God,
76.
Curcelkeus, 23.
Carlyle, T., On Heroes and Hero-
Worship, 137 ; French Revolution,
428.
Catechesis Heidelbergensis, 274.
Catholic Theories of Atonement, 16, 23.
Cave, Sacrifices, 153, 428.
Chalcedon, Symbol of, 2.
Chinese sacrifices, 161.
Christ, as Son of man, 305 ; as human
ity's Representative and Head, 36,
336 f. ; root of humanity, 321 ; His
original relation to humanity, 292 ; as
Lagos, 294 — see Logos ; as channel
between God and man, 293 ; His
sympathy, 311 ; and the Powers of
Darkness, 319. See also Crucifixion of
Christ, Death of Christ, Incarnation,
Mediator, Mission of Christ, Logos,
Passion of Christ, Representative,
Saviour, Son of God.

Church, Schleiermacher's view of, 61.
Church Quarterly Review, 308.
Churches, national, 428.
Cicero, 347, 368, 420.
Clarke, Samuel, 13.
Clausen, Baader's Leben und Ideen,
261.
Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus, 346.
Clemens Alexandrinus, 164, 223, 401 ;
Stromata, 384, 385 ; Psedagogus,
384, 3S5-
Clement, Epistle of, 381.
Coleridge, Church and State, 423.
Confessio Augustana, 272, 274.
Confessio Belgica, 274.
Confessio Helvetica, 274.
Confessio Saxonica, 32, 273, 275.
Confessio Wurtembergica, 31.
Constantine's edicts of toleration,
387-
Constitution of humanity, 98 ff.
Controllable relations, 112 ff.
Corban, 154.
Corporate relations of men to God,
130.
Crawford, 8 ff., 18 ff., 228, 279.
Crucifixion of Christ, terrible sin of,
330 ; how regarded by His con
temporaries, 363 ff. ; by Greeks and
Romans, 363 ff. ; by His disciples,
370 ; by His immediate disciples,
375 5 by Paul, 379 ; by Apostolic
and Ante-Nicene Fathers, 381 ; in
still later times, 387 ff. ; its ap
parent insignificance and world-wide
influence, 394. See Death of Christ.
Crusades, the, 392.
Crypto-dualistic theories of the Atone
ment, 9 ff., 54.
Crypto - humanitarianism explained,
2ff.
Cudworth, Ralph, 13.
Cunningham, History of Theology, 26.
Cyprian, 386.
Dale, R. W., Atonement, 12, 28, 32,
113, 282-284, 292, 303, 328, 332;
article in British Quarteily Review,
12 ff.
Dante, 137.
Daub, 63.
De Maistre, Soirees, 207.
Death of Christ, for remission of sins,
fact, of revealed in N. T., 65 ; and in
the Lord's Supper, 65. Historical
influence of, 362. See also Cruci
fixion of Christ.
Debt, sin a, 17, 26.
Dependence on God, man's, 127 ;
Schleiermacher's view of religion,
128.

INDEX.

435

Devil, place given him in early theories
of the Atonement, 10 ff, 404 ff. ; as
Prince of this world, 86.
Differentiation, law of, 9S.
Diocletian, persecution of, 387.
Diognetus, Epistle to, 382.
Dionysius Halicarnassus, 171.
Dithmar, 177.
Doctrine of Atonement as aiming to
exhibit rationale of Christ's work,
66 ff.
Dollinger, Heidenthum u. Judenthum,
170, 173, 174, 179.
Donovan, 418.
Dorner, 332 ; his theory of the Atone
ment, 37 ; Glaubenslehre, 12, 38, 55,
105, III, 292, 338; Sittenlehre,
98 ff. ; Christologie, 2, 303 ; Un-
changeableness of God, 117, 255.
Douglas, Confucianism, 186.
Drummond, Natural Law in the
Spiritual World, 80, 342.
Duncker, 11.
Duns Scotus, 23, 391.
Dynamic theories of Atonement, 54.
Ebrard, 210.
End of Christ's mission and work, 8,
52, 89, 90 ; to establish normal
relations, 92 ff.
Environment, functions of, 342 ; man's
relation to his, 343 ; his energy
derived from, 343 ; God great factor
in man's, 344.
Epictetus, 347.
Episcopal Churches, Protestant, 101.
Episcopius, 23.
Ernst v. Lasaulx, Die SUhnopfer der
Griechen u. Romer, 177.
Ethnic religions, 83 ; sacrifices in, see
Sacrifices.
Euripides, Hecuba, 194.
Eusebius, Prap. Evang., 175.
Evolution, of universe, 113 ; in Israel,
147.
Ewing, Bishop, 279.
Expiation, Dr. C. Hodge on, 412.
Faith, 329, 333, 341.
Fall of man, 96.
Feasts, three principal Jewish, 142.
Flesh of Christ, 307.
Flint, History of the Philosophy of
History, 98.
Foreknowledge of God, 25 ff.
Forgiveness of sins, 263 ff. ; Biblical
references to, 263-268 ; Biblical
meaning of, 285 ; deviation of
Church teaching from Biblical, 263,
285 ; personal element in, 285,
287 ff. ; as distinct from remission

of penalties, 263 ; as rectification of
relations, 284 ff. ; rationale of, 287.
— Views of Augustine, 270 ; Burge,
278 ; Calvin, 275 ; Crawford, 279 ;
Dale, 282 ; Heinrich von Diest, 277 ;
Hodge, A. A., 281 ; Hodge, C.,
280 ; Justin Martyr, 268 ; Lactantius,
269 ; Luther, 274 ; Melancthon, 275 ;
Reinhard, 278 ; Pye Smith, 279 ;
Tertullian, 268 ; Turrettine, 277 ;
Ursinus, 276 ; Young, 279. — Also
views set forth in Apologia Con
fessionis Augustana?, 272, 274 ; in
Apologia Confessionis Wurtem-
bergicae, 273 ; in Confessio Augus-
tana, 272 ; in Confessio Saxonica,
273 ; in Formula Concordia?, 273.
Formula Concordia:, 273.
Gemara, the, 373.
Gerhard, 7, 26, 227, 416.
Gesenius, on Isaiah, 164.
Gess, theory of Atonement, 36 ff. ,
322 ; zur Lehre v. der Versohnung,
37, 316, 321.
Gilbert, Josiah, Congregational Lec
ture, 51, 229, 417.
Gladstone, W. E., Church and State,
135, 420, 421.
God, as Ruler of the Universe, 17 ;
Judge, 17; Creditor, 17; Offended
Party, 17 ; as Myriad-sided, 99 ;
unity of, 100 ; diversities in, 100.
See Anger of God, Dependence on
God, Immanence of God, Immut
ability of God ; Integrity of Divine
Life, Justice of God, Kingdom of
God, Laws of God, Love of God,
and Relations of Man to God.
Goschel, 361.
Governmental theory of Atonement,
16, 17, 42, 45 ff., 2S9 ff, 417 ; as
really ideniical with moral theory,
52-54-
Gregory the Great, 404, 406.
Gregory Nazianzen, 390.
Gregory of Nyssa, 390. 405.
Griffith, Gospel of Divine Life, 303.
Grotius, 7-
Guilt, Dr. C. Hodge on, 411.
Guion, Madame, 354.
Gurlitt, Woiin besteht die Vergebung
der Siinden, 275.
Hegel, 63, 93, 390.
Hegelianization of the Christian faith,
63.
Heinrich von Diest, 277.
Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen
Protestantismus, 32, 273, 275, 277.
Herbart, 303.

436

INDEX.

Herbert, George, 354.
Herodotus, 164.
Hettinger, Apologie des Christenthums,
58.
High Priest, Jewish, 143.
Hilary, 390.
Hill, Principal, 52 ; theology, 20.
Hillel, school of, 431.
Hindoo sacrifices, 161.
Hodge, Dr. A. A., Outlines of Theo
logy, 281, 413-415-
Hodge, Dr. C, Systematic theology,
8, 85, 280, 281 ; Perfection of
Christ's Salvation, 410.
Hofmann, 52, 189, 197, 210.
Honour of God, 57.
Hugo, St. Victor, 390.
Huldrich, Historia Jeshuse, 374.
Hume, David, Inquiry concerning the
Principles of Morals, 423.
Humanitarianism, 5.
Humanity, constituiion of, 98 ff. ; as a
self-developing organism, 104. See
Man.
Identification of Christ's Work with
Man's, 326.
Ignatius, Epistles of, 382.
Iliad, the, 187, 202, 203.
Immanence of God in man, 338. See
Logos.
Immutability of God, 57, 116, 252.
Imposition of hands in sacrificial rites,
178 ff. ; meaning of, 180.
Imprecatory psalms, 244.
Imputed righteousne-s, 341.
Incarnation, 59, 300, 305, 328 ; neces
sity of, 303. See also Logos and
Mediator.
Individualism, 98, no; among Israel
ites, 100.
Individuality, 98, 108, 109 ; recognised
in Scripture, 99 ; our consciousness
of, 338 ; in our relations to God,
99.
Integrity of the Divine life, 248 ff.
Intellect, as subordinate to heart and
conscience, 122.
Internationalism, 104.
Irenseus, 10, 223, 303, 304, 384.
Isidore of Seville, 406.
Jerusalem, the heavenly, 81.
Jevons, Logic, 113.
John of Damascus, 390.
Josephus, Antiquities, 365, 372 ;
Jewish War, 365.
Judicial satisfaction, 19.
Julian the Apostate, 388.
Juridical theory of Atonement, 30, 55.
Justice of God, 21, 23-27; discussion

of meaning of, 29 ; Dr. C. Hodge
on, 410.
Justin Martyr, 401 ; Dialogue with
Trypho, 268, 373, 383 f. ; Apologies,
38.3.
Juvenal, 347, 421.
Kaj>jt, 63.
Keil, Archaeology of the O. T., 153,
157, 189, 198, 213.
Keim, Der Geschichtliche Christus,
400.
King, Mrs., the Disciples, 325.
Kingdom of Darknes^ an unscriptural
expression, 86.
Kingdom of God, 69 ff. ; territory of,
78, 84 ; inhabitants or subjects of,
81, 84 ; constitution of, 83; physical
laws of, 79 ; other laws of, 83, 147,
148 ; mutual relations between
monarch and subjects of, 83 ; dis
tinction of de jure and de facto in
84 if., 147; rebellion in, 84, 86;
Israel's history as beginning of, 141 ;
method of establishing it, 148.
Kingdom of heaven, distinction be
tween it and the kingdom of God, 88.
Kipper, discussion of meaning of, 210.
Kleinert, Theorie des Opfers, 160, 163,
164, 169, 174, 179, 180, 185, 186,
187, 193, 194, 201, 206.
Klietoth, 210.
Kdstlin, in ; Tlieologie Luthers, 31,
274.
Kreihig, 116, 303.
Kuhn, 161.
Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the O. T.,
153, 180, 188, 189, 196, 197, 207,
210, 211, 213.
La Potterie, History of North
America, 204.
Lactantiu";, 368 ; on anger of God,
222, 269.
Lange, Zorn Gottes, 233, 236.
Law, senses in which used, 113.
Law, the, 24, 26, 54; Christ and, 408;
Dr. C. Hodge on, 410.
Laws of God, 20, 79, S3, 147, 148.
Legge, Religions of China, 1S6.
Leo the Great, 390, 406.
Life in Christ theory, 339.
Limhorch, 23.
Lipsius, Dogmatik, 61.
Livy, 368.
Loccenius, 177.
Logos, the, 294 ff. ; activity of, previous
to the incarnation, 302 ; as working
in humanity, 332 ff., 338 ; as mediat
ing between God and man, 338 ; as
accessible to influences from the

INDEX.

437

human race, 334 ; incarnation of,
300 ff., 328 ; humanification of, 304;
limitation of, 306 ; sufferings of,
305 ff. ; as suffering servant of the
Lord, 298 ; as working upon men
both from within and from without,
333, 337-
Lord's Supper, as witnessing to fact of
Christ's death for remission of sins,
65-
Lotze, in.
Love of God, issuing in creation of
man, 130 ; and anger of God, 260.
Love of man towards God, 125, 128 ff.
Lucian, Peregrinus Proteus, 367.
Luther, 7, 11, 13, 31, 274, 288, 328,
391, 392, 406, 408.
Lutheranism, 101.
Magee, Bishop, the Atonement, 58,
59-
Maimonides, 157, 181, 194, 429.
Man, as an individual, 98 ff. ; brought
into being and sustained by God,
114; dependent on God, 114, 130;
his consciousness of God, 115; his
relation to the Logos, 297. See also
Organic Unity of the Human Race.
Martensen, Dogmatik, 232, 292 ; Jacob
Bohme, translated by Rhys Evans,
233-
Martineau, 7.
Marvell, A., the Dewdrop, 333.
Maurice, F. D., his theory of the
Atonement, 34 ff.
Maximus Tyrius, 202.
Mediator, 7, 292 ff.
Mehring, Geschichts - Philosophie and
Religionsphilosophie, 98, 292, 338.
Melancthon, Loci, 275.
Method of Christ, 91.
Michael Angelo, 351.
Michaelis, Typische Gottesgelahrtheit,
207.
Mill, J. S., Dissertations, 13.
Milton, John, 85, 137.
Minucius Felix, Octavius, 368.
Miracles, 72.
Mishna, 181, 373, 429.
Mission of Christ, 69 ff. ; as episode in
the history of the kingdom of God,
70.
Mommsen, Rbmische Geschichte, 171.
Monastic institutions, 391.
Montesquieu, 112.
Moral law, 14.
Morley, John, Life of Burke, 137.
Morris, Lewis, Epic of Hades, 312.
Moses ben Nachman, 432.
Mozley, Sermons, 215, 431.
Midler, Deutsche Zeitschr. fur Christ

liche Wissenschaft und Christ!.
Leben, 303.
Muller, J. P., Die Svmbolischen Bucher
der evang. luth. Kirche, 273.
NXgelsbach, Nachhomerische Theo-
logie, 178, 196.
Napoleon, 138.
JNeander, Introduction to Church
History, 299.
Neumann, 189.
Newman, F. W., Phases of Faith, 346.
Normal relations of man as an indivi
dual to God, 1 19.
Obedience unto death, Christ's, 6, 34,
54-
Odyssey, the, 194, 430.
Oehler, 144, 210; theology of O. T.,
153, 182, 188, 198 ; in Herzog's
Real-Encycl., 157, 184, 188, 196,
198, 207, 214.
Olai Wormius, 177.
Orelli, Messianic Prophecy, 154.
Organic theory of the Atonement, 54 ff.
Organic unity of the human race, 98 ff.,
101, 104, 105, 107-109, 337, 338,
400 ; Biblical recognition of, 101,
102 ; Church as embodying idea of,
104 ; compared to a tree, 106 ;
relations to God involved in, 107,
130 ; as expressed in united worship,
132 ; as witnessed to in great national
crises 1^^.
Origen, 11, 223, 385, 386, 406; Con
tra Celsum, 367 ; Comm. on Epistle
to Romans, 385 ; De Principiis, 224.
Outram, De Sacrificiis, 153, 156, 432.
Owen, 7.
Park, Dr. Edwards A., 52, 54 ;
Atonement : Discourses and 1 reatises,
279, 3I°-3I5-
Passion of Christ, 292 ff. ; nature of, 6 ;
relation to establishment of Divine
kingdom, 66 ; as the passion of man,
326ff.
Pausanias, 169, 194.
Payne, George, 52.
Penalty of Sin, Dr. C. Hodge on, 411,
414. See also Punishment.
Perichoresis, 134.
Personal theory of Atonement, 24, 26,
27 ff.
Peter Lombard, 391, 406.
Philo, 174, 181, 371.
Philo Byblius, 175.
Philosophical theories of the Atone
ment, purely, 62.
Picart, Ceremonies and Religious Cus
toms, 195, 204, 205, 206.

438

INDEX.

Plato, 202, 347, 420.
Plath, Cultus der alten Chinesen, 160,
161.
Tliny, 347.
Pliny the younger, Epistles, 366.
Plitt, Glaubenslehre, 292, 294, 301,
3<>3, 304-
Plotinus,, 224.
Polycarp, Epistle of, 382.
Porphyry, 176.
Prayer, as a laying hold of divine energy,
346 ; orthodox or Church view of,
347 ; subjective view of, 348 ; for
spiritual blessings, 351 ff. ; for divine
support and comfort, 359 ff.
Prayer and the Atonement, 342 ff.
Procopius, De Bello Gothico, 163.
Propitiation, meaning of, 31, 34 ; West-
cott's view of, 32 ; Dr. C. Hodge's,
412; Shedd's, 417.
Protestant doctrine of salvation, 339.
Punishment of sin, 14, 15, 16, 56; and
forgiveness of sin, 263.
Quenstedt, 26.
Ramsav, Roman Antiquities, 156, 174,
187, 193, 203.
Ransom, Christ's death as, 10, 405 ff.
Reconciliation of God and man, 43, 66,
9i-
Redeemer, the inner and the outer, 332.
Redepenning, Origen, 301.
Reinhard, Dogmatik, 278.
Rejection of Christ, 339.
Relations of man to God, 1 1 1 ff. ; general
considerations as to, III ; controll
able and uncontrollable, 112 ff. ; per
sonal and official, 123, 287 ; normal
and abnormal, de jure and de facto,
112, 119, 147; bodily, 119; intel
lectual, 120; affectional, 122; con
sidered as relations of an organism to
its environment, 343 ff. ; corporate or
organic relations, 107, 130 ff. ; re-
establishnient and rectification of, 92,
284.
Relation to Christ, man's consciousness
of his, 329.
Religion, as defined by Schleiermacher,
128 ; its seat in the heart, 123.
Remission of sin, see Forgiveness.
Representative, Christ as our, 7, 36,336,
337-
Representatives, action through, 134 ff.
Resentment, altruistic, 243 ; moral, 243.
See also Anger.
Reverence towards God, 124, 126.
Righteousness, eternal law of, 13 ff. ;
imputed, 341.
Ritschl, A., 61.

Robert Elsmere, 418.
Robertson, F. W., 7, 361 ; theory of
Atonement, 59 ff. ; Sermons, 60.
Roman Catholic idea of the Church,
100.
Sacrifice, as offered by God to Him
self, 360.
Sacrifice of Christ, 35 ; views taken
of, by Magee, 59 ; Robertson, 60 ;
Edward White, 42.
Sacrifices, national, 430 ; origin of, in
Israel, 150-152 ; in heathen world,
152 ; classification of, 154 ff. ; as
practised amongst Albanians, 179 ;
Arabs, 164; Babylonians, 175; Car
thaginians, 174; Celts, 176; Chinese,
186, 192, 201 ; Danes, 186 ; Egyp
tians, 173, 179, 185; Floridans, 205;
Franks, 163 ; Germans, 186, 193 ;
Greeks, 163, 164, 169, 173, 187, 193,
202 ; Hindoos, 179, 185, 193, 201,
432 ; Lapps, 186, 193 ; Lycians, 174 ;
Mexicans, 190, 194, 231, 430; Nicara-
guans, 194 ; North Americans, 203 ;
Persians, 175. 179, 185, 202 ; Peru
vians, 201 ; Phoenicians, 174, 175 ;
Romans, 155, 163, 169, 170, 173,
176, 187, 193, 203; Scythians, 164;
Swedes, 186; Suevi, 177; Teutons,
176, 180; Thracians, 164; Virginians,
204. See also Sin-Offerings.
Salvation, 90 ; Protestant doctrine of,
339-
Sartorius, 38.
Satisfaction, 21, 23, 30, 56 ; Dr. C.
Hodge on, 412.
Saviour of both individuals and the race,
Christ as, 109.
Schafferi, 177.
Schelling, 63, 98.
Schleiermacher s definition of religion,
128 ; theory of Atonement, 61 ; Glau
benslehre, 62.
Schneider, Die luther. Lehre ti. Opfer-
tode Christi, 157, 190; Christliche
Kliinge, 347.
Schbberlein, Grundlehren des Heils, 38,
233. 36r.
Schwalb, Das AHindische Thieropfer,
162, 432.
Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehre der evan-
gelisch-reformirten Kirche, 277.
Scotus Erigena, 390.
Seneca, 368.
Servant of the Lord, 298.
Seth and Haldane, Essays on Philoso
phical Criticism, no.
Shakespeare, 137.
Shedd, II ; Dogmatic Theology, 418 ;
History of Christian Doctrine, 23.

. INDEX.

439

Simcox, Edith, Natural Law, 113.
Sin, real essence of, 329 ff. ; the unpar
donable, 330 : Anselm's view of, 55 ;
Robertson's, 59 ; relation of, to incar
nation, 303.
Sin-offerings, 147 ff., 158 ff. ; material
of, 159 ; spotless character of, 172 ;
rites and ceremonies observed in pre
senting them, 178 ff. ; idea of substi
tution in, 183 ; idea of consecration,
183 ; slaying of victim, 184 ft". > blood-
sprinkling, 191 ff., 432 ; burning of
victim, 200, 432 ; imposition of hands,
178 ff. Function of sin-offerings, as
atoning, 209,213,431; as a symbolical
atonement, 213; as sacramental types,
213. See Sacrifices.
Slaughter of victims in sacrifice, 184,
429 ; meaning of, 187.
Smith, Dictionaries, 153.
Smith, Pye, 52, 113, 228: discourses,
228 ; The Sacrifice and Priesthood of
Christ, 279.
Smyth, Dr. Newman, 38 ; reality of
Faith, 39.
Solidarity of universe, 113; of human
race. See Organic Unity.
Son of God, meaning of title, I.
Son of man, 305.
Spencer, Herbert, Sociology, no, 423.
Spiritual body, the, 80.
Stahl, 52.
Strachey, Jewish History, 102.
Substitute, 7.
Suetonius, 176, 366.
Suffering, Origin of, 357.
Sufferings of Christ, 305 ff. ; nature of,
6, 7 ; Schleiermacher's view of, 61.
See also Passion of Christ, Death of
Christ, and Crucifixion of Christ.
Sylloge Confessionum, 272, 274.
Sympathy of Christ, 311.
Tacitus, 176, 177, 366, 368.
Talmud, conception of the law in,
16 ; on objective efficacy of sacri
fices, 431.
Taylor, Isaac, Physical Theory of
Future Life, 80.
Taylor, Dr. N., 52.
Tennyson, Enoch Arden, 354 ; In
Memoriam, 259 ; Locksley Hall,
104; St. Simeon Stylites, 310.
Tertullian, Apologia, 367 ; De Cultu
Fcem., 385 ; De Fuga, 385 ; Adv.
Jud., 385 ; Against Marcion, 220 ff.,
385 ; on Modesty, 269, 385 ; Ad
Nationes, 367 ; on Repentance, 267.
Theodoret, 390.
Theology as affected by the spiritual
life, 288 ff.

Theophanies, Old Testament, 298.
Theories of Atonement, acceptilation,
20, 22 ; Catholic or churchly, 8, 16
Crypto-dualistic, 9 ff. ; Governmen
tal, 16, 17, 42, 45 ff., 289 ff., 417
Governmental, New England, 27
Juridical, 30, 55 ; Moral, 6, 7, 8, 17
43, 109 ; Objective, 6, 8 ; Objectivo
dualistic, 9 ft. ; Organic or Dynamic
54 ; Personal or Godward, 16, 27 ff.
Philosophical, 62.
Also as held by Anselm, 55
Barnes, 49; Campbell, M'Leod, 38
Crawford, 19 ; Dale, 12 ff. ; Dorner
37; Gess, 36 ff. ; Gilbert, 51, 417
Hodge, A. A.,409ff.; Hodge, Dr. C.
with Criticism of, 409 ff. ; Magee
Bishop, 58 ; Maurice, 34 ; Robert
son, 59; Schleiermacher, 61 ; Smyth
Newman, 38 ; Turrettine, 17, 18
Wace, 46 ff. ; White, Edward, 40,
43 ; Young, 44.
Tholuck, Heidenthum, 299.
Thomasius, 38.
Thomson, Archbishop, Atonement,
177, 194.
Toldoth Jeshu, or Jewish History of
Jesus, 374.
Tree, organic unity of race compared
to, 106.
Trust in God, 124, 126 ff.
Tubingen, view of Epistles of Peter
and John, 377.
Turrettine, 7, 17, 18, 22, 26, 227, 277 ;
his theory of the Atonement, 17 ff. ;
De Satisfactionis Christi Necessitate,
18, 227 ; Institutio Theologiae Elenc-
ticas, 18, 278 ; De Justificatione,
278.
Unchangeableness of God. See Im
mutability ; also Dorner.
Uncontrollable relations, 112, 114 ff.
Unity of God, 100.
Universe, the, in its totality as the
kingdom of God, 75 ; evolution of,
113; solidarity of, 113.
Ursinus, 276.
Vicarious element in Christ's work,
331, 356; in God's answering of our
prayers, 360 ; Dr. C. Hodge on,
412.
Vicarious ,work of Christ, peculiar
character of, 336.
Virgil, ^Eneid, 120, 203, 421, 430;
Georgics, 170.
Wage, The Gospel and its Witnesses,
49 ; theory of Atonement, 46.
Wardlaw, Ralph, 52, 229.

440

INDEX.

Weber, Zorn Gottes, 209, 210, 223,
227, 231, 252, 255 ; System der
Altsynagogalen Theoiogie, or des
Talmud, 16, 219.
Wessel, 391.
Westcott, Commentary on the Epistles
of St. John, 29, 32.
White, Edward, theory of the Atone
ment, 40-43 ; Life in Christ, 40, 41.
Wilkinson, 173.
Wolf, F. A., 206.
Word,' the. See Logos.
Wordsworth, Ode on the Intimations
of Immortality, 334.
Worship, as expressive of man's cor

porate relations to God, 132; more
particular in ancient Israel, 142 ff.
Wullen, Life and Teaching of Jacob
Bohme, 233.
Wuttke, Geschichte d. Heidenthums,
190, 194, 201, 202.
Wyclif, 391.
Xenophanes, 258.
Young, Dr., 7,44, 282; Atonement,
279, 280 ; Life and Light of Men,
44, 45 ; theory of Atonement, 44.
Zwingli, 288.

MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

PUBLICATIONS OF
T. Sc T. C Xj .A. IR, ZEC,
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
 LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. 
Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s.
Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross : Sermons on our
Lord's Passion by Eminent Living Preachers of Germany. Cr. 8vo, price 5s.
Alexander (Prof. W. Lindsay) —System of Biblical Theology.
Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Alexander (Dr. J. A.) — Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 17s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works
of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of
Nicea. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s.
Augustine's Works— Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols.
8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s.
Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. 8vo, 21s
Bannerman (Rev. D. D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s.
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. 8vo, 27s.
Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s.
 Pastoral Theology in the New Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,
Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s.
Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s.
Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo.
Binnie (Prof.)— The Church, Is. 6d.
Brown (Principal) — The Epistle to the Romans, 2s,
Candlish (Prof.) — The Christian Sacraments, Is. 6d.
 The Work of the Holy Spirit, Is. 6d.
 Christian Doctrine of God. Is. 6d.
Davidson (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2s. 6d.
Dods (Marcus, D.D.) — Post-Exilian Prophets, 2s. Book of Genesis, 2s.
Douglas (Principal) — Book of Joshua, Is. 6d. Book of Judges, Is. 3d.
Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Irish Presbyterian Church History, 2s.
Henderson (Archibald, M.A.) — Palestine, with Maps. The maps are by
Captain Conder, R.E., of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Price 2s. 6d.
Kilpatrick (T. B. , B.D.) — Butler's Three Sermons on Human Nature. Is. 6d.
Lindsay (Prof.) — St. Mark's Gospel, 2s. 6d.
 St. Luke's Gospel, Part I., 2s. ; Part II., Is. 3d.
 The Reformation, 2s.
 The Acts of the Apostles, Two vols.. Is. 6d. each.
Macgregor (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Galatians, Is. 6d.
 Book of Exodus, Two vols., 2s. each.
Macpherson (John, M.A.) — Presbyterianism, Is. 6d.
 The Westminster Confession of Faith, 2s.
 The Sum of Saving Knowledge, Is. 6d.
Murphy (Prof.) — The Books of Chronicles, Is. 6d.
Scrymgeoue (Wm.) — Lessons on the Life of Christ, 2s. 6d.
Stalker (James, M.A.) — Life of Christ, Is. 6d. Life of St. Paul, Is. 6d.
Smith (George, LL.D.) — A Short History of Missions, 2s. 6d.
Thomson (W. D., M. A.) — Christian Miracles and Conclusions of Science. 2s.
Walker (Norman L., M.A.) — Scottish Church History, Is. 6d.
Whyte (Alexander, D.D.) — The Shorter Catechism, 2s. 6d.
Bible-Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d. In
cloth, 8d. each ; free by post, 9d.
Ceoskery (Prof.) — Joshua and the Conquest. Gives (Prof.) — The Kings of Judah.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.)— Life of Paul. Iverach (James, M.A.) — Life of Moses.
Paterson (Prof. J. A.) — Period of the Judges.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Bible-Class Primers — continued.
Robson (John, D.D.)— Outlines of Protestant Missions.
Salmond (Prof.)— Life of Peter. The Shorter Catechism, 3 Parts. Life of Christ
Skinner (J., M.A.) — Historical Connection between Old and New Testaments.
Smith (H. W., D.D.)— Outlines of Early Church History.
Thomson (P., M. A.)— Life of David. Walker (W. , M. A.)— The Kings of Israel.
Winterbotham (Rayner, M.A.) — Life and Reign of Solomon.
Witherow (Prof.)— The History of the Reformation.
Blaikie (Prof. W. 6-.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the 6th
to the 19th Century. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bowman (T., M.A.)— Easy and Complete Hebrew Course. 8vo.
Part I., 7s. 6d. ; Part II., 10s. 6d.
Briggs (Prof.) — Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods, and
History. Second Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d,
 American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Messianic Prophecy. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Brown (David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Pre-
Millennial ? Seventh Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Bruce (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting the
Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. 3rd Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Humiliation of Christ, in its Physical, Ethical, and
Official Aspects. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
 On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Bungener (Felix) — Rome and the Council in 1 9th Century. Cr. 8vo, 5s.
Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. (Translation. ) 2 vols. 8vo, 1 4s.
Calvini Institutio Christianae Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck.
Two vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 14s.
Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and
Historically Considered. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc
tion to the Life op Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Caspers (A.) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Cassel (Prof.) — Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cave (Prof.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice. 8vo, 12s.
 An Introduction to Theology : Its Principles, its Branches,
its Results, and its Literature. 8vo, 12s.
Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Apologetic
Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cotterill — PEREGRINUS PROTEUS : Clement to the Corinthians, etc. 8vo, 12s.
 Modern Criticism : Clement's Epistles to Virgins, etc. 8vo, 5s.
Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa
ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. SUPPLE
MENT, separately, 14s.
Crippen (Eev. T. Or.) — A Popular Introduction to the History
of Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s.
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Review of the
Principal Doctrinal Discussions since the Apostolic Age. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Discussions on Church Principles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Dabney (R. L., D.D.) — The Sensualistic Philosophy of the
Nineteenth Century Considered. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. With
Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. Ninth Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Delitzsch (Prof.)— A System of Biblical Psychology. 8vo, 12s.
 NewCommentaryonGenesis. Two Vols., 8vo. Vol.1.
 Commentary on Job. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Lnow ready, ios. 6d.
 ¦ Commentary on Psalms. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 On the Proverbs of Solomon. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Old Testament History of Redemption. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
 Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics. Cr. 8vo, 3s.
Ddllinger (Dr.) — Hippolytus and Callistus ; or, The Roman Church
in the Eirst Half of the Third Century. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Dorner (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.
 System of Christian Doctrine. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
 • System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s.
Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. New and Revised. Editions, Edited
by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. nett.
Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s.
Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s.
Ewald (Heinrich) — Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old
Testament. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 Revelation : Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Old and New Testament Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Fairbairn (Principal) — Typology of Scripture, viewed in connection
with the series of Divine Dispensations. Sixth Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy. 4thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ Prophecy Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special
Functions, and Proper Interpretations. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 New Testament Hermeneutical Manual. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
The Pastoral Epistles. The Greek Text and Translation.

With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 ¦ Analytical Commentary on the Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Studies in the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Frank (Prof. F. H.)— System of Christian Evidence. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its Relation
to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.) — Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. 8 vo, £2, 2s.
Gilford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Given (E«v. Prof. J. J.)— The Truths of Scripture in connection
with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 8vo, 6s.
Glasgow (Prof.)— Apocalypse Translated and Expounded.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.)— A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Messianic Prophecies. Crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
 Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Gloag(P. J..D.D.) — Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 8vo.i0s.6d,
Exegetical Studies. Crown 8vo, 5s.

-> H

Godet (Prof.) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Twovols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8vo, 3 Is. 6d.
 Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things
that are Made. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans
lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, D.D. Demy 4to, 36s.
Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the
Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d.
Hagenbach (Dr.KR.) — History of Doctrines. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 History of the Reformation. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Hall (Rev. Newman, LL.B.) — The Lord's Prayer. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants,
Occupations, and Life. Crown 8vo. (New Edition in Preparation.)
Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Harris (Rev. S., D.D.) — The Philosophical Basis of Theism. 8vo, 1 2s.
 The Self-Revelation of God. 8vo, 12s.
Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit,
Soul, and Body. Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 Old and New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church.
Vol. I., to a.d. 325 ; Vol. II., a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the
close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. 8vo, 12s. each.
Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms. 3 vols. 8vo, 33s.
 Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. Treatises on
the Song of Solomon, Job, and on Isaiah, etc. 8vo, 9s.
 The Prophecies of Ezekiel Elucidated. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Genuineness of Daniel, etc. 8vo, 12s.
 History of the Kingdom of God. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Christology of the Old Testament. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Herzog — Encyclopaedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and
Practical Theology. Based on the Real-Encylclopadie of Herzog, Plitt,
and Hauch. Edited by Prof. Schaff, D.D. In Three vols., price 24s. each.
 Encyclopaedia of Living Divines, etc., of all Denominations
in Europe and America. (Supplementto Herzog's Encyclopedia.) Imp.8vo,8s.
Hutchison (John, D.D.)— Commentary on Thessalonians. 8vo, 9s.
 Commentary on Philippians. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Janet (Paul)— Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In
stitute. Translated from the French. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s.
 The Theory of Morals. Demy 8vo, 10s. Cd.
Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.)— Commentary on First Peter. 8vo,
10s. 6d.
Jouffroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown 8vo, 6s.
 Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, B.D. Cr. 8vo, 5s.
Keil (Prof.) — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Keil (Prof.)— Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. 8vo,10s.6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Handbook of Biblical Archeology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
Killen (Prof.) — The Old Catholic Church; or, The History, Doc
trine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced to a.d. 755. 8vo, 9s.
 The IgnatianEpistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Konig (Dr. F. E.) — The Religious History of Israel. A Discussion
of the Chief Problems in Old Testament History as opposed to the
Development Theorists. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations
on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 David, the King of Israel : A Portrait drawn from Bible
History and the Book of Psalms. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
Autobiography. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Kurtz (Prof.) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. 8vo, 15s.
 History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture: A
Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 1600 pp., 24s.
Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited,
with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D. Second Edition, in Four
vols. 8vo, Subscription price 28s.
 Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited
by Philip S.chaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10
vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each.
 On St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 1 8s.
On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic
Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and DoctriDe. 2 vols. cr. 8vo, 1 6s.
Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Lichtenberger (F , D.D.)— History of German Theology in 19th
Century. 8vo, 14s.
Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his
relation to the World. Second Edition, two vols. 8vo (1450 pages), 36s.
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Luthardt (Prof.)— St. John the AuthoroftheFourth Gospel. 7s.6d.
 St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according
to its Peculiar Character. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (Sia-th
Edition), Savins (Fifth Edition), Moral Truths of Christianity (Third
Edition). Three vols, crown 8vo, 6s. each.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s.
M'Lauchlan (T., D.D., LL.D.)— The Early Scottish Church. To
the Middle of the Twelfth Century. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Mair (A., D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the
Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Ethics. (General Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ Christian Ethics. (Individual Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Ethics. (Social Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from
the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d.
Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on St.
Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Mark and Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On St. John's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 . On Ephesians and Philemon. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 - On Thessalonians. {Dr. Lunemann.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Pastoral Epistles. (Dr. Huther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Epistle to the Hebrews. {Dr. Lunemann.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 St. James' and St. John's Epistles. {Huther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Peter and Jude. {Dr. Huther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Michie (Charles, M.A.) — Bible Words and Phrases. 18mo, Is.
Monrad (Dr. D. G.) — The World of Prayer. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d.
Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d.
 Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Miiller (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely
New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s.
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s.
Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
 The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despres. Cr.8vo,4s.6d.
 Modern Physics: Studies Historical and Philosophical.
Translated by Rev. Henry Downton, M.A. Crown Svo, 5s.
Nicoll (W. R., M.A.) — The Incarnate Saviour: A Life of Jesus
Christ. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Neander (Dr.) — General History of the Christian Religion and
Church. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d.
Novalis— Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s.
Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8\o, 21s.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for
Every Day. A Book of Household Dovotion. Two vols. 8vo, 6s. each.
 Moses: A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo,. 6s.
Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and
Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown Svo, 24s.
 Romans. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Corinthians. One vol. 8vo, 9s.
 Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. Onevol.8vo, 10s. 6d.
Orelli — Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God's
Kingdom. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Isaiah. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s.
The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in Seven vols., £2, 2s. nett.
Philippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. From
the Third Improved Edition, by Rev. Professor Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip
Schaff, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical
Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.
Vol. III. — Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Hebrews to Revelation.
In Four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each.
Pressense" (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown Svo, 6s.
Piinjer (Bernhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of
Religion from the Reformation to Kant. 8vo, 16s.
Rabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopaedia of Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian
Doctrine. (The Fifth Series of the Cunningliam Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Reuscb. (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible : Lectures on the Mosaic
History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s.
Bitter (Carl) — The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the
Sinaitic Peninsula. Four vols. 8vo, 26s.
Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (Edward, D.D.) — Greek and English Lexicon of the
New Testament. 8vo, 9s.
Rothe (Prof.) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schaff (Professor) — History of the Christian Church. (New
Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged. )
 Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-1 00. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is.
 Ante-Nicene Christianity, a.d. 100-325. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is.
 Post-Nicene Christianity, a.d. 325-600. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is.
 . Medleval Christianity, a.d. 590-1073. 2 vols. Ex.8vo,2is.
(Completion of this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation.)
 Modern Christianity, a.d. 1517-1530. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, sis.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Didache

and Kindred Documents in the Original. Second Edition, ex. 8vo,
Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schiirer (Prof.) — History of the New Testament Times. Div. II.
Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.)— Principles of New Testament Quotation
Established and Applied to Bielical Criticism. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit., 4s.
Shedd— History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
— Dogmatic Theology. Two vols. Ex. Svo, 25s.

Simon (Rev. Prof. D. W.) — The Bible ; An Outgrowth of Theocratic
Life. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Simon (Rev. Prof. D. W.) — The Redemption of Man. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Smeaton (Professor) — The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught
by Christ Himself. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 8vo, 9s.
Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) — Mediaeval Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Stalker (Rev. Jas., M.A.) — The Life of Jesus Christ. New Edition,
in larger Type. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
 Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Stanton (V. H., M.A.) — The Jewish and The Christian Messiah.
A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord : Examined in
their relation to Modern Criticism. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The History of the Passion and Resurrection of our
Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables : The Predictions of the
Apocalypse in relation to the General Truths of Scripture. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty : The Mystery of Christ
and the Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, 10s.6d.
Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight
vols. 8vo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d.
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on
the Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s.
 Light from the Cross. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s.
Tophel (Pastor G.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d.
Uhlhorn(G.) — Christian Charity in the Ancient Church. Cr. Svo, 6s.
Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity.
Fourth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
Urwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary
upon Isaiah Iii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 8vo, 6s.
Vinet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland.
New Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d.
Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of
the Faith. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s.
 The Reign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific
Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Weiss(Prof.)— Biblical Theology of NewTestament. 2vols.8vo,21s.
 Life of Christ. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.
White (Rev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 4s.
Williams — Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology. Ecap. 8vo, is. 6d.
Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third
Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, 8vo, 15s.
 THEDOCTRINESANDCONFESSIONSOFCHRISTENDOM. 8vo,10s.6d.
Witherow(Prof . T. ,D. D. ) —The Form of the Christian Temple. Svo,io/6.
Workman (Prof. G. C.)— The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investi
gation of the Greek and Hebrew with the Variations in the LXX Retrans
lated into the Original, and Explained. Post Svo, 9s.
Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Wuttke (Professor)— Christian Ethics. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. 6d.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08540 2726