/ 
 
 & 
 
 *2 
 
 & 
 
 o 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 Received September., ... ...i 8 8 5 
 
 Accessions No. 2-7 *~ c & Shelf No. 
 
 SO 
 
DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 r *^ OP 1 THE ^ 
 
 r TJiriVEESIT7' 
 
 "We also joy in Gd^tl^hjih^our Lord^ree^C$|rt$|Jfby whom we have 
 now received the atoner 
 
 St. Paul, 
 
 BY HENRY SOLLY, 
 
 MINISTER OF THE ENGLISH PRESBYTERIAN CHAPEL, LANCASTER; 
 
 AUTHOR OF "GONZAGA DI CAPPONI," 
 THE DEVELOPEMENT OP RELIGIOUS LIFE IN THE MODERN CHRISTIAN 
 CHURCH," "WALTER BERNARD," ETC. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 E. T. WHITFIELD, 178, STRAND, 
 
 LANCASTER: 
 
 JOHN RICHARDSON, NEW STREET. 
 18G1. 
 

 ■$.??*% 
 
TO 
 
 ONE THROUGH WHOM THE WISE RECEIVE INCREASE OP WISDOM, 
 
 AND THE TEACHERS ARE TAUGHT ; 
 
 BY WHOM LONELY SEEKERS AFTER TRUTH ARE ENCOURAGED ; 
 
 AND THOSE WHO LABOUR, HOWEVER HUMBLY, IN AN EARNEST YET 
 
 CATHOLIC SPIRIT, POR ITS DIFFUSION 
 
 ARE WELCOMED AND UPHELD, 
 
 TO ALEXANDER JOHN SCOTT, A.M., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF MENTAL ANDTHORAL PHILOSOPHY IN OWENS COLLEGE, 
 
 MANCHESTER, 
 
 THIS ESSAY IS INSCRIBED, 
 
 WITH SINCERE RESPECT AND REGARD, 
 
 BY HIS OBLIGED FRIEND, 
 
 THE AUTHOK. 
 
>>" C)9 THE 
 
 ffUIVERSITY 
 
 TO A. J. SCOTT, ESQ., A.M. 
 
 My Dear Mb. Scott, 
 
 I asked leave to connect this Essay with your name, 
 partly that I might thus have the opportunity of expressing- my 
 sense of the value of the services you have long been rendering to 
 thinkers and speakers, and my gratitude to you for the benefit and 
 kindness I have individually received from you ; partly because I 
 feel so profound a respect for the position you have long held in 
 the Church of our common Lord. You left that section of it in 
 which you had been reared, and the ministry to which you were 
 consecrated, remaining to this day in comparative isolation and 
 ministerial inaction, because there were principles which you 
 valued more highly than church-fellowship or clerical usefulness, 
 while no one, I believe, desires both more ardently than yourself. 
 For the coldness, the pride, or the unbrotherly spirit, which, 
 whether in a sect or an individual, rejoices in separation, and 
 delights in opposition, we can feel little respect and less sympathy. 
 But, I think, it is by waiting and working in perfect freedom, as 
 you are doing, for the growth of that higher unity of the spirit, in 
 which alone forms and " ministrations " can really harmonise with 
 the kingdom of Christ, that we shall obtain the true ground for 
 Church organisation and permanent Christian union. I believe 
 you have felt that you could find this freedom at present only by 
 standing outside of all sects, and aloof from all ecclesiastical orga- 
 nisations, at the cost of how great sorrow to yourself few, perhaps* 
 can estimate. Whether you have judged correctly as to the 
 necessity for this course, it is not for me to presume to determine. 
 But to the principle to which you have thus been faithful, I desire 
 to express my unqualified allegiance; and for the faithfulness 
 itself which you have manifested, I may be permitted to offer this 
 humble tribute of admiration and respect. 
 
 That principle, I apprehend, is the supreme headship of Christ 
 in his own Church, from which results the independence of 
 that Church of all civil government and political combination* 
 
VI. 
 
 (except in the sense of the individuals composing it being mem- 
 bers also of a civil community), and the duty of not imposing the 
 yoke of any theological authority, whether personal, sacramental, 
 or creedal, whether in the shape of bishop, pope, creed or articles, 
 upon the neck of Christian disciples. To his own master each 
 stands or falls. 
 
 Now, there is[one section of the Christian Church in this country 
 which for 300 years has borne testimony (variably, imperfectly, 
 sometimes even being grossly unfaithful to its high calling, but 
 still more thoroughly, on the whole, than any other sect of which 
 I know*) to the divine Word in the human soul which bids it 
 resist the imposition of that yoke at whatever cost, and in whatever 
 form. During the last two centuries it has wholly abjured the 
 bigotry, and as thoroughly retained the Protestant zeal, courage, 
 and freedom-loving spirit of its Puritan founders. I had the hap- 
 piness of being born and reared in that denomination. I cannot 
 help thinking that, had it been so fortunate as to have numbered 
 you among its children, you would not now be isolated and unable 
 to occupy a Christian pulpit. I know it has for a season been 
 misled into a course which appears to me one of, at least, partial 
 unfaithfulness to its great hereditary principles and trusts, by allow- 
 ing a doctrinal name (which is a creed) to be fixed upon it. But 
 I cannot doubt it is sound at heart, and will, ere long, recover its 
 true position — one in which it can offer to men like yourself a 
 fitting sphere and legitimate home. 
 
 It is possible, I admit, that, on the other hand, it may wander 
 still further in a mistaken path, till it becomes hopelessly bound 
 
 * The Independents, whose " piety, wisdom, and valour " can only be 
 spoken of in the highest terms, at the time of the Westminster Assembly 
 and especially during the Commonwealth, " in general appreciation of the 
 principles of religious liberty, were far in advance of the Presbyterians. "f 
 And at the present day they are considerably more zealous in labouring to 
 procure the complete liberation of religion from State interference. But, 
 On the other haDd, since the days of Owen, they have manifested far less 
 reverence for the rights of conscience in theological matters, and have too 
 often established or bent to spiritual tyranny within their own borders, or in 
 Stealing with heretics outside their pale. 
 
 f " Our English Presbyterian Forefathers," p. 13. 
 
TU. 
 
 in a narrow creedal slavery, shutting its eyes to every ray of light 
 that may not shine from its own reflector, except those, perhaps, 
 glancing from some ignis fatui by which it may be finally lured to 
 destruction. But if the English Presbyterian denomination is 
 thus given over to an ignominious end, assuredly it will be 
 through making its bond of union belief in a Doctrine 
 instead of loyalty to a Person. The principles and position 
 which they so nobly vindicated for themselves and for us their 
 children during the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the 
 eighteenth centuries — viz., the Sufficiency of the Scriptures and 
 the Right of Private Judgment, naturally and happily tended to 
 bring us to union in our common allegiance and affection to the 
 Saviour, while, at the same time, we may each, in amicable charity 
 and mutual forbearance, form, hold, or change our different opinions 
 on the various doctrines which divide the Christian world. 
 Whether this beneficent and beautiful consummation be ultimately 
 attained by English Presbyterians, or whether they will barter the 
 noblest inheritance ever received by any denomination, — the 
 honoured memories of Puritan martyrdoms, and Salter's Hall con- 
 troversies, of the Long Parliament, "Naseby fight," and St. 
 Bartholomew's Day, — or surrender the principles as much nobler 
 than even those memories as the ideal ever soars above the actual — 
 in exchange for a struggle to win the triumph of a doctrine which 
 would be secured far sooner by a return to their rightful name and 
 true position — this will probably be determined during the next 
 twenty or thirty years. A gentleman whose services have been 
 and would be no ordinary blessing to any Church in which he 
 laboured, and whom I am glad to have this opportunity of thank- 
 ing for very valuable suggestions given me while my work was in 
 progress,* has recently retired, as you are aware, from pulpit 
 ministrations among us, under circumstances which necessarily 
 give rise to some anxiety with regard to the future ofrour denomi- 
 nation — whether permanently or not is a question whose answer 
 is, perhaps, somewhat closely linked with the far larger and more 
 important problem of our ecclesiastical destiny. The Great Ruler 
 of the Churches will ere very long show us if our candlestick is to 
 
 * The Rev. Joseph Henry Hutton, B.A., late of Manchester. 
 
be removed out of its place, and our tabernacle given to a worthier 
 Church, or whether we may yet "strengthen the things that 
 remain," and burn with brighter lustre than ever to the glory of 
 the Lord. But in the meantime, how intensely interesting it is 
 to observe the movement going on in another section of the 
 Christian Church in this island, precisely in the opposite direction. 
 The Established Church, so long bound by rigid fetters, is shaken 
 to its centre by the irrepressible desires for a wider theology and a 
 more Catholic organisation which are now agitating the breasts of 
 many of her noblest sons. We cannot wonder at this. There has been 
 a blessed developement of piety and Christian zeal in that Establish- 
 ment during the last thirty years; and in proportion as men become 
 more earnest and devout Christians, they must feel the profound 
 truth of what I once heard her greatest theologian remark: — 
 u The Church has erred in nothing more than in substituting faith 
 in a proposition for faith in a Person." Yet, surely, the Church 
 of England, since the passing of the Act of Uniformity in 168 2 
 has been in a false and mischievous position. Its band of 
 union has been faith, not in " a " proposition (like the English 
 Presbyterians under their fatal mask of Unitarianism), but in 
 thirty-nine propositions, besides " unfeigned assent and consent " 
 to everything contained in their Book of Common Prayer.* 
 
 Yet the men whom we so deeply honour as leaders of this 
 " Broad Church " movement, remain as clergymen in the Esta- 
 blishment, without combining to make one great and final effort 
 before quitting it, to obtain the repeal of that most unhappy Act of 
 Uniformity, which, on August 24th, 1662, ejected 2,000 of the 
 worthiest of their predecessors, and our ancestors, adrift on the 
 world to starve. I may be pardoned for expressing my wonder 
 and grief at this spectacle, because it is no less marvellous and 
 sorrowful to you. In proportion as we love and honour these men 
 for their gre&t services and admirable qualities, — the more I indi- 
 
 *For the mischievous and tyrannical meaning of this declaration, with a 
 view of the light in which it was regarded by the ejected clergymen, see the 
 Life of Clarendon, vol. ii., p. 290 ; Calamy's Life of Baxter, p. 504 ; Non- 
 conformists Memorial, vol. ii., &c. See an able lecture on "The Church 
 and Nonconformists of 1662," by the Rev. D. Mountfield, M.A., incumbent 
 of Oxon, Salop. London : Kent and Co., 1861. 
 
vidually feel them raised morally and intellectually far above my- 
 self, — the greater must be our perplexity and regret. Perhaps no 
 higher tribute to their personal character can be given, than by 
 the fact that those of us who most deplore and least comprehend 
 their position, confess our unshaken belief in, and deep respect for, 
 their honesty and conscientious convictions. 
 
 Yet is it not an example we desire to follow, nor to see our 
 children imitate. It is a temptation from which we would work 
 and pray to shield them. 
 
 All these various movements in the theological and ecclesiastical 
 world deepen an earnest longing to behold the Act of Uniformity 
 repealed, and the English Church restored to its original and 
 rightful status, so that those who remain in the Establishment 
 may have Christian liberty in an Episcopal Church, and those who 
 leave either that or any other Church in obedience to conscience, 
 may have a fitting sphere, a friendly welcome, and a loving home, 
 in that Free Christian Church which seceded from the Establish- 
 ment in the days of Elizabeth, and was ejected from it in the 
 reign of Charles II. 
 
 Forgive this disquisition. In offering to the public views on 
 some points at variance with those held by many of my brethren, 
 I wished to remind you and the public of what I remember was 
 once a new and interesting fact to you — viz., that an essential 
 principle of our denomination is, and for 200 years has been, the 
 most thorough Christian liberty, restricted only by that necessity 
 which must always exist for a certain amount of harmony of 
 thought between a minister and his people. I also wanted to 
 contrast this freedom with the condition of those clergymen in the 
 Establishment to whom theology owes so much, but Christian 
 freedom — and, as it seems to us, Christian consistency, — so little. 
 There is not one of them probably but has made great sacrifices, 
 some of them the greatest they could make in their Church ; yet 
 not one of them, I fear, is prepared to do what their predecessors 
 did when the Act of Uniformity was passed, and leave that 
 Church if it be not repealed. 
 
 There is, however, one among those clergymen towards whom I 
 feel a regard and gratitude for which spoken and still more printed 
 words would be as unfitting as inadequate exponents, — one for 
 
whom you also have long felt no ordinary affection and respect, 
 and of whom thousands of Englishmen, workers with head or 
 hand, at this hour would write, if they wrote at all, as I have now 
 written. I feel Mr. Maurice to be my greatest spiritual bene- 
 factor on earth ; and in publishing an Essay, which is little more 
 than a collection and arrangement of other men's thoughts, I wish 
 to express gratitude to him as deep as one human being can offer 
 another. For there is none like that which we feel towards those 
 who confer spiritual blessings upon us, nor for blessings so great 
 as those which many of us feel we owe to him. And when the 
 coldness or hostility of those who should most delight to honour 
 and love him weighs upon his heart, in the darker hours which 
 come to all, it may sometimes be a satisfaction to him to know the 
 blessed work he has been privileged to do among humble and 
 heretical labourers whom, perhaps, he may have little expected to 
 reach. 
 
 But I wanted also to say all this to you, instead of to him- 
 self, not merely because it is easier to say such things of a man 
 than to him, but because you justify my estimate both of him- 
 self and of his position by your own. Reverence for the principle 
 above referred to, and for the memory of those great men who 
 made English Presbyterianism a protest so glorious, though, of 
 course, imperfect, in behalf of the rights of conscience and the 
 supreme headship of Christ, appear to me, however mistaken I 
 may be, to prevent my sympathising with the course he feels 
 bound to pursue. No such painful sense of inconsistency and 
 opposition alloys the sense of obligation for spiritual benefits 
 received from you. Moreover, I can do you no harm by using the 
 privilege of connecting any production of mine with your name 
 (except the reflection on your judgment implied in permitting the 
 liberty) ; but it would not be so in his case, for as he says in 
 dedicating to you his treatise on the Mediaeval Philosophy, I know 
 " from some painful experience that I may do injury to the reputa- 
 tion of a friend by associating my name with his." But, however 
 that may be, I know also how much more he would value these 
 frank statements of differences from his conscientious convictions, 
 than any amount of insincere acquiescence or unqualified (and, 
 therefore, insincere) homage. It is not meant that we should 
 
XI. 
 
 always understand one another's position and conscience. The 
 difficulty will, of course, be greater in proportion to the magnitude 
 of the questions at stake. 
 
 Allow me to say a word in excuse .of the presumption manifested 
 in adding another to the long list of works on the Atonement. I 
 know that mine is very imperfect, not merely from the* author's 
 want of ability and strength, but also for want of time to give 
 continuous and concentrated attention alike to its composition and 
 revision. At the best it is simply a contribution towards a work 
 to be executed by some one more fully and happily endowed. But 
 the welfare of men is promoted, not merely by the giant strides 
 and herculean labours of genius, but also by the patient creeping, 
 step by step, of their humbler brethren. And these latter are 
 sometimes necessary to fill up gaps left by greater men. One feels 
 ashamed to be offering you printed publications, nay, to be publish- 
 ing at all, while a fatal fastidiousness and too lofty ideal prevents 
 you from doing so, whence, unhappily, instead of sowing continents 
 with your thoughts, you can but stock a few fields here and there. 
 Society may too late discover its loss in this respect. But, in the 
 meantime, such silences seem to require or permit the babble of 
 lesser minds, and you must take the consequence. 
 
 Years ago I endeavoured to write in dramatic form that seventh 
 chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (not caring then much about 
 the original chapter), which most of us write dramatically enough, 
 in one form or other, at least once in our lives, with more or less 
 of sorrowful catastrophe. In publishing it, I said I had since 
 learnt, with deep thankfulness, to spell out that gospel which the 
 Apostle next proceeds to celebrate, whereby "man's distracted 
 and divided condition " is reconciled, and he is set at one with 
 his Maker. Then I could not rest till I had tried to write of the 
 mode of deliverance, as well as the way of death, in hopes that, 
 perhaps, some sad "spirits in prison " might be led thereby to 
 turn to the Great Deliverer, and be freed ; in hopes, still more, 
 that some might be saved thereby from entering the prison-house, 
 and abide in the Saviour from the firjst. It seemed to me that, 
 after all which has been done, a great want, at the present day, is 
 a«ch a connected view of " the words of this life " as may meet 
 
xu. 
 
 the needs of young people awakening to questions of deepest im- 
 portance, the requirements of teachers of senior scholars in our 
 Sunday-schools, and of parents and tutors, as well as of seekers 
 after truth torn adrift from their early moorings. Hence there are 
 some parts of the Essay which could have been dispensed with by 
 one person, and other portions by another. " Why introduce 
 this?" and "Why not have left out that?" will be questions, 
 perhaps, recurring often to some readers, while my purpose could 
 not have been otherwise accomplished. Connected views, indeed, 
 of u the scheme of redemption," as it is termed, abound. But it 
 is because I believe in the infinite worth and obligation of the 
 first and great commandment, that I have thought no effort should 
 be spared to establish in their place the " scheme " which I advo- 
 cate in the following pages. Many years ago I was drawn into a 
 public discussion with an intelligent and pious Wesleyan local 
 preacher. The terms in which he worded the question for con- 
 troversy were these : " Whether the blood of Christ is the all- 
 sufficient consideration in consequence of which the. wrath of God is 
 turned away from guilty man when he repents and believes in the 
 efficacy of that consideration?" I saw that this is the belief in 
 which hundreds of thousands of Englishmen live and pray. 1 had 
 studied Wardlaw before. I have read the latest utterance of the 
 same school since. And years have only deepened the intensity 
 of my desire to help to replace this belief by one more Scriptural 
 and devout. 
 
 But it is not only from these quarters that a demand arises for 
 this higher faith. Without rational and consistent interpretations 
 of Scripture, men of education will lose their interest in its teach- 
 ings, and flee to another gospel more in harmony, as they conceive, 
 with their nobler instincts. I cannot help thinking, even from some 
 extracts which I have just seen from the second edition of Mr. 
 Jowett's " Essay on the Atonement," that endeavours to unfold, 
 however feebly, the views contained in this Essay were never more 
 urgently needed than at the present day, lest the revelations God 
 has given us in the Bible lose their hold even upon devout and 
 thoughtful minds of the highest order. Yet if the Bible be a gift 
 from God, though bestowed like many other gifts, — coal, iron, 
 steam, the broad earth itself, — in a state requiring human 
 
Xlll. 
 
 labour to make it fully available and perfect, its declarations 
 and lessons will surely all be found in harmony with reason 
 and conscience the more these are enlightened, — with every 
 advance of thought and piety in spirit and form. To you, of all 
 men, I may venture to say this, — and to those whose privilege 
 it has been to listen to your free lectures in Owens College. 
 But the agitation arising from the "Essays and Reviews," 
 as well as their publication, is a great fact. It reminds us of 
 another truth which I know you will greet with a welcome, 
 especially necessary to be enforced at the present day, and on the 
 threshold of a theological Essay — viz., that we need those who a 
 differ from us, and cannot do without our opponents. No one 
 having obtained absolute truth, but each earnest seeker possessing 
 some portion of it, one supplements the other. Yet greater 
 fulness of truth is to be obtained, not by weak or cowardly 
 attempts at compromise, meeting half-way with insincere show 
 of agreement, but by each seeking the more distant point in which 
 the lines of their respective thoughts when fairly produced will 
 inevitably meet. That point is the centre of a circle where he 
 dwells who is the Divine Word of truth, "the Truth" and "the 
 Life," waiting for his disciples to join him there as they advance 
 along the various radii which lead to this common centre, filling 
 them with his spirit as they will receive it, drawing and helping 
 them thither. And thus, if faithful to the end, we shall one day 
 coincide in our views, even with those who now appear diametrically 
 opposed to us, and as we draw nearer to Christ we shall find we 
 approach one another. 
 
 I have only to add that the reason for an omission, which, 
 looking merely at the table of contents, might surprise some 
 readers — viz., of a special chapter on " Salvation," is that the 
 whole work aims to set forth God's mode of granting salva- 
 tion to His children. The meaning which, I think, should be 
 attached to that significant word, will be apparent from the first, 
 I have also omitted the separate chapter on " Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper," announced in my prospectus, from fear that the 
 book had already reached all reasonable limits, and from having 
 made several incidental references to those ordinances in connec- 
 
XIV. 
 
 tion with the facts and truths which they symbolise. I have also 
 introduced a few passages in the first and eleventh chapters, from 
 a former work, of a more practical character than the present, on 
 the same subject, and by the suggestive criticisms on which, in the 
 "Prospective Review" for November 1847, I have endeavoured 
 to profit in the present undertaking. 
 
 And now, my dear Mr. Scott, with sincerest wishes that my 
 present offering were more worth your acceptance, allow me to 
 subscribe myself, 
 
 Your obliged friend, 
 
 HENRY SOLLY. 
 
 Lancaster, May 3rd, 1861. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 TAGE 
 
 i. God ; i 
 
 II. The Son of God 12 
 
 III. Scripture 24 
 
 IV. The Holy Spirit 71 
 
 V. The Christian Trinity 75 
 
 VI. Mankind : 86 
 
 VII. The Means of Atonement 99 
 
 VIII. The Light of the World 104 
 
 IX. Sacrifice 124 
 
 X. Sin 132 
 
 XL The Manifestation of the Son of God 146 
 
 XII. The Kingdom of God 155 
 
 XIII. Christ the Mediator 163 
 
 XIV. Christ our Eighteousness and our Life 1 69 
 
 XV. The Eeason of the Sufferings cf Christ l»04 
 
 XVI. The Nature and Conditions of Divine Forgiveness 244 
 
 XVII. Christ our Propitiation 2X> 
 
 XVIII. The Sin, Burnt, and Peace Offerings of the Jews— The 
 
 Blood of Christ 263 
 
 XIX. The Authority and Influence of the Saviour since "he 
 
 entered into his Glory " 290 
 
 Conclusion 343 
 
CHAP. I.— GOD. 
 
 Aiie name used to denote a Being 01 perrect guuuueca, 
 absolute wisdom, supreme power — a Being who is the original 
 and only source of these qualities, who is the Origin and 
 Sovereign Euler of all things and beings — a Being who is light, 
 and love, and holiness, and truth — a Being who is Himself un- 
 originated, existing from eternity ; whose will is good, and good 
 only ; who freely chooses, and invariably wills all that is good, 
 beautiful, and true, and that alone. 
 
 Since, then, this Being is at once infinitely wise and perfectly 
 good, the fulfilment of His will and purposes must be the right 
 and best result for every created thing and being to accomplish. 
 Those purposes and that will appear to be fulfilled, and God, 
 therefore, to be glorified, in proportion as every creature attains 
 the highest perfection which it is capable of reaching. Our first 
 inquiry, then, is, "In what does perfection consist?" 
 
 Now, we may find an answer either in an a priori probability, 
 or by reasoning from what we know and believe concerning the 
 universe and its inhabitants ; or, finally, by seeking for a direct 
 revelation from God. Let us begin with the former course, and 
 accept as true the grand old Platonic thought — the ideal of God 
 is the perfection of everything. There is an antecedent proba- 
 bility that, before the Almighty created anything, He must have 
 had an idea of it such as He desired it should become. This 
 idea, so long as it was unembodied in creation, would be the 
 ideal perfection of the thing in question. And thus we must con- 
 ceive of the whole creation as being present to His view, perfect 
 and complete, before Pie embodied that ideal universe in actual 
 reality. 
 
But, since this universe was composed, not of one but of many 
 things, their perfection would consist not merely in their corre- 
 sponding in themselves to His primary thought, but also in 
 their occupying that relation to each other which they held in 
 God's original scheme. In that ideal vision there must un- 
 doubtedly have been one particular place, sphere, or condition, 
 for every thing and being, in which it would be in harmony with 
 all the rest, provided all were occupying their respective spheres 
 at the same time. This follows necessarily from supposing that 
 the idea of the universe, as God conceived it before creation, 
 must have been that of a perfectly harmonious universe — that 
 all the conceptions of the Deity must be in harmony with one 
 another. Every created existence, then, approaches or attains 
 perfection in proportion as it realises in itself God's ideal, and 
 occupies that position in which it is in complete harmony with 
 everything else. 
 
 Following the second course indicated above, and reasoning 
 from what we behold and learn concerning the universe and its 
 inhabitants, we observe that almost all things' appear capable of 
 improvement, in one way or other, up to a certain point, and in 
 some cases capable of indefinite progress. This improvement 
 consists sometimes in increase of size or power, sometimes in 
 developement of beauty. There is also the improvement of an 
 individual and of a species. Then, again, there is mental, 
 moral, and spiritual progress; and we may say that every thing 
 and being has attained its perfection when it has been improved 
 to the utmost limit it is capable of reaching. But, amid all the 
 bewildering variety of tests of perfection which would thus be 
 forced upon us, we perceive this general principle — that every- 
 thing is improved and approaches perfection in proportion as all 
 its powers and faculties, of whatever kind, are most fully and 
 harmoniously developed — as its nature, whatever that may be, 
 is most completely expanded — when, in short, it is and does the 
 utmost that it is capable of being and doing. 
 
3 
 
 But in this view of the subject, as in the other, we must re- 
 member that nothing is entirely isolated in the universe, that 
 everything holds innumerable relations with other existences, 
 and has its own peculiar sphere of being. If it leaves that and 
 intrudes upon another, it so far impedes the developement and 
 limits the improvement of some other existence. But it also 
 checks its own, because its growth depends upon its having a 
 suitable environment ; and if it leaves its own rightful sphere 
 and occupies some other, it must of course be less suitably sur- 
 rounded. Therefore it must not only be fully developed in 
 itself, but must occupy that place in the universe where it is 
 in harmony with all the rest of creation — not intruding, not 
 invaded. 
 
 But few things and no beings, as far as our knowledge 
 extends, are at once created perfect, or placed immediately in 
 their ideal spheres. All have to grow or struggle towards 
 their perfection with more or less rapidity and success. Thus 
 while the idea of a tree probably existed in the divine mind long 
 ■before it appeared in all the elegance and majesty of its form 
 and verdure (speaking, of course, which we must continually do, 
 as if the laws of time were valid for God), it does not at once 
 arrive at that completeness of existence. Various particles of 
 earth, air, water, are gradually united to the young shoot, until 
 the beautiful whole is perfected. It has gained its perfection 
 when it is a complete embodiment of the idea, and of all the 
 connected relations, existing in the divine mind, — or, in other 
 words, when it has attained its utmost limit of improvement. 
 Even so is it with all other things, obeying the laws of their 
 nature, whether animate or inanimate, rational or animal. 
 
 It may next be remarked that in reflecting upon the various 
 persons or things which fill the universe in which we are placed, 
 we perceive certain differences and divisions between them 
 whereby they are separated and distinguished from one another. 
 When the Deity creates any being or thing, it becomes an 
 
individual existence in consequence of this separation from 
 everything else. It may, therefore, be laid down as a self- 
 evident truth for the next step in this inquiry, that separate 
 individuality is the condition of existence. 
 
 But the second act of creation, that whereby order, harmony, 
 light, and life are produced out of chaos, is a process of uniting, 
 an act of union,* a making one what before was two, or many. 
 Chaos was a state in which all elements and materials were 
 lying in disorder, uncombined, forming nothing, merely existing, 
 each independent of, unconnected with, the rest. The magni- 
 ficent series of operations, styled pre-eminently creation by the 
 aacred writers, appear to have consisted in combining and 
 uniting the various individual parts to form suitable wholes. 
 The different atoms of matter were arranged by attraction and 
 repulsion to form a planet composed of earth, air, and ocean, 
 even as various planets, with their central sun, were united to 
 form one solar system; while suitable gases combined to form 
 the atmosphere and the waters of the great deep. 
 
 In like manner the rocks, minerals, and metals of the earth 
 were gradually created by harmonious combination of separated 
 particles in definite proportions. Then arose the beautiful 
 phenomena of the vegetable kingdom. The tree and flower 
 grow into existence by the union of various atoms of the earth, 
 air, and waters, in one complicated fabric. Even so in the 
 animal kingdom. But we find that all things or creatures 
 possessing life, whether vegetable or animal, are endowed with a 
 mysterious power of effecting this union of particles of matter 
 with themselves for the purpose of continuing their own 
 existence, called the power of assimilation. And the phy- 
 siologist explains how the whole process of supporting both 
 vegetable and animal existence is a series of acts of union, a 
 process of uniting different atoms of matter to make one 
 
 * Union, " Unus" — one. 
 
harmonious whole. Next we find that these original atoms are 
 frequently combined in a succession of higher and higher forms. 
 Thus they first combine, perhaps, with a gas, the compound so 
 formed unites with a blade of grass, the grass is incorporated 
 with the body of an animal, and the flesh of the animal assi- 
 milated, finally, with that of man. 
 
 A precisely analogous process goes forward in the creation 
 and continuance of man's spiritual life. All thought, reasoning, 
 imagination, are acts of uniting various sensations and ideas into 
 single ideas or conceptions ; these again are combined into a 
 higher and wider conception, and so on through all the infinite 
 number of processes of Education by which we learn and 
 know, reason, imagine, and reflect. 
 
 Thus, then, we observe, that Union is the grand primary law 
 of progress, as Individuality is of existence, that the making one 
 what before was two or many, is the great principle by which 
 the Deity has ordained that all things shall advance to their 
 perfection. 
 
 These brief glances at general truths conduct us to the leading 
 idea, which may be found to offer a key both to the condition 
 of Humanity, and the plan of human salvation, — namely, that 
 the progress of man from sin and death to holiness and perfec- 
 tion, must be a series of acts of union, a making one what before 
 was two, acts producing Unity in the highest and strictest sense 
 of the term. 
 
 But to whom or to what must man be united ? With whom 
 or with what must he be made at one ? 
 
 To answer this question, we must consider the independent, 
 isolated, condition in which everything first commenced its 
 existence. The various things and beings brought into existence, 
 are all under various laws, one of the most important being that 
 which leads them, if they are inanimate, to continue in the state 
 whether of motion or rest in which they are placed by the so- 
 
6 
 
 called forces or laws of nature, — in other words, to occupy that 
 position in space which the Divine Will determines at any 
 given time. And again, if they possess life, we find them under 
 a law which impels them to grow towards their perfection by the 
 processes of union and assimilation referred to above. Now, all 
 this struggling and striving on the part of each to maintain its 
 own sphere, or to advance beyond it, necessarily causes strife. 
 For it is evident that in a world like this, where every portion 
 of space is crowded with life and active elements, if things are 
 not in their own place, they will be occupying some sphere for 
 which they are not perfectly adapted, belonging to some other 
 existence ; so that order and harmony will not be found, or must 
 inevitably be disturbed, so long as, unable to rest in positions 
 not intended for them, these various things and beings are 
 groping to find their right place and struggling to dislodge their 
 neighbours. The trees of a young forest grow harmoniously 
 together while only a little above the ground, but not being in- 
 tended to remain in that position, they obey the law of their 
 being, which bids them grow in every direction, and thereby 
 brings them into collision with one another. The vapours and 
 electric fluid of a particular region, acted on by other elements 
 and forces, gather in large accumulations, violently strive for 
 expansion, and in seeking to gain those positions for which the 
 Creator designed them, vehement commotions ensue. Human 
 beings destined to emerge from the childish or savage state of 
 primary nature, grope, struggle, and fight through many 
 thousand years of strife, seeking to attain that condition of har- 
 mony and perfection for which they feel themselves adapted. 
 After a certain time the forest trees no longer interfere with one 
 another's developement ; their growth is stopped. They have 
 attained that position as a forest which the Deity intended. 
 The storm passes away, having accomplished its brief destiny 
 also. The human race — what shall be declared of them? 
 That their course must be measured by ages, and that then 
 
they likewise will be found to be making progress towards iiie 
 final consummation of their destiny, — order, harmony, perfection. 
 
 Thus we learn to regard strife as the indication of growth — 
 progress, more or less rapid, towards perfection ; discord as the 
 fiery baptism of peace ; and evil often as uncompleted good. 
 
 Not that harmony necessarily follows discord, or that evil is 
 invariably developed into good. But since nothing is created 
 perfect at first — since neither individuals, groups, nor systems. 
 realise (rod's ideal at their first creation, either in themselves, or 
 by occupying exactly those perfect relations to one another in 
 which complete harmony would reign among them, there will 
 necessarily be strife and evil until they have ail gained their 
 appropriate and destined sphere ; that strife, in fact, resulting 
 from their very efforts to gain it. Whether all or part have 
 gained, do, or will gain such a position, is altogether another 
 question, to be discussed, so far as Humanity is concerned, in 
 subsequent chapters. 
 
 Behold that unsightly pile. What an offence to one's taste, 
 what an obstruction to one's path, what a heap of confusion, 
 what disorderly and conflicting masses of human beings. 
 Patience! It will be the noblest building in the land when 
 finished. The scaffolding removed, the heaps of brick and 
 mortar absorbed, the cart-ruts levelled, the broad path paved, — 
 we should not recognise the spot. Previous disorder was but 
 the preliminary stage through which the work had to pass to 
 perfection, like all other undertakings. But even during that 
 tumultuous period, when apparently confused groups of men 
 hurried hither and thither, crossing, mingling, involved in laby- 
 rinths of materials, — to the eye of the architect all were 
 helping to realise his ideal. Even the disorderly heaps of 
 materials were in their right places there for the time being. 
 Everywhere he beheld harmonious activity pressing forward on 
 plans of regulated adaptation towards the destined end. In this 
 case there is no strife of opposing elements — simply union of 
 
8 
 
 forces and materials, blending into one, one magnificent whole, 
 what was before multitudinous and apart. 
 
 But there is another word also signifying, in its true and 
 original sense, " to make one" what was before divided, much 
 used by our greatest writers in former days, much perverted by 
 dogmatic divines in more recent days, — a word of high and 
 noble importance which we cannot afford to have degraded to a 
 totally different meaning. I mean the word "Atonement."* 
 
 To at-one, to set at one,t to make at-onement, signifies more 
 than simply to unite. Atonement is a far greater work than 
 that of union, when this last refers to unintelligent objects. It 
 means a union after strife, a reconciliation of opposing parties 
 and hostile forces ; a work as much higher than the mere union 
 of matter or the combination of thoughts, as beings endowed 
 with free will to choose and strive are superior to the beasts of 
 the field. Atonement signifies the bringing previously hostile 
 or divided wills into loving harmony and unity of purpose, — 
 bringing those who before were in relations to each other 
 unfavourable to growth and happiness, opposed to the rule of 
 right and righteousness, into the relative positions intended by 
 the Creator. 
 
 If we cast our eyes over the history of various epochs in the 
 life of the human race, especially that of the dark and middle 
 ages of modern Europe, we see at first little but discord and 
 strife. After a while, however, progress — carried forward to a 
 great extent through the temporary or permanent union and 
 harmonising reconciliation of opposite or warring wills — is as 
 clearly discernible as in the architectural combination just 
 referred to. But in the human developement we discern the 
 higher process of atonement, the reconciliation of enemies 
 through the renunciation of self-will, — union produced by more 
 or less of self-denial, self-sacrifice, and self-control. Especially 
 
 * See Trench on the Study of Words ; also, Appendix A. 
 + Acts vii., 26. 
 
9 
 
 this is true with regard to man's surrender of self-will to the 
 Divine will. 
 
 There is, however, one other condition of union which is the 
 highest of all, and which transcends the other two just men- 
 tioned as immeasurably in the blessedness of its results as in 
 the divinity of its nature, — that union, namely, which is a union 
 and harmony of will without previous discord. It is a oneness 
 of purpose, action, feeling, will, arising from the common posses- 
 sion of the spirit of unity, the spirit of God, where self- surrender 
 is only potential, not actual, because there is no opposition, no 
 difference. The grand developements of civilisation, the mighty 
 movements of humanity, originating in or consummated by this 
 common sympathy, and primal consentaneity of purpose, are not 
 to be described, therefore, as the result of atonement; but they 
 are the true offspring, nevertheless, of the law of progress, as 
 ordained and inspired by the one divine and perfect God. 
 
 Progressive developement, then, towards that state which the 
 Almighty Creator destined as its final end — gradual realisation, 
 amid much imperfection and strife, of that perfect ideal which 
 exists in the mind of Deity respecting everything and being 
 which He has willed into existence — by the union and atone- 
 ment of various and often opposing objects, is the law of 
 the universe. 
 
 But are we, then, to conclude that the mere fact of union 
 causes progress ? That any combination, however indiscrimi- 
 nate, effects developement? Certainly not. Some processes of 
 union cause corruption and death instead of growth and life. 
 For instance, the various stages of fermentation in the vegetable, 
 and putrefaction in the animal world. The inhalation of a poi- 
 sonous atmosphere by plants or animals, the introduction of 
 hostile troops under the garb of friendly alliance into a peaceful 
 state, may serve to remind us that the work of selection is 
 required. Plants and animals accomplish this by instinct. 
 
10 
 
 But man is guided by instinct only in relation to his animal 
 existence, and then often imperfectly. Eeason is given to help 
 and lead him in his higher life, but it often errs. Hence man 
 advances much more slowly towards his perfection than the 
 unintelligent part of creation. To know with what and with 
 whom to unite our being for the unfolding and progress 
 towards perfection of our physical, intellectual, and moral nature, 
 forms the first grand problem of human existence, as the dis- 
 covery of the means for effecting such desirable union constitutes 
 the second. 
 
 A double evil is caused through the appropriation of one 
 object by another, when the union thereby effected is prejudicial 
 to their onward progress. Not only is positive injury inflicted, 
 greater or less in degree according to the condition of the things 
 or beings thus brought into unnatural alliance, but evidently in 
 many cases, probably in all, some other party or thing suffers 
 privation for want of that which has been mistakenly, compul- 
 sorily, or sinfully appropriated in a different direction. Illus- 
 trations in every department of existence crowd upon us. If a 
 greater portion of blood than is beneficial to the brain be appro- 
 priated by that organ, not only cerebral disease is engendered, 
 but other portions of the system must suffer privation. If the 
 powerful portion of a community appropriate to themselves a 
 larger share of the products of industry than is their just due, 
 not only moral evil is thereby fostered among themselves, but 
 much suffering, privation, and crime, are caused among their 
 weaker brethren. 
 
 The question then again recurs, what is the nature of the 
 union, what are the objects with which man is to unite, in 
 order to make progress towards the perfection of his being ? 
 
 We have already stated the general terms in which perfection 
 may be described. To apply this to man, commencing with 
 the view suggested above, let it be granted that there existed in 
 the Divine Mind an idea of a complete and perfect being of 
 
11 
 
 human nature, before man was created ; and it follows that man 
 advances towards his perfection just in proportion as he attains 
 to the complete realisation of that divine idea. 
 
 But when we ask, what is that standard and vision of per- 
 fection towards which God desires that we should strive, — what 
 is the nature of the union or atonement requisite to enable us 
 to reach it, — we find ourselves involved in imaginations and 
 reasonings which to some may seem irreverent and presumptuous. 
 Yet if conducted with a simple, humble desire to learn as much 
 of (rod's will and purposes on the grandest and most important 
 of all subjects, as He in His infinite wisdom and love may see 
 fit to grant in answer to our humble, earnest seeking, there can 
 be neither presumption nor irreverence in such investigations. 
 Their practical value will be found in their serving as the 
 necessary steps towards ascertaining what God has done and 
 revealed for human salvation and perfection, — what He desires 
 us to do and to become. 
 
 In a spirit, then, of reverence and humility, yet of earnest 
 longing for the truth on subjects of such unspeakable signifi- 
 cance, let us proceed to the next step in our inquiry. 
 
CHAP. II.— THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 The divine ideal of Humanity — how shall we form our own 
 idea concerning it? What may we reverently conceive that 
 divine ideal to be ? 
 
 Let us carry back our thoughts beyond the limits of time, 
 and suppose that at some period in the depths of a past eternity 
 the Deity willed to bring into existence a being like Himself. 
 We may reverently conceive of Him as reflecting on Himself — 
 or, as it were, beholding Himself by self-consciousness,* and 
 then giving individual existence and life to this idea, reflection, 
 or image, of Himself, which would, in fact, be the divine ideat 
 of the being He desired to bring into existence. 
 
 But should we not say that to do this was to bring into being 
 a second self, which was previously a part of His own self ? 
 And what is this but to beget a son? If we imagine this 
 reflection of God to be endowed with life and personality, and 
 so becoming a distinct and living being — the perfect image of 
 Himself — we behold a Son of God, His first-born, a being 
 possessed of a distinct will, of self-consciousness and a sense of 
 personal identity, of reason, conscience, affection, of all those 
 spiritual qualities, in short, which constitute the nature of God, 
 combined with those that, in a son, would be the counterpart or 
 complement of the nature of a father, such as reverence, obedi- 
 ence, trust, and filial love. 
 
 * All this, of course, is mournfully anthropomorphic, but in no other 
 way can we reason on such subjects at all. 
 
 + The vovs of Plato, and the Aoyos of Philo. 
 
13 
 
 This view is given in the writings of Melancthon, in the fol- 
 lowing terms : — * " Logos est imago cogitatione patris genita. 
 Mens humana pingit imaginem rei cogitata?, sed nos non trans- 
 fundimus essentiam in illas imagines. At Pater seternus sese 
 intuens gignit cogitationem sui, quse est imago ipsius, non eva- 
 nescens ut nostra? imagines, sed subsistens communicata ipsius 
 essentia;" (Olsh. Grosp. of St. John, i., 2); and which may be 
 rendered thus : 
 
 " The Logos, or Word, is the image produced by the Father's 
 thought. The human mind paints an image of something on 
 which it has meditated, but we do not transfuse any being (any 
 real existence) into those images. The Eternal Father, how- 
 ever, reflecting upon Himself, gives birth to His own thought, 
 which is the image of Himself, not evanescent, as our imagi- 
 nations are, but continuing to exist through the being (or 
 essence of Himself) which He has communicated to it." 
 
 We may compare with the foregoing extract from Melancthon 
 the following interesting passage from Luther's commentary on 
 the Proem (v. 10) : " . . . . If a man thinks Or meditates 
 on something by himself, he has a word or a conversation with 
 himself, of which nobody knows anything but he «lone, until 
 that very word of the heart is put into a verbal word or speech, 
 and the man pronounces aloud what he has thdughtf in his heart, 
 and what he has discussed so long with himself. Then only, and 
 not before, is it heard and understood by others. As St. Paul 
 says to >the Corinthians (1 Cor. ii., 11) : ' For what man knoweth 
 the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him/ 
 . . . . For a word is not only that which the mouth pro- 
 nounces, but rather the thoughts in the heart, without which the 
 verbal word is not spoken, or if it is spoken it is of no value, 
 except the mouth and heart agree; without this it is worth 
 nothing. Thus also God has from the beginning in His 
 
 * Quoted by Olshausen and Tholuck in commenting upon the Proem to 
 St. John's Gospel. 
 
Jx 
 
 14 
 
 majesty and godly being a word, a discourse, speeches, or 
 thoughts with Himself in His divine heart, unknown to angels 
 or men. That is His Word which was in His Fatherly heart 
 from the beginning, and through which God resolved to create 
 the heavens and the earth. But no one ever knew of such a 
 will of God until the Word became flesh and told us, as it 
 follows : ' The Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath 
 
 declared him 'v. 13. According to this picture, 
 
 God in His majesty and divine nature has a word or discourse 
 which He holds with Himself, and which is the thought of His 
 heart. And it is complete and great and perfect as God Him- 
 self. Nobody can see, hear, or understand such discourse, save 
 He alone. The Word was before all angels and all creatures, 
 for afterwards He gave being to all creatures through that Word 
 or discourse." This does not bring out, so clearly as the 
 extract from Melancthon's speculations, the essential idea that 
 the Word, or Logos, is the communication, revelation, embodi- 
 ment, or manifestation of an inward thought. Nevertheless, it 
 is full of interest and deeply suggestive, as we might expect. 
 
 In general terms, then, our hypothesis is that God gave life 
 and independent personality to the ideal being* which had pre- 
 viously existed only in His own thought or imagination. 
 
 If the question were here asked, when we are to suppose this 
 act of the Deity took place, the reply must be that, on the one 
 hand, we can only think of any act as taking place in time, and 
 therefore that there must have been a specific period when this 
 thought of God first became a living being ; but, on the other 
 hand, that we cannot imagine a time when, if God could thus 
 originate such a being, he would not do so. If God is love, He 
 would by His very nature desire to have some being or beings 
 to love. We have no right to argue that, therefore, He neces- 
 
 * Or, aa Luther would Bay, to the Word. 
 
15 
 
 sarihj would beget or create such ;* but certainly it is infinitely 
 the more probable supposition. To think of God as dwelling 
 absolutely alone, is so contrary to our idea of Him as a being 
 whose name is "Love," whose blessedness is in loving and 
 being loved, and as a benevolent being, whose delight is in 
 making others happy and good, that the conception is painful 
 and repulsive. It is far better to say that, though we cannot 
 understand how God can have had a Son from all eternity, there 
 is nothing in that hypothesis to offend our reason or our affec- 
 tions, while there is in the contrary supposition. The idea of 
 eternal sonship, it is true, lies beyond our reason, but does not 
 contradict it. It is simply saying, not that there never was a period 
 when the Son did not exist, but that we cannot imagine such a 
 period, — that we cannot think of God except as a Father, and 
 therefore as always having a Son, — that the attribute of father- 
 hood appears to us as essential a part of His divine nature as 
 the attribute of wisdom or power ; i.e., essential to our notion of 
 God, not as we behold Him in nature, in history, or in the 
 writings called the Old Testament, but as we behold Him in the 
 scriptures of the New Testament, when revealed to us by His 
 Son. It appears of infinite importance that we should accept 
 this as the view of God given us by the Son of God ; but that, 
 at the same time, we should admit it is impossible for us to 
 explain or understand how the Son should have existed from all 
 eternity, any more than we can explain or understand how God 
 Himself can so have existed, or how He created the universe out 
 of nothing. It seems absolutely necessary that the Father 
 should precede the Son, and yet if we conceive of a time when 
 God existed, but not as a Father, this is not only to divest Him, 
 at that time, of His holiest, tenderest, dearest attribute, but above 
 
 * I do not venture to say with some, that because God is love He mutt 
 have had some being to love from all eternity, because the attribute of love 
 does not, of course, necessarily imply an object for that love, only a desire 
 for it. But how can we conceive of God as having any desire ungratified ? 
 
 a- ■ 
 J/ 
 
16 
 
 all, it is to change our opinion of His nature, — it is to say ta< 
 the fatherly character is not an essential part of His nature. 
 And is not that to inflict an irreparable injury on our thought of 
 God, on our filial love and trust towards Him ? Hence we feel 
 in considering this question that we have got beyond that sphere 
 in which the laws of time are valid, and are reminded of the 
 great truth that they, like the laws of space, are only conditions 
 of human thought j that to refer to them in speaking of what 
 took place before the creation of the human race, is only an 
 accommodation to our present limited conceptions, and must, 
 as far as possible, be avoided. 
 
 We must not, therefore, speak of any particular period when 
 it seemed good to the Supreme Being to bring into existence a 
 being like to Himself. We are now simply to realise the 
 hypothesis that He did thus will, — and must remember that we 
 are concerned merely with that hypothesis and the supposed 
 result. We have only to say that far back (as the idea presents 
 itself to our thought), in the ages of eternity, the Son dwelt in 
 the bosom of the Father, and that we do not presume to think 
 of any limits to his existing thus, nor to conceive of a time when 
 God was not a Father. 
 
 Now, as I have just said, the being whom, according to our 
 hypothesis, the Almighty thus brought into existence, must 
 evidently have been of the same nature as God. That is, since 
 we suppose Him to be " the brightness of God's glory, and the 
 express image* of His person." He must possess those faculties 
 and capacities which God possesses, and which, according to the 
 only way in which we can conceive of spiritual, intelligent, and 
 moral beings, must constitute the nature of any or every intel- 
 ligent and moral agent, — viz., in general terms, reason, con- 
 science, affection, will. This much will be admitted by all. But 
 there is another fact of equal importance that results from the 
 
 * Heb. i., 3. X a P aKTr ]P' Tne i**"&ge or impression taken by wax from a 
 seal. 
 
17 
 
 supposition of such a being proceeding forth from God as a Son, 
 and not merely being created, — viz., that he must be " consub- 
 stantial," or of the same substance as God.* "We seem obliged 
 to use this much misunderstood word, substance, because, although 
 it has been perverted in modern times from its original meaning, 
 there is no other word so fitting to express the conviction that the 
 Son did come forth from God, and therefore necessarily partakes 
 of the essence of his Father, of that which constitutes the essential 
 reality and being of God. It was the word in constant use for 
 this purpose among the early fathers of the Church, and even if 
 we look merely at its modern materialistic sense, it still remains 
 the most appropriate phrase for figuratively conveying our 
 meaning, inasmuch as we can only describe spiritual relations 
 by material images. 
 
 Now, if the Son of God were not of the same substance, 
 but only of the same nature as God, he would not be really, 
 but only figuratively, His Son, created but not begotten. The 
 difference may be briefly illustrated thus. A son exists poten- 
 tially, and in a certain, sense actually, in his father, is part of 
 his being, whether begotten or not. Therefore, in bringing a 
 son into existence, a father imparts himself to that son. A 
 creature does not exist in any sense or to any degree, poten- 
 tially or otherwise, in its creator — is not part, never has been 
 part of him who creates or makes it. God could create beings 
 of the same nature as Himself, but they would not therefore 
 be His children. But if He gives Himself to this being whom 
 He wills to bring into existence, then it is truly and properly 
 His Son. We never think of that which is made or created as 
 being a part of its creator, as coming forth from him. It 
 might, of course, have been possible for the Creator to have 
 enabled us to make beings of our own nature and substance as 
 
 *8ub-sta7is, that which stands under the outward appearance and con- 
 stitutes the reality. 
 C 
 
18 
 
 we make houses, but He has not given us any analogies by 
 which we can conceive of such a process. The words, " be- 
 gotten, not made," express to us an absolute and essential 
 difference. Hence, if God reveals Himself as " the Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ," we necessarily understand (if we are 
 true to the right use of language) that this Son of God came 
 into existence, not as a creature made and fashioned ah extra in 
 relation to God, but as one proceeding forth from Him, ema- 
 nating from the Divine Substance, from the very essence and 
 reality of the Godhead. In a word, if God gave being to a 
 Son, He imparted Himself to the being whom He thus 
 brought into existence, and that being is therefore essentially 
 Divine. 
 
 It may be urged that the expression, " Son of God," if it be 
 used as explaining the relationship of these two beings, must be 
 figurative, referring simply to the filial character and spirit of 
 the person thus described, not to the mode in which he came 
 into being, and that in the earthly relationship there is a human 
 mother as well as father. 
 
 It is a figurative expression. But, I believe, the reality is in 
 the previous and higher relationship of the Divine Father to 
 the Divine Son ; that the earthly relationship is but a dim im- 
 perfect type or figure of that higher and more perfect reality. 
 Does it not seem far more probable that God should institute an 
 earthly relationship to explain a heavenly reality, than that He 
 should take an earthly fact to which there is nothing correspond- 
 ing in any heavenly reality in order to explain or reveal the 
 relationship between Himself and another being ? This would, 
 indeed, be to mislead us by a false analogy. If the reiterated 
 and emphatic declaration made by writers who profess to record 
 a revelation from heaven, is that the being of whom they write, 
 whose manifestation in this world they proclaim as glad tidings 
 to all people, was the Son of God, surely it is more reasonable 
 to suppose that they mean, or ought to mean, something more 
 
19 
 
 than that this being had the feelings and disposition of a son 
 towards God without really being His Son. All filial dispositions, 
 rights, and duties in this world, grow out of a certain definite 
 relation of one being to another, — viz., that by which the second 
 being was a part of the first, and came into existence by the 
 will of the first. These dispositions, rights, and duties do not, 
 and cannot, exist except by virtue of that relation. And are we 
 to be told that in the most solemn transaction that can take 
 place between God and His people, that in which He reveals to 
 them a Saviour, manifesting Himself and declaring His will 
 through that Saviour as a Father, He uses an expression of so 
 sublime a nature, referring to a relationship so unspeakably holy 
 and awful, yet in a sense from which all that could justify its 
 use is cut away, leaving it a mere figure of speech, without any 
 basis of reality to warrant its employment, or to explain the 
 existence of those filial feelings and dispositions which are thus 
 supposed to constitute the whole of its meaning? 
 
 Of course, any material emblem must needs be but a very 
 imperfect representation of spiritual realities. But just as a 
 parable is not intended to teach us all truth, nor to teach a 
 hidden truth in every part of it, so neither are the earthly 
 emblems which God has given to us. We must not expect to 
 find the earthly relations of parents and children to be an exact 
 analogue or counterpart of the spiritual relation, but simply 
 teaching, at all events, two great truths, — viz., first, that a child 
 is of the same substance and nature as its father in a sense and 
 in a way which a mere creature is not and cannot be ; and, 
 secondly, that the deepest, tenderest, holiest affection is naturally 
 felt for a child by its parent. 
 
 But with regard to the fact that in the earthly type of this 
 filial relationship there are two parents, do we not obtain a 
 glimpse into the wonderful mystery by considering how many 
 things point to a primal unity of sex in God ; how the distinc- 
 tion of man and woman seems to be a mere earthly and tem- 
 
20 
 
 porary division which will one day be abolished, when we shall 
 be received into perfect communion with God, and are wholly 
 renewed in His nature; how our blessed Lord himself united in 
 his character all that is noblest and loveliest both in the mascu- 
 line and feminine types of human excellence ; how his apostle 
 declared that " in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, 
 neither bond nor free, neither male nor female." (Gal. hi., 28.) 
 
 Is there not also a glorious hint of this primal unity in the divine 
 nature, and therefore in ours, afforded to us by the material and 
 spiritual oneness of husband and wife, where there exists a true 
 marriage, a marriage of heart and soul ? — a relation in which 
 God seems leading us to believe in this holy unity of spiritual 
 being, lifting our thoughts to that oneness, both of nature and of 
 affection, which shall be fully manifested in the blessed con- 
 summation towards which all things are tending, in a brighter, 
 holier world, where effort, sorrow, and pain will be seen to have 
 accomplishod their divine work in our souls, where "they 
 neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels 
 of God in heaven." (Matth. xxii., 30.) 
 
 But there is another conclusion, no less important, which 
 flows necessarily from the last, — viz., that the Divine Son, after 
 he is begotten, remains still a part of God, continues to be of 
 one substance with the Father, one with Him in the Eternal 
 Godhead. For if the Son possess the same nature and the same 
 spirit as His Father, is it not clear that he will have perfect 
 sympathy with Him, perfect harmony of will and thought, of 
 feeling and purpose ? Is not this, in fact, what we mean when, 
 in regard to any particular case, we say that such a person 
 showed the same spirit as another? But to have this entire 
 sympathy and perfect harmony with another being, to share his 
 thoughts and feelings, to have a common will and purpose, is 
 precisely what constitutes spiritual oneness between two persons. 
 This is just the idea we have when we assert the proposition that 
 the Son is one with the Father, a part of His Father's being — 
 
21 
 
 so for, at least, as we have a spiritual 
 deceiving ourselves by dwelling on material 
 follows necessarily that since the Son is of the same" 
 or spirit with God, we must not think of him as in any sense or 
 way separated from God, but as dwelling always in closest union 
 and communion with Him, in absolute spiritual oneness with 
 Him ; therefore as much a part of God after he was begotten 
 as before, living in Him and by Him, living His life, aiming at 
 his Father's purposes, thinking His thoughts, loving what the 
 Father loves, filled with His spirit, dwelling " in the bosom of 
 the Father." This idea, also, was included under that much 
 controverted term, spoken of above, " consubstantial ;" and the 
 continued indwelling of the Father in the Son was contended for 
 by the Nicene theologians as strenuously as the proposition that 
 our divine Lord's origin was from the substance or essence of 
 God. 
 
 But while we cannot, in our present condition, understand the 
 meaning of spiritual union and oneness, except as signifying this 
 intense and perfect sympathy, this entire communion of thought, 
 feeling, and will, it is important to remember that doubtless 
 there is far more in such union than we can thus represent or 
 conceive, — something to which material union is analogous, and 
 which that is intended dimly to shadow forth. Thus, for 
 instance, we distinguish the vital or chemical combination of 
 different substances forming one body from the mere mechanical 
 juxta position of different atoms of matter; the union of an acid 
 and an alkali to form a salt is distinguished from a mere solu- 
 tion of salt in water ; and the union of a branch with the parent 
 stem, as opposed to the mere proximity of two pieces of wood 
 nailed together. It is, of course, not possible to draw a hard 
 line in all such cases between combinations that form one new 
 body and those that merely present two substances in close 
 proximity. But in the case of living bodies it is very easy to 
 define this oneness of parts. Even in chemical combinations it 
 
22 
 
 is evident that when a new substance is formed by union of 
 several elements all its parts come under the same conditions, 
 are similarly affected by similar influences, possess the same 
 qualities, exercise the same functions. But in addition to these 
 tests, in the case of living bodies, we may say that a branch is 
 part of the vine, of one substance with it, a portion of the same 
 body, when it is so united to the rest of the tree as to live in 
 and by the same life, when the same life-giving sap circulates 
 through it which sustains the life of the whole. In like manner, 
 the limb is a part of the human body, one with it, so long as it 
 is nourished by the common blood and partakes of the common 
 life. If, guided by these teachings of the external world, we 
 endeavour to comprehend spiritual truths, we are brought to the 
 conclusions stated above, and we see how the union of soul with 
 soul, of spiritual beings, implies their sharing, as far as may be, 
 each other's thoughts, feelings, and attributes, — that is, living in 
 and by each other's life, — how it implies, especially, that they 
 draw that life from a common source, and therefore are pene- 
 trated by profoundest sympathy with each other. All this we 
 
 can understand to be involved in the idea of the perfect oneness 
 of the Son with the Father. &**£. 
 
 Hence we recognise the justice of the memorable claim which 
 demanded that the Son should be declared to be not of like 
 essence or substance (6//otovcrtos), but of the same essence or 
 substance (o/noo-uo-tos) with the Father, " consubstantial." 
 There is an essential and infinitely important distinction, as I 
 have said, between the ideas which these two phrases respec- 
 tively represent. Any other man's son is of like substance with 
 my own child. It is my own offspring alone that is of the same 
 substance. Both children are of the same nature, but not of 
 the same substance. And if the derived being of whom we are 
 speaking be indeed the Son of God, ofioovcrios was the only 
 fitting term to describe the reality of that connection and 
 relation. 
 
23 
 
 And by thus understanding the word "substance," and 
 always bearing in mind that " God is a Spirit," we avoid 
 that rock of stumbling which caused the Arian bishops of the 
 fourth century to complain that the word consubstantial implied 
 that God was corporeal and had been divided. The objection 
 never would have been made had they understood the word 
 substance in its true and original sense, as signifying simply 
 that which constitutes the real being and essence of God, which 
 of course is wholly spiritual, and must not be spoken of as if 
 it came under the laws of matter. But we see that even a 
 material substance may impart itself without being divided or 
 suffering loss, as when one flame kindles another, and the two 
 continue burning together, — united and consubstantial, though 
 one has been derived from the other.* 
 
 These, then, are the speculative conclusions on which I ven- 
 ture to arrive in reference to the nature of the Son of God, if 
 there exist such a being at all, — viz., that he must be of the 
 same substance or spirit with God ; — that in whatever consti- 
 tutes God he shares ; — that he is a partaker of the Divinity 
 (S-eorifs) of the Godhead of God, living in and by the Father ; — 
 that as a Son begotten he must necessarily be subordinate to 
 the Father who begat him, but superior to every creature, and, 
 as the First-born, superior to any subsequent child of God, 
 though such would be his brethren ; — that his Father must be 
 the supreme and only God ; that he must be wholly dependent 
 on his Father, but that whatever limitations he must be sub- 
 ject to as a being proceeding forth from God, whatever outward 
 manifestation he may assume, in whatever form he may be 
 clothed, he must be of the same nature, and of the same 
 essence, as that which constitutes the being of the Eternal 
 Deity. 
 
 * It is a pity that this illustration did not occur to Constantine when he 
 was so grievously disappointed by the Bishop of Nicomedia's symbolical 
 reference to his garment. — See " Priestley's Hist. Christian Church;" 
 Period vii., Sect. 6. 
 
CHAP. IV.— SCRIPTUKE. 
 
 But have we been left to rest upon uncertain conjectures, on 
 & priori or inductive reasoning, or merely on definite proba- 
 bilities in so deeply important a matter ? Has not God given 
 us some full and explicit revelations of the truth ? 
 
 Once in the course of bygone ages a Divine Man appeared in 
 this world, who claimed to be the Son of God, to have come 
 from God, and to be returning to God. He declared to men 
 the relation in which they stood to his Father — what they 
 ought to do and to become — how they also were children of 
 God, and were to receive their sonship in due season. He 
 claimed authority over them both to teach and to govern them. 
 He declared that he came with the will and the power to save 
 mankind from sin and death, and to bring to God and heaven 
 all who would trust and obey him. His visible manifestation 
 in this world was by no means the first commencement of a 
 revelation of God's will and power, only the continuation and 
 climax thereof. His coming was the fulfilment of promise and 
 prophecy. The kingdom which he said he came to establish 
 had been revealed and set up on earth, as well as in heaven, 
 ages before. Brave and faithful men had known of it, fought 
 and suffered for it, — had known of the invisible God and King 
 who rules it, and "had endured as seeing Him who is invisible." 
 The record of this Divine man's advent to earth, and of his 
 existence here in the body, with some of the results that followed, 
 has been preserved in certain books called the New Testament, 
 even as the record of God's previous revelations and dealings 
 with man are to be found in the Old Testament. We are not 
 given such a statement in the documents composing those books 
 as necessarily precludes all differences of opinion, or all exertion 
 
25 
 
 of our own faculties to discover the truth, any more than we 
 have the treasures of earth or truths of science so laid open 
 before us, as to preclude the necessity of human skill and 
 labour to discover and use them. But as in nature and in the 
 whole course of providence, so also in the Bible histories, certain 
 great facts are found to have taken place. They are recorded 
 in those histories, and a few comments upon them given. 
 From their united teaching, which (as all these facts alike come 
 to pass either by God's permission or direction) must mutually 
 illustrate each other, we have humbly and prayerfully to 
 endeavour to learn what God is thus pleased to reveal, and 
 by the help of His holy spirit seek to be guided "into all truth." 
 
 I do not now propose to examine the evidence for the claims 
 which the Bible puts forth upon our faith, but, considering how 
 thoroughly that work has already been done, I wish simply to 
 receive the statements made there as true, and to see what they 
 teach us. If, as it has been truly said, they came from God, 
 they can vindicate their own divine origin to the candid mind. 
 Our present business is to see what light they throw on the 
 great questions which we have hitherto been considering in the 
 light of reason and natural analogies, and thereby, I hope, 
 preparing for the more satisfactory understanding of the Holy 
 Scriptures themselves. 
 
 We may proceed, then, to consider those passages of the 
 Scriptures which bear upon this great topic. I shall examine 
 them very briefly, suggesting considerations rather than attempt- 
 ing an exhaustive analysis, not merely because there would be 
 little chance of such an analysis being read except by a very 
 few (even if made by a far more competent critic), but also 
 because the subject of this essay being the work of Christ in 
 atoning man with God, it treats of the Saviour's nature and his 
 relations to God only indirectly, and as bearing upon that main 
 topic. 
 
28 
 
 In the introduction to St. John's Gospel, then, we find the 
 following delaration made respecting the origin of that remark- 
 able person who, according to Roman as well as Jewish histo- 
 rians, appeared in this world some eighteen centuries ago. 
 
 "In the beginning was the "Word." This announcement 
 seems to point to some definite period when the Word began to 
 exist, because there could have been no beginning to eternity. 
 St. John does not say " The Word was from all eternity," but 
 " It was in the beginning." As if he would carry back our 
 thoughts to some remote period in the abyss of a past eternity, 
 but still would declare a beginning. 
 
 Now, as this expression is used at the commencement of the 
 book of Genesis by Moses to signify the period of creation ; in 
 the same sense by Solomon in his sublime description of Wisdom 
 or the Word (Logos), Prov. viii., 22; and also by our Lord 
 when referring to the creation of man (Matt, xix., 4), there is 
 some probability that when St. John is commencing his history 
 of Jesus the Son of God, he uses the word with a similar 
 meaning. It seems in conformity also with the general prin- 
 ciple of the Bible histories that the record in question should 
 commence in the period at which God's power and love were 
 first manifested in relation to the beings whom He created in 
 His own image, and for whose benefit these histories were pre- 
 served. Other cosmogonies go back into the far depths of 
 eternity, and profess to give us the relation of matters transacted 
 ages before men were born into this world. But the Bible 
 records all cluster round humanity, and God in His relations to 
 mankind. It would be contrary to the whole spirit of the 
 Scriptures generally, and of St. John's writings especially, to 
 suppose he refers to any beginning before that spoken of in the 
 first chapter of Genesis. 
 
 But these considerations are equally strong against the sup- 
 position that the apostle meant the beginning of the Christian 
 dispensation j and in his first epistle (iii. c, 8 v.) he shows 
 
 t 
 
 M 
 
27 
 
 plainly in what sense he uses the word, " The devil sinneth from 
 beginning." Certainly the apostle did not mean " from the be- 
 ginning of the Christian dispensation." But is it not a sound rule 
 of criticism, to interpret doubtful passages by those that are 
 clear? 
 
 It has been argued, indeed, that the way in which the word 
 is used in other parts of St. John's epistles shows that he must 
 have intended us to understand him as referring to the more 
 recent period. For instance, 1st John ii., 7-24, iii. 11, 2nd 
 John, 6, where it is written, " The commandment which ye had 
 from the beginning," "That which ye have heard from the 
 beginning," &c. ; and whence some argue that the apostle must 
 refer only to the people then living, and to whom he was 
 writing. But is it not quite possible that he is addressing his 
 brethren as members of the great human family — the divine 
 society which God had established on the earth, and to whom 
 from the beginning, from their first creation, He had given the 
 commandment to love one another, writing His law in their hearts, 
 in the very constitution of their nature. The words " Not as 
 Cain " seem to confirm this view. He disobeyed this great law 
 given to him, given " from the beginning." Our Lord, indeed, 
 calls it "a new commandment" (John xiii., 34), but the context 
 shows that he only meant it was to be viewed anew in the light 
 of his own illustration of it — in the light of his own love for 
 his disciples. In the same way St. John speaks* as if it might be 
 regarded, not only as an old commandment given from the begin- 
 ning, but as a new one also from the new light it has gained 
 since Christ's death. Then, again, there seems no sufficient 
 reason for understanding the third verse of the Proem to mean 
 the new and spiritual creation of the Christian era. There is 
 nothing in the connection to lead to that supposition. Still 
 more difficult is it to account on that theory for the fourteenth 
 
 * 1st John ii., 8. 
 
28 
 
 verse. The work attributed to the Word, in the third verse, is 
 clearly anterior to his taking flesh, even as the Word is mani- 
 festly declared to have existed before he was made flesh. The 
 words, therefore, " In the beginning," must signify " When God 
 first manifested forth Himself" — first communicated Himself, 
 His thought, wisdom, power, love. 
 
 But what was the Word? Not an audible voice, surely. 
 Nor yet merely any abstract quality, such as power, wisdom, 
 goodness. For these, before they are exerted jn outward acts 
 or manifestations, would be described as thoughts rather than as 
 words.* A word is an outward manifestation of a thought. Hence 
 we are led to conceive that by " the Word " St. John described 
 God's "revealed thought," a thought in some way outwardly em- 
 bodied or manifested. But if God were alone in the universe — 
 before any other being was brought into existence, before ever 
 anything was created — this outward embodiment could only be 
 the revelation or representation of His thought to Himself, 
 His own consciousness of it, and reflection upon it. Is not 
 this idea conveyed to us by the next sentence, " And the Word 
 was with God ?" Since the Greek 71730s, " with," in this con- 
 nection, conveys the idea of residing in, as a part of, or belonging 
 to, we learn that this realised, embodied thought of God was still 
 a part of God, united with Him, as a portion of His substance, 
 essence, being. 
 
 Our next inquiry must be what was this thought of God to 
 which existence was thus given? The succeeding clause throws a 
 flood of light on the great theme. "The Word was God." And 
 thus we are shown the divine nature of this realised thought of God. 
 It must have been the manifested thought of Himself. His own 
 self-consciousness brought into individual existence. The Word 
 was God's reflection of Himself — God representing Himself, 
 
 * The " Word " is never used in Scripture to signify an attribute of 'God, 
 nor the divine reason, or mind. In classic authors, also, Aoyos never 
 signifies the subjective faculty of reason, but the reason of anything to be 
 given objectively. (See Alford, Gr. Test, in loc.) 
 
29 
 
 His own divine nature and perfections, unto Himself. Surely 
 Melancthon's conception expressed above exactly corresponds 
 with this declaration. 
 
 But how can it be said that this Word was God ? The self- 
 consciousness of God is necessarily in a most important sense 
 different from God, as is indicated by the phrase " The Word 
 was with God." If it was God Himself it could not be said to 
 be with Him. And it is also evident that both the thought and 
 the word of God must be distinguished from God Himself, or 
 all meaning in language is lost, and we can retain no idea of a 
 personal God. 
 
 And here we are brought to the shore of a vast truth, too 
 deep for the plummet of earthly reason ; but one," nevertheless, 
 from which even in this world we can gain some great and 
 blessed thoughts, full of power to redeem and glorify our being, 
 intimately blended with the very essence of " the glorious gospel 
 of the blessed God." 
 
 We find a clue to the mystery in the tenth chapter of this 
 gospel, 34th, 35th, and 36th verses. " Jesus answered them, 
 is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If he 
 called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, (and the 
 scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him whom the Father 
 hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; 
 because I said, I am the Son of God ?" 
 
 These words evidently point to the truth that God communi- 
 cates Himself in various ways to inferior beings, and that in 
 consequence of such divine communication they become more or 
 less divine. They become gods in some lower sense of that word. 
 God imparts Himself to some other being, who is then called in 
 the Old Testament " a god." The distinction between the one 
 supreme God and these recipients of divinity is much more 
 strongly marked in the original Hebrew than either in the 
 Greek or English language. In the Greek, we find it signified 
 by the word S-eos for a god, and 6 S-eos for the supreme God ; 
 
30 
 
 in the English Scriptures, by the indefinite article and the small 
 g, "a god" or " gods." In the Hebrew, after Genesis, 
 "Jehovah" and "Elohim," &c. 
 
 It is not intended, of course, to assert that the mere omission 
 of the article in and by itself in the first verse of St. John's 
 Gospel, proves that the word S-eos is there used in the lower 
 sense, but that the omission in connection with the preceding 
 clause, "the Word was with God," necessarily does. In that 
 clause the article is used. Common sense tells us that if the 
 Word is said in one clause to be with God, and in another, close 
 to it, to be God, the word God must be used in somewhat a 
 different sense in the two passages. St. John points out what 
 the difference is by dropping the article, and our Saviour com- 
 pletes the proof by telling us in what sense beings inferior to 
 God might be, and in the Hebrew tongue were, called god, — 
 viz., when divinity is communicated to them. It may, of course, 
 be communicated in various ways and in different degrees. The 
 prophets and rulers spoken of by Christ received communications 
 of divinity by the Word of God coming to them. But the 
 original Word spoken by God in the beginning, this primary 
 manifestation or expression of God, became a Divine Person, 
 became a god in this sense, through his being "the express 
 image,"* the realised likeness of God communicated to or pro- 
 jected on outward existence, as the reflection of the human 
 countenance may be cast on the photographer's metal plate. 
 And this Divine Word, therefore, was the " Only-begotten Son 
 of God," who, " when the fulness of the time was come," was 
 manifested " in the flesh," " full of grace and truth." 
 
 God is ever communicating Himself, giving Himself forth, as 
 it were, in creation, because creation is the reflection and result 
 
 * The original is the very word, as I have previously remarked, used to 
 signify the impression taken from a seal ; but the wonderful discovery of pho- 
 tography illustrates this verse and the whole idea under consideration in a 
 far more complete and striking manner, because the likeness in this case 
 comes direct from the original by a simple look, and remains permanently. 
 
31 
 
 of His attributes. But it is manifest that the Word is said by 
 St. John to be God in a far higher sense than can be predicated 
 of any other being or thing. The Word was filled with God, 
 because it was God's thought of Himself, and this must be " the 
 fulness of the Godhead," — he must be filled with God in a way 
 and to an extent that no other being or thing could be. For 
 God could only have one thought of Himself — one self-conscious- 
 ness. As He is one, so the reflection or image of Himself must 
 be one. It is, in fact, the reproduction of Himself, of His own 
 glorious being, by communicating Himself in an embodied 
 thought ; hence, as I said, the being thus brought into existence 
 is called His Son. When, therefore, St. John announces that the 
 Word was God, we understand that this embodied idea, this Divine 
 Son, was indeed "the brightness of God's glory and the express 
 image of His person " (Heb. i., 3) — the outward expression of 
 God's inward thought, the reflection of Himself in a new 
 existence, realised in a second person, a second self. 
 
 The sacred writer then brings before us again the all-important 
 thought that the Word was a part of God, that though a new dis- 
 tinct personal existence, he was still united with God, of one spiritual 
 substance with Him, soul with soul, spirit with spirit, in holy unity 
 and union.* And doubtless in thus dwelling upon the companion- 
 ship of the Word with God, St. John designed to indicate the holy 
 and blessed fellowship that existed between the Father and the 
 Son, and without which, indeed, it is hard to conceive at all, as 
 I said before, of Him whose name is love.t These, again, are 
 
 * " Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me." John xiv. 11. 
 + There have been various attempts to show that the Word, as thus 
 spoken of in this Proem, should be viewed as impersonal. And no doubt 
 in all the English translations previous to the Common version, the neuter 
 pronoun was used in reference to the Logos — " all things were made by it" 
 &c. — while other languages, including the original Greek, afford us no clue 
 to the answer, because the gender of Aoyos, verbum, &c, determine the 
 gender of the pronouns. But the declaration that " the Word was witb 
 God, and the Word was God," seems to me conclusive on this point. For 
 
32 
 
 heights and depths of thought into which we cannot venture ; 
 but as the idea of God dwelling utterly alone, without com- 
 panionship of any kind, without any intelligent being of like 
 nature with His own to love, is insupportably painful, so the 
 sacred writer appears to give us just a glimpse into the mystery 
 to satisfy, not our intellect, but our heart, until that time when 
 * we shall know even as we are known." Till then we must 
 remember, as before remarked, that time, like space, has nothing 
 to do with God. By these first and second verses, then, in St. 
 John's Gospel, the divine nature and origin of the Word is 
 declared, and at the same time the Neo-Platonic errors con- 
 cerning the Logos are opposed. 
 
 In the third verse the solemn truth is announced that all 
 things came into existence by means of this Word. And this 
 brings us to a consideration of considerable weight against the 
 notion of the impersonality of " the Word," which has been 
 thus ably urged. If the creation be by a word (not person), is 
 not the person uttering the word the real creator ? It is mere 
 verbiage to call the Word, if simply a word, an instrument 
 in creation. Either the Word meant an indwelling person or 
 Son, or it meant nothing beyond the voice of God. In 
 
 I cannot see how, in any scriptural sense, a thing can be spoken of as being 
 •j-cos, " God." In the eleventh verse, moreover, the Word is plainly 
 spoken of as a person. Common sense, to say nothing of other arguments, 
 seems decisively against supposing that the Evangelist intended us to read 
 here—" It came unto its own, and its own received it not." Things cannot 
 hold property, or claim intelligent beings as their own, except in highly 
 poetical personification, which would surely have been the last thing the 
 sacred writer would have resorted to in so solemn, nay, awful a task, as was 
 being here performed by him. And if the Word is a person in the eleventh 
 verse, there is nothing to indicate any change of nature from that set forth 
 in the first verse. It is quite true that we can conceive of a time before 
 which the divine thought was not realised in a living person ; but I do not 
 understand how at such a period that thought could be spoken of as the 
 Logos, the Word, for, as I said before, this surely, by all but universal 
 consent, means the embodied, realised, manifested thought. 
 
33 
 
 which, case, it is certainly hard to see how St. John could assign 
 to it such a lofty place in the creation and subsequent conduct 
 of the world and of mankind." 
 
 " All tilings were made by Him." The next clause ex- 
 cludes the gnostic heresy of the independent and eternal 
 existence of matter, which they viewed as the source of 
 all evil. "And without Him was not anything made." 
 The three last words of this verse should be joined with the first 
 of the fourth verse,* and then they would explain the whole 
 thus, " That which came into existence in, by, or through the 
 Word was Life." Even so in 1 John i., 1, 2, he speaks of the 
 "Word of Life" ["which was from the beginning"], "for the life 
 was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show 
 imto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was 
 manifested unto us." The Word of God was made the fountain 
 of life. And the general sense of the passage thus appears to 
 be that while the Word itself rose into being as the Father's 
 thought gradually realised in a living person, even His Son, all 
 other things and beings were created by means of the Word 
 thus realised. The Word became the Son of God, and then 
 was made the source of being and life to a universe. Only 
 through its connection with the Word of God has anything life. 
 Apart from God all lieth in death, i .e., in non-existence. 
 Through His Divine Word He gives being, life, to all, because 
 through that Word they are created and sustained in vital rela- 
 tions with Himself.f 
 
 "And the life was the light of men." Light is the vivifying 
 fructifying, principle of the material universe, and seems given 
 as an emblem of the same principle in the spiritual universe. 
 
 * The authorities in favour of this punctuation are overwhelming — 
 Erasmus, Griesbach, Lachmann, Koppe, and J. G. Miiller. (See Alford's 
 Gr. Test, in loc.) 
 
 + The Cerinthian heresy of the world being created by the Demiurgus- 
 out of eternal matter, was therefore excluded by this passage. 
 D 
 
34 
 
 The life which the Word of God imparted unto men, filled them 
 with light ; i.e., it so acted upon their spiritual organism, upon 
 their reason, intelligence, conscience, affection, will, as the solar 
 light acts upon the material organism of plants and animal 
 bodies. It comes to the soul of man filling it with "the Life 
 of God." For "God is light" and " love." Hence, we are shown, 
 by this declaration, how myriads of intelligent beings are re- 
 plenished with the divine elements of being, with the Spirit of 
 God, through that life and light which flow to them from the 
 Divine "Word, and which is thus made to them the fountain of a 
 divine and glorious existence. 
 
 "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness 
 comprehendeth it not." The influence, however, of the divine 
 light was only gradual. It was surrounded by darkness and 
 penetrated, dissipated it only by degrees. Men were placed 
 in an element of matter, in an animal body, and darkness 
 held possession of them. The light was not welcomed and 
 retained.* 
 
 " There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 
 The same came for a witness of the light, that all men through 
 him might believe. He was not that light, but was sent to bear 
 witness of that light. That was the true light which liglitcth 
 every man that cometh into the world." 
 
 The "true light" stands here, as it has been justly remarked 
 "in antithesis, not to the false, for the Baptist was no false 
 prophet, but only to the relative, the derived." f It is con- 
 trasted, as the original light, with those lights which were only 
 derived from it, — viz., the prophets and all men who had been 
 " moved by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 epypfxevov seems now to be generally considered by the 
 best expositors as connected with " the true light," not with 
 "every man;" because "all men must come into the world, i.e., 
 
 * KareXafitv, retained, held it not fast, after receiving or admitting. 
 4 Olsh. in loc. 
 
35 
 
 must bo born." And the rendering therefore should be, 
 was the true light then coming into the world, which lightcth 
 every man." But the fact, declared in this and the two follow- 
 ing verses, of chief interest is that this divine light, the Son of 
 God, the Word of God, which, as was said above, is made the 
 fountain of light and life to all men, descended from his 
 heavenly state of complete union with God into the koo-{jlo<s, i.e., 
 to dwell in this state of mingled matter and spirit, of discord and 
 harmony, of strife and peace. 
 
 " He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and 
 the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own 
 received him not." Some have thought this may refer to the 
 Jews, who were " the chosen people," and belonged in a special 
 sense to Christ, but who did " always resist the Holy Spirit." 
 (Acts vii., 51.) Far more probably, however, the reference is 
 to human beings generally, as the race created after the pattern 
 of the Son of God, who is their Great Head, in whom, by whom, 
 and for whom they were created (Ephes. and Coloss.), "chosen 
 in him before the foundation of the world." 
 
 . The 12th verse opens up before us the direct operation of the 
 Word, the Son of God, on the hearts of the children of men. 
 And in reflecting upon tins subject, which constitutes the main 
 topic of the present work, it may be well to observe that while 
 there is unquestionably great difficulty in ascertaining precisely 
 the Evangelist's meaning in every verse of this most important 
 passage of Holy Writ, looking only at the Proem itself, a blaze 
 of light is shed over it by comparing it with various other parts 
 of Scripture to which it is evidently intended as the key-stone. 
 Then we understand its true function and place in the Divine 
 records. For when we proceed further in the Gospel records, 
 and see the unmistakeable declarations by our Lord of His 
 pre-cxistence, the references to it by all the Evangelists, but 
 especially by the beloved disciple, and by the great Apostle to 
 the Gentiles, with the explicit declaration of the latter concern- ) 
 
36 
 
 ing the creation of all things by Christ, I cannot doubt that the 
 Proem is to be understood as setting forth the origin, existence, 
 and work of the Son of God in that intimate union with the 
 Father above referred to, which he enjoyed previous to descend- 
 ing into this lower world, 
 
 " To drain the cup of woe, 
 And wear the form of frail mortality." 
 
 Our duty, therefore, is next to examine, as briefly as possible, 
 those passages in the remainder of the New Testament which 
 appear to require the foregoing interpretation of the Proem, and 
 to prove that "the "Word" must be understood to have had 
 " from the beginning" a personal existence, as the Son of God. 
 
 Before, however, glancing at the texts in question, I must 
 advert to two or three objections which secretly, or confessedly, 
 make some excellent Christians feel a strong repugnance to 
 believe that Christ or his apostles taught the doctrine of his 
 conscious personal existence as the beloved of the Father 
 before his manifestation in tins world. 
 
 I. It is said that this doctrine makes Christ to be of a 
 different nature from man. 
 
 I think not. That would indeed be strong evidence against 
 it, as well as just grounds for the deepest disinclination to 
 receive it. But this objection, it seems to me, is fully answered 
 by comparing the views given in the last chapter with those con- 
 tained in the chapter on " Mankind," according to which the 
 Son of God is seen to be, and always to have been, pre- 
 eminently Man, the original type of Humanity, the Ideal Man, 
 before any other human being was created. In the subsequent 
 chapter, just referred to, the reader is reminded that we are not 
 men by virtue of our bodies, but of our minds, and, as Channing 
 profoundly says, " all minds are of one family." The body in 
 which we are now for a little season placed will perish, but we 
 shall not perish with it. For aught we know, and as some of 
 
37 
 
 our greatest philosophers and poets have believed, all human 
 beings may have pre-existed in another state, even as we hope 
 to exist hereafter in a very different condition, but without in 
 either case ceasing to be men. 
 
 II. It is objected that this doctrine deprives the example of 
 Christ of all its interest and power, — that the knowledge he in 
 that case possessed of his former heavenly existence would 
 deprive earth of its terrors and temptations. 
 
 On the contrary, does not the contrast between former hap- 
 piness and present suffering aggravate the latter ? Does not a 
 person delicately brought up endure greater pain from subse- 
 quent hardships, and one nurtured in the bosom of affection 
 suffer more from the unkindness of the world, than he who has 
 had to rough it through life from infancy ? And is not that 
 heart more keenly alive to the wretchedness of a lonely lot, 
 unsoothed by sympathy, which had previously dwelt in intimate 
 union with a very dear friend ? That noble-hearted man who, 
 though lapped in luxury and affluence, went out to America as 
 a steerage passenger among the poor Irish emigrants, that he 
 might know what their actual trials were, and how to remedy 
 them, endured far more from the hardships to which he was 
 thus exposed than his fellow-passengers who had been reared 
 in mud cabins. And was his example in cheerfully bearing 
 and overcoming the evils of the passage less valuable because 
 he knew that he had left a home of luxury, and would probably 
 one day return to it ? This knowledge would help to support 
 him under his trials, but it would be a strange perversity which 
 could maintain that it made his example less valuable. 
 
 With regard to the temptations of our Lord, undoubtedly the 
 recollection of his previous existence would occasionally be a 
 great help in overcoming them ; but I think that at other times 
 such recollection would tend to increase them in a terrible degree. 
 Especially temptations of the kind recorded during his so- 
 
38 
 
 journ in the wilderness; and we can Q§sily conceive that 
 the very perfection of his nature, the height and depth of his 
 affectional and intellectual life, would augment his peculiar 
 temptations far beyond what his memory of a pre-existent state 
 would assist in diminishing them. Moreover, is it not probable 
 that the being "tabernacled in flesh" would of itself so over- 
 cloud and dim those memories, as well as all his spiritual appre- 
 hensions, that he would, in the ordinary course of his life, be 
 much on a level in these respects with the frail race he came 
 to save; while the striving to realise the higher and more 
 blessed truths and facts with which he had once been familiar 
 would in itself be a source of deep trial, and bring with it 
 exceeding great temptations. 
 
 A far mightier claim, also, upon our gratitude, our obedience, 
 and our love, is presented by this view of his existence, than by 
 what is termed the Humanitarian theory. Should we not feel 
 most gratitude to him who suffers or gives up most for our sake? 
 Will not those feel a far deeper love to Christ, who can address 
 such language to him as the following, than those who only 
 think of him as having endured the lot of any mere human 
 martyrdom ? 
 
 We of that altar would partake, 
 
 But cannot quit the cost. No throne 
 
 Is ours, to leave for thy dear sake; 
 We cannot do as thou hast done. 
 
 We cannot part with heaven for thee,* 
 
 #«■•'*,,■#.;,....#<.,-# 
 
 Truly, we need not be anxious to shut our eyes to Scripture 
 evidence of the pre-existence of our beloved Lord, nor be de- 
 sirous of limiting his sacrifices for us to those which he made 
 while in the flesh. The deepest love we can give him, as our 
 Saviour and our Lord, must fall far below what he deserves ; 
 
 * The ' ' Christian Year. " Or see that heautif ul hymn commencing, ' ' Thou, 
 who didst stoop below ; " Martineau's Collection, 234. 
 
39 
 
 and we should be only too thankful for any views founded on 
 the truths of Holy Writ, which can deepen our sense of lus 
 unutterable claims upon our regard, which can help to explain 
 the manner in which Evangelists and Apostles speak of those 
 claims, or the spirit in which the Universal Church, from apostolic 
 days to this hour, has recognised and responded to them. 
 
 The missionary who descends from a home of light and peace 
 into the abodes of darkness and sin, more perfectly glorifies our 
 Father in heaven than he who labours only in the sphere to 
 which he has been always accustomed. Surely he who "being* 
 rich becomes poor for our sake " is the fuller expression of Divine 
 love than he who being poor remains so in the same holy cause. 
 
 It is not less important to consider the far more affecting view 
 of the love of God to man set forth in this relation of His Son 
 to Himself, than that which we adopt if we suppose that Christ 
 never existed until he was born at Bethlehem. What an in- 
 finitely deeper significance then attaches to these words: — "God 
 so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that 
 whomsoever believeth on him should not perish, but have ever- 
 lasting life."* "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered 
 him up for us all, how shall He not with him freely give us all 
 things ?"f Yes, it is true what has been nobly urged by great 
 Christian writers in every age, though until of late years with a 
 mournful misapprehension of the object and nature of the sacri- 
 fice, that God Himself has set us the grandest example of self- 
 sacrifice.J It is true that God Himself gave the only-begotten 
 Son, who dwelt in His bosom, His holy well-beloved child, who 
 had never grieved or disobeyed Him, in whom He was always 
 well pleased, to labour, suffer, die, in this sinful and sorrowful 
 world, that the frail race who were made in His image should 
 also become His dear children in time and in eternity. Herein 
 
 * John iii., 16. + Romans viii., 82 
 
 J Sec especially the writings of Maurice, and the lamented Eohmson, of 
 Brighton. 
 
40 
 
 is infinite love — divine love — that highest form of love which 
 can only he shown by sacrifice ; and how mighty becomes the 
 appeal to our love, and how strong the motive to sacrifice unto 
 Him in return all that we have and are. 
 
 The dearest offering He can crave, 
 
 His portion in our souls to prove, 
 What is it to the gift He gave — 
 The only Son of His dear love f * 
 
 Let me then invite attention to a brief glance at some of those 
 passages in Scripture which it seems to me most forcibly indicate 
 or plainly declare the existence of our Lord in intimate union 
 with his Father before his manifestation in this lower world. 
 
 The initial chapters of Matthew and Luke, though they do 
 not reveal our Saviour's pre-existence, certainly declare that he 
 did not commence his existence on earth in the ordinary way, 
 and entirely harmonise with the views given in the Proem of 
 St. John's Gospel. Those chapters stand there on the authority 
 of all the ancient MSS., and have as much right to be received 
 as any other chapters in the New Testament. The difficulties 
 connected with dates, &c, are not greater than those we en- 
 counter in other parts of the sacred records, and are gradually 
 yielding, like them, to more accurate knowledge and a more 
 searching criticism. 
 
 The fullest information respecting the nature and dignity of 
 the Son of God is found, as we might expect, in the Gospel of 
 John]; the three first Evangelists being more exclusively occupied 
 in recording those events and sayings which were comparatively 
 well understood at the time they transpired, and the memory of 
 which was preserved by written fragments and oral tradition. 
 The Apostles unquestionably received more special inspiration 
 after the Saviour's ascension, according to his promise (John 
 xiv., 26) ; and John appears to have been chosen by our Lord 
 to give a permanent record of those among his declarations and 
 
 * The " Christian Year." 
 
41 
 
 deeds which would bring* out most clearly the all-important 
 truths that had only been glanced at in the other gospels. That 
 those truths are however glanced at, and distinctly, though very 
 rarclj*, recognised in the synoptical gospels, is evident from the 
 following passages : — Matthew xi., 27, and Luke x., 22: "No 
 man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the 
 Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
 him." Surely these words recognise something in our Lord's 
 being and relations different from that of an ordinary man ; 
 making him to be different, not merely in endowments, but at 
 least in those respects which I have endeavoured in the fore- 
 going views to declare. The same remark would apply still more 
 forcibly to Matth. xxii., 42-45 ; Mark xii., 35 ; Luke xx., 41. 
 " If David then call him Lord, how is he His Son ?" It has been 
 said that this question was merely intended to direct attention to 
 the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and his consequent superiority 
 over David. But it does far more. It directs attention to 
 his origin and descent, to the difficulty of supposing that he was 
 merely a son of David, like Solomon, or any other of David's 
 descendants. 
 
 The same distinction is clearly set forth in the parable of the 
 wicked husbandmen, Matth. xxi., 37; Mark xii., 6 ; Luke xx.,13. 
 After various servants had been sent in vain, the lord of the 
 vineyard says, " I will send my beloved son." The son was of 
 the same nature as the servants, but certainly had a different 
 origin, and stood in different relations to the lord. But, above 
 all, we must notice the stress laid upon the revelation of a 
 Father in the synoptical gospels, and of Christ as the Son of 
 God, and consider whether we are prepared to let revelations so 
 solemn and emphatic be lost in the empty shadows of meaning- 
 less figures behind which lies no substance or reality. I cannot 
 but think these passages are amply sufficient to prove the 
 essential underlying unity of thought between the sacred re- 
 cords on this great subject. 
 
/ 
 
 42 
 
 Let us now return to the Gospel of St. John, and briefly 
 examine certain important passages therein contained. 
 
 " This was he of whom I spake. He that cometh after me is 
 preferred before me : for he was before me." John i., 15-30. 
 Endeavours have been made to show that irpioros here signifies 
 "he was my chief ;" but its usage with a genitive, to signify 
 priority in time, is the primary meaning, and far more common 
 with a genitive singular than the secondary use to signify 
 greater dignity.* Matth. xxvi., 17, is an instance of its use with 
 the plural genitive. 
 
 "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down 
 .w//t*'- from heaven^ even the Son of Man who is in heaven." John 
 in., 13. 
 
 This has been explained to mean that Christ had a more 
 . intimate knowledge of the Divine counsels than any other 
 ' 'prophet who had preceded him, or that he had a special 
 commission from God ; which, however, is surely a forced 
 and improbable explanation. The argument in favour of it, 
 from Matth. xxi., 25, is not in point, because an ordinance 
 or commission only is spoken of there ; and that may be 
 said of a thing which can by no means be predicated of a 
 person. 
 fftr%* The same explanation lias been offered of the following- 
 passages, and appears to me equally groundless: — "He that 
 cometh from above is above all. He that is of the earth 
 is earthy, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh from 
 heaven is above all." John hi., 31. For the difference set 
 forth between Jesus and John the Baptist with other prophets, 
 in these passages, is not a difference of degree, but an absolute 
 difference of kind, — not attributing " a more intimate acquaint- 
 ance" with the Divine counsels to the Son of Man than 
 the Baptist or any other prophet had possessed, but making a 
 distinction between them on the highest and broadest grounds, — 
 
 * Instances may be found in classic authors. 
 
43 
 
 viz., that the former had a heavenly and the latter an earthly 
 origin. To make so vast a distinction in words, and in reality 
 to mean only a distinction in the degree of knowledge possessed, 
 would be to write with a purpose of misleading. So with regard 
 to the second hypothesis of a more special commission being 
 intended. Surely John the Baptist, and the great prophets who 
 preceded him, had a commission from God; and, unquestionably, 
 John's baptism was ordained by, or came from, heaven. So 
 that the declarations in question cannot refer to our Lord's 
 commission, but must be intended to set forth some point 
 on which he differed in dignity altogether from those mes- 
 sengers of God who had preceded him. 
 
 " The Bread of God is he (or that) which cometh down from 
 heaven and giveth life unto the world. ... I am that 
 bread of life." John vi., 33-35. 
 
 These words would seem to speak plainly enough of our 
 Lord's having dwelt in heaven before he descended into this 
 lower world. But we are told by some to understand them as- 
 referring only to his doctrine — "this bread is his doctrine." I 
 think not. He says as distinctly as words permit, "I am that 
 bread of life." It is a grievous misapprehension, as well a& 
 perversion, of his solemn declaration, to be blind to the fact that 
 it is Jesus himself, far more than anything he taught, who is 
 the real bread and life of our souls. How truly and how often 
 it has been said, by writers of all sects, "Christ is Christianity. ' v 
 Our higher divine life is quickened, sustained, by spiritual com- I 
 munion with Jesus ; by a living sympathy with, and affection for r 
 and loyalty to him, far more than by meditation on his doctrine. 
 His doctrine teaches us what we ought to do, but it is spiritual 
 union with himself, as of the branch with the vine, that gives 
 men life and strength to do it. To "eat his flesh and drink his- 
 blood," conveys the same great meaning — viz., the appropria- 
 tion and assimilation of his spirit (which he alone can give), not 
 merely listening to his teachings. 
 
44 
 
 But perhaps the plainest evidence of Christ's pre-existence 
 is found in the 38th verse : "For I came down from heaven not 
 to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." Can 
 words speak more clearly than these ? And all the reply that 
 is given to this emphatic declaration, by one of the ablest 
 opponents of the views now advocated, is to show that the 
 phrase "descend from heaven" does not necessarily signify 
 local descent, but "sometimes expresses nothing more than 
 coming with a divine commission and authority." But observe 
 also the passage which shortly follows. "Does this offend you? 
 What and if you should see the Son of Man ascend up where 
 he was before ? " (John vi., 61-62.) What can be plainer ? 
 And when we find it proposed to explain away these words as 
 meaning, " What if I were to go still further out of your 
 mental reach, and to reveal truths still more foreign to 3 r our 
 conceptions, and more offensive to your prejudices?" * Surely 
 we need not seek for arguments to defend their simple and 
 obvious signification. Our Lord does not say "What if ye 
 shall see the Son of Man ascend up higher than he was before," 
 but "where he was before," so that the whole of the above 
 explanation falls through, even if it were not far too strained a 
 meaning to be put upon the words, — a meaning which, I think, 
 would scarcely have occurred to any thoughtful mind, except 
 under the pressure of controversy and in an ardent desire to 
 disprove the existence of our Lord prior to his " partaking of 
 flesh and blood." 
 
 "If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded 
 forth and came from God." John viii., 42. 
 
 In the words " proceeded forth," e^rjXOov, something more 
 certainly appears to be implied than that our Lord had merely 
 received a commission from God in the same way as Moses or 
 John the Baptist received it. 
 
 * Belsliam's "Calm Inquiry," pp. 45-6, 54; + pp. GG, 67. See also 
 "Kenrick's Commentary" in lcco. 
 
45 
 
 "Jesus answered, Yerily, verily, I say unto you, Before 
 Abraham was, I am." John viii., 58. This would seem to be a 
 conclusive statement of the truth now contended for ; but 
 various modes have been suggested for explaining its first and 
 obvious meaning in a different sense. The one most in favour 
 is to change the present tense into the past, and to supply the 
 word "he;" thus, " Before Abraham was, I was he" who was 
 ordained in the Divine counsels to be the Messiah. Much learn- 
 ing and acuteness of argument have been displayed in support 
 of tins view, but after all that has been said, the thought re- 
 turns with overwhelming force that we might be reconciled to 
 these forced and remote interpretations, if they were needed and 
 employed only to explain that one passage, and if the rest of 
 Scripture were opposed to the views they are intended to combat. 
 But when such interpretations are brought forward so fre- 
 quently, and passage after passage, which implies the pre- 
 existence of the Son of God, has to be thus treated, suspicion 
 grows into certainty, and we feel that unless our Lord and his 
 evangelists desired purposely to mislead us, they never would 
 have made such a process of interpretation necessary for the 
 comprehension of their meaning. For example, if our Lord 
 had intended us to understand simply what is said above, 
 why should the present tense have been used instead of the 
 past ? No instances are given in support of this usage ; and as 
 to the theory that the word "he" should be supplied after 
 "I am," some of the instances are not at all in point, and others 
 are quite insufficient to make it probable our Lord meant 
 merely that he was ordained to be the Messiah before Abraham 
 was born. Especially, we ask how on that supposition our i 
 Lord's answer meets the question of the Jews, "And hast thou 
 seen Abraham?" It is perfectly irrelevant. What would 
 God's purpose to make him the Messiah have to do with 
 his seeing Abraham ages before that purpose took effect ? But 
 if we accept the simple obvious meaning of his words, — 
 
46 
 
 ; viz., that before Abraham lived he possessed that divine exist- 
 ence which is a perpetual " I am," and which lies beyond the 
 reach of our laws of time, then his answer is a pertinent reply. 
 v That the Jews understood his answer thus is evident from their 
 indignation. They would not have been ready to stone him for 
 merely declaring- that God had intended before the call of 
 Abraham to make him the promised Saviour. There would 
 have been no apparent blasphemy in that; but there would 
 have been in declaring that he, who was seemingly a mere 
 man like themselves, had been in existence before their great 
 ancestor and head, — especially in using Avc-rds which would seem 
 to intimate that his true life and being belonged to a region 
 above their own as children of men. The Saviour, bv the 
 language here recorded, carries our thoughts up to the concep- 
 tion of that higher and eternal life on which he himself had 
 entered ages before! and to procure which for man, and to 
 prepare us for its enjoyment, he had descended into this lower 
 and perishing world of time, space, and matter. 
 
 I proceed to another passage in which the same word is used 
 that was commented on in John viii., 42. 
 
 "Jesus knowing that he was come from God and went to 
 God." John xiii., 3. It is a word never applied either to 
 apostle or prophet, and in this sentence its meaning seems still 
 more clearly defined by the corresponding clause " and went to 
 God." To say that it simply means he came as a messenger 
 from God like any other prophet, is a similar mode of straining 
 the sense of words to that before objected to. If this were all 
 that the Evangelist meant, would he have used a word which 
 naturally and inevitably conveys the idea of something very 
 different ? If he had intended us to understand merely that 
 Christ was divinely commissioned, there were several words quite 
 fit for such a meaning, without taking one that implies a great 
 deal more. 
 
 But this reasoning applies still more forcibly to a similar use 
 
47 
 
 of the same expression in the 16th chapter: — "I came forth 
 from the Father, and am come into the world ; again I leave the 
 world, and go unto the Father." John xvi., 28. No language 
 surely could speak more decisively. The only explanation given 
 in opposition to the obvious meaning is that " both clauses should 
 he taken figuratively. As Jesus came into the world when he 
 appeared as a messenger from God ; so, conversely, he left the 
 world and returned to the Father when his mission closed, and 
 he ceased to appear any longer as a public teacher."* But no 
 reason is given why we should adopt this "figurative" inter- 
 pretation, nor why we should suppose that by coming forth 
 from, and returning to, the Father, Jesus merely meant his 
 commencing and closing his public ministry. Surely it is not 
 by straining and twisting the natural and simple meaning of our 
 Lord's words that we are to arrive at the truth ; especially in a 
 declaration which produced so profound an impression upon the 
 disciples. (See v. 30.) 
 
 It is, however, urged, with more appearance of propriety, that 
 in the 18th verse our Lord plainly shows the true meaning of 
 all the passages in which he is spoken of as coming into the 
 world : — "As Thou hast sent "me into the world, even so have I 
 also sent them into the world." (John xvii., 18.) If this were 
 the only place in which our Saviour speaks of coming, or being 
 sent, into the world, it would no doubt afford a strong probability '. 
 that he simply meant he had been divinely commissioned ; but 
 to make this single passage give a forced interpretation to a 
 great many others, instead of letting their obvious meaning give 
 the interpretation to this, is not a likely or a reasonable method 
 for arriving at Scripture truth. Looking at the various passages 
 in question, and then examining this solitary text, I cannot but 
 conclude that the thought in our Lord's mind was the analogy 
 which existed between his Father's drawing him from the 
 peaceful security of his abode in heaven to send him into an 
 
 * Belsham's "Calm Inquiry," pp. 104-5. 
 
48 
 
 arena of fierce conflict and glorious strife in a grand and blessed 
 cause, and his drawing these poor fishermen from their quiet 
 homes to plunge them into the same awful and hallowed fight. 
 The analogy, of course, need not hold good in all respects; few 
 analogies can, or are intended to do so. 
 
 AYe have next to consider with all seriousness an important 
 passage which, like the last, would seem to admit of only one 
 signification. It occurs in the sublime prayer offered up by our 
 blessed Lord the night before his crucifixion, when after saying 
 " I have glorified Thee on the earth, I have finished the work 
 which Thou gavest me to do," he continues thus : " And now, 
 O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the glory 
 which I had with Thee before the world was." (John xvii., 5.) 
 
 Nevertheless, it has been argued that the glory for which 
 Jesus here prays cannot mean any honour for himself, for that 
 would have been a selfish petition quite out of keeping with his 
 character, that it must mean the triumph of his religion. But 
 may it not be a prayer that God would manifest forth that 
 intimate and blessed union that existed between Himself and 
 His beloved Son, and which had existed before the world or the 
 present order of things had been created ? " The Holy Spirit 
 was not yet given," said the Evangelist (John vii., 39,) "because 
 Jesus was not yet glorified," i.e., his intimate and glorious union 
 with the Father was not yet made known to man, nor the full 
 and heavenly results of that union made manifest. A prayer that 
 his disciples might behold and know of this glorious oneness 
 existing between his Father and himself would be anything but 
 selfish ; for next to the happiness of entering into that hallowed 
 union themselves (which he also repeatedly prays for — see 
 John xvii., 20-23), and acting as a powerful stimulus towards it, 
 would be the joy of knowing that he, after whose pattern they 
 were created, was indeed one with the eternal Grod. And hence 
 we find the same idea as that in the verse under consideration 
 repeated in the 24th verse. " Father, I will (or do earnestly 
 
49 
 
 desire) that they also whom Thou hast given me, be with mer 
 where I am ; that they may behold my* glory which Thou hast 
 given me: for Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 
 world." 
 
 These last words would seem to be still more conclusive than 
 the former passage. The only explanation given of them by 
 those who deny that they refer to his existing before the founda- 
 tion of the world is the same as that mentioned above, — viz., that 
 even before the foundation of the world God " intended " to love 
 him, or intended to bestow upon him the glory of redeeming the 
 human race. But would any other writings be treated in this 
 way? If any secular historian, Tacitus or Hume for instance, 
 speaking of some historic personage, were to say that such a 
 king had loved a certain nobleman, even before he came to court, 
 would it ever enter our minds to suppose that we were merely 
 to understand that long before the said nobleman appeared in 
 the royal presence the king intended to honour and promote 
 this man ? 
 
 Then, again, it has been said that the word " love " means, 
 "in Scripture phraseology, to select to peculiar privileges."* 
 What can one answer to this reasoning, except ask in wonder 
 and regret, Is this the way or the spirit in which we should 
 examine the Scriptures ? Is the holiest of all words, the one 
 that is fullest of God's essential glory, to be thus degraded to 
 square with a particular hypothesis ? 
 
 In the writings of the Apostle Paul, we find what seem very 
 plain declarations of, and references to, this great truth con- 
 cerning the pre-existence of Christ, such declarations and allu- 
 sions, as I conceive, could not have been made unless he had 
 considered it to be a truth that had already been sufficiently 
 revealed by the writings and preaching of the other apostles and 
 himself. Thus, in 1 Cor. xv., 47, "The first man is of the 
 
 * " Calm Inquiry," p. 119. 
 
50 
 
 earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord from heaven. " 
 Now, although it is true that the words 6 Kvptos, " the Lord," 
 are of doubtful authenticity, yet the declaration remains equally 
 plain, "the second man is from heaven." 
 
 I have before remarked on the argument that to come from 
 heaven means merely to have a divine commission ; but I may 
 add here that no instances are given, or can be found, where 
 this expression is used in reference to any other messengers of 
 God. Jesus, indeed, asked if the Pharisees thought John's 
 baptism, i.e., his commission to baptise, was from heaven or 
 from men. But that is very different from asking if the Baptist 
 himself came from heaven. And to confound two thino-s so 
 
 o 
 
 different, and then to bring forward the latter passage as a 
 triumphant proof that the former means merely a divine com- 
 mission, appears to be rather disingenuous. 
 
 The next striking passage that we meet with in support of 
 the pre-existence of the Son of God is in 2 Cor. viii., 9, — " For 
 ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he 
 was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, tbat ye through his 
 poverty might become rich." It must be admitted, however, 
 that it is open to doubt whether the words "he became" are 
 authorised by the original. The first aor. iud. of course does 
 not necessarily convey the idea of " becoming," and may mean 
 simply that he was poor. Hence I cannot regard the passage as an 
 assertion of Christ's pre-existence, but simply as an important 
 and touching reference to it. That it is a reference seems most 
 probable, if we consider in what sense can the son of a carpenter 
 in Galilee have been said to be rich ? " In the possession of 
 miraculous powers," it is answered ; not in gifts of holiness, 
 because our Lord certainly was not poor in any sense as to 
 them. But is this an obvious natural explanation? To restrict 
 the meaning of the words " being rich " to our Lord's possession 
 of miraculous powers, which he did not use for his own benefit, 
 se,ems as unsatisfactory an explanation as those already given of 
 
51 
 
 other parts of Scripture. However, I do not desire to urge the 
 argument from this passage too closely. But I cannot see how any 
 language could speak more clearly than the following from the 
 Apostle's letter to the Philippian converts : — " Let this mind be 
 in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; who being in the form 
 of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; but made 
 himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a 
 servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross." Philipp. ii., 5-8. 
 
 The words " in the form of God" cannot, of course, refer to 
 Christ's bodily form, but to his spiritual being, and must bear 
 the same meaning as those in winch he is said to be " the 
 express image" of God's person (Heb. i., 3), by which 
 something more is certainly meant than that he had the same 
 nature as God, because he did not "empty himself" (zavrov 
 €K£voht€v) of that, when he appeared on earth. Neither can 
 the words " thought it not robbery," &c, be allowed to pass 
 as an assertion that Jesus claimed equality with God. Such an 
 assertion by the Apostle would have been in opposition to the 
 very lesson (humility) which he is inculcating by the example 
 of Christ, and, above all, would have been directly contradicting 
 the Saviour, who said, " My Father is greater than I." (John 
 xiv., 28.) We are not likely, I think, to find an inspired 
 Apostle making such a contradiction as that. But, on comparing 
 the original with other parts of Scripture, we perceive that the 
 words tcra #ew need not necessarily be translated " equal with 
 God," — they may signify " like God," " of the same nature with 
 God." Thus, in the Septuagint, Job v., 17; tcra vvkti, and 
 x., 10; xi., 12. Many classical authorities, also, are given by 
 Schleusner. But the word is used by an Evangelist in a way 
 which throws much light on the sentence under consideration, 
 viz., in John v., 18, where we find the Jews charging our Lord 
 with making himself lctov tw dew, because he said that God was 
 
52 
 
 his father. !N"ow, it is plain that claiming God as his father was 
 not claiming equality with God, — it was a distinct assertion of 
 his inferiority, — a declaration that God was the Source, the 
 Father, and he the offspring. But it was an equally distinct 
 claim of very close relationship to God. And that claim is, 
 probably, what Paul refers to in this passage. But, since it is a 
 question whether the word translated " robbery," apiraynov, 
 should be active or passive, — the act of snatching, or the thing 
 snatched, — it is unnecessary, and impossible, in fact, to determine 
 positively in which sense we are to understand icra here. If 
 apirayiiov be taken in the passive sense, there would then be no 
 reason against understanding ta-a to mean " equal " with God. 
 
 But, leaving these points, we have next to observe the force- 
 and clearness of the testimony which the Apostle bears to the 
 great truth set forth in the previously-quoted passages of 
 Scripture. Wo lose something of that force from the words 
 kavrov €Kev(D(re being translated " made himself of no reputa- 
 tion," instead of "emptied himself," which is the true rendering. 
 And when we find the Apostle speaking of Christ as being in 
 the form of God, but emptying himself of this glory, and taking 
 upon himself, instead, the form of a servant, a servant of God 
 and men (Luke xxii., 27), voluntarily taking this form, while he 
 abdicated the other, — when he further speaks of the Son of God $ 
 as being made in the likeness of men, and being found in the 
 outward semblance (crx^aTi) of a man, and describes all this 
 as "humbling himself," — it seems singular that such a statement 
 by the Apostle does not convince all his readers that he is re- 
 minding us of the solemn fact proclaimed by John at the 
 commencement of his Gospel, implied by Matthew and Luke in 
 the commencement of theirs, alluded to' in several of the sayings 
 of our Lord recorded by them, but emphatically dwelt upon by 
 him many times in the record preserved by John. Why arc we 
 asked to believe that " being in the form of God," &c., merely 
 
53 
 
 means that he was "a prophet invested with miraculous powers/'* 
 and "divested himself of them" — i.e., regarded these powers 
 " as a trust to be exercised only for the benefit of others," and 
 to be " resigned at the Divine command, or when the purpose 
 of his mission required?" Why are we to suppose that " being 
 found in the likeness of men " means merely " becoming thus 
 like other men ? " See Bom. viii., 3 : " God sending His own 
 Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ;" a passage in itself asserting 
 the existence of the Son of God before he appeared in the like- 
 ness of flesh— v., of the outward form in which humanity is 
 now clothed. Or why are we told that " being found in out- 
 ward appearance as a man " only signifies " being in outward 
 appearance like an ordinary man ? " Why is the obvious 
 meaning to be thus forced, and quite a different interpretation 
 substituted ? Ought we to tamper thus with Scripture, instead 
 of taking the simple sense which seems to pervade the whole 
 passage, and which accords so strikingly with that of the texts 
 already examined ? Had not too much been claimed for the Son 
 of God by some writers, I cannot believe that these texts would ever 
 have thus been put on the rack to make them yield a sense 
 which asserts far too little. 
 
 The following passage from Paul's Epistle to the Christians at 
 Oolosse is a more clear and emphatic declaration of the position 
 held by the Son of God than perhaps any that precede 
 it : — " Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of 
 every creature : for by him were all things created; that are in 
 heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
 be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things 
 were created by -him, and for him : ' and he is before all things, 
 and by him all things consist." 
 
 The words here used, " The firstborn of every creature," with 
 the assertion that ** by him were all things created," and that 
 
 " Calm Inquiry," pp. 143-4. 
 
54 
 
 " he is before all things, and by him all things consist " or hold 
 together, seem to be a very explicit statement of the Apostle's 
 views, — a declaration that would probably have precluded 
 further controversy, were it not that in the 18th verse 
 Christ is also said to be the first-born from the dead 
 whence it is inferred that the Apostle only meant, in tlie 
 previous declaration also, that he was the first-born from the 
 dead. But surely it is more in accordance with sound criticism 
 to make the second phrase square with the obvious and most 
 emphatic assertion of the first, — and to suppose that the Apostle 
 meant that, as Jesus was the first-born of every creature, so he 
 was also the first-born from the dead, — than to limit the plain 
 unqualified declaration just previously made, by the subsidiary 
 and additional particulars given subsequently. Three instances 
 are given from the Old Testament where the word "first-born" sig- 
 nifies merely "excellence." But, as they all occur in poetical com- 
 positions, we should hardly be justified in therefore substituting 
 a secondary and figurative meaning for the obvious one, in a 
 plain prose letter, written on the most solemn subjects, to instruct 
 a number of recent converts to Christianity. Then it is said 
 that the words " before all things " may mean merely priority 
 in dignity, which is, of course, quite true. But would the Apostle 
 have expected the Colossians to understand the word in that 
 secondary sense after what he had just said concerning Christ ? 
 His most anxious desire would be to avoid misleading them. 
 
 Let us next observe the statements of the Apostle respecting 
 the offices of Christ in the passage just quoted;* "For 
 by him were all things created, that arc in heaven and that are 
 in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or domi- 
 nions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by 
 him, and for him." It has been urged that this declaration 
 
 * Grieshach and Lachmann reject the words "by Jesus Christ," in 
 Ephesians iii., 9, as spurious. 
 
55 
 
 refers only to the new creation, the new dispensation by Christ. 
 But there is no argument to prove this ; not even an indication 
 that this could be the Apostle's meaning, except the expression 
 " whether they be thrones," <fcc, which is supposed to limit the 
 words " things that are in heaven and in earth, visible and in- 
 visible." But is it not manifest that this clause, " whether," 
 &c, refers only to the things "invisible?" Would the Colos- 
 sians have been likely to suppose that by the expression " all 
 visible things that are in earth," Paul meant certain offices of 
 state and power, such as thrones, lordships, &c. ? Would they - 
 not rather understand that by these particulars he was explaining 
 what he meant by "things invisible" which phrase, of course,, 
 they would not so easily understand without an explanation, 
 while the words " things visible" speak plainly enough for 
 themselves ? 
 
 But it must not be forgotten that it is never said all things 
 were created by Christ, except as the means, instrument, and 
 condition of their creation. Grod is uniformly spoken of as the 
 Creator-- . But His Son is emphatically declared not only to have 
 been the agent by means of whom it pleased the Father to create 
 " all things visible and invisible," but the means also by whom they 
 subsist, consist (crweo-r^Kev), or are held together, which phrase 
 throws some light on the expression eu avro), " in him were all 
 things created." 
 
 In this important passage we also find the statement that 
 " all things were created," not only by, but "for him" (cts), 
 
 * The word in 16th verse translated " hy," signifies " in " (ev), and is so 
 corrected hy Alford ; and though it may he difficult to ascertain the precise 
 meaning of all things heing created in Christ (Schleiermacher, Neander, 
 and Olshausen taking one view, Meyer and Alford another), yet it is quite 
 plain that the expression gives no support to the idea that Christ was the 
 primary Creator. Alford lays this down distinctly, thus : "'By him.' Instru- 
 mental : He is the agent in creation."— (Vol. iii., p. 194) in commenting on 
 the word also translated "hy " at the end of the 16th v. (Sia), which should 
 he rendered " through " or " hy means of." 
 
i.e., "with a view to him : he is the end of creation, containing 
 the reason in himself why creation is at all, and why it is as it 
 is." (AJford.J This view of the Apostle's meaning entirely 
 harmonises with what he says elsewhere, especially at the com- 
 mencement of his Epistle to the Ephesians, where it is important 
 to notice his use of the word avaKecfraXatucracrOaL (ch. i., v. 10.) 
 The force of the preposition ava is quite lost in our common 
 version, which ought to have run thus : — " that ... he 
 might gather together again under one head all things in 
 Christ." We have the same idea in the fourth and fifth verses 
 of this chapter. Christ, the primary idea — man created in view 
 of him, with reference to him. Commending, then, this very 
 significant and solemn statement of the Apostle to the reader's 
 earnest consideration, let us glance at one or two more passages 
 of remarkable weight in this inquiry. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. i. v. 2, we find something 
 very similar to the statement which we have just been con- 
 sidering, for of the Son of God it is there said that " by " or 
 61 through " (Sia)* him God made the worlds," or rather, " the 
 ages." The original can scarcely bear the meaning given to it 
 in the received version. Aitoyas should not be translated 
 " worlds." It generally means " ages," or vast periods of time, 
 and the dispensations of the Creator developed in those periods^ 
 which however is an expression assigning to Christ functions 
 plainly requiring his existence long before he appeared in 
 the flesh. 
 
 In the next verse he is spoken of in the way already com- 
 mented on (page 55), and even as "upholding all things by the 
 power of his word," which exactly tallies with the view just 
 given of Paul's meaning in Col. i., 17. It is, indeed, urged by 
 some that " all things " here must be limited to all things in 
 
 * No doubt Sta might signify " for whom," but its use as expressing the 
 final is rare compared with its employment as the instrumental cause. 
 
57 
 
 the Christian dispensation. But why ? Only to suit an inter- 
 pretation which in this, as in all the other passages quoted, 
 strains the obvious meaning, and even turns it aside in favour 
 of one far-fetched. 
 
 The remaining verses of this chapter are a striking and 
 solemn declaration of the pre-eminent glory and power of the 
 Son of God, above that of all angels, both in nature, power, and 
 degree. But the 14th and 17th verses of the second chapter 
 seem to make it perfectly clear that the writer of this epistle 
 viewed Christ as having existed before he partook of " flesh 
 and blood." The original signifies that ordinary human beings, 
 * the children/' shared in common " flesh and blood," but that 
 the Son of God " took part " in it, i.e., voluntarily participated.* 
 There is a marked difference between the two words in the 
 original. In the same way it is said in the 17th verse that it 
 was necessary that he should be made like unto his brethren in 
 these respects, that he might accomplish his work of reconcilia- 
 tion. But if he had not previously existed in a different 
 condition, i.e., without flesh and blood, how could it have 
 entered the writer's mind to speak of the Saviour as having to 
 undergo the change in condition here attributed to him ? 
 
 If, as there is strong reason to bclieve,t the quotation from 
 the Septuagint of the 40th Psalm, in the 10th chapter of this 
 epistle (5th verse) r is given correctly, "Sacrifice and offering 
 Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared me," instead 
 of as in the Hebrew text, " mine ears hast thou opened," the 
 expression is a plain statement of the incarnation of our Lord, 
 a passage which with all the former passages might perhaps be 
 
 * Belshain remarks that jW-erecr^e does not necessarily imply a voluntary 
 act, but certainly in a vast preponderance of instances it will be found to 
 do so ; while with K€KOiV(i)vqK€V it is the reverse. 
 
 + And as Belsham admits is most probable ; though he would make <T(dfAa 
 ("body") merely mean "strength, constitution." — See his "Epistles of 
 St. Paul." 
 
58 
 
 explained away, if it stood by itself; but which, in connection 
 with them, forms a strong corroborative link in the chain of 
 evidence. 
 
 I lay no great stress upon the words in 1 John iv., 9, " God 
 sent His only-begotton Son into the world," because «? may 
 mean "to" as well as "into;" but certainly "into" is the 
 primary signification, and that which, without good reason to the 
 contrary, should be adopted. 
 
 The only other passages that need be commented on under 
 this division of the subject are in the Book of Revelation, " These 
 things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the 
 beginning of the creation of God." (Rev. iii., 14.) Such words 
 speak plainly enough. But we are told the writer only meant 
 the beginning of the new creation, the new moral creation. If 
 he had simply meant this, why should he not have said so ? Why 
 have omitted the very words necessary to explain his meaning? 
 
 Then in the last chapter we find Jesus speaking of himself 
 thus : "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright 
 and morning star " (Rev. xxii., 16), words very puzzling to me 
 while I believed Jesus was only the offspring of David, and 
 only intelligible to us, I think, when we understand why "David 
 called him Lord," as the original archetypal Man, the beginning 
 of the creation. It is, indeed, said that "root" means merely 
 "a sucker or plant from the root," and the word "rod," in 
 Isaiah xi., 1, is translated "'root" to support the previous mis- 
 translation ;* but by this style of criticism any doctrine might 
 be proved from any text ; and, as no arguments are given in 
 support of it, it may be dismissed. 
 
 The following passages, though not asserting the pre-existence 
 of our Lord, appear more or less distinctly to allude to it : — 
 
 " Not that any one hath seen the Father, save he who is of 
 God ; he hath seen the Father." John vi., 4, 6. 
 
 * " Calm Inquiry," p. 169. 
 
59 
 
 " I know whence I came and whither I go." John viii., 14. 
 
 " I speak that which I have seen with my Father." John 
 viii., 38. 
 
 It is fully admitted that words like these might refer simply 
 to the intercourse Jesus might have had with the Father before 
 he entered on his ministry, and while on earth. But taken in 
 connection with the passages previously quote 1, it seems far 
 more probable that they refer to his existence before coming to 
 earth. 
 
 The following passage is much more emphatic : — " My Father 
 is greater than I." John xiv., 28. 
 
 Can we imagine an ordinary man saying such a thing without 
 insanity or blasphemy, " God is greater than I am ?" But it is 
 urged that his disciples did not see anything extraordinary in 
 this declaration, that they were not " overwhelmed with astonish- 
 ment and terror,"* as they otherwise would have been. ISTay, 
 but I think they would unquestionably be profoundly impressed 
 with a sense of the greatness and dignity of their Master as they 
 listened to those words, and it is abundantly evident that they 
 were. But at the same time it was not a statement calculated 
 to overwhelm them more than the one made weeks before, when 
 Peter confessed Jesus to be " the Son of the living God." 
 
 "For this end was I born, and for this came I into the 
 world." John xviii., 37. 
 
 The only answer attempted here, as in so many similar pas- 
 sages, is a reference to John xvii., 18, where, as was said above, 
 page 47, the same expression is figuratively applied to the 
 Apostles' commission. 
 
 "Paul, an apostle, not of man, nor by men, but by Jesus 
 Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead." 
 Gal. i., 1. This is an expression that could hardly have been 
 
 * " Calm Inquiry," p. 156. The quotation from Job xxxiii., 12-13, is 
 surely worth nothing. 
 
60 
 
 used, one would think, by a Humanitarian. Coupled with the 
 latter clause, which emphatically forbids the idea of the Deity 
 of Christ, it is intelligible only on the hypothesis advocated 
 above, which at once vindicates the titles of Son of God and Son 
 of Man, and furnishes an explanation of the different ways in 
 which Christ is spoken of in the Scriptures. 
 
 " Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ 
 which was in them did signify " . . 1 Peter i., 11. How 
 could his spirit have been in the olden prophets if he himself 
 did not then exist ? To say that it means " the spirit of truth" 
 is a gratuitous assumption. 
 
 "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh, is of God." 1 John iv., 2. 
 
 This may be aimed simply at the heresy of the Docetse, but even 
 then, viewed in connection with the rest of John's writing, it 
 would seem to refer to his having previously existed in the 
 spirit. 
 
 The first verse in this epistle has already been commented on 
 in connection with the introductory verses of St. John's Gospel, 
 but the second verse must not be unnoticed. " For the life was 
 manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show 
 unto you that Eternal life, which was with the Father and was 
 manifested unto us." 1 John i., 2. Now this Life, which the 
 Apostle says was with the Father, and was then manifested unto 
 men, is the same Life or "Word of Life which in the previous verse 
 he declares his eyes had looked upon and his hands had handled. 
 What can this be but Jesus Christ? And then do not the words 
 " which was with the Father " point to his existence with the 
 Father before he was manifested to the world ? 
 
 I have not referred to 1 Cor. x., 9, because the reading 
 "Lord" in that passage is more probably correct than "Christ," 
 although, of course, that rendering would not necessarily exclude 
 the idea that Christ was referred to. 
 
 I conclude this brief and imperfect glance at the principal 
 
61 
 
 texts bearing- upon the great question under consideration, by 
 referring* to the very striking manner in which the Son is 
 associated with the Father in various parts of the New Testa- 
 ment. Let the candid reader ask himself whether it is conceiv- 
 able that if Christ had been simply an ordinary man by birth 
 and nature, just like any other son of Adam, and made extra- 
 ordinary only by the communication of the Holy Spirit *- with- 
 out measure " at some period prior to the commencement of his 
 ministry, — if before that time he were simply such as Socrates 
 or Isaiah was, and afterwards only such as they or we might 
 have been had the Spirit beef given to them or to us without 
 measure, — whether it is conceivable that Christ coidd have 
 spoken thus : " If a man love me, he will keep my words, and 
 my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make 
 our abode with him ? " (John xiv. 23) ; or that his inspired 
 servant should have written thus : "And I beheld, and I heard 
 the voice of many angels round about the throne . . . and 
 every creature which is in heaven and on the earth . . . 
 heard I saying, - Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power 
 be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, 
 for ever and ever ? '" (Rev. v., 11-13) ; or thus : " And they 
 cried with a loud voice, saying, salvation to our God who sitteth 
 upon the throne and unto the Lamb ? " (vii., 10) ; or thus : 
 "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and 
 of the Lamb shall be in it ? " (xxii., 3) ; then again observe 
 how the Apostle Paul constantly conjoins Christ and God : 
 " Grace be unto 3*011 and peace from God our Father and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ" (Coloss. i., 2). "Now our Lord Jesus 
 Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, 
 and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through 
 grace, comfort your hearts and stablish you in every good word 
 and work " (2 Thcss. ii., 16-17). Even so the Apostle John 
 continually in his Gospel and Epistles ; " Grace be with you, 
 mercy and peace, from God the Father and from the Lord 
 
G2 
 
 Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father." " He that abideth in 
 the doctrine of Christ, he hath the Father and the Son." 
 2 John, 3-9. Is there not also deep significance in that 
 baptismal formula recorded by Matthew as the last words 
 uttered by our Saviour on earth : " Baptising them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ? " 
 Matt, xxviii, 19. But it is needless to multiply quotations any 
 further. The Scriptures, unlike human creeds, do not give us 
 sharply defined propositions and definitions. They seem ex- 
 pressly to abstain from that. We must take the general sense 
 and tenor of their statements, whi#i are no doubt, and for wisest 
 purposes, left in a certain degree of indistinctness ; for, in fact, 
 all really religious conceptions concerning the nature of spiritual 
 beings, and our relations to them, must be to some extent vague 
 and indefinite. While we are in the flesh, we can but very 
 faintly apprehend, not in the least comprehend, the things of the 
 spirit, and we must not be surprised if the revelations of God on 
 all these points are unable to clear up all doubts and make the 
 facts as plain as a proposition in Euclid. Early education, and 
 social influences, especially natural temperament and intellectual 
 tendencies, will necessarily have a great share in deciding a 
 man's belief where there is any room for doubt, as in the question 
 we have been discussing. The foregoing arguments have been 
 offered simply as a contribution towards determining the general 
 meaning of Scripture, and as an indication of the Scriptural 
 reasoning and evidence which have given the writer a solid and 
 deeply satisfactory ground for his own convictions to rest upon.. 
 Some able Biblical scholars, feeling the force of that evidence, 
 but strongly inclined to the Humanitarian view of our Lord's 
 nature, have admitted that a pre-existence is clearly referred to by 
 John and Paul, but maintain that it was simply the pre-existence 
 of the impersonal Logos, not of the Son of God, which they believed 
 in and taught. But if this were the case, instead of using such 
 language as this, " the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of 
 
A* 
 
 ?fc 63 
 
 the world," " God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh," surely they would have said that God sent His Word, or 
 His Spirit. To speak in such a case of a person when they 
 meant a thing, would so directly and evidently tend to mislead 
 that the conjecture appears totally inadmissible. When John 
 wishes to trace the origin of the personal Son of God, he then 
 speaks of the Logos; but both in the proem and elsewhere 
 abundantlv shows that lone; before that Logos was manifested in 
 Jesus of Nazareth it was the originating cause of the personal 
 existence of the Son of God. 
 
 Other supporters of the Humanitarian* theory admit that John 
 and Paul unquestionably must themselves have believed in the 
 pre-existence of our Lord, or they could not have written as they 
 have done. But the} r contend that neither John nor Paul was 
 correctly informed on the subject, and substituted the figments of 
 their own fancy for Divine truth, — that John especially misleads 
 us by putting his own words into the mouth of Christ, and invent- 
 ing speeches for his Saviour after the manner of Thucydides or 
 Livy. As I am^not attempting to vindicate the authenticity of 
 Scripture, but only to interpret it, I must not stop to examine 
 this proposition. But I cannot refrain from referring those who 
 support it to the following text : " But the Comforter, which is 
 the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he 
 shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remem- 
 brance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John xiv., 26, 
 Were these words really uttered by our Lord, or are they put 
 into his mouth by the Apostle ? In the former case, we under- 
 stand why and how the apostles would be preserved from error, 
 and enabled to record exactly of their master's sayings all that 
 
 * Not that this word, by-the-by, is a fair description of the hypothesis, 
 because in accordance with the views advocated in the present essay, the 
 pure and simple Humanity of Christ is as sacredly maintained if he be 
 supposed to have existed " before the worlds," as if his existence first com- 
 menced at Bethlehem eighteen centuries ago. 
 
64 
 
 was necessary to be handed down to mankind. In the latter 
 case, the beloved Apostle was simply forging a statement to 
 procure credit for his writings which they did not deserve, and 
 many a man has been hung for forgeries infinitely less criminal. 
 This is conduct not exactly consistent with the general character 
 of the Apostle, or of his writings. 
 
 But while the Scriptures are thus explicit as to the origin 
 and Divinity of the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, it is equally important to observe that their testimony is 
 not less clear on the other great question discussed in Chapter II., 
 viz., the necessary, essential, and eternal subordination of the 
 Son of God to the Father who begat him. The mere fact of his 
 being designated in Holy Writ as the Son of God, one might 
 suppose would have prevented any doubt on this subject wherever 
 their authority is received, had it not been for the extent to 
 which the language of the Athanasian Creed has been adopted 
 by various theologians and divines. Since, however, it is quite 
 certain that many excellent Christians have endeavoured to 
 elevate the Son to an absolute equality with his Father, and 
 not content with vindicating his Divinity, have claimed for him 
 an equal right to be proclaimed as Deity, since they have per- 
 verted the holy and blessed Scripture title which he claimed for 
 himself and blessed all who recognised it, the " Son of God," 
 into the unscriptural, unmeaning, most unnatural, and, I fear, 
 even blasphemous title of " God the Son," it is needful to 
 advert to the following solemn declarations by our Lord and his 
 apostles. 
 
 On one occasion we find " the Jews sought the more to kill 
 him because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also 
 that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. ; * 
 John v., IS. Now, whatever may be the force of icrov* (here 
 translated "equal"), can any language be more clear and 
 emphatic than that in which Jesus disclaims the purpose which 
 
 * See page 51. 
 
Go 
 
 the Jews attribute to him ? " Then answered Jesus and said 
 unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do 
 nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do. . 
 I can of mine own self do nothing." (John v., 19-30.) If the 
 Jcavs intended to charge him with making himself equal with 
 God, or if Jesus knew that their meaning would be misunder- 
 stood, and gave in his answer declarations that would reply both 
 to them, and to those who have perverted their language, the 
 result is equally decisive and all-important to us. No man, 
 after pondering these words, need be in doubt as to whether 
 Jesus claimed equality with God. No one ought to doubt what 
 such words as these mean — " I can of mine own self do notlling. ,, 
 There is no reservation there — no shadow of a reference to the 
 doctrine of two natures, by which it is sometimes urged that our 
 Lord spoke now as man and then as God. For, on the contrary, 
 he says distinctly, " I, of mine own self." If this, as some would 
 urge, were said by him as man, it follows that he himself is not 
 God but man. If it is said as God, we are asked to believe in 
 a Deity, who not only is not omnipotent, but is absolutely and 
 wholly dependent on another Being for all that he can do. 
 
 It seems, however, improbable that the Jews, bigoted and 
 vindictive as they were, should have charged our Lord with 
 claiming equality with God, simply because he said that God 
 was his Father. This was one of the last prerogatives Jewish 
 fathers would have supposed to be involved in a claim of sonship. 
 No doubt the word tcrov should be translated by its other 
 meaning of "kindred," i.e., "having a common nature with 
 God." This would make the accusation intelligible. But as 
 far as my present argument is concerned, this question is of no 
 importance. The vital point to notice is the declaration of the 
 Son of God, that of himself he could no nothing, — that he was 
 wholly dependent on his Heavenly Father. 
 
 This assertion of the limitation of his own powers is in perfect 
 harmony with another memorable declaration, when he was 
 
66 
 
 being questioned by his disciples respecting the end of the 
 Jewish dispensation and the second coming of the Son of Man. 
 " Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels 
 which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 
 xiii., 32 ; Matt, xxiv., 36. Here is an emphatic and solemn 
 statement by our Lord which, if omniscience be an attribute of 
 the One True God, leaves no room whatever for the theory that 
 the Son of God is that One Supreme Being. It is utterly, 
 absolutely, incompatible with it. It seems to me to settle 
 wholly and for ever the question for those who, on the one 
 hand, accept the authority of our Lord himself as final ; and, on 
 the other, believe that God cannot be ignorant of anything ; 
 least of all be ignorant of the day and hour when an event of 
 unequalled importance was to take place, and the fearful judg- 
 ments He had long threatened, for which He had long prepared, 
 should be executed on His rebellious people. 
 
 But if any language could be clearer and more final, if any 
 statements by our divine Saviour could lay to rest these doubts 
 and annihilate the imagination that he is equal with God, he 
 himself has afforded such a statement in these words — " If ye 
 loved me ye would rejoice because I said I go unto the Father, 
 for my Father is greater than I."* John xiv., 28. 
 
 As we read these words, does not the thought force itself 
 upon us, " If Christ has said this, how can any man owning 
 allegiance to him dare to say that the Father is not greater than 
 he — that he and the Father are equal ?" The answer some- 
 times given is that our Lord said these words as a man, not 
 meaning them to be understood as referring to himself, but only 
 to the human nature which he had for a few years incorporated 
 with himself as God. I will not dwell upon the obvious fact 
 that this explanation charges the Saviour with equivocating and 
 using words in a double sense, so as to lead people to conclu- 
 sions precisely the opposite to the true state of the case, if Christ 
 
 * See also page 59. 
 
67 
 
 were indeed the Eternal God. I would si 
 the fact that, in whatever sense he spoke the w£ 
 used them as the Son of God, hecause he says " My Father is 
 greater than I." And this is all I contend for — viz., that the 
 Son of God is not equal to God the Father. The Gospel 
 records ask me to believe in these two glorious Beings as my 
 God and my Saviour, but in no others ; and, therefore, I am not 
 concerned to argue or speculate as to the relations of any other 
 beings either to themselves or to the Father and the Son, — that 
 Father to whom His holy Son prayed thus a few hours before 
 he was led to crucifixion : " This is life eternal to know Thee, 
 the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." 
 John xvii., 3. For if it be so, we need no longer disturb our 
 minds with vain doubts and idle questionings respecting some 
 imaginary being, rashly and presumptuously designated in human 
 formulas as God the Son, and impiously (though not with inten- 
 tional impiety) supposed to arrogate to himself equality with the 
 Father, " the only true God." Our eternal life, all that is most 
 to be desired in the way of holiness, love, joy, peace, comes to 
 us through knowledge of the Father and of His Son Jesus 
 Christ. God and the Son of God — do we seek to know them ? 
 Do we give ourselves up to them that they may make us theirs 
 through Time and Eternity ? This is the question on which 
 hang our eternal interests, the question that alone really con- 
 cerns us. And we cannot, therefore, be surprised that it should 
 have pleased God in His infinite mercy to break the solemn 
 silence of the ages, and give this testimony to the world, His 
 own testimony, that none might gainsay it, " This is My beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matth. iii., 17. After such 
 declarations, it is only what we should expect that the great 
 Apostle to the Gentiles, chosen and specially instructed by the 
 Redeemer to preach his Gospel to all nations, should so earnestly 
 and solemnly declare as the creed of a true Christian, that 
 ■" Unto us there is but One God the Father, of whom are all 
 
68 
 
 things and wo in Him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 
 are all things and we by him. 1 Cor. viii., 6, 
 
 But the circumstance that the last words of our Lord's, which 
 I have quoted form part of a prayer to God, should remind us 
 of another more awful prayer, and should preclude the necessity, 
 I could almost say the decency, of any longer discussion of this 
 subject. Can we behold our Saviour in the garden of Geth- 
 semane, and reflect upon Ins fearful anguish there, and listen to 
 his appeal to God, "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from 
 me," or listen to that appalling cry upon the cross, " My God, my 
 God, why hast Thou forsaken me !" without asking in wonder 
 and sorrow why have men ever bid us believe that this suffering, 
 praying, tortured, dying Saviour is the Everlasting God ? Can 
 God thus pray to Himself, feel that He is forsaken by Himself ? 
 Was that scene in the garden merely a dramatic representation, an 
 unreal simulation of agony and prayer to teach men, (deluded by 
 what they would erroneously imagine to be a reality), how to suffer 
 and to pray ? This, indeed, is a horrible imagination, but they 
 alone are responsible for it who ask us to believe that Christ was 
 " the only true God," who confound the Father and the Son,., 
 and thereby drive us into some of the saddest, darkest con- 
 tradictions which can oppress the human soul. 
 
 It is needful to speak earnestly and plainly on this subject, 
 because if there be any meaning in Scripture at all, it is 
 manifest that Christianity itself, the whole gospel which was to 
 be preached in all the world to every creature, rests upon this 
 filial relation of Christ to God. It is because he is the Son of 
 God that he can fill us with the filial spirit, can teach us the 
 infinitely blessed and glorious meaning of this relation of child 
 and parent, can show us how our whole salvation, here and 
 hereafter, depends upon our realising that meaning and being 
 filled with that spirit towards God, depends upon our becoming,. 
 in short, true children of God like Christ. It is because lie is the 
 Son of God, that by becoming one with us (as I desire to maintain 
 
69 
 
 subsequently) he can help us to become sons of God, to be bom 
 anew of the spirit, and cry " Abba, Father," and thus enable us 
 to hallow the name of our Father in heaven. And it is because 
 lie is God's beloved Son, whom the Father spared not, but 
 delivered up for us all, that the wonderful love of God is so 
 gloriously manifested to us, and that we are brought to trust 
 and love God, to repent of sin, to believe in mercy, to draw nigh 
 to God in full assurance of faith, and feel that He who hath not 
 withheld His own Son, " will with him freely give us all things.'' 
 But all the divine significance of the Sonship of Christ, all 
 that Christ ever did and said on earth as a Son of God, all that 
 the evangelists ever wrote, that apostles ever preached, or martyrs 
 suffered, that we " might believe that Jesus is the Christ the 
 Son of God, and that believing we might have life through his 
 name " (John xx., 31), is utterly confounded and altogether lost 
 to us if we speak of Christ as being himself the " only True 
 God," or as in any sense being the equal of God, — if in any way 
 we confound him with the One God our Father in heaven, who 
 seeketh for us to worship Him in spirit and in truth, whom 
 Jesus taught us to worship and to love with boundless love and 
 reverence as his Father and our Father, his God and our God, 
 from whom he came to whom he returned. (John iv., 2-3 ; xx., 
 17 ; xiii., 3.) Any error, any theological injury to Christianity 
 is less fatal than that which by denying the filial relation, 
 character, and spirit of Christ, undermines the whole foundation 
 of the Gospel, and undoes the whole work for which he came 
 on earth, toiled, prayed, and died. Let us deprecate this 
 error with the deepest energy of our soul, and offer our most 
 fervent prayers that from it we and all men may be delivered 
 now and for ever. Not till the great Day of Judgment, when 
 all that has been hid shall be made manifest, will, I believe, 
 the fearful extent ever be known to which the Gospel has been 
 robbed of its saving power, and men and women left bound in 
 sin and suffering, through this most deadly error. Let us make no 
 
70 
 
 terms with it in whatever insidious disguise it may approach, but 
 confess with our mouth, and believe with all our heart, that Jesus 
 is the Son of God ; and, so believing, may we find life through 
 that most precious name. 
 
 In conclusion, then, while it is of course quite possible by 
 various kinds of reasoning to explain away the obvious meaning 
 of any Scripture doctrine, I see no alternative, if we are to be 
 guided in our search for truth by their authority, but to accept 
 those statements which I sought to show in a previous chapter 
 were antecedently probable, and which may thus be satisfactorily 
 explained so far as is possible in our present imperfect condition, 
 viz., that the Scripture teaches us that there is a Son of God in 
 the strictest sense of the term, *' begotten by the Father before 
 the worlds were made;" that he is, therefore, of the same substance 
 or spirit with God — that in whatever constitutes God he shares — 
 that he and the Father arc one — that he is a partaker of the 
 Divinity, the Godhead, of God — that as a Son begotten he is 
 necessarily subordinate to the Father begetting him — that he can 
 do nothing of lnmself — that his Father is greater than he — but 
 that, "whatever limitations he must be subject to as a being pro- 
 ceeding forth from God, whatever outward manifestation he may 
 assume, in whatever form he may be clothed," he must for ever 
 be of the nature and of the same essence as the Eternal God, 
 who gave him being. 
 
CHAP. V.— THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 In speaking of spiritual beings and spiritual relations, we are 
 obliged to use terms drawn from material things ; and it behoves 
 us, therefore, to be very careful not to be misled into materialistic 
 notions. Let me at once and most strenuously remind those who 
 pursue such investigations as the present, that since God is a 
 Spirit, is Spirit in fact, when Ave say that He gives Himself, 
 when we affirm that He imparts His essence or substance, we 
 mean that He gives His spirit, — that the Son of God became 
 His Son by the effluence of the Spirit of God. This is a term 
 it is impossible to define, infinitely important as it is, but we can 
 gain, nevertheless, a very distinct and powerful conception of its 
 meaning. Its constant and most impressive use in the language 
 of persons lifted, more or less permanently, above the dominion 
 of their senses, proves this. We feel that there is something 
 behind all that we see and touch, behind all that we can weigh 
 and calculate, and describe with our understanding ; some force, 
 some existence, which is more decisively and really a part of the 
 man or the thing, than aught else that belongs to it or him. 
 Thus we speak of " the whole tone and spirit " of a speech or an 
 action. A great thinker says, " not wlvat we do, but the spirit 
 in which we do it is of importance ;" and a greater than he said, 
 " Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." Now, in these 
 and all other cases where the word is used legitimately, much 
 more is meant than merely the character of the action, speech, 
 or person. There is a reference to the hidden force, the secret 
 reality, which lies beneath (" substans") the outward appearance 
 and causes its manifestation, which is, therefore, felt to be an 
 essential part, or rather the essential part, of the being or thing 
 
72 
 
 thus manifested to us. Undoubtedly the word refers to truths of 
 far deeper significance than we can at present fathom. We can 
 but obtain glimpses of its meaning, " as through a glass darkly." 
 But the primary idea we attach to it is certainly that of unseen 
 force or power manifesting itself to us by some outward and 
 sensible phenomena. It is used in Scripture, especially in reference 
 to moral power and influence, good or evil, as the case may be. 
 But there is evidently some reference in it also, as I have just 
 said, to spiritual substance, as the word was used in former days 
 to unseen being or reality. " Spirit" is that reality which stands 
 under mere appearances, and especially that force, that life which 
 fills and moves, or, as we say, animates our various faculties, 
 physical, intellectual, and moral. It is the " substantia " or 
 substance of the " Persona," or mask. E.gr. Matter is only 
 an appearance, spirit is the reality. Thus, in human nature, the 
 flesh is a transitory phenomenon, the spirit is the abiding reality. 
 Reason, conscience, affection, will, are faculties, but they need to 
 be animated by some moving force or life. When God gives us 
 something that He has created He gives an earthly material 
 manifestation of Himself. But when He gives His spirit, He 
 bestows Himself — a portion of His own substance, of that which 
 constitutes His being, which makes Him what He is. 
 
 Hence, as was said in a former chapter, to be of the same 
 substance with God is to be of the same spirit ; and these words 
 at once convey to us, more forcibly than any others coidd do, that 
 idea which it is so important to realise, and at which we again 
 arrive by another route, viz., that the Son is truly one with his 
 Father in the Spirit. It is evident that he might be of the same 
 'nature with God, i.e., possess similar faculties, reason, conscience, 
 will, and so forth, yet by no means be one with God. But when 
 it is added that we conceive him to be also of the same spirit with 
 God, we feel that there must be as perfect a union and com- 
 munion, as intimate a participation by the Son of the being and 
 essence of the Father, as words can possibly express. Then we 
 
73 
 
 feel that what the Father wills, the Son wills also, — that what the 
 Father thinks, loves, desires, purposes, the Son does the same. 
 All this follows from the proposition that God imparts Himself, 
 His substance, His spirit to the Son. 
 
 For if we consider what that spirit is, we see at once its 
 atoning tendency. The spirit of God must be goodness, 
 holiness, truth, beauty, happiness, power, love. But do we 
 not know that these are precisely the qualities which, as far as 
 our intelligence can reach, and our experience declare, do most 
 draw souls together and make them one ? Just in proportion 
 as we have the spirit of holiness, truthfulness, love, we desire to 
 be at one with our brethren and with God. It is always, and 
 only, our infirmities and sins that divide us from each other and 
 separate us from God. Whenever reconciliation takes place, it 
 is invariably through the influence of goodness, in some form or 
 other, and of love. Holy and happy beings cannot fail to 
 sympathise with one another. The mysterious power of beauty 
 also in attracting us towards itself is sufficiently manifest. 
 Loving hearts are infallibly drawn towards each other. The 
 spirit of unity, that which unites, must be pre-eminently that which 
 is above all else the distinguishing glory of the Godhead, viz., 
 the spirit of love, that sublime and holy principle of the Divine 
 nature, and of those natures which receive His spirit, that so 
 mysteriously both impels to union those who truly love, and 
 blends their being in one intimate fellowship, in one common 
 life. In proportion as any beings love truly, they must desire 
 to be with those they love. Love can bear no separation, no 
 disunion, no divisions. Even a spirit of power, when combined 
 with love and holiness, not only unites by preventing that 
 weakness and sin which is the source of all divisions, but also 
 by its own fascinating and inherent tendency to draw spiritual 
 beings towards itself, and bind them in its train. Thus we are 
 taught that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, must be in itself 
 essentially the spirit of union, the spirit which makes one with 
 
74 
 
 Himself (and with all who receive it), those upon whom it is 
 poured forth, in whom it becomes the animating principle of 
 their spiritual life, the substance of their being. 
 
 There is, however, one truth of deep importance that must be 
 glanced at here, though its full developement will he left for 
 other parts of this essay. 
 
 The Spirit of God, if it be all that I have now said, must be 
 essentially a spirit of self-sacrifice, for selfishness is the antithesis 
 both of love and holiness, of happiness, truth, and beauty. 
 True holy love is, above all else, self-sacrificing love. And 
 this, therefore, must be the love of God. This must be the 
 Spirit of God — the Holy Spirit — which constitutes His very 
 being, and goes forth from Him to whomsoever He will. But 
 what could more mightily promote union between two or more 
 intelligent beings than that they should be possessed of a spirit 
 of self-sacrificing love in addition to all those other qualities of 
 goodness, truth, and beauty, which deserve and attract to them- 
 selves devoted and absorbing love ? 
 
 Thus far, then, we can penetrate this mystery, and dimly 
 comprehend the fact and the mode of unity between God the 
 Father and His holy Son. It is a unity of " Kighteousness, 
 and Peace, and Joy, in the Holy Spirit." 
 
CHAP. VI.— THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY. 
 
 And have we not, then, thus presented to us the true idea of 
 that Christian Trinity which the Son of God announced to the 
 world when he gave to his disciples the great commission to 
 baptise all men " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Spirit ?" " One God the Father, of whom are 
 all things . . . One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
 things" (1 Cor. viii., 6) ; One Holy Spirit'/ "which unites them in 
 perfect love, holiness, blessedness, in absolute oneness of will, 
 purpose, act, and which proceeds forth from Them to unite all 
 who are made in Their image in holiness and love to the Father 
 and to the Son for ever. 
 
 The Christian Trinity, then, is the Unity of the Father and 
 the Son in the spirit of holiness, truth, power, beauty, joy, 
 and love. But beyond this, it seems to me, we cannot penetrate. 
 We have to recognise and fully believe in the fact of the perfect 
 oneness of the Son with the Father, but we have, of course, also 
 humbly and reverently to admit that we cannot in this earthly 
 state ever fully comprehend the fact. We must carefully avoid 
 " dividing the substance," and strenuously maintain that the 
 Son is so truly of one substance with the Father, is in such 
 intimate union with God, as in some wise to partake of the 
 Infinite and Eternal Godhead, so that he could utter with 
 deepest truth those wonderful words, " I and my Father are 
 one." 
 
 While, however, we thus behold and adore the mystery of that 
 filial unity with God, we must be equally careful not to " con- 
 found the persons," not to suppose in any way or in any degree 
 that to be one with God is to be the same as God. Unity is 
 
76 
 
 very different from identity. For the Son to lose his personal 
 identity in the being of " the only true God," the Father, would 
 be equivalent to his annihilation. And to imagine such an 
 absorption of the Son in the being of God, or in any way to talk 
 or think as if, because he was one with God, therefore he was the 
 same as God, would be to lose him altogether from our religious 
 consciousness and spiritual world. Even as in our controversy 
 with the Atheist and Pantheist, the grand point is to maintain 
 the distinct personality of God, without which, as I urged above, 
 there can be no religion ; so in all Christian theological con- 
 troversies the primary and all-important object must be to uphold 
 the distinct personality of the Son of God, without which there 
 can be no Christ and no Christianity. Moreover, there can be 
 no union, no unity between either things or beings, unless there 
 are two or more such beings or things to be united, to be made 
 "one." We cannot believe in the oneness, the unity of the 
 Father and the Son unless these two names refer to two distinct 
 persons. And if the Son is the Father, and the Father is the 
 Son, there is only one person in the Godhead. If a Son pro- 
 ceeds from God, as above set forth, so that God is then fitly 
 termed " The Father," and the most intimate union thenceforth 
 exists between Himself and the Being He has thus brought into 
 existence, it is manifest that there are two Persons, two dis- 
 tinct spiritual Beings, in existence. 
 
 In the next place, it is equally important to observe that 
 since, according to this reasoning, there are thus two distinct 
 Persons existing in the relation of Father and Son, one of them 
 God absolutely, the other the image of God; One the sole 
 uncreated, Eternal God, the other rising into existence through 
 the "Will of God, there must be subordination in the Son, as Son, 
 to the Father, as Father. And this has been admitted by the 
 most zealous assertors of the Divinity of the Son.* The 
 Father, as " the only true God," must be infinite in all His 
 * See Appendix B. 
 
/ / 
 
 attributes. But it is both morally and logical! j impossible that 
 there should be two infinite Beings, and hence the Son must to 
 some extent be limited. 
 
 For, if there were two beings of unlimited power, one must 
 be able to limit the power of the other, otherwise his own would 
 not be infinite ; and if he were thus able, then the power of the 
 other would not be infinite. So that the idea of two or more 
 beings of unlimited power, two or three Gods, in our sense of 
 the term, is self-contradictory and inadmissible. If this, how- 
 ever, were disputed, it would be sufficient for my argument to 
 postulate what it might be supposed no sane person would refuse 
 to admit, viz., that the being who is derived, or begotten, must 
 be inferior to one underived and unbegotten.^' 
 
 The Arians of the third and fourth centuries erred, not in 
 maintaining the subordination of the Son to the Father. Had 
 they simply taken their stand there, the Church of Christ would 
 have been saved many fearful and scandalous divisions, and the 
 Athanasian party would not have been driven by the reaction of 
 controversy into some of their worst exaggerations concerning 
 the equality of the Son with the Father. The Arian error 
 lay in speaking of the Son as a created being, not consubstantial 
 with the Father, and therefore in appearing to deny his essential 
 divinity, to destroy his Sonship in fact.f A Son, let me repeat 
 
 * Sometimes there appears to have heen a notion among theologians 
 that the Son arose spontaneously from the self-consciousness of God, and 
 ought, therefore, to he spoken of as independent of the Father, and hence 
 equal with him. But God, heing omniscient, would, of course, know what 
 would be the result of His self-reflection, and being omnipotent, could have 
 caused a different result to happen. Hence, the result which did ensue, 
 must have been the act of His will. If it were argued that the existence 
 and developement of the Son from the Divine self-consciousness were a 
 necessary result, that would be to limit the power and freedom of God in a 
 matter of tremendous and eternal importance. 
 
 f Arius, however, himself, when sent for from banishment after the 
 Council of Nice, confessed his belief that " the Son was begotten of the 
 Father before all worlds." (See " Priestley's Church History," Period vii., 
 sect. 6.) 
 
78 
 
 it, must be of the same substance as his Father. This is a dis- 
 tinction of infinite importance, and justifies all the stress laid 
 upon it in the memorable Arian and Athanasian controversies. 
 To designate Christ as a creature was to deny that he was the 
 Son of God; and, in the fact of the Sonship of Christ (let 
 me again assert, for it cannot be repeated and urged too em- 
 phatically), lies the whole significance of Christianit}-, the re- 
 demption and salvation of man, the exaltation of man into union 
 with God, our deliverance "from the bondage of corruption 
 into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Romans 
 viii., 21.) This great truth, and its relation to human sal- 
 vation, will be dwelt on more fully as we proceed, but if 
 it be a truth (and we know that the great burden of the 
 writing and preaching, both of Evangelists and Apostles, was 
 that Jesus Christ is the Son of God), we cannot wonder at the 
 desperate tenacity with which Christians of all climes, ranks, and 
 offices struggled to uphold it in the face of the Arian hypothesis, 
 that he was a being only of like nature with God, the creature of 
 His fashioning, not His own divine Son. The inevitable and 
 final result of the success of the Arian view, as unhappily it has 
 been of the prevalence of the Athanasian-creed doctrines, would 
 practically have been the exaltation of Christ as a second though 
 inferior God; and a fatal dualism, ending gradually in the 
 virtual loss of the first God from the firmament of Christian belief, 
 would have reigned supreme, working scarcely less injury to the 
 Christian Church than that doctrine of three equal persons in 
 the Godhead, which utterly destroys the blessed gospel of the 
 filial nature and attitude of the So n of God. 
 
 To sum up, then, our ideas so far attained concerning the 
 second person in the Christian Trinity, the Son of God, to the 
 supreme and un derived Father, we should say that he possesses 
 the same nature, and consists of the same substance as God, i.e., 
 that he is the perfect image of God, possessing His divine facul- 
 ties, qualities, and attributes so far as a derived, and therefore 
 
79 
 
 subordinate, being- can possess them ; that he originally received 
 the same spirit, the same principle of life and being, the same 
 essence as that which constitutes the being of God ; and that he 
 always continues to exist in perfect sympathy, absolute spiritual 
 oneness, through the Holy Spirit with God. 
 
 But we also conceive of him as having a distinct personal 
 existence and individuality of his own, as being limited, derived, 
 because he is the Son of God, therefore not to be confounded 
 with God Himself. We see further that, by virtue of his possess- 
 ing the same nature with God, and being one with Him, the Son 
 would be holy, loving, and blessed. But having an individual 
 personality distinct from God, and therefore an individual will, 
 it would be possible for him to do his own will, whether it 
 coincided with the will of God or not. His will might be 
 opposed to the will of God, if he were placed in circumstances 
 which could create in him any desires contrary to what God 
 desired. 
 
 By virtue of being a part of God, united with Him in the 
 Holy Spirit, the Son would have life in himself, just as the branch 
 has life in itself so long as it is part of a living tree and can 
 receive life therefrom. But he had the power to sever himself 
 from his Father, the only fountain of life, by unfilial want of 
 trust, obedience, or love. Even so he would have power, wisdom, 
 knowledge, and in like manner might lose them all. 
 
 But if these ideas constitute our primary view of the being 
 of the Son of God, there is another thought no less important 
 for attaining a true and complete conception, as far as may be 
 in this life, of what that being is, viz., his filial nature, the 
 nature which belongs to him especially as a Son; and the 
 essential and absolute difference, therefore, between him and the 
 Father, arising from the Sonship of the one and the Fatherhood 
 of the other. The former is filled with the spirit of Sonship, 
 i.e., with filial reverence, obedience, trust, submission, filial up- 
 looking love. These are the qualities that can only be developed 
 
80 
 
 in a Son, which have, indeed, their divine counterpart in the 
 Father, but the thought of which should effectually prevent our 
 " confounding the persons " of God and His Holy Son. It is 
 of the greatest moment we should ever recognise the distinction 
 between them based on this essential difference ; and the 
 consequences of neglecting it have have been as destructive to 
 the Christian life of individuals as to the Church at large. 
 
 For even as the Arian error virtually destroyed the Sonship of 
 the Son of God, so did the error of the Athanasian creed yet 
 more fatally. For this conception elevated the Son to a com- 
 plete equality with the Father, and thereby practically effaced 
 those filial characteristics above alluded to, of submission, 
 reverence, uplooking love and trust, which must not only 
 constitute a part of the very essence of filial perfection in a 
 Son of God, but which we, who are called to be children of God 
 also, need every help to attain. If, as we believe, the Son of 
 God was manifested to make us like himself, true sons of God 
 in reverent love, perfect trust, and absolute obedience to our 
 Father's will, we can understand something of the unutterable 
 evil that has arisen from elevating the Son to equality with the 
 Father* 
 
 This error is the more sad and strange when we reflect upon 
 the lowly self-abnegation, the sublime humility with which the 
 
 * Athanasius himself, and the Nicene (quite as little as the anti-Nicene) 
 fathers, never claim this equality for the Son. The Nicene creed contains 
 no more hint of tliis fatal error than the Apostles' creed. It does, indeed, 
 make use of an expression which, in spite of its derivative character, 
 prepared the way for that duality of Gods which I said above would also 
 have doubtless resulted from the victory of Arianism, viz., the phrase " God 
 of God," and which for that reason, if forno other, i3 objectionable. But its 
 use is also to be regretted on account of the word God in the singular 
 number being so generally restricted in our language to signify the One 
 Supreme Being, " the only true God." The clause referring to the Holy 
 Spirit, as is well known, was not added till more than half a century after 
 the Council of Nice, while the Athanasian creed required 500 years before 
 it could be elaborated. — See also Appendix B. 
 
81 
 
 Saviour ever cast his crown at the feet of the Father, humbling 
 himself in filial reverence before the Father's throne. "I 
 honour my Father," he answered the accusing Jews. " 
 and I seek not mine own glory . . . " " I came down 
 from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that 
 sent me." "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. If 
 any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether 
 it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh 
 of himself seeketh his own glory : but he that seeketh His 
 glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is 
 in him." " ... The words that I speak unto you, I 
 speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, He 
 doeth the works." John viii., 49-50 ; vii., 16-18 ; vi., 38 ; 
 xiv., 10. It cannot be the will of him who spake thus to the 
 children of men that they should exalt him to the place of God. 
 Nearly his last words on earth were this message — " Go to my 
 brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your 
 Father, unto my God and your God." John xx., 17. 
 
 A pernicious error similar to that with regard to the Son of 
 God, mentioned page 67, though its effects have naturally been 
 by no means so deeply felt, from the doctrine being so much 
 more faintly believed, or at all events realised, was the gradual 
 elevation of the Holy Spirit into the dignity of a Person, and that 
 person to an equality with God. It is not necessary to trace the 
 successive controversies on this subject which raged in the fourth 
 and fifth centuries, because all the real arguments in favour of 
 that doctrine were based upon the Scriptures, and the Scriptures 
 themselves contain the very strongest proofs of its incorrectness 
 which could by any possibility be adduced. 
 
 It is quite true that in the sacred writings the Holy Spirit is 
 spoken of as a person. But so is Wisdom — so is Charity. 
 Personification of things and qualities is a common figure of 
 speech. They are elevated thereby to a higher dignity, or 
 changed to a more poetical form. But a, person cannot be Spoken 
 
(fart 
 
 82 
 
 of as a thing without an intention to degrade, cannot be thought 
 of as a thing unless such person is already immeasurably degraded 
 in the mind of the thinker. One clear instance of the Holy 
 Spirit being described as a thing would, therefore, be sufficient to 
 show that the sacred writers did not deem it to be a Divine 
 person, and that whenever it is spoken of as such, this must be 
 simply in a figurative sense, even as Wisdom, Charity, and other 
 attributes or qualities are poetically and rhetorically personified. 
 But we find that the Holy Spirit is frequently spoken of as a 
 thing in the Scriptures. It is said " to be poured out," and 
 "to be shed forth."* Acts ii., 17, 18, 33. Our Lord is 
 said to have been anointed with the Holy Spirit, and the disciples 
 were " filled''' with it ; it "fell on" them; they were to be baptised 
 with it ; and, above all, they were enjoined not to "quench" it. 
 Acts x., 38; ii., 4; iv., 8 ; xi., 15 ; Matt, iii., 11; 1 Thess. v., 19. 
 
 Now, can we conceive it possible that the sacred writers would 
 have spoken thus of an exalted personage, nay, of God Himself? 
 Can God be poured out, or shed forth ? Can God be quenched ? 
 Is it not very like profanity to say that the holy Apostle woidd 
 tell his countrymen that Christ " had shed forth tins " thing, if 
 he meant by " this thing " the Eternal God? Would John declare 
 that the disciples are to be baptised with water, with the Holy 
 Spirit, and with fire (Matt, iii., 11) if the Holy Spirit were the 
 Almighty God ? It appears to me that this doctrine of the 
 personal deity of the Holy Spirit never could have arisen, had 
 those who first propounded it, in the fourth century, carefully 
 compared the various passages of Scripture in which that Spirit 
 is referred to. They 1 would have been content to say with the 
 
 * " He hath shed forth this thing" (neuter in the Greek), tovto. As the 
 writer was obliged to use the neuter pronoun when it occurred in conjunction 
 with " spirit," 7TV€Vfia } this would have been tlie very place to have sliown 
 that he was speaking of a person not a thing, had he so wished, by writing 
 tovtov, the masculine accusative. His not doing so seems decisive on the 
 question. 
 
83 
 
 beloved Apostle, " and truly our fellowship is with the Father, 
 and with His Son Jesus Christ." 1 John i., 3. If the Holy 
 Spirit were a Person equal in dignity, power, and nature with 
 the Eternal God, or with His holy Son, how can we account 
 for St. John having written thus, without charging him with 
 impiety? But, as I said above, any attempt to understand 
 more clearly the real nature of the Holy Spirit, to define more 
 strictly its relation to the Father and the Son, and those to whom 
 it is given, or to explain more fully the words in Scripture than 
 has now been attempted, appears an utterly hopeless and even 
 irreverent undertaking while we are yet dwelling in the flesh, and 
 cannot explain a single idea respecting spirit except by some 
 material analogy, or by reference to it as a hidden force manifest- 
 ing itself solely in its influence and effects. 
 
 The common way, as I am well aware, of reconciling the 
 difficulties arising from a conflict between the language of the 
 Athanasian creed and those passages of Scripture and of the 
 Apostles' and Nicene creeds, which teach the subordination of 
 the Son to the Father, is to speak of different " persons ° in the 
 One Godhead. This use of the word "person," we must 
 remember, is derived from its original signification of " a mask," 
 through which the actor was able to make his voice heard by 
 great assemblies of people.* The Godhead is conceived of as 
 the essential Deity the Divine substance, sub-stans, standing 
 under the three persona} or masks, through which or through 
 whom the Divinity speaks, acts, in short manifests Himself. 
 Now, if these personal are conceived of as persons in the modern 
 sense, i.e., as individual intelligent beings, possessing each his 
 own reason, affections, especially will, and to whom we should 
 apply the pronoun he, not it, to suppose them each equally and 
 distinctly God, is simply Tritheism, because there is no altcrna- 
 
 * Per-sonare. 
 
84 
 
 tive between belief in God as a personal being in this sense and 
 Pantheism ;* and if we believe in three personal Gods we do 
 believe in them, and are worshippers of three Gods. But if to 
 avoid this error, which is but little better than Polytheism, and of 
 course involves the sin of idolatry (for if the Bible speak truly 
 there is but One God, and two out of the three must be idols)* 
 we use the word " person " in the old sense, as simply the mode 
 of manifestation by which the One God makes Himself known 
 to His creatures, then we fall into Sabellianism, and the Son of 
 God is no longer a person in the sense of being a distinct in- 
 dividual with a life and being, a reason and will, of his own, but 
 has become merely a thing, a " mask," a mode, which we can 
 only speak of as " it." Our holy and beloved Saviour, the Son of 
 God, who loved us and died for us, is taken away from us ; there 
 is no such person for us to love, only a thing. No greater evil, no 
 more fatal injury, can be inflicted on Christianity than to advocate a 
 theory which gives us either an impersonal God or an impersonal 
 Saviour. If it be the true curse and blackest sin of Slavery 
 that it converts a person into a thing, and confounds the eternal 
 distinction between a human being and a beast of the field, 
 what are we to say of the doctrine which would work the same 
 horrible confusion in our conceptions of God and His divine 
 Son f ^ The antagonistic lines of thought in devout Trinitarian 
 minds are carefully kept apart, and they handle, separately, 
 one or the other as circumstances or inclinations prompt. But 
 all the elements of disastrous catastrophe lie in close connection 
 therewith, and if ever the wires are brought into contact, if such 
 .•" • ' persons do ever fairly feel the irreconcileable antagonism between 
 the different portions of their belief, a fatal explosion generally 
 ensues in which faith itself too often is shivered into fragments, 
 and the spiritual life of the sufferer is buried in writhing agony, 
 perhaps in death, beneath the ruins. How many thousands of 
 
 * The essential distinction and terrible evil of Pantheism is that it would 
 rob us of a Personal God. 
 
85 
 
 Christian believers have awaked from a dreamy belief in three 
 equal persons, each in Himself God, — God the Father, God the 
 Son, and God the Holy Ghost, — to find themselves in the 
 maturity of manhood without a belief in either a Father, a 
 Saviour, or a Holy Spirit, scarcely with faith in any God at all. 
 
 And all this evil and suffering arises, let us never forget, not 
 from believing that there is a Father, a Son, a Holy Spirit, — not 
 from believing that the divine Son is of the same substance 
 with the Father, one with Him in and by the same Holy 
 Spirit. Oh, no ! these are the glorious truths of Eevelation 
 which bring us to the Fountain of Eternal life — but from main- 
 taining that these Divine Persons are equal, from blotting out the ' • < 
 eternal distinction between a Father underived and a Son 
 begotten, and from asserting that the Spirit which unites them, v 
 constituting their divinity, is a third and equal God.* 
 
 Let us bring our creeds and catechisms once more to the 
 test of Scripture, and learn the truths of God from His Holy 
 Word. 
 
 * Although, that illustrious man, Origen, one of the greatest, if not the .2--^ 
 greatest of the early fathers, who appears on so many points to express 
 the true meaning of Scripture, and to have far surpassed those of his 
 cotemporaries and successors, maintained that the Son did not proceed 
 from the essence of the Father, as is evident from his commentary on the 
 Proem (De princ. i., 2,6; iv., 28. Gieseler's " Church History," Per. L, 
 Div. iii., ch. 3), it is tolerably certain he was driven to this statement by 
 the corporeal and materialistic views of God and spiritual things generally, 
 so prevalent among his opponents. For he distinctly speaks of u Jilius 
 utique natus ex patre est," and of the Son, as to aTravya(TfMa ttjs 
 To^s tov ^€OV j while Gieseler interprets the whole passage as asserting 
 that the Son, " as a constant ray of the divine glory was brought forth, 
 created or begotten by the will of God, and that from eternity." 
 But it is also true that in different parts of his voluminous writings, he puts 
 forth what we should deem contradictory opinions on these subjects, and 
 hence Gieseler remarks, " both parties could appeal to him." (2nd Per., 
 Div. i., ch. 2.) 
 
tf 
 
 CHAPTER VIL— MANKIXD. 
 
 Looking to the loving and boundlessly beneficent nature of 
 God, it seems a most probable hypothesis that, at some in- 
 definite period of time after His Son had risen into conscious 
 existence, He should also bring into life a race of beings similar 
 to that Son, therefore of like nature with him and with Him- 
 self, — that He should make them in His own image and in the 
 image of His Son, endowing them with reason, conscience, 
 affection, will, — giving them, in short, "a living soul ;" granting 
 them, also, the capacity for receiving His divine Spirit, and 
 communicating it to them in such measure as was consonant 
 with His purposes, for their growth in holiness and love. So 
 far as they received this Spirit, the essence of the Divine Nature, 
 they also would become sons of (rod, and might dwell evermore 
 in holy union with the Father and with the Son, in a "fellowship" 
 (1 John i., 3) which would make them perfect and divine (2 
 Peter i., 4). 
 
 We must suppose that if God thus formed men, He created 
 them expressly for this glorious and blessed existence in spiritual 
 union with Himself and with His Son, — with the purpose, there- 
 in, e that they should partake of the same spirit that ho had 
 given to that Son, so that the latter might be " the first-born \ 
 among many brethren," and that they might abide Math God in 
 love and holiness for ever "as dear children." But His purpose, 
 we must further suppose, in accordance with all we behold of His 
 works and ways, was to bring them gradually into this union 
 with Himself, to impart to them only by degrees, but in con- 
 tinually increasing measure, His own divine spirit or essence. 
 In pursuance of this plan, He might place them, for the com- 
 
mencenient of their existence, in an animal body and in a world 
 of matter, giving them a distinct but mutually related life for 
 the soul and the body. 
 
 Now, when we turn to the same records of revelation to guide 
 us in our inquiries concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of 
 man, which answer our questionings in reference to the Son of 
 God, we find the foregoing supposition is a statement of the facts 
 as they are recorded for us in the Scriptures. In the first 
 chapter of the Bible it is written, — " And God said, Let us* 
 make man in our image, after our likeness. ... So God 
 created man in His own image, in the image of God created He 
 him ; male and female created He them."' Gen. L, 26, 27. 
 The same statement is repeated in other places. " For in the 
 image of God made He man 7 ' (Gen. ix., 6) ; " . . . men, 
 who are made after the similitude of God" (James iii., 9). 
 
 What is it, then, according to these views, that constitutes a 
 Max ? Not his bones or muscles. Not his being * a partaker of 
 flesh and blood." Heb. h\, 14. We speak of these, of all the 
 parts of his body, as belonging to Mm. He may lose all the 
 limbs and elements of his body one after another, and yet, as 
 each is severed or decays, we feel that he himself is untouched. 
 The Scriptures answer the question in the above words, saying 
 that man is made " in the image of God." Therefore man is a 
 spirit. He himself is a spiritual being. We all instinctively 
 recognise this fact (however little we may understand it), when 
 the deeper emotions of our nature reveal to us our true selves. 
 Then all mere possessions, all outward forms and appearances, 
 are felt to be quite distinct from oneself, one's own being. 
 Under the influence of true devoted love, two beings mutually 
 
 * After all that lias been said in reference to the Hebrew plural, and the 
 dignity of the royal " we," perhaps this form of expression receives a better 
 explanation when it is understood as referring to the twofold nature which 
 man receives— viz., the nature of the Father and of the Son, the parental 
 and the filial characteristics. 
 
88 
 
 give themselves each to the other, and in that absorbing joy, 
 when they first know that they have thus given themselves 
 away, there is a profound consciousness that all outward acts are 
 merely faint and poor symbols of something deeper and unseen. 
 They may endow each other with worldly goods, they may give 
 their hand, and exchange the holy kiss of plighted love, but 
 they feel that the true giving of themselves, the real union 
 between them, is a spiritual act — proves them to be spiritual 
 beings. 
 
 The real nature of spiritual existence, as I said before, must 
 ever be a mystery while we dwell in this world. Any sugges- 
 tions can only be offered as humble attempts to explain and 
 connect the grand glimpses or profound hints afforded us in 
 Scripture, and by our own experience. But it is deeply im- 
 portant that we should understand and hold fast the utmost 
 portion of truth on this subject, which it has pleased God to 
 place within our reach, and especially that we should not be in 
 bondage to low material views, debasing us to the condition of 
 animals, which, not being made in the image of God, have 
 neither a spirit-life, a spiritual being, nor the power to conceive 
 of it. 
 
 Seeking reverently to learn what is revealed to us respecting 
 our relation to Christ and God, and guided by Scripture and 
 God's teachings by analogy, let us revert to the views given 
 previously. 
 
 As the Son of God came into being because the Father gave 
 Himself, i.e., His own spirit and being to the divine reflection 
 of Himself ; and since the Son, the Word, the Xoyos, is the 
 means by which, or the instrument through whom, subsequent 
 creation appears to have taken place ; does it not seem reason- 
 able to infer that men, so far as their spiritual nature is con- 
 cerned, came into existence through the Son's giving himself, 
 according to the will of God, to beings conceived according to 
 the type or pattern of that Son ? And even as the Son's true 
 
89 
 
 and right condition was ono of perfect unic 
 man's right and true condition must in like 
 perfect union with the Son, and with the Father 
 All this seems implied, not only in the proem of St. John's 
 Gospel and in the first chapter of his first epistle, but in the 
 very nature of spiritual life. " That eternal life which was in 
 the Father, and which was manifested unto us," in him who 
 "was from the beginning," whom "we have heard," and on 
 whom " we have looked," even " the Word of Life," — that 
 spirit-life which flowed forth from the Father to the Son, and 
 through the Son to the race of man, evidently can be retained 
 only in proportion and so long as there is union, or at least 
 communication, with the Fountain of that Life. Hence our 
 Saviour is called " the Head of man," even as " the Head of 
 Christ is God" (1 Cor. xi., 3), from which flows nervous energy, 
 power, life to the members ; and hence the great work of Sal- 
 vation, of atonement is described by the Apostle by the word 
 avaK€<f>a\ai<i)cra(T6(u, signifying to bring again into, or under, 
 one head (Eph. i., 10). But since men have a fleshly as well 
 as a spiritual nature, and are placed in this world for the 
 developement and perfecting of their souls, by the various dis- 
 cipline needful to make their will wholly a good will and at one 
 with the will of God, their spiritual life while they are thus 
 isolated from God, as we have seen, is cherished by means of 
 the divine Word of Life. 
 
 So far, then, as men are inspired with the Spirit of God they 
 will be one with Him, in harmony with His purposes and will, 
 having the same desires and feelings. But so far as they are 
 under the influence of the animal nature of the body in which 
 they are to dwell for a season, they will be separated from 
 Him, and will come under strong temptations to forsake and 
 even resist Him, to yield to their own impulses and self-will, 
 instead of to His influence and His will. Their life, both of 
 body and soul, will be dependent upon Him, but they will not be 
 
 ) 
 
90 
 
 living, as the Son of God lived, in entire union and harmony 
 with Him. Hence the Spirit of God is spoken of as having to 
 strive with men. (Gen. vi., 3.) 
 
 The divine ideal, then, of these beings called men, must, in 
 the first instance, he the same as that of the Son of God — viz., 
 God Himself. Men approach perfection in proportion as they 
 become like God's thought of Himself, i.e., like God. 
 
 But while this is the first element in our idea of a perfect man 
 — viz., likeness to God, even the Father, the second is no less 
 essential — viz., that inasmuch as men are also created after the 
 type or pattern of the Son of God, they must approach per- 
 fection in proportion as they also become filled with the spirit 
 of Sonship — in proportion as they develope those elements of 
 nature and character which, as we have seen, belong essentially 
 to the Son in absolute distinction from the Father — viz., filial 
 trust and love, filial reverence and submission. And while, of 
 course, we recognise all moral natures as ultimately derived from, 
 and having their source in, God, Ave may consider these specially 
 filial elements of human nature as having their secondary origin 
 in the filial nature of the Son, in a being who himself sustains 
 this relation and exhibits these qualities towards " his Father and 
 his God." It has been truly said by Channing, that "All 
 minds are of one family." All spiritual beings, i.e., all moral 
 and intelligent natures, as far as we can perceive, must be made 
 in the image of God. That is the broad common ground on 
 which all alike are originally based. But in the subsequent 
 growth and developement of that common nature, great diversities 
 arise. The first, and that in which all sons of God must share, is 
 the difference between the paternal and the filial relation, the 
 distinction between Father and Child. Afterwards there will 
 arise the distinction between natures originally free from any 
 tendency to degradation, and those that inherit proclivities 
 to sin through their progenitors having used their freedom 
 to renounce their sonship, and resist the claims or leadings of 
 
91 
 
 their heavenly Father. All free and spiritual beings, made in 
 the likeness of God, must be liable to this temptation from their 
 inheriting the nature of the Father, which involves all the God- 
 like attributes of a love of power, of freedom, and of self- 
 assertion. But if it may be presumed that all have not yielded 
 to it, there might thence possibly arise one chief distinction 
 between angelic and earthly natures. Then, again, there will 
 be the distinction between beings who have an animal nature 
 combined with their spiritual nature, and those who are of a 
 purely spiritual nature, which may form another difference 
 between angelic and human natures. Besides these, there are 
 the endless varieties of the masculine and feminine types of, 
 mind, — of the artistic and philosophic, of the Platonic and 
 Aristotelian intellects, — with many others which need not now 
 be dwelt upon. But it must be remarked that all these varieties 
 of type and tendency are found united in the sinless Son of 
 God ; the perfect image of the mind of the Father, that image 
 being varied only by the filial relation in which he exists towards 
 the eternal God. In him were summed up all that we most 
 revere and love in the greatest, wisest, noblest, loveliest of our 
 race, — blended with all the perfect attributes of Deity which 
 could exist in a derived and finite being, one who sustained 
 filial relations to God, and whose whole being was instinct with 
 the spirit of Sonship. This, I apprehend, is in fact what is 
 meant when Christ is spoken of as "Humanity." And it is 
 because he is this, because he is at once perfect Humanity and 
 perfect Divinity, that in him there is all that human beings need 
 for their perfection and salvation ; all that they require for their 
 elevation to, and participation in, the Divine Nature. When 
 they "all come in the unity of the faith, and in the knowledge 
 of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. iv., 13), then, we may 
 presume, they will become "perfect even as their Father in 
 heaven is perfect." Matth. v., 43. And thus we find it written 
 
92 
 
 that it was God's purpose, "before the foundation of the world," 
 to bring us into the condition of sonship "by Jesus Christ," to 
 create us " in Christ Jesus." See Eph. i., 4, 5 ; ii., 10 ; Bom. 
 viii., 29. 
 
 Let it, then, be understood that, according to the foregoing 
 views and Scripture statements, men in their primary imperfect 
 condition have, first, a soul made in the likeness of God and His 
 Son, possessing reason, affection, will, and conscience, as the 
 attributes of a distinct personal and conscious existence ; and, 
 secondly, an earthly body possessing various animal attributes. 
 But if this had been all with which they were endowed, they 
 would never have been capable of becoming sons of God. They 
 might have reached to any degree of elevation as intelligent 
 creatures, but no amount of intelligence, of education, of effort, 
 would have made them Divine, would have filled them with the 
 Spirit of God, would have brought them into true sympathy, 
 union, with God. For all these are simply faculties, powers. 
 And what is to prevent their being used so as to promote separa- 
 tion from God instead of union with him? Even conscience may 
 become utterly perverted, or wholly torpid, while reason, affection, 
 will, may, and in the natural state of man continually do, tend 
 to lead him astray. Sacred and secular history, as well as each 
 man's individual experience, bear only too striking testimony to 
 this truth. Erroneous 'conclusions, superstition in all its forms, 
 idolatrous sentiments and practises, rebellious self-will, are the 
 manifest fruits of the reason, affections, and will, in the unaided 
 natural man. Hence what has been called the "Fall of Man." 
 "Sin entered into the world" by the first man placed in it, and 
 by the constitution of his nature, and the law of parental rela- 
 tions he, of course, transmitted aggravated tendencies to sin to 
 his offspring, and they in turn to their children. When these 
 divine faculties and powers with which human nature is endowed 
 are not ruled, inspired, influenced by something above them, 
 some divine spirit that shall bias them towards that which is 
 
holy, beautiful, and true, — towards God, — something that shall 
 enlighten, strengthen, and quicken the conscience, and thus make 
 all the various powers and faculties promote sympathy with God, 
 obedience, reverence, and love to Him, sin is the inevitable 
 result. But if a spirit of love and holiness, such an atoning, 
 self-sacrificing, and uniting spirit, as has been already described,* 
 could take possession of the soul, and inspire all its movements 
 and powers, especially could influence the will, evidently those 
 energies and faculties would be wholly consecrated to the pro- 
 motion of unity and union between the soul and God. And if 
 there be such action of the spirit of God on our human faculties, 
 it must be one principal means, as I conceive, by which that 
 spirit works to make us one with God. This point will be en- 
 larged on more fully hereafter, but had to be incidentally noticed 
 also here. 
 
 To enable man, however, to be thus influenced, there was 
 needed by him an organ, a certain capacity or power of recep- 
 tion, — a capacity for receiving the spirit of God. If he have 
 this power he is not a mere animal, nor a mere intelligence, 
 even though he might not have received that divine spirit, just 
 as a man is not blind, although he may be in total darkness, 
 if he have the organ or capacity of sight ; or, if having light, he 
 nevertheless refuse to open his eyes. Let us, then, imagine 
 men endowed with such a capacity, and we see that God might 
 thereby make them partakers of His own spirit or substance, 
 which would then inspire and influence all their powers and 
 faculties, making these conduce to perfect union with Himself. 
 We see how God might thus give Himself, so to speak, unto 
 men, and thus make them a part of Himself, one with Him, 
 even as His "first-born" is one with Him. Thus they would 
 become children of God by receiving the spirit of God. 
 
 And would not that great change be strictly a new birth, 
 whenever it took place, whether in early childhood or in 
 
 * Chapter IV. 
 
94 
 
 maturer years ? The first birtli would take place through the 
 will of the flesh, anil of man, — the second through the will of 
 God. The first would make us members of the family of 
 man, — the second of the family of God. 
 
 But is not this what the Scriptures tell us plainly is God's 
 will for all men ? Is not this declared to us by St. John, in 
 the commencement of his Gospel ? John i., 12, 13. Is it not 
 announced to us by our Lord, with solemn and repeated emphasis, 
 in his conversation with Nicodemus ? St. Paul's references to 
 the same great truth are too numerous for quotation, but the 
 8th chapter of the Epistle to the Eomans may be specially 
 referred to. 
 
 Let it, however, be clearly understood that this view strictly 
 harmonises with the belief that both reason and Scripture teach 
 that the spirit of God has always been working, " striving," in 
 the heart of man, from his first creation upon earth. It simply 
 asserts that the spirit was given in immeasurably greater abund- 
 ance, and abides far more permanently among the followers of 
 the crucified and ascended Saviour, since his glorification at the 
 right hand of God, than among any of the sons of men before 
 or during his manifestation in the flesh. 
 
 To sum up, then, these considerations, and to apply them to 
 our previous reasoning, we may speak of the Divine Idea of 
 perfect Humanity as being the Son of God, who was a perfect 
 man, before he appeared in the flesh — (for man is such, not by 
 virtue of his fleshly, but his spiritual nature) — perfect Humanity 
 evolved from, and in perfect union with Divinity, dwelling in 
 the Father and the Father in him, before time was: On the 
 other hand, in their primary, and, as it is sometimes called, their 
 natural condition, men are imperfect Humanity, — beings imper- 
 fectly developed, having a twofold life, animal and spiritual, only 
 partially derived from and united with God, having a nature 
 like His own, and a capacity for receiving His Spirit, — but 
 having that nature only gradually developed in the likeness, and 
 
95 
 
 that capacity only gradually filled with the Spirit of God. In- 
 asmuch as they are made in His image and after the pattern of 
 His Son, with a capacity therefore for receiving the Divine 
 Spirit, and being gradually transformed by it into the same 
 spiritual substance or being, they, like " the First-born among 
 many brethren," the True Man, are capable of becoming sons 
 of God also. But inasmuch as they commence their existence 
 without being filled with the Spirit of God, and can receive it 
 only by degrees, both as individuals and as a race, while at the 
 same time they possess free-will, they must be more or less 
 separated from God, and will be liable, in virtue of other ten- 
 dencies, to increase that separation. It is evident, on the fore- 
 going hypotheses, that they, like the First-born, are made for 
 harmony, sympathy, union with God, as children ; that they can 
 have no true and perfect life except in Him, only so far as they 
 abide in Him, obey Him, look up to Him in filial trust and love 
 as truly and fully as does His beloved Son, — in short, only so 
 far as they are made sons of God, one with Him and with that 
 Son by the Divine Spirit of holiness, of sonship, and of love, 
 proceeding at once from the Father and the Son. This must 
 be the Divine Idea of God, and it must be His will that men 
 should realise it as Scripture plainly declares.* 
 
 But ere this glorious consummation could be arrived at, men 
 would have to pass through various stages of growth, and strife. 
 In consequence of being originally placed in an animal body, 
 and in a world of matter, separated to a certain extent from 
 God, with independent wills ; having, moreover, various animal 
 tendencies, by virtue of which they would often have far 
 stronger sympathies with the animal creation than with God and 
 His only Son, men while in the flesh would often rebel against 
 God, seek their own wills instead of His will, and give them- 
 selves up to debasing carnality and sin. This would be the 
 
 * Matthew v., 45 ; Galatians iv., 4-7 ; Komans viii., 15-21 ; John i., 12, 13 ; 
 Eph. i., 5, &c. 
 
96 
 
 more mournful, because it could be only God's infinite love and 
 goodness which led Him to create men at all. It was infinite 
 goodness and love which fashioned them in His own image, and 
 placed them for a few years in outward circumstances which, if 
 they chose, would prepare them for an eternity of progress in 
 holiness, power, knowledge, happiness, and love. The ex- 
 planation of that mystery, as far as one can be rendered in this 
 world, must be found in the plan of a gradual developement of 
 Humanity and the possession of freedom of will. For the present, 
 however, we have simply to observe the nature of man, which, 
 according to this reasoning, is both Godlike and animal, — his 
 primary condition, which is insulated and earthly, and his destiny 
 which, by the same reasoning, is heavenly and divine. 
 
 We arrive at precisely these conclusions by the consideration 
 of actual facts, as from Scripture declarations, or a priori 
 reasoning. 
 
 "We find that man is created capable of knowing and loving 
 God. Hence he must to some extent, at all events, be of like 
 nature with God. One being can know and love another only 
 by having the same mental and moral faculties. We can know 
 nothing of God except so far as we have something corresponding 
 to it in ourselves. If our faculties of reason and will, our 
 affections, and sense of right and wrong, resemble those which, 
 constitute the moral and intellectual being of God, we can know 
 and love Him; — not otherwise. Knowledge and love, ceteris 
 paribus, must be in proportion to spiritual resemblance, to the 
 degree in which we have somewhat in ourselves whereby we can 
 interpret the nature, thoughts, feelings, actions of another being. 
 
 The dog understands and loves his master just so far as he has 
 some faculties resembling those of man. The eagle knows its 
 own kind, but is conscious of no sympathy with the shepherd 
 that guards his flock in the valley. Since men, then, in all 
 climes and ages, in proportion to the developement of their 
 
97 
 
 spiritual nature, seek after God, understand, adore and love 
 Him, that nature must be kindred to His own, they must 
 resemble Him as one man resembles another ; they must be made 
 in His spiritual likeness. But inasmuch as they possess ten- 
 dencies, impulses, to worship, and to obey a law, a Avill, higher 
 than their own, to trust in a power mightier than theirs, they 
 must evidently be made also after the ideal pattern or the likeness 
 of One who is subordinate to God, who looks up to Him with 
 reverential and submissive love, — as of a child to a father. In 
 other words, a perfect man must be God's Idea of Himself 
 realised in existence, but realised in the filial attitude ; and the 
 ideal of Humanity after which men are formed must be God in 
 the position, nature, character, attitude of a Son, i.e., the ideal 
 of Man must be the Son of God. 
 
 "We cannot, indeed, by thus reasoning from known facts, 
 arrive at the conclusion that before men (as we behold them) 
 were created and placed in this world, a perfect man had been 
 brought into existence and dwelt in intimate union with his 
 heavenly Father — a true Son of God, the perfect ideal of 
 Humanity. But there is nothing in existing facts inconsistent 
 with such a theory ; and if it be granted that there existed in 
 the Divine mind an idea of a perfect man before he was created, 
 it seems most reasonable and agreeable to analogy to suppose — 
 first, that God, desiring to have some being of kindred nature to 
 dwell with Him, brought one such being into existence before 
 fashioning vast numbers ; secondly, that loving him as God must 
 and would love His own Son, He would desire to hold him in the 
 most intimate communion with himself; and, thirdly, that the 
 creation of similar beings in His Son, but insulated to a certain 
 extent from Himself by some of the conditions of their being, 
 and with tendencies to fall away from Him into gross animalism 
 or open revolt, would be, so to speak, a subsequent arrangement, 
 which would be executed only with reference to a previously 
 existing and perfect realisation of His own glorious and divine 
 idea in and through His only-begotten Son. 
 
98 
 
 Taking, then, our idea of man either from theoretical reason- 
 ing, from Scripture, or from observation of facts, we see that his 
 perfection, like the perfection of such a supposed ideal Son of 
 God, will consist in the most complete developement of a nature 
 imaged after that of God, combined with the most perfect realisa- 
 tion of the filial spirit, and of all filial attributes, towards " the 
 One God and Father of all." This, of course, must include the 
 greatest possible likeness to God consistent with the nature and 
 position of a Son. The more complete the resemblance to the 
 Father, the more perfect is the Sonship. Had human perfection 
 consisted simply in the greatest possible likeness to God, man, 
 as well as his great original archetype, must, throughout eter- 
 nity, have been at an infinite distance from the true and ultimate 
 perfection of his nature and being, must always have been in the 
 anomalous position of a dependent created being striving to be- 
 come like an uncreated independent one. But we are created 
 to become not Gods, but sons of God, and, in that, perfection is 
 attainable. We may realise His thought, His ideal, and, as 
 sons of God, " become perfect, even as our Father in heaven is 
 perfect." 
 
CHAP. VIIL— THE MEANS OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 Since all perfection is attained by fulfilling the Divine ideal 
 of the Creator, while the perfection of the Son of God consists 
 in his being " the brightness of the Father's glory" and in his 
 own perfect Sonship, it follows from the previous chapter that 
 our perfection must consist in a perfect resemblance to him 
 who is both the Divine Idea of Man and the "root" of 
 Humanity, — at once the Divine Pattern after which we are 
 created, to which we are to be conformed, and (as we shall 
 presently see) the means by which we are to arrive at this 
 completion of our destiny and salvation of our souls. 
 
 Moreover, if the views stated in chapter I., concerning the 
 law of progress to perfection are correct, the perfection and 
 blessedness of the Son are attained by that union with the 
 Father in the Holy Spirit, which is revealed in Scripture. 
 And it will then be also evident, according to the reasoning and 
 Scripture evidence in the foregoing chapters, that our perfection 
 and salvation must be gained in like manner by union with God 
 through His Holy Spirit. Perfect through union with God by 
 the Spirit of holiness and filial love. Words how easily 
 written, but expressing a truth the grandeur and blessedness of 
 which eternity alone can reveal. 
 
 But this much at least they signify to us, even now, that the 
 atonement of man with God, whereby human sin is conquered 
 and human salvation obtained — this union of man with the 
 Divine Being — must be a " unity of the Spirit," a spiritual 
 oneness, since it is effected by the Holy Spirit. But we have 
 already seen what is the nature and work of that Spirit. We 
 know that it is a Spirit of holiness and filial love, " of power, 
 
100 
 
 / and of love, and of a sound mind," of boundless adoration and 
 irrepressible joy. It is a spirit which produces absolute har- 
 mony of will, purpose, desire, character, entire concord, with the 
 Divine Being. In proportion as man receives this spirit he 
 becomes at one with God, and thus only can he become one 
 with his Father in heaven. I can conceive of no other atone- 
 ment between man and God than this. This would be the will 
 of man identified with the will of God — all opposition overcome, 
 all divergence subdued ; God's thought, purpose, desire, 
 accepted by man in filial reverence and trust, in glad submis- 
 sion and obedience, whether in suffering or in joy, in chastise- 
 ment or reward, — God's love reciprocated with deepest filial 
 affection, in holy adoration, and devout exalted rapture. There 
 can be no other atonement so perfect and all-comprehending 
 as this. It embraces everything that God can propose for man, 
 all that man can desire from God. And hence it accomplishes 
 human perfection. 
 
 Beings who are animated by a common spirit are, already, 
 so far united together. This is true, up to a certain point, even 
 of an unholy, an evil spirit, — a spirit of revenge, of covetousness, 
 lust, or pride. How much more if it be a spirit of love, of 
 truth, of holiness, — a holy spirit. Since the latter is the Spirit 
 of God, any being possessing that spirit will, so far, be one with 
 Him. Hence, as it was argued above, the Holy Spirit must 
 evidently be that which unites, makes one, the Father and the 
 Son ; and hence, also, it must be that which unites unto Them 
 those who, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love 
 of God, share in, enjoy in common (kolvoivlol), the blessing 
 " of the Holy Spirit." 2 Cor. xiii., 14. The common posses- 
 sion of the same spirit, a common participation in a spirit of 
 holiness, truth, love, must be that winch unites spiritual beings 
 to each other ; for the very meaning of spiritual union is, as we 
 have seen, a participation in the same thoughts, feelings, pur- 
 poses, life, — in short, in the same spirit or substance which 
 
101 
 
 underlies and gives being to all these manifestations. Hence, 
 the remarkable prominence given in the New Testament to the 
 necessity for, and the influence of, the Holy Spirit, precisely 
 what we were led to expect by mere human reasoning on the 
 facts of our existence, in the sixth chapter. 
 
 But the question that next arises is, — how can man obtain 
 this atoning spirit of holiness and love, of filial reverence and 
 filial trust ? There can be but one answer. Have we not seen 
 and confessed that it is the spirit of holiness, truth and love, 
 the spirit of reverence, trust, obedience, which unites the Father 
 and the Son, and which proceeds forth from Them to blend our 
 being in holy and blessed union with Theirs ? Must not that 
 spirit, if it come to us at all, come from the only Beings who 
 have that to bestow which we need for our growth to perfection 
 — for our eternal salvation ? Surely, it must be from the in- 
 dwelling presence of the Father and of the Son, from their 
 divine influence upon our souls (John xiv., 16, 18, 20, 23 ; 
 Acts ii., 33), that we are to receive of that spirit, which unites 
 the Godlike qualities of the Divine Nature with the filial charac- 
 teristics of His holy Son, and which, therefore, if received by 
 man, so that his whole soul be filled, regenerated, inspired by 
 its glorious power, would make us true sons of God, one with 
 Himself, and with him who once was " the only-begotten of 
 the Father," but who is now " the First-born among many 
 brethren," in whom the Father is and ever has been "well 
 
 Is it, then, the will of God thus to make us " of one spirit" 
 with Himself and His beloved Son ? Does He give forth that 
 spirit to the children of men ? Does His Son shed abroad in 
 our hearts this uniting spirit of love and holiness, of filial trust 
 and obedience, which he has himself received "without measure ?" 
 Keason bids us hope and believe this must be so as decisively as 
 it led us to the conclusions already arrived at ; and God has not 
 left Himself without a written witness that we may know of a 
 surety concerning these things. 
 
102 
 
 I have already referred to several portions of Scripture which 
 clearly confirm those conclusions and hopes. Others will be 
 found almost wherever the Holy Spirit is mentioned. 
 
 There is, however, one very remarkable passage which I have 
 reserved till now, because of its relation to the fundamental idea 
 on which this essay is based. It occurs in John x., 30. " I 
 and my Father are one." * 
 
 The essential unity of the Father and the Son is stated here 
 in a way that leaves no room for doubt as to the fact. The 
 Jews, who believed him to be simply a man like themselves, were 
 naturally offended at what they viewed as blasphemy, and which 
 I think would have been so, had he been a mere man, first com- 
 mencing his existence thirty years before, and simply the Son of 
 Joseph and Mary, however grandly he might have since been 
 endowed with the Holy Spirit and other gifts. But he vindi- 
 cates his right to make that memorable declaration by referring 
 to his relationship to God, showing that his oneness with God 
 arose out of his Sonship to God, to which statement the theory 
 of his nature and position offered in the first chapter exactly 
 corresponds. Other passages of a similar character, such as 
 " the Father that dwelleth in me," " I am not alone, for the 
 Father is with me," * the only-begotten Son . . . who is 
 in the bosom of the Father," all declare the same fundamental 
 truth that the Son of God was one with God, and therefore 
 
 DIVINE. 
 
 But observe how this essential oneness of the Father and the 
 Son is also actually spoken of by our Lord as the grand con- 
 summation of the destiny of all men. In his final prayer for 
 all his disciples down to the latest time, at that memorable Last 
 Supper, when his whole soul was poured out before the Almighty 
 Father, he shows what is of such unspeakable importance to w — 
 viz., that, by and through him, we also may become one with 
 
 * Ev one thing, not €is one being. See pp. 75, 76. 
 
103 
 
 God, thus consummating our perfection by union with the 
 All -Perfect One, and partaking of the Divine Nature. 2 
 Peter i., 4. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them 
 also who shall believe on me through their word ; that they all 
 may be one ; as Thou, Father, art in me. and I in Thee, that 
 they also may be one in us : that the world may believe that Thou 
 hast sent me. And the glory which Thou gavest me I have 
 given them ; that they may be one, even as we are one : I in 
 them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfect in one . . ." 
 John xvii., 20-23. Herein we find the fullest confirmation of 
 our highest dreams concerning the nature and destiny of man. 
 We are created for that divine union of our souls with God 
 through Christ which the Son has enjoyed with the Father 
 before and since the world was. All that we dared to imagine 
 and hope for, while speculating in the earlier chapters of this 
 work on the possibilities of our being, is here made the subject 
 of prayer for us by him " whom the Father loveth, and into 
 whose hand He hath given all things." John hi., 35. By this 
 we understand the oneness that unites them, and which, "blessed 
 be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," we are 
 invited to share. 
 
 We have now, therefore, to observe the means which God has 
 chosen for thus atoning our race with Himself and His Holy 
 Son by the Divine Spirit. 
 
CHAPTEE IX.— THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 
 
 In the commencement of the Gospel of St. John we find the 
 Son of God set forth as " the true Light which lighteth every 
 man." The true Light, that is, I apprehend, the inspiration by 
 which God has ever been prompting men to true thoughts, by 
 ivhich He has been drawing all men to Himself, unfolding in 
 them good and gentle and generous feelings, leading them 
 to noble, beautiful, and holy deeds. And is not this in strict 
 accordance with what we should expect? If the passages 
 quoted in a former chapter establish the great truth of the 
 existence of the Son of God with the Father long before his 
 manifestation in the flesh, it would be most improbable that he 
 should, during that time, have sustained no relations to men, 
 had nothing to do with the education and training of that race 
 which was created after his pattern, " through whom and for 
 whom all things were created" (Col. i., 16); "that race which 
 was chosen in him before the foundation of the world." 
 Eph. i., 4. Would it not have been strange if he, who is the 
 Head and Chief of the human race, should for thousands of 
 years have known nothing of what was going on among them, — 
 or, knowing, should not have been able or willing, or should not 
 have been permitted to do anything for their benefit ? We see 
 continually that God's tender love leads Him to grant to the 
 beings He has created the unspeakable privilege of being the 
 means through whom He confers blessings on their brethren, 
 and clearly His great plan for raising and perfecting His 
 creatures is to enable them in various ways and degrees to do 
 good to those who come within their sphere. Admitting this, 
 does it seem probable that God should for ages debar His well- 
 beloved Son from the exercise of so great a privilege, — privilege 
 
105 
 
 accorded in the meanwhile to Joseph and Moses, Joshua, 
 Samuel, David, Isaiah? Or that, in this one instance, He 
 should depart from that beneficent plan, and not work out His 
 glorious purposes for Humanity, through the instrumentality of 
 that Son, for whom and through whom all men were created ? 
 The answer to these questions is found, as I have said, in the 
 proem of St. John's Gospel, as far as Scripture is concerned, 
 and the reply from observation and experience, surely, is not 
 less conclusive. Everywhere we perceive that it is part of the 
 Creator's plans for conferring the utmost possible amount of ' 
 happiness and glory on the beings whom He brings into 
 existence, to make them as far as possible sharers in His divine 
 prerogatives and blessedness, by enabling them to be the means 
 as instruments through which He confers His blessings. What 
 more natural, then, than that it should please Him to make His 
 beloved Son the medium through which He communicates His 
 Divine Spirit to those beings who are made after the pattern of 
 that Son, in His own image ? 
 
 " But are we to give up the blessed truth set forth so con- 
 stantly and impressively in the Old Testament, of God's con- 
 tinual presence and providence, the ever-working power and 
 love of Him whose tender mercies are over all His works ? " 
 God forbid. Does it remove Him from His universe, does it j 
 in the slightest degree put Him further from us, to recognise 
 that most loving plan, that great beneficent law, by which He 
 makes other intelligent beings the medium through whom He 
 acts upon creation ? If we fix our minds upon the primal fact 
 that He is the Originator, Creator, Author of all, — that eveiy- 
 thing comes to pass through His will or permission, — that even 
 the laws of nature (as they are termed) are only the way in 
 which God acts, and that every " good and perfect gift " cometh 
 down from Him (James 1., 17), — the way in which He may see 
 fit to exercise His power, the fact of there being a living intelli- 
 gent medium through whom He may seem right to manifest 
 
106 
 
 His love, surely cannot, at all events ought not, to interfere in 
 the slightest degree with our realising either His power, His 
 presence, or His love. Do we love Him less because He has 
 made us to receive light and gladness from the sun ? Or did 
 David's deep trust and gratitude to " the Most High " suffer 
 eclipse when he wrote these words in the 91st Psalm, — " He 
 shall give His angels charge concerning thee ? " Or these, — 
 " The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear 
 Him, and delivereth them ? " Psalm xxxiv., 7. Ought we to 
 feel separated from Him in any sense because we find that He 
 has given to His beloved Son the joy of ministering to the 
 eternal well-being of man, and given to man the privilege of 
 having so dear a friend to bring us nearer and ever nearer to 
 Himself? Christ did many mighty works on earth. Do we 
 not feel that it was God working in and by him? Does not our 
 Lord say, — " The words that I speak unto you I speak not of 
 myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the 
 works ? " John xiv., 10. 
 
 But it is not the less, rather the more, important we should 
 remember this great, nay, awful truth, — that it is in deed and in 
 truth God Himself who is thus acting upon our souls, shining 
 into our hearts, in the light which lighteth every man. Even 
 with such imperfect and unworthy instruments as human beings, 
 is it not God's agency after all, is it not God Himself, more or 
 less present, who is acting upon the souls of men when good and 
 gifted, brave and faithful men influence their fellow-beings ? 
 How much more truly and thoroughly must it not be God's 
 action, God Himself dealing with His human children, in all 
 that mighty range of influence spoken of above as exercised 
 through the Son of God, the Divine Word, the true light that 
 lighteth all. For in acting by and through His perfect Son, 
 our heavenly Father would encounter none of those hindrances 
 presented by the defects and sinfulness of man, by the imperfect 
 harmony of human wills with the Divine will, of human characters 
 
10" 
 
 with the Divine character. The light from God would he 
 reflected pure and unbroken, the electric power would find only 
 a mighty aiding force, a rapid and safe conduct in and through 
 the soul of Christ. Therefore he could say of his miracles on 
 earth, " the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works." 
 Therefore Paul writes of the work of the atonement saying, — 
 " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed unto 
 us the word of reconciliation." 2 Cor. v., 19. And in the 
 same way, and for the same reason, Christ could add to the 
 words above quoted, at the Last Supper, — " Believe me that I am 
 in the Father and the Father in me," because there was no 
 obstacle in the holy, loving, filial spirit of Christ to the complete 
 and perfect inflowing, indwelling spirit and will, power, love, and 
 being of God. And see how gradually and carefully, as it 
 were, the revelation of this truth is given to man, lest in the 
 earlier stages of his religious life he might rest in the Mediator, 
 instead of receiving that Mediator's help to draw nigh to the 
 One Supreme and Only God. Various intimations of the exist- 
 ence and office of the Son of God are given to the Jews in the 
 Old Testament histories and prophecies.* Nevertheless. I fully 
 admit that this great doctrine is but faintly foreshadowed in the 
 Old Testament ; and it is by the reflected light cast back upon 
 the Old Testament from the New that we must understand so 
 much of the former. The full declaration of the relation of the 
 Son of God to man was reserved until he had submitted to all 
 the conditions of humanity, and declared personally his relations 
 to God and man so emphatically that it would have seemed none 
 could thenceforth mistake them. Then we are directed by his 
 biographers, without reserve, to "the Light which lighteth every 
 man," and which was then coming into the world, " the root of 
 
 * Sufih^Xor instance, as Gen. xviii., 13-17 ; xxxii., 30 ; Exodus xxiii., 20- 
 g§ ; .1 15 : Psalm ex., 1 ; xvi., 8; compared with Acts ii., 25 ; 
 
 Proverbs viii. ; Isaiah xlix., 1-10 (see Lowth) ; Daniel iii., 25 ; x., 5-18. 
 
108 
 
 David, the bright and morning star," whom, as he himself 
 reminds his countrymen, David had called "Lord," and of 
 whom Peter preached thus on the Day of Pentecost, — " For 
 David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always 
 before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be 
 . moved " (Acts ii., 25) ; of whom the same Apostle wrote, in 
 reference to the prophets and holy men of old, that " the Spirit 
 of Christ which was in them" testified of that which was to 
 come ; while Paul said of his Saviour, that " the Eock " whence 
 the Israelites drank in the desert "was Christ." 1 Cor. x., 4. 
 
 When God created man, then, in His own likeness, but to a 
 certain extent insulated him from Himself, by placing him in this 
 animal body for a season, He still maintained a close and 
 intimate communication with him through the Divine Word, — 
 that Word whom He thus made to be the root of man's spiritual 
 life, the connecting link between Himself and each individual 
 soul through whom the Divine life and light flowed from the 
 Creator to the creature, — made to be "unto us wisdom and 
 righteousness, sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. i., 30), 
 even " Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God," — 
 (1 Cor. i., 24 ; Prov. viii.), — made him, above all, to be the 
 source of that spirit of Sonship whereby we learn to cry unto 
 God "Abba! Father."* 
 
 But it was this insulation in the flesh, nevertheless, which left 
 man free to be tempted to follow his own will instead of God's 
 will, to obey his own appetites and passions instead of hearkening 
 to the Divine Word, and following the leadings of God's Spirit. 
 The great purpose of God in thus dealing with us has been 
 gradually becoming clearer to many, and was plain enough to 
 some from the first. Men are to learn by experience and train- 
 ing to know good from evil, to be taught to freely choose the one 
 and hate the other. And in proportion as they }deld to that 
 influence and strive to learn the lessons of life, strive to give up 
 
 * See "Maurice's Sermons," originally issued to subscribers only. Vol. 
 i., 109. 
 
109 
 
 their own will, their whole being to God, He reveals Himself to 
 them more fully, ever cherishing nearer and tenderer relations 
 between Himself and them. Hence all the manifestations of \ 
 Himself recorded in the Bible, especially the greatest of all, the 
 incarnation of His beloved Son, with the Ascension and sub- 
 sequent Trapovcna of the Saviour in the Holy Spirit. In 
 proportion as men have cherished or checked the communication 
 of the Divine light and life to their souls, has been their spiritual 
 growth or decline in power, holiness, peace. But if they 
 resolutely, perseveringly, cut themselves off from that life, the 
 Scriptures are very plain in telling us, and all history in proving 
 to us, that the end thereof is Death. It would appear, more- 
 over, that there is no long halting in either course. We must 
 gradually grow into the likeness of the Divine Word through his 
 formative power, or, by continually losing that resemblance and 
 becoming more brutish or devilish, must finally perish. 
 
 On what other foundation than this, that the Son of God is 
 and always has been the medium or channel through whom 
 God has imparted His own Divine life to man, making him there- 
 by the root or source of spiritual life to mankind, can Christ be 
 called or call himself the root of David and Jesse ?* Isaiah vi.> 
 10; Bev. v., 5; xxii., 16. May we not, then, say that our Lord 
 resembled the hidden root before his incarnation, and after that 
 event the manifested developement of the root, the trunk or stem 
 of the vine in which all the branches must abide (John xv., 4-6) 
 if they would live and grow for ever ? 
 
 If these views, then, be correct, men become spiritual, God- 
 like, divine just in proportion as they come into union with the 
 Son of God, through accepting and giving themselves up to his 
 influence, so that he may take possession of their being, forming 
 and pervading their soul with his spirit, as the juices of the root 
 form and pervade the plant ; or, to take the Evangelist's 
 
 * See p. 58. 
 
110 
 
 metaphor in a sense which it will fairly bear, they become divine 
 by union with God's Son, even as the lamp is " lighted " when it 
 comes into contact with flame. 
 
 And let it not be imagined that this is a deceitful material 
 analogy to illustrate a mistaken theory. For we see in every 
 direction proofs that it has pleased God thus to communicate a 
 holy and elevating spirit from soul to soul by the mysterious 
 influences of spiritual contact and communion. We do not 
 know how souls commune with one another, nor what spiritual 
 influences really are. For we know not what spirit itself is. 
 But we do know how mighty those influences are when pro- 
 ceeding merely from one human being to another. And we 
 know also that they are not limited to the actually present 
 man, or what we call the present man ; — for his whole spiritual 
 existence is a mystery. We can say that his body is present in 
 time and space, but to define in like manner the position of his 
 soul is beyond our philosophy. Therefore let the wonderful 
 influence of great men upon succeeding generations be ob- 
 served, — the marvellous effect they still produce upon mankind 
 when their bodies have long crumbled to dust. Look at a 
 youthful Macedonian monarch under the mighty spell of heroic 
 memories seven centimes old. Was not the spirit of Achilles 
 influencing the soul of Alexander? Look at the history of 
 Borne — nay, of the world — from the time when her early 
 patriots were believed to have laid the foundations of her great- 
 ness on the basis of some rude but grand conceptions of piety 
 and freedom, or when her later ones fell in the same noble 
 cause. Tridy has it been said — 
 
 They never fail who die 
 In a great cause ; the block may soak their gore, 
 Their heads may sodden in the sun .... 
 But still their spirit walks abroad .... 
 
 What were we 
 If Brutus had not lived ? He died in giving 
 Rome liberty, but left a deathless lesson — 
 
Ill 
 
 A name which is a virtue, and a soul 
 Which multiplies itself throughout all time 
 When wicked men wax mighty. 
 
 The Doge of Venice. 
 
 See the influence of those deeds of heroic daring, of generous 
 knightly characters, of an unselfish noble life, during the middle 
 ages, embalmed in the lays of troubadours and the romances of 
 chivalry. Whenever the report or record of heroic worth stirs 
 the human soul, still more, whenever we are permitted to have 
 more immediate companionship with such noble spirits, is not 
 their spirit touching, permeating ours ? Can we draw the line 
 between the influence of soul on soul, according to whether the 
 earthly bodies enshrining those souls are in certain proximate 
 relations of time and space, and communicating those in- 
 fluences through the senses ? I say we do not know sufficiently 
 what spirit is, or the laws that govern it, to pretend thus to limit 
 the mode of its operations. All we do know is its effects. And 
 those are great and wonderful, whether caused by persons whose 
 bodies are living and moving in proximity to our own, or by 
 those whose mortal tabernacles are mouldering in the grave. 
 
 Again, does death really separate those who have truly loved? 
 Is not the spirit of the beloved parent powerfully working in 
 the soul of the child who is mourning his sad bereavement, — 
 lifting him, as he dwells upon sacred and tender memories 
 above the temptations, animating him to perform the duties of 
 life, — breathing into him a holy and heroic spirit of purity, piety, 
 love ? Is not that parent still present, spiritually persent to the 
 child? 
 
 " These may be the mere figments of fancy. We may be 
 deceiving ourselves with imaginary hopes." True, but the fact 
 that men in all ages have loved to cherish them sufficiently 
 proves that there is nothing contradictory to reason ; nay, that 
 there is much in such imaginations that strongly commends it- 
 self both to our reason and affections. Surely this is proof 
 
112 
 
 enough also that, as far as we can now see, the Almighty God 
 may have granted to His dear Son the infinite blessing of com- 
 municating a divine life from his spirit to the souls of men by 
 coming into spiritual communion with them. May not, therefore, 
 all these facts just mentioned be faint adumbrations of the 
 glorious work that had been performed for ages by the Son of God 
 in the heart of man ? I cannot but believe there is some personal 
 influence in the work which the spirit of departed heroes accom- 
 plishes. And if this be bo, oh ! how far more mighty must be the 
 work of the Son of God on the souls of men. 
 
 "But there is this great difference," it may be said, 
 "between the influence of departed heroes and friends, and that 
 which is here attributed to the Son of God. Men have always 
 been conscious of the one, not of the other." 
 
 I doubt if they have always been conscious of the former 
 influence. I think it has often been like that of the air they 
 breathe. It has formed the moral, social, or religious atmos- 
 phere, which quite unconsciously has fed and quickened their 
 spiritual life. So subtle is the influence of spirit upon spirit, of 
 spiritual influences generally, whether streaming from one great 
 mind, one beloved friend, or many such, that it would be pre- 
 sumptuous to pretend to say where they begin or end. And 
 even in the case of persons who seem utterly unable to appre- 
 ciate such influences, and whom we, perhaps, therefore, rashly 
 judge to be incapable of receiving them, let us remember the 
 wonderful influence God grants a mother to exert on her unborn 
 child, and never imagine that we are not justified in believing 
 that the Son of God may be permitted to communicate the 
 divine influences of his spirit to the slumbering or unconscious 
 souls of men. 
 
 Is not this one of the great truths which our Lord refers to 
 when he says (John vi., 53) that except we eat his flesh and 
 drink his blood we have no life, no true spiritual life, in us ?* 
 * On this point see also chap. xiv. 
 
113 
 
 And we here perceive more fully the infinite importance of that 
 question as to whether the Son be of the same substance as the 
 Father. For if he do possess the same spirit or substance, and 
 in that case alone can we conceive it possible, not only for 
 other beings to possess it also, but for him to impart it to them, 
 and thus to make them sons of God, even as he is. In giving 
 His Son, God is giving Himself, because He and His Son are 
 one. And unto whomsoever God gives Himself, His own Spirit 
 and essence, that being becomes thereby a child of God. 
 
 But unquestionably the spiritual influence of the Son of God 
 on humanity would be far greater when, or if it could be exerted 
 on souls conscious both of that influence and of the source 
 whence it came. If he were working not merely as a secret 
 unknown power, but for once at least were manifested to all men 
 in the flesh, so that the holy majesty, the loveliness and power 
 of his nature and character might be seen in human form, and 
 under earthly conditions, so that the world might know their 
 Saviour, and behold him " full of grace and truth," then his 
 spirit might, indeed, move theirs as it had never done before. 
 If he were to come under all the conditions of Humanity, were to 
 dwell awhile on earth in flesh and blood, labouring, praying, 
 conquering, suffering, and finally victorious over all that enslaves 
 and tortures man, if for once men could behold and record for 
 all future generations a truly divine, self-sacrificing, holy life 
 manifested forth in human form, under human limitations and 
 sorrows, we may believe that the spiritual influence of earth's 
 noblest heroes and saints, of all that they had ever done and 
 suffered for their race would pale before the mighty power of the 
 spirit which would then come forth from the suffering and Tic- 
 torious Son of God and Son of Man. 
 
 Let it further be remarked that supposing God has indeed 
 ordained this divine and beautiful arrangement, whereby He 
 would make His beloved Son a sharer in the privilege of 
 elevating and perfecting man, they would thus receive not only 
 
L 
 
 114 
 
 the Spirit of God but also the spirit of His Son. They would 
 possess not merely the soul which gives them conscience, 
 reason, will, affection, — not merely the animal body which gives 
 them various powers and tendencies, all good and admirable of 
 their kind and in their place, — but also the spirit of holiness, 
 of power and love, which is of God, and the spirit of filial 
 reverence, submission, trust, which is of the Son of God. Thus 
 they would be " born again of the Spirit." And this is just 
 what I said above we are taught in the Scriptures as the 
 purpose of God "before the foundation of the world" — viz., 
 that we might be brought into the condition of Sonship through 
 His beloved Son by means of the Holy Spirit. See, again, John 
 i., 12, 13 ; also Eph. i., 4, 5 ; ii., 10 ; Kom. viii., 29 ; Gal. iv., 
 1-7. Thus we understand our Lord's meaning when, in a 
 passage already commented on (John x., 34, 35), he reminds 
 his accusers that they were called " gods [Elohim] to whom the 
 word of God came." Now, as it has been truly remarked 
 (Olsh. in loc.),* " The name Elohim, applied to those who are 
 in authority, pre-supposes a real union of such persons with God ; 
 if this does not exist the name has no truth." So far as they 
 gave themselves up to the Spirit of God, and became the organs 
 of His will and word, these rulers and prophets became of like 
 nature, character, spirit, with God, therefore sons of God, and 
 therefore divine, — they became Gods in the sense of partaking of 
 the Divine substance or spirit. Hence Jesus argues that if he 
 has the spirit of God, if the word of God has come to him so 
 fully that he has been set apart (sanctified), and actually sent 
 into the world to save that world, he certainly is justified in 
 speaking of himself as the Son of God. We must, however, 
 remember that those blessings just spoken of, — the spirit of 
 holiness and sonship, — are not, cannot, indeed, be forced upon 
 human beings ; not only because we are endowed with free- 
 
 * It must be remembered tbat Olsbausen was a firm believer in the ordi- 
 nary orthodox views of Christ. 
 
115 
 
 will, but because by the very nature of the Divine Spirit it can 
 only become a part of ourselves, can only become our spirit, if 
 we of our own will receive and appropriate it. A spirit of holi- 
 ness, trust, reverence, submission, evidently cannot be our spirit 
 unless we ourselves will to be holy, trustful, reverent. If we 
 resist any influence or desire, any impulse from within or with- 
 out, that would tend to make us holy and submissive, we are so 
 far not holy, not submissive. Only when we ourselves will to 
 be in a state of holiness or trustfulness, have we a spirit of holi- 
 ness and trust. This point must be adverted to again. 
 
 By receiving that spirit of Sonship, " the spirit of adoption,' ' 
 we are drawn into the family, into the bosom, of God. So 
 long as we are merely creatures we stand outside ; but by the 
 regenerating and transforming influence of this divine and yet 
 filial spirit we are brought into the position and privileges of the 
 Son of God, and share not only in the love of God, but in the 
 divinity of the Father* and in the Sonship (the filial character- 
 istics and relations) of the Son. 
 
 According, then, to this view, the Son of God must be 
 "our Life," the source of men's higher, holier life, the 
 " true light " that is to bring us to divine perfection, the medium 
 of our communication with God. He must dwell in, be united 
 with all men who are to become sons of God, who are to be made 
 righteous in all things, as he is, — must abide in them, so that 
 he may fill them with his spirit of Sonship, his divine and filial 
 life and spirit, even as he is filled with the Father's divine 
 spirit and life (" I in them and Thou in me," John xvii., 23), and 
 men would become holy, righteous, spiritual, and divine, true 
 children of God, in proportion as they receive the Son of God 
 into their souls, in proportion as he dwells and is unfolded there 
 in all his Godlike and glorious perfections, in proportion as he 
 changes or renews our souls into the likeness of his own. 
 
 * See Alford on Rom. viii., 14. Compare also Matth. xi., 11. 
 
116 
 
 I say in proportion ; because it must be remembered that the 
 whole process from first to last is gradual. All men are not 
 constituted alike. They all have the same kind of faculties and 
 capabilities, but not in the same degree ; and there must be a 
 great variety in the power which various men, and various 
 nations even, have of receiving spiritual influences, as well as 
 in their willingness to cherish or to quench them. We constantly 
 see how much more open to them some men are than others, 
 and so has it been from the earliest times. Hence there must 
 have been an infinite variety in the degrees in which God, in 
 and by His beloved Son, has been able to enter and abide in the 
 human heart. None, we can well believe, have been unvisited ; 
 some spiritual life has been awakened in most of the sons of 
 men, from the time of Adam downwards. Too often it has been 
 unwelcomed, and speedily quenched; but occasionally it has 
 taken abiding root, and grown with gradually unfolding power 
 and beauty. In proportion as men have welcomed and honoured 
 the light which came to them, and which, more or less, lighted 
 every man that has existed in the world, God and His Son have 
 come to them more and more abundantly, — they have received 
 fuller and richer supplies of the Divine Spirit, and as the Son 
 of God has filled their whole being, they have become assi- 
 milated to his substance, transformed into his likeness, living his 
 life, animated by his spirit. John xv., 1-3. Thus the growth 
 of a man's spiritual life is the gradual developement of the 
 Son of God in his soul, — the growth of a divine " root" or 
 seed, which gradually absorbs into itself all the mere human and 
 earthly elements of his personality, transfiguring them into the 
 Divine essence, until he also becomes divine, of the same sub- 
 stance and spirit as God, one with Him in His Son, even as the 
 Father and the Son are one for ever. John i., 12, 13 ; xvii., 
 21-23; Gal. it., 19 ; Eph. iii., 17-19. 
 
 But the same earnest heed must be taken to avoid supposing 
 that by this relationship to the Son, and through him to the 
 
117 
 
 Father, a man loses his own individual personal existence, which 
 we took to prevent any confounding of the persons of the 
 Father and the Son. Let it never be forgotten that only 
 so far as any being preserves his own individuality and iden- 
 tity, does he exist at all. To lose that individuality and 
 personal identity is to be annihilated. It is death, — the being 
 broken up into isolated parts, the becoming a mere collection of 
 things or parts of things, not one individual person. Moreover, 
 it is to be noticed that we advance (as might be expected) 
 towards the highest life, power, blessedness, by proceeding in 
 exactly the reverse direction; and the most intense individuality 
 will be found accompanying the highest developement ; this 
 individuality, both in actual existence and personal cons(ftus- 
 ness, increasing in proportion as the being grows more spiritual 
 and more divine. And here we gain a glimpse of another of 
 the wonderful meanings of the word "Spirit;" because it is only 
 when we become one in spirit with another being that we can 
 yet retain, and with even increased intensity, our own personality. 
 So far as we become one Avith others in manners, dress, opinions 
 even if these are merely adopted without thought of our own, 
 in anything merely external to our own inner life and powers,, 
 we do loae our own personality, and degenerate towards the con- 
 dition of things, — even as the acid and the alkali, by uniting, do 
 not become respectively more intensely sour and alkaline, but 
 only lose their distinct existence, and become a different tlnng, 
 because they are wholly material, and have no spiritual life at 
 all. 
 
 The reason of all this, of course, is very evident. Intelligent 
 beings, such as those to whom alone the word " person " can be 
 applied, are actual living persons because they possess, — first, 
 that consciousness of personal identity which pre-supposes the 
 existence of the mysterious individual " ego," the monad " 1 j" 
 and, secondly, because they are endowed with certain faculties, 
 such as reason, will, <fec. Hence they necessarily have more and 
 
118 
 
 more personal, individual life, the more intense that conscious- 
 ness of personal identity, the stronger their will, the warmer 
 their affections, the more powerful their reason, the more faithful 
 their conscience become. 
 
 And this truth again leads us on to perceive the necessary 
 result of God's influence upon us through the gradual assimilating 
 power of His Spirit. It is that all our faculties become in- 
 tensified, and our sense of our own personal existence continually 
 deepened. The more His Son takes possession of us and makes 
 us like himself, absorbing our being into his own, and making us 
 one with himself, the more certain and conscious we must feel 
 of our own life and being, the mightier must become our affections 
 and our will, the more piercing our reason, and the holier our 
 sense of moral right and wrong. As we gain his spirit, his life, 
 we become more intensely and perfectly ourselves, even at the 
 very time that we become more wholly and perfectly one with 
 God and His beloved Son. 
 
 But is not this precisely what would follow from our being 
 made in the image of God ? Our perfection is the realisation of 
 that Divine ideal, and therefore the more fully our will, and 
 affections, our whole spiritual nature is developed, the more 
 perfect and Godlike we must become. But for this develope- 
 ment of our spiritual nature, i.e., our capacities for spiritual life, 
 we need that those capacities should be filled with spiritual life, 
 i.e., with the Spirit of God. And in proportion as we have that 
 spirit we have God Himself, and become of one substance with 
 Him,* more and more wholly one with Him, just in the degree 
 in which by the developement of all our powers we become more 
 intensely ourselves. For the action of the Spirit of God upon 
 our souls is very different from that of a potter upon the in- 
 sensible clay, — moulding it irresistibly. It acts by quickening 
 into vigorous life all that is best and holiest within us, calling 
 forth our own energy of will in behalf of all that is divine and 
 * See pp. 17, et. seq. 
 
119 
 
 blessed, directing as well as inspiring, and repressing in us all 
 that is evil while it unfolds the good. But this explains that 
 wonderful paradox which has, perhaps, perplexed us when we 
 have seen that at the very time, and in the same degree, that we 
 thus gain a continually increasing intensity and consciousness of 
 individual life, we are more and more taken out of ourselves, 
 become continually less selfish and egotistic, live more in and for 
 the welfare of others. The reason is evident when we consider 
 that a ruling principle in the Divine Nature is love, and that 
 this is essentially a self-forgetting, self-sacrificing spirit, — 
 one that carries us out of ourselves, and makes us live in 
 the life, and for the well-being, of others. Not all love. 
 For great love may be compatible with great selfishness. 
 But this is not our idea of the love of God. We believe 
 rather that the Spirit of God is that of unselfish, self-sacri- 
 ficing, love.* We believe that this constitutes His essential 
 Divinity. Scripture, Providence, and experience alike concur 
 to teach us this sublime truth. We must believe, therefore, that 
 this is the spirit of which we are to partake, with which we are 
 to be filled, by which we are to be made sons of God, and so 
 become " perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect," if 
 we believe that God has manifested that spirit to us in a way 
 which all men may partly understand, most of all, in giving His 
 only-begotten Son to labour and die for men. John iii., 16 ; 
 Rom. viii., 32. Beholding or believing in such a fact as this, 
 we are enabled to perceive that this Spirit of God is manifested 
 in a thousand other ways also, and so to understand that our 
 God lives for and in the welfare and happiness of the beings He 
 brings into existence. So we may learn and desire to receive 
 and to manifest as the pervading, animating principle of our 
 whole life and being, a spirit of self-sacrificifcg love ; and find 
 therein the mightiest developement of individual existence, 
 
 Aycwny, not epws. ^Cor., xiii. 
 
120 
 
 power, life, and joy. "Whoso loseth his life for my sake shall 
 find it." 
 
 But if the Son of God be of the same substance or Spirit as 
 the Father, he would manifest forth all " the brightness of His 
 glory" in this respect above every other. He would pre- 
 eminently show the power and blessedness of self-sacrificing 
 love, and would fill the hearts of all who receive him with it also. 
 In proportion as the Son of God was " formed within us " 
 (Gal. iv., 19), and filled our whole being with "light," the very 
 essence of our nature, like that of God and the Son of God, 
 would become a spirit of self-sacrificing love. So that the more 
 strongly our new divine life was developed within us, and the 
 mightier our individuality became, the more unselfish we should 
 grow, the more fully we should be carried out of ourselves and 
 live in the happiness and welfare of others, receiving a fuller, 
 richer, more glorious and blessed life without limit and without 
 end. 
 
 Thus the Son of God by dwelling and being unfolded in us, 
 would make us " righteous," i.e., would make us like himself 
 and God, make us what we were intended to be, perfect and 
 right, would be " formed in us" we may venture reverently to 
 say even as the son of Peleus was formed, though in some far 
 inferior sense, in the soul of the enthusiastic Macedonian boy ; 
 As a noble and tender-hearted parent, in that same sense, is 
 formed, re-produced in the soul of the susceptible reverent 
 child ; if we accept these illustrations as mere " broken lights," 
 faint similitudes of the developement in our souls of that Divine 
 and perfect Light, to the recognition of which in lowly gratitude 
 and loyal faithfulness we are to consecrate ourselves as those 
 whom he ever lives to make "perfect," atoning us with his 
 Father and his God. Furthermore, it is manifest that, as on 
 the one hand, a being who can and does thus take a profound 
 interest in other beings, and even blend his life with theirs, 
 without losing anything, of his own individuality, must have a 
 
121 
 
 far richer and fuller life in consequence ; so a being who pos- 
 sesses an intense individual spiritual life must, in very virtue 
 thereof, feel a proportionately intense interest in other existences, 
 and be thereby continually more and more taken out of himself. 
 I say " spiritual life," because it is only the higher divine life 
 within us, filling our divine capacities, which will thus impel us 
 to an interest in the life and happiness of other beings. The 
 animal life is essentially and intensely self-seeking and self- 
 centered. But our spiritual tendencies, which came from our 
 likeness to God, tendencies to create and to investigate, to 
 admire and adore, to promote the welfare of others, and espe- 
 cially to love, all strongly assist in taking us out of our own 
 little selves into the life and sphere of the Universe. 
 
 But a not less important consideration is the way in which 
 the relation of the Son of God to our souls influences us in this 
 direction also. For, as we have seen, the spirit and life of the 
 Son is essentially that of up-looking, of reverence, loving filial 
 trust, and submission. Hence, so far as we share in that spirit 
 and life, the more vivid and strong our own individuality becomes 
 the more completely we shall be carried out of ourselves up to 
 God, in adoring reverence, and filial love. While in return, all 
 the faculties and impulses which thus engage us to love and 
 worship our Father will act as powerfully to make us desire to 
 love and serve His children. Thus, as we shall presently see 
 more fully, the Son of God becomes " our Kighteousness ;" his 
 righteousness is the righteousness of a Son, it is also the 
 righteousness of a brother. We become righteous " even as he 
 is righteous," only so far as we have the spirit of sons and of 
 brothers — loving God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, 
 and our neighbour as ourselves. Hence, the more trustful, 
 reverent, and submissive we are towards God — i.e., the more 
 entirely and intensely we are " children of God " (Rom. viii., 
 14-16) — the more intense and powerful must be our individual 
 life. While, on the other hand, the more intense this indi- 
 
122 
 
 viduality, the more completely we lose all self-will and self- 
 seeking in giving ourselves up to God, becoming " followers of 
 Him as dear children/' and " walking in love as Christ also 
 loved us and gave himself for us." Eph. v., 1, 2. 
 
 And thus we see how the relation which we are supposing the 
 Son of God bears to men, instead of removing them further 
 from God, instead of leading them to love and worship and think 
 of and obey God less strenuously and completely, is the very 
 means whereby they are most effectually and entirety brought 
 to Him in reverent obedience, child-like trust, and self-sacrificing 
 love. But it is only when we realise the true nature and spirit 
 of the Son, when we really believe that Jesus is the Son of God, 
 and then perceive that he imbues our nature with his own filial 
 spirit if we will receive him, that we fully understand how Christ, 
 as our "Mediator/"* is not a hindrance, not an interposing ob- 
 struction between us and God, but " the true light" and guide, the 
 only means by which we can really come to God our Father in 
 heaven. How could it be otherwise than that we should learn 
 to love God with deeper, more devout, and wholly trustful spirit, 
 with a holier and more perfect self- consecration to Him as our 
 Father and our God, by having ever more of the mind, the 
 spirit, of His beloved Son ? Is it not evident that, however 
 much we magnify the office of the Son, honour him, and 
 realise his presence and power, we never can be thereby dimin- 
 ishing our love and piety towards the Father, if we at the same 
 time realise the true nature and relationship of these Beings, 
 because there is such an infinite difference between the feelings 
 with which we ought to approach them ? We might as well 
 imagine that the family relationship would interfere with the 
 love that should exist between brother and sister, parent and 
 child. Does a wife love her husband the less because she 
 
 * He who said "I am the Light of the world " was the " revealing" 
 medium wherein all things are made manifest, as will be shown more fully 
 in a subsequent chapter. 
 
123 
 
 has a dear brother or sister ? or does a son love his father the 
 less because he has a beloved elder brother ? In proportion as 
 these persons are what they ought to be to each other, understand 
 aright these blessed relationships, and realise each other's true 
 characters, the love they feel for one member of the family only 
 heightens their affection for another. How much more must 
 this be the case where we feel that all the benefits, help, and 
 blessedness we receive from the Son of God we owe primarily 
 to "his Father and our Father, his God and our God." 
 John xx., 17. 
 
 No ; there need be no fear lest we " honour" too much the Son 
 if only we believe and remember that he is the Son of God, and 
 not the Father. The danger is, and long has been, of men's 
 forgetting or never apprehending the real meaning of his Son- 
 ship, and so either virtually believing in him, looking to him, as 
 " the only true God," the Father who sent him, while calling 
 him God the Son, whereby they lose both the Father and the 
 Son, — or of regarding him simply as an ordinary man, of merely 
 human parentage, like Socrates or Paul, differing from them 
 only in the degree in which he received the Holy Spirit, — 
 whereby they lose the Son of God, and have for their Saviour 
 simply the Son of man. 
 
 But "That was the true Light . . . which lighteth 
 every man . . . and which came unto his own." May 
 they receive him, and receive power from him " to become sons 
 of God." 
 
CHAPTER X.— SACRIFICE. 
 
 The views offered towards the end of the last chapter 
 lead up to the subject of the present. Clearly, there was 
 something else needed, to make the holy Son of God 
 perfect even as his Father in heaven, than simply union 
 with that Father in the Holy Spirit ? And if so, must there 
 not he something else needed by us also ? Since he pos- 
 sessed free will and the power of independent action, it is 
 evident that this union could only be maintained by his perfect 
 self-consecration to God, the free devotion of his will and 
 affections unreservedly to his Heavenly Father. 
 
 If, as we believe, the free exercise of volition is one of the 
 primary essential elements in the nature of God, and if the Son 
 be the perfect reflection of that nature, it is evident that he 
 would retain his complete oneness with God only so long and so 
 far as he freely chose that condition, and harmonised his own 
 will with that of God. For there could be no such oneness 
 but through the spirit of holiness and love, and there can be 
 neither love nor holiness except so far as holiness is freely 
 chosen, and love freely given. But self-sacrifice to God, free, 
 loving, joyful self-devotedness in all things to his Heavenly 
 Father's will, would be the natural and normal condition of the 
 existence of such a being as we have conceived the Son of God 
 to be, because he possessed and was possessed by the holy, 
 loving Spirit of God " without measure."' Then, if from any 
 cause the Father desired that His Son might leave his heavenly 
 home, endure partial separation from Himself, descending to a 
 lower state of existence, and encounter privation, sin, disease, 
 and all the miseries of mankind, finally suffering himself shame, 
 
125 
 
 agony, and death, — to comply with this desire 
 ceive, a greater trial of the filial piety of the Son 
 free self-surrender to his Father's will, than any other we can 
 possibly imagine. And is it not evident from the language of 
 Scripture that the great trial of his love and obedience to God, 
 that winch "perfected" his being and character, and wholly 
 fulfilled the Father's ideal, did consist in his "coming down from 
 heaven to do the will of the Father who sent him" (John vi., 38), 
 amid all the sorrow and strife, disease and sin of earth, and 
 especially during the closing scenes of his mortal life. " For 
 it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all 
 things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain 
 of their salvation perfect through suffering." Heb. ii., 10.* 
 
 All this is intelligible to us only when we go back to the 
 fountain head, and understand how that which constitutes the 
 very being and Spirit of God — viz., love and holiness, is essen- 
 tially, as was observed above, a spirit of self-sacrifice, the living 
 not for self-indulgence, self-gratification, but for truth and recti- 
 tude, — a spirit of giving up for the good of others, living for 
 them, not for oneself. Self-sacrifice, I repeat it, must therefore 
 be an essential principle of the Divine Nature, because it is the 
 fundamental principle of holiness and love. And let it never be 
 forgotten that the original meaning of this sublime word, sacri- 
 fice, did not necessarily involve the idea of loss, destruction, 
 or death. That is entirely a modern corruption and a most 
 degenerate use of the word. It simply and grandly means 
 making something holy, by giving it up, offering it, to that 
 which is holy. And we see how it is thus the fitting term, — in 
 fact, there is no other, — to express our conception of the spirit 
 and character of God. He gives Himself up to all that is holy 
 
 * Whether there were any trials of the Saviour's loyal self-devotedness to 
 God previous to these, it is not for us to inquire ; but where there is a 
 nature made in the image of God, endowed with free-will, there must always 
 be a liability to indulge self-will, to assert independence of God. 
 
126 
 
 and right, — that is the great end and purpose of Ins existence, — 
 therefore, He sacrifices Himself to holiness and rectitude; 
 or, as it may be reverently said, He is holy, makes Himself 
 holy, because He lives for holiness. In like manner He gives 
 Himself to all that is loving and true, — lives to love, lives to un- 
 fold truth, to create light, joy. Therefore, by a legitimate 
 developement of the meaning of the word, He may be spoken of 
 as sacrificing Himself for the sake of these great purposes also, 
 and therefore He is light, and love, and truth, because He gives 
 Himself to light, truth, and love ; lives to them and in them, — 
 for them, not for self.* 
 
 All that is grandest, loveliest, most blessed, in the spiritual or 
 material universe, in character, in being, in action, or possession? 
 in heaven above or in the earth beneath, in time or in eternity, 
 flows from this sublime and fundamental truth of the Divine 
 Nature. 
 
 If He, the Supreme and only God, the Eternal Father, He 
 who is holiness and love, light and joy and beauty, should 
 see fit to bring into existence a Son, this divine spirit of self- 
 sacrifice and love would lead Him to give up to that Son all 
 that He possessed, to communicate to him all which that Son 
 could receive, to endow him even with that awful and glorious 
 faculty which would make the Son independent of the Father, 
 Free-will. This woidd, in fact, follow necessarily from the 
 begetting of a Son at all. A creature might have been fashioned 
 without its possessing this divine faculty, but not a Son of God. 
 Even so, if God should afterwards bring into existence other 
 beings made in His own image, He would desire to give them 
 also all that they were capable of receiving, even unto that gift 
 of freedom. Thus, and thus only, could either they or the 
 First-born become like God, perfect in holiness and love ; and 
 for the reason above given — viz., that these qualities by their 
 
 * " Sacrifice" in this view will give much the same idea as sanctification, 
 the setting apart, consecrating to the service of God. ' Ay tacr fAOS^&vcria. 
 
127 
 
 very nature can only exist where there is a free choice, a volun- 
 tary self-consecration, self-sacrifice. 
 
 But although the omnipotent, all-perfect God, could give 
 thus royally to those on whom He bestows that first great gift, 
 existence, what can they render back to Him ? All the universe 
 belongs to "the High and Lofty One who inhabiteth eternity." 
 Omnipotence can surely stand in need of nothing that beings 
 derived from Him could offer. Yes, there is one offering they 
 can make — one which is not His own till they have sacrificed, 
 consecrated it, unto Him. It is the offering of themselves — of 
 their affections, their will — the free and joyful surrender to Him 
 of their whole life and being. And God makes this offering 
 possible by His own wonderful gift to them of independence — 
 freedom. 
 
 Need we doubt that the Son dwelling in the bosom of the 
 Father, he in whom the Father is always well-pleased, he to 
 whom the Father gives all that an omnipotent Father can give, 
 all that a Divine Son can receive, — that he finds his highest 
 blessedness, the fullest truest completion, perfection, of his own 
 being in ever giving up his will, his love, his whole life and 
 being to God ? And in like manner can we doubt that so far as 
 the beings subsequently existing resemble him, their supreme 
 delight and highest good will be found in sacrificing themselves 
 in like manner wholly to the will of God ? And if they have 
 anything else they can call their own, will they not rejoice to 
 offer it to Him who gives them all ? But most they will care 
 that that which lies at the foundation of their moral nature, that 
 which alone enables them to be holy, righteous, and offer a true 
 willing love — viz., their wills, should be ever harmonised with, 
 or surrendered to, the will of God. 
 
 Hence it is truly said that " sacrifice is implied in the very 
 original of the universe," that " it is involved in the very nature 
 and being of God," that "it was expressed in the divine 
 obedience of the Son before the worlds were."* 
 
 * " The Doctrine of Sacrifice," p. 119. Maurice. 
 
128 
 
 And oh ! how beautiful and blessed is the thought that it is 
 possible thus to give up to Him who is all holiness, light and 
 love, — whose will is for infinite happiness, perfect goodness, for 
 the fulness of truth and beauty, rectitude and joy. 
 
 Let it, then, be understood that whenever and wherever the 
 Son of God might be manifested to his brethren, he would be 
 revealed to them as one whose delight was in sacrifice to God, — 
 and that if there had been no sin in the world when he came to 
 dwell in it, he would equally have come to do the will of his 
 Father, and to bring all men to do it also. Sacrifice was at once 
 the ground of divine revelation and the object of it. The spirit 
 of self-sacrifice in the Father and the Son was the ground or 
 reason of the manifestation of the Son of God on earth, and to 
 awaken, direct, and perfect that spirit in man was the divine 
 purpose for which he was revealed. 
 
 Had there been no sin on earth, therefore, when Christ trod 
 the hills of Galilee, there would equally have been daily sacrifice 
 from him at least — the holiest and most perfect earth had ever 
 witnessed. But there would have been no suffering connected 
 with that sacrifice — even as we can imagine none accompanying 
 the living sacrifice offered by the Son when " the Father loved him 
 before the foundation of the world." John xvii., 24. If the 
 hearts of men had been like altars waiting, and prepared for 
 sacrifice, — had they been ready and eager to offer up their wills 
 and affections, all they had and were, as soon as they knew the 
 true God to whom it was to be offered, — Christ would simply 
 have had to reveal to them the Father, and to announce that 
 Father's will. 
 
 From all this we learn that if the perfection of free moral 
 beings made in the likeness of God is to be maintained, or won, 
 something more is needful than simply the process of union 
 adverted to in the first chapter, — something without which that 
 union itself cannot be accomplished or preserved (being, as it is, 
 
129 
 
 a union of affection and will, a union caused by the participation 
 of a common spirit) — viz., a continual identification of their 
 vill with the Supreme Will, a constant sacrifice, freely, lovingly 
 made to the Author of all holiness, beauty, love, — continual 
 efforts to make or to keep their will a righteous will (which is 
 the basis of all goodness), and a free determined choice of the 
 state of oneness with God, submission to and dependence upon 
 Him in opposition, if need be, to all that would tempt or impel 
 them to self-will and self-assertion. 
 
 While, however, the true nature and meaning of sacrifice is 
 thus found to consist in giving up all we have and are to good- 
 ness and to God, what words are adequate to describe how royally 
 God returns the gift in immeasurable blessing to the giver, or 
 how magnificently the fruit of all true sacrifice is made to be a 
 more abundant increase both to the " being" and the " having" 
 of him who offers sacrifice, if it only be offered in the spirit of 
 him who came down from heaven to do the will of Him that 
 sent him. 
 
 I must not, however, leave the more prosaic, though not less 
 practical, and ultimately, let it be hoped, not less edifying task 
 of attempting a scientific developement of theological truth, for 
 the more attractive work of applying that truth to our daily 
 duties and Christian life. 
 
 Efforts, then, to will whatever is right and good, and thus 
 to blend, identify, our wills with the will of God, as well as a 
 complete sacrifice and surrender of all self-will to the Divine 
 will, are essential for progress towards perfection. Self-will 
 must be given up because it necessarily prevents the holy union 
 of our souls with God. But continual acts or efforts of good 
 will (i.e., of willing what is good and true), daily, hourly sacri- 
 fices, are equally necessary, not merely as identifying our wills 
 with God's will, but as essential to our own personal righteousness, 
 the ultimate end for which we are created ; essential to our own 
 
130 
 
 likeness to God. * For His goodness, His essential righteousness, 
 holiness, moral perfection, rest ultimately and entirely on His 
 good will, on His free choice, of goodness ; His willing tha: 
 which is right, and true, and good. 
 
 But for free and intelligent beings, who are to attain their 
 perfections as sons of God, it is not enough that this self- 
 surrender, this acceptance of the will of God, should be sincerely 
 and entirely made. It must be made in a filial spirit — in a 
 loving, reverent, truthful spirit — made as by a child of God, 
 not merely as an act of homage to goodness, not merely as an 
 act of obedience to a rightful ruler, or to conscience, or even to 
 Him who is goodness. It must be the out-flowing of filial love 
 towards an infinitely good, wise, and loving Father, as well as 
 the recognition of a Being to whom all duty and obedience are 
 owed. It was thus that the sublime perfection of the Saviour 
 was manifested to man in Gethsemane and on the cross. And 
 hence we see how, by bestowing upon us the ineffable boon of 
 power over our own actions, power to act and to resist, power 
 to choose for ourselves ; by making us, in short, as before said, 
 in His own image, God has enabled us to become one with Him 
 in spirit, " to rejoice in Him through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom we have now received the atonement" (E-om. v., 11), 
 so that we may look forward with a humble hope finally to 
 receive " the end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls." 
 1 Peter i., 9. 
 
 But a very solemn thought here presents itself. If we have 
 the power freely to give ourselves in sacrifice to God, we must, 
 necessarily, have the power to refuse to do so. Nay, if we are 
 indeed free, we must also have power even to resist His will, to 
 disobey and oppose Him. If we are bidden to pray that our 
 
 * See Kant's " Metaphysic of Ethics," chap. i. (Translated by Semple. 
 Edin. : Clark.) This great work is too little read by English students of 
 moral philosophy. The above edition also contains an admirable sketch 
 of Kant's metaphysical philosophy. 
 
131 
 
 Father's will may be done on earth as it is in heaven, there is a 
 possibility (to say the least) of its not being so done on earth. 
 And if our highest blessedness, our true perfection is found in 
 sacrifice, as surely an unutterable depth of misery and degradation 
 may be found in self-assertion and self-will. 
 
 These considerations bring us to the subject of the next 
 chapter. 
 
CHAP. XL— SIN. 
 
 Sin comes from man — not from God. It exists because man 
 is created to so great an extent independent of God, and can, 
 therefore, within certain limits, resist and separate himself from 
 God, which resistance, or separation, constitutes the true nature 
 of sin. This is the answer, the only answer that can he given 
 to the question, " Why is there any sin in the world, or the 
 misery that flows from it ?" God has made us with power to do 
 right or to do wrong, to rise to heaven or to sink to hell, in order 
 that in proportion as we overcome we may gradually grow up to 
 the inconceivable glory and joy of free union, atonement with 
 Himself and Jesus, that we ma} r be called His friends, His 
 children, that we may be His beloved ones, instead of His pas- 
 sive instruments, His fettered slaves. As it is manifest that we 
 could not be united with God, and yet preserve our separate 
 existence, unless He had bestowed upon us the power of inde- 
 pendent action like His own, so it is plain that there could be 
 no love, no deep and real love, between God and man, if we were 
 mere machines and instruments in His hands. We could not 
 love a machine, — a puppet moved only by our touch. The 
 foundation of our whole spiritual happiness, power, and glory, of 
 our loving and being loved, as well as the awful capacity for 
 sin, rest upon this all-important, primary truth, that we are free 
 beings. And even as there can be for us no real union with 
 God, no love from God, so neither can there be any responsi- 
 bility to God, unless we are created free. Some have doubted 
 whether man does indeed possess free-will. But the very ideas 
 of virtue and of sin imply free choice ; — and our actions could 
 neither be virtuous, nor sinful, nor could we be accountable for 
 them, if we had no control over them. The instrument of 
 murder is not guilty of the blood that stains it ; the arm that 
 
133 
 
 saves a fellow-creature's life is not virtuous ; the beasts of the 
 field are not morally responsible either to God or man. True, 
 none of these have reason, but it is not reason that makes us 
 accountable, for where would be the use of knowing right from 
 wrong, if we had no power to act accordingly ? 
 
 Yet the Scriptures tell us most explicitly, in fact it is the very 
 groundwork of the Bible, that we may be either holy, or sinful, 
 as we each determine for ourselves, and that we are responsible 
 for every deed and thought, yea and for every idle word. 
 Hence it is evident that God has endowed us with this glorious 
 and fearful gift, if their authority is accepted on the subject. 
 
 But if we want still further proof, we have one which is 
 decisive, in the fact that we always think of the Deity as posses- 
 sing free-will — we never doubt but that He possesses full power 
 to act so as to Him seems fittest and best. That is, we consider 
 free-will to be one of His essential attributes. But what do we 
 know of God, except through our own souls ? Had He not 
 made us in His likeness, what could we have understood 
 respecting Him ? Is there one single attribute of His nature, 
 which we do not possess, though of course in a finite degree? 
 If there are powers or attributes possessed by Him but not by 
 us, can we have the slightest conception of them ? Surely not. 
 
 "We can only conceive of God's attributes, of His nature and 
 qualities, by what we behold in man ; and it is evidently impos- 
 sible for us to conceive of any mental quality, any spiritual 
 attribute, unless we have something answering to it in our souls. 
 Therefore, since we understand and believe that God has free- 
 will, power of free choice, we know that we must possess it also, 
 or we never could have believed that He possesses it Himself.* 
 
 * To discuss at greater length these important questions would lead us 
 heyond the scope of the present essay. Those who ask the reasons and 
 further evidence for the views advanced ahove, will find them in Kant's 
 philosophy ; or set forth with great clearness and vigour in " The Will, 
 Divine and Human," by Thomas Solly, of the Universities of Cambridge 
 and Berlin — (Bell and Daldy, Cambridge and London) — a work to which I 
 feel under deep obligations. 
 
134 
 
 We claim, then, for our race this divine prerogative, which is 
 at once the crowning glory of man's natural constitution, and the 
 indispensable condition of his spiritual perfection. Its bestowal 
 upon man is the most stupendous act of Divine and Paternal 
 love which human imagination could conceive, or human grati- 
 tude celebrate in songs of praise. 
 
 Yes, the reconciliation for which Jesus prayed in the silence 
 of the midnight hour, standing on the verge of his terrible fate, — 
 the atonement which he came to effect between erring, yet 
 divinely-gifted man, and his all-glorious Creator, is not a slavish 
 subjection, nor yet an absorption of our souls into the Divine 
 Essence, like rain-drops into the ocean, but the spiritual union 
 of free and independent beings with their heavenly Father. 
 This union of man with Deity, consists in a oneness of purpose, 
 of desire, of will — in a likeness of thought, feeling, perception, 
 in a profound and glowing intensity of affection, as full of 
 devotedness and filial reverence, on the part of man to his 
 heavenly Father, as it is of parental tenderness on the part of 
 the Almighty to His lowly children. The Almighty One has 
 created men in His own image, that they might gradually become 
 united to Him in holy love and heavenly glory, by their own free 
 choice, by their own struggles and victories, and increasing 
 power acquired thereby. He has created them free that they 
 might love Him supremely, not through compulsion (for that 
 would be impossible), but from an inward impulse of devout 
 affection to that Being, the Divine loveliness of whose character, 
 and the glorious beneficence of whose works, they saw and felt 
 to be supremely worthy of their highest love. God has made 
 man free, that He might thus gradually raise up immortal souls, 
 who, by their own earnest efforts, aided by His Holy Spirit, 
 should win for themselves the inconceivable bliss of being made 
 one with Himself and His dear Son in spiritual and blessed 
 union throughout eternity, even as He and Christ are one for 
 ever. 
 
135 
 
 That beings, then, made in the image of God, and so far like 
 the divine Son of God, must come to the perfection for which 
 they were created, first by receiving the Spirit of God, becoming 
 sons of God, and so coming gradually into nearer and closer 
 union with Him, — and, secondly, by unreserved self-sacrifice, 
 by the continual free surrender in a filial spirit, in the spirit of 
 Christ, of their own wills to the Divine will, by continual efforts* 
 in fact, to harmonise, identify their wills with the will of God, — 
 this would be the complete answer to our inquiry, — How are men 
 to become perfect ? had they been from the first simply sons of 
 God, and nothing else. The possession of free-will need not 
 necessarily, of course, have led to sin. The Son of God is free. 
 Therefore we have now to remember a very important distinction, 
 referred to in a former chapter, between them and the well-be- 
 loved Son of God. Instead of having, like him, only the spirit 
 of God and the divine nature, men receive also an animal 
 nature and an animal body. Thus human nature, as it exists in 
 this world, is a compound existence, partly animal and partly 
 divine. We are made in the image of God, after the pattern of 
 the Son of God. We have the same nature as he has, tfce same 
 organs and capacities, the same relationship to God as to our 
 spiritual being, the same likeness to him as to our moral and 
 intellectual being. But unlike His Son, we are "tabernacled 
 in flesh" from our first creation. Although formed after the 
 pattern of that Son, we are not, like him, dwelling ever in holy 
 and intimate union with the Father. Hence it seems at first a 
 mockery to speak of our approaching God, and finding in union 
 with Him, in self-devotedness to Him, the perfection of our 
 being, and the consummation of our destiny. How are the 
 awful difficulties to be removed that stand in the way of our ap- 
 proaching the Invisible God, of realising His existence and 
 attributes, of obeying Him in love and holiness, and so becoming 
 one with Him? How are we — isolated thus by our animal 
 bodies from Him who is a spirit, with our animal tendencies 
 
136 
 
 and self-will continually tempting or impelling us further from 
 God — how are we to come into or remain in that holy fellowship 
 Tfith Him? And, a still more awful question, how are we to 
 avoid sin ? Even if God reveals Himself to the human soul, and 
 draws our spirits up to blessed intercourse with His own, as we 
 have seen He does by His Divine Word in our hearts, the history 
 of the first human beings, though originally created innocent, 
 and a bright reflection of the Divine Nature, yea, and the history 
 of all human beings since, shows that the temptations which 
 arise from the animal nature with which that Divine Nature is 
 linked, and especially the temptations to self-will, continually 
 prove too strong for man to continue or increase that holy unios 
 with God, and to make that entire filial surrender of his will to 
 the Father's will, which has been set forth as the essential con- 
 ditions of progress to perfection. 
 
 For though man is a spirit, yet the animal body in which he 
 is clothed exerts a vast influence upon him while he is in the 
 flesh. Thus, an element has been introduced into man's nature 
 which was not in the nature of his original type, the Son of God, 
 before fyis incarnation. And when once this gained the victory, 
 and " by one man sin entered into the world " (Rom. v., 12), 
 tendencies to sin were transmitted from father to son, in long 
 and dismal succession. Hence, after the first lapses of Humanity 
 into sin, the animal element, allied with self-will, gradually 
 prevailed more and more over the spiritual and divine element 
 in human nature, so that men too often became less and less 
 like him who was their primary ideal, the Son of God. 
 
 In proportion as this change took place, men's connection with 
 the source and root of their spiritual life would of course become 
 weaker, because that portion of their being by which alone they 
 could come into contact and communion with God, through His 
 Son, was continually being diminished, more crusted over or 
 corroded away by the animal portion. St. Paul, in many places, 
 powerfully describes this condition and its cause ; as, for instance, 
 
137 
 
 " I know that in me, that is in my flesh, clwelleth no good 
 thing. . . . For I delight in the law of God according to 
 the inward man [my spiritual nature]. But I see another law 
 in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and 
 bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my 
 members. ... So then they that are in the flesh cannot 
 please God." Kom. vii., 18, 23 ; viii., 8. 
 
 But while we are thus compelled to recognise the sorrowful 
 fact that tendencies to sin are bequeathed from generation to 
 generation, and (apart from the influence of Christianity) in 
 many cases with accumulating power, we must equally remem- 
 ber that tendencies to good are also handed down from parent 
 to child, and with the same accumulating force, until checked 
 and overpowered by adverse influences. But, on the other hand, 
 it is of the greatest importance we should distinguish inherited 
 tendencies to sin from what is called by a profane confusion of 
 all moral distinctions, inherited sin. There can be no such 
 thing .as inherited sin, if the definitions given above are correct — 
 if the unprejudiced answer of the human heart and conscience 
 in all climes and ages is correct. Sin is by its very nature a 
 personal thing. It is the act of the individual will, and can 
 no more be transferred to another than the volitions of a man 
 who died a thousand years ago can be the will of a man living 
 on the earth this day. No man can be guilty of acts, or 
 responsible for omissions which took place before he was born. 
 To maintain the reverse is simply to destroy all our notions of 
 the nature of right and wrong. 
 
 In like manner, it is a melancholy mistake to speak as if 
 Adam, not Christ, were the original head and pattern of the 
 human race. Men are formed in the image of the Son of God, 
 and their nature therefore is holy, excellent, and good.* Holi- 
 ness, likeness to God, is our natural condition. Depravity of 
 any kind is unnatural, because we are created to possess the 
 * See next chapter. 
 
138 
 
 nature of Christ. Sin is evidently, therefore, altogether an 
 intruding element, — evil, a hostile and foreign tyrant. The 
 Saviour is always presented to us as one who comes to deliver 
 us from this usurping foe, to restore us to our true and rightful 
 state. Hence those remarkable expressions of St. Paul's, 
 just after describing in graphic language the miserable state 
 to which we are reduced apart from Christ. "Now then 
 it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 
 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth 
 no good thing : for to will is present with me ; but how to 
 perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I 
 would I do not : but the evil which I would not, that I do. 
 Now if I do do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but 
 sin that dwelleth in me." Rom. vii., 17-20. 
 
 But then we must also observe St. Paul's declarations that 
 " the first man is of the earth, earthy," that " there is a natural 
 body," which is animal and mortal, that " in Adam all die" — (1 
 Cor. xv., 44-47) ; from all which, as well as from various other 
 passages, such as that " the carnal mind is enmity against God, 
 for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be ; 
 so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God " (Rom. 
 viii., 7, 8), we learn the truth adverted to in the 6th chapter, 
 that at present we have a two-fold nature, the one being animal, 
 the other spiritual. Now the Apostle's doctrine is that we inherit 
 the animal nature " from the first man, Adam," but the spiritual 
 nature from " the second man, who is the Lord from heaven " 
 (1 Cor. xv., 47) ; hence, as it has been truly said, he teaches us 
 that " it is not in what we inherit from Adam, the man, but in 
 what we hold from Christ, the spirit, that our immortality 
 resides."* It must not be forgotten that the word translated 
 " natural," ^vx*ki/v, does not correspond to our idea of " natural," 
 as expressing the essential nature of a man, but simply describes 
 
 * " Robertson on the Corinthians in loco." 
 
139 
 
 all that part of his nature which includes his mental powers, 
 crapKLKov being his animal and bodily nature, while the remain- 
 ing portion is described as Trvev/jLartKov, or spiritual. 
 
 But to none of these three divisions of our nature, " body, 
 soul, and spirit " (1 Thess. v., 23), is sin anything but an in- 
 truding foe and tyrant, In no sense can it be spoken of as 
 natural to man, as a part of our nature, — only as that which is 
 utterly and eternally unnatural. It arises from the perversion 
 of our capacities and powers, whether animal or mental, to other 
 purposes and in other ways and measure than those for which 
 they were bestowed. 
 
 Nevertheless, sin does dwell in us, and in our race, to an 
 extent wliich is as awful as it is unquestionable. And, indeed, 
 while contemplating the terrible amount of suffering and sin 
 which is being heaped upon this earth even at the present day, 
 as it has been for thousands of years past, we cannot but feel, at 
 first, as if the whole subject of evil, of misery and sin, was an 
 appalling mystery which our feeble powers cannot penetrate, 
 which it has pleased the Almighty to wrap from our understand- 
 ing in clouds and darkness. Like the Israelites from Mount 
 Sinai, we are bidden back. There are "thunders and light- 
 nings, and a thick cloud upon the mount ;" and the " voice of 
 the trumpet" sometimes seems waxing louder and louder, so that 
 the stoutest heart may well tremble. But when we are most 
 oppressed by the contemplation of the awful riddles that rear 
 their gloomy horrors between man and Grod, when the universe 
 appears overshadowed, and a vast abyss of misery and wicked- 
 ness seems threatening to engulph creation — how sweetly sounds 
 the loving voice of our Heavenly Father speaking to us amidst 
 the storm, through His chosen prophets, but especially through 
 His beloved Son, " It is I ; be not afraid." That Son calls us 
 to himself as a shepherd calls his sheep to their fold, saying, 
 " Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I 
 will give you rest." Dark indeed is the cloud which hangs upon 
 
140 
 
 the mount of evil, and fierce the lightnings that dart from it r 
 and terrible the trumpet blast of woe which sometimes shakes 
 the earth, — but through the darkness, — and brighter than the 
 lightning's flash, and clearer to our ears than even those terrible 
 tones, come the radiant form and the heavenly words of the Son 
 of God, the Saviour of the World. 
 
 We stand in a world teeming with beauty and fertility on 
 every side. We behold the most exquisite provision made for 
 our improvement and increasing blessedness. Why in a world 
 so lovely are there such awful scenes of sin and suffering ? The 
 questions forced upon us by the existence of evil are perplexing 
 enough, and very solemn. Why are there needed any hospitals, 
 mad-houses, and gaols ? Why are there any loathsome haunts 
 of misery, and dens of fearful wickedness? Why are there 
 such deadly crimes and brutal wrongs, oppression so grinding, 
 selfishness so intense ? Why are there so many fevered brains, 
 and breaking hearts in the dark corners where misery hides 
 itself, or where men cover it from public view ? Can all this 
 stupendous mystery be solved by a few words about the free- 
 will of man and the goodness of God who will make all things 
 right in the end? 
 
 Any thoughtful man must be too well aware that the difficulty 
 cannot be disposed of thus. In bitterness of heart we are tempted 
 to exclaim, " If man was created for such a glorious destiny, and 
 endowed with such Divine faculties, why has he hitherto so 
 signally failed to accomplish it ? Instead of drawing nearer to 
 God as he passed from the cradle to the grave, the page of his- 
 tory and experience show how often he has become more like a 
 brute that perishes, or what we conceive to be the diabolic 
 nature, than to the All-righteous Father, — instead of becoming 
 more at one with his Maker, the lapse of years has too often 
 only placed a wider gulf between them. Why did Adam fall 
 and introduce sin into the world ? You point us for our conso- 
 
141 
 
 lation to the Kedeemer's agonies and blood. Why was such a 
 mournful sacrifice needed on the cross of Calvary, to make the 
 human race once more one with God?" 
 
 These are solemn and important questions. The answers 
 they have received are very various. But the sincere Christian 
 should scarce need cautioning against any replies drawn merely 
 from the fallible writings of philosophers and divines, from the 
 fictions of poets, or the gloomy dreams of cloistered monks. 
 
 Let us not dishonour the Deity, nor darken His glorious per- 
 fections, by supposing that a malignant demon, a second deity 
 but an evil one, crept into God's fair world, and baffled all His 
 beneficent and glorious plans. Let us not cherish an opinion so 
 unspeakably degrading to the Divine Wisdom, Power, and Good- 
 ness, as to suppose that our Father in Heaven did not intend, 
 and had not foreseen, the fall of man, that He either could not 
 or would not prevent a malignant fiend from dragging down to 
 the abysses of hell that innocent being whom He had just 
 created in His own likeness so excellent and lovely, thereby 
 involving myriads of His posterity in His own awful ruin. Inter- 
 pret the history of the Fall as an allegory, or in any other 
 rational and Scriptural way that seems best ; but let us beware 
 of an interpretation which all Scripture contradicts, which is 
 equally revolting to our highest and holiest conceptions of the 
 Supreme Being. Let us calmly and reverently try to consider 
 this matter by the light of Scripture, with the help of " that 
 light which lighteth every man," — even the Word of God. 
 
 A being, then, who is to come to God by his own efforts of 
 will, by his own free choice, through love and holiness, cannot 
 be created perfect at once, for in such case there would be no 
 choice, no effort, therefore no developement of character and 
 power, — no struggle nor temptation, — therefore no honour or 
 victory. And, above all, for the same reason, there could be no 
 virtue. There might, and of course would be innocence, in 
 beings created naturally perfect, but not virtue, not perfect 
 
142 
 
 goodness ; because virtue means goodness that has been attained 
 by sore struggle and great effort, by resistance to temptation, 
 and free deliberate self-devotion to the right and good in spite of 
 all difficulties, suffering, and bribes; while goodness implies 
 deliberate free choice of that which is morally right when the 
 opposite choice might have been made. Thus we speak of God 
 as good, because, being free, He chooses goodness, rectitude, 
 and has done so, of course, from all eternity. In like manner, 
 any inferior rational being, whom He might create necessarily 
 perfect according to their nature we should call innocent ; per- 
 haps amiable and lovely also ; but not virtuous. The idea of 
 temptation, of difficulty, is essential to our conception of virtue. 
 Adam and Eve in Paradise were innocent, but not virtuous. 
 And the same holds true of young persons who have been too 
 carefully shielded from temptation, and saved from all hardship, 
 danger, and toil. They are not, cannot become either as 
 virtuous or good while kept in such pupilage as if they were 
 wrestling with and conquering the temptations of ordinary life. 
 It need scarcely be said that we are not to expose either our- 
 selves or others unnecessarily to temptation. We are com- 
 manded to pray that we may not be led into temptation. But 
 that is because God provides quite as much trial for us as we can 
 bear, without our seeking it ; and because to seek it would argue 
 and cherish that spirit of presumptuous self-confidence which is 
 one of the most fatal foes to virtue that the human heart can 
 harbour. Hence we see one great reason and explanation of the 
 mystery of evil. 
 
 In order to become good, holy, virtuous through our own free 
 choice and effort, and so to enter gradually into spiritual union 
 with the Most High God, we must be tempted and sorely tried, 
 we must put forth power both in action, in resistance, and in 
 endurance, — and hence we see the absolute necessity for tempta- 
 tion and difficulty, suffering and grief, if we are to become 
 " perfect in one," in oneness with Jesus and our. Heavenly 
 Father, in the mansions of eternal love. 
 
143 
 
 There is another view of our nature and condition, which also 
 shows how temptation and sorrow necessarily arise out of the 
 great fact that we are made in the image of God, and created 
 for perfect union with Him. For heing so constituted, we possess 
 infinite desires, which consequently never can he satisfied while 
 we are in a finite world, or with finite things and beings. We 
 can always imagine, and always desire something better than 
 what we actually have ; something brighter, happier, fuller, than 
 our present enjoyments and possessions can make us, however 
 rich we may be in happiness and in goods. We can always 
 dream of beings more perfect, more loving and lovely, than any 
 we meet with here. Hence that restless dissatisfied feeling 
 which unconsciously haunts almost all noble minds, however 
 much they attempt to crush it, — hence that aching sense of 
 want, which is felt only the more keenly in proportion as we have 
 all our earthly desires gratified. And we have these infinite 
 desires because we have infinite capacities. There seems to be 
 no conceivable limit to the happiness which we are capable of 
 enjoying, to the progress we are capable of making. This also 
 is a consequence of our being made in the likeness of God, but 
 it necessarily involves much sorrow. For where there is so 
 much capacity of happiness, there must evidently be an equal 
 and corresponding susceptibility to pain. Every avenue by 
 which joy can reach the heart may become an inlet of grief, 
 when there is not sufficient wisdom, faith, strength, or virtue, 
 not sufficient oneness with God, to prevent its entrance. For 
 instance, the affections may be either sources of exqiusite hap- 
 piness or of the most intense misery ; and the more sensitively 
 our nerves can vibrate to the influence of joy, the more acutely 
 may they thrill under the touch of pain. Whether we shall 
 actually suffer or enjoy, depends partly upon circumstances, 
 but much more upon ourselves, upon our strength of will, 
 and force of character upon our experience, knowledge, and 
 faith ; in a word, upon the degree in which our Saviour is in us 
 
144 
 
 and we in him, the extent to which we are atoned with the 
 Father in him. But whether we soar as seraphs through the 
 highest heavens of delight, or sink as fiends to the abysses of 
 despair, in proportion as we are susceptible of pleasure, so we 
 must be of pain. By the constitution of our nature it cannot 
 be otherwise. Gifted with free-will, but not ivith omniscience, 
 with infinite capacities, but undeveloped characters, fitted for 
 eternal progress, but commencing our career with a purely 
 animal existence, created for union with the All-perfect One, 
 but isolated from Him for a season, we find ourselves placed in 
 this world in order that we may learn to distinguish right from 
 wrong, to cleave to the one and abhor the other, — in order that 
 by obeying the law of progress, we may gradually rise, step by 
 step, " from strength to strength," " from glory to glory," until 
 we "are changed into the same image" with our glorified Lord. 
 But while we are only learning these lessons, and trying to take 
 these steps, while " we only see through a glass darkly," and the 
 " Spirit " is still overshadowed by " the flesh," we must neces- 
 sarily and not unfrequently, either in ignorance or wilfully, take 
 the paths which lead to sorrow and sin, instead of those which 
 conduct to holiness and joy. 
 
 But, then, that trying difficulty comes back to us again : — If 
 man's true perfection and happiness consist in his becoming 
 united to God, if he can only become so through possessing 
 free-will, while that free-will, bestowed upon him, plunges him 
 continually into such depths of worldliness and sin, how is it 
 possible for us ever to work out that glorious purpose of the 
 Most High, a"nd rise to such a blessed union ? What does it 
 avail us to have learned the end of our being, and the right path 
 to tread to reach it? How can man, frail, sinful man, be 
 made one with God, — God infinitely holy, powerful, wise, in- 
 corporeal, invisible, omnipresent ? What does man in his 
 darkness and pollution know of God in His light and holiness ? 
 How can he approach Deity ? How can he unite with Him ? 
 
145 
 
 The difficulty seems to be this. Unless men can subdue their ) 
 passions, and give up their self-will to the will of God, they can- 
 not be at one with Him, cannot dwell in union with Him. And 
 unless they are united with Him, they cannot overcome their 
 animal nature and self-will. . 
 
 True, we cannot gainsay it. But although man in his 
 corporeal limitations and earthly nature cannot rise to God, God 
 can descend to man, can touch his soul, strengthen his will, and 
 quicken his spiritual life, so that he shall conquer the temptations 
 that would sever him from God, and shall thus be gradually 
 drawn upwards to His Father in heaven by the power of the 
 Holy Spirit. But we have already seen that this is God's great 
 purpose, and has been from the foundation of the world. The 
 Scriptures tell us that He actually has been and still is doing 
 this work in the human heart, by His divine Word, from the 
 creation of Adam ; and we have now to see what they reveal 
 concerning the way in which it has pleased 'God thus to conquer 
 sin and raise us to final and complete atonement with Himself 
 and His beloved Son our Lord. 
 
CHAPTER XII.— THE MANIFESTATION OF THE 
 SON OF GOD. 
 
 We have considered the inadequacy of the means hitherto 
 described for preserving and perfecting the union of our souls 
 with God, while we are in the body ; and we found it necessary 
 to admit with the Apostle, that "they that are in the flesh," 
 they who are governed and impelled merely by their earthly 
 animal nature, "cannot please God." 
 
 But as men were originally created through, and in the Son 
 of God, since, as it has been truly said, " he and not Adam is 
 the true root of humanity," since " from him and not from any 
 ancestor each man derives his [spiritual] life," * a right or 
 righteous state is our original, true, and natural condition. And 
 we are in that righteous normal condition, therefore, so far as we 
 are in the Son of God, even as the branch when it is in the 
 tree ; we are in an unrighteous abnormal state, so far as we are 
 severed from him. "Apart from him there dwells in me no 
 good thing," but we were not intended to live apart from him ; 
 and as an animal cannot long exist in an element in which it was 
 not intended to live, so neither can a spirit. Man cannot long 
 continue to have spiritual life apart from him whom God has 
 made to be the medium and fountain of communicating that life 
 to them (John v., 26), even though " they hew out for them- 
 selves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water." 
 
 Now, when that severance had gone on for many hundred 
 years, sometimes diminishing, but on the whole increasing in 
 extent, and when the influence of the Word and Spirit of God 
 upon the soul of man was, as we have seen, insufficient to over- 
 come the disorganising, disuniting tendencies of man's animal 
 * Maur. Theol. Essays, pp. 75 and 202. 
 
hi 
 
 nature and self-will, that wonderful mode of influence referred to 
 by the Apostle in his epistle to the Galatians, was brought into 
 operation. For " when the fulness of time was come, God sent 
 forth His Son, made of a woman " (Galat. iv., 4), and the Son 
 became "a partaker of flesh and blood," was born into the 
 world, and " was manifest in the flesh." 
 
 We have now, therefore, to inquire the divine meaning- and 
 consequences of this manifestation of God's Son " in the flesh." 
 
 To gain some understanding of this great subject we must 
 revert to the view taken of human nature in a former chapter.* 
 Since man is essentially a spirit, he can only become such a 
 compound being as we find him in this world, partly animal and 
 partly spiritual, by having an animal nature given to him for a 
 season — or, in the Apostle's language, " by partaking of flesh 
 and blood." Heb. ii., 14. In other words, every human 
 being " born into the world " is a spirit undergoing incarnation. 
 Whether or not we have actually pre-existed in any other state 
 it is impossible, of course, to determine. Some of the greatest of 
 philosophers and poets have so believed. But that is a point of 
 little importance compared with our recognising the possibility 
 of such pre-existence, and our essential independence of these 
 bodies of flesh and blood. We cannot, of course, understand the 
 principle or process of human incarnation and birth, — how the 
 spirit is connected with and unfolded through the flesh. But, on 
 the one hand, the mere fact that wise and devout men have 
 believed in our pre-existence, proves that it is not an a priori 
 impossibility, opposed to the fundamental laws of human 
 thought; — and, on the other, if the views already taken of human 
 nature be correct, if the Scripture declaration that man is made 
 in the image of God be true, if the decision of our reason that 
 man is essentially spirit, not flesh, be incontrovertible, it follows 
 necessarily that, while in the body, we are simply u partakers of 
 flesh and blood," or, as T said before, spirits incarnated for a 
 season. 
 
 * Chap. VII. 
 
148 
 
 Hence the doctrine that when God desired " to redeem" His 
 children "that were under the law," and under bondage, to 
 bring them back to Himself in holiness and love, He sent His 
 divine Son also to take flesh, to be " born of a woman," need 
 occasion no difficulty nor surprise if sufficient motive and purpose 
 can be discerned for such an arrangement. The Son of God 
 does not change his nature by becoming also the Son of Man, 
 any more than each child of Adam would change his nature by 
 incarnation, supposing that we have all existed prior to our resi- 
 dence on earth. Our essential nature cannot be changed by 
 a change of external circumstances, by the clothes we wear, or 
 the organs through which we receive impressions, or by which 
 we manifest ourselves. Christ's nature would remain the same, 
 he would still be the spiritual Head and Ideal of Humanity, 
 after entering into all the earthly conditions to which his " bre- 
 thren" are made subject here as before. That nature will, of 
 course, be modified, in a certain sense, by the conditions in which 
 it is placed. The moving force of steam is limited both as to its 
 power and the manifestation of its power, as well as affected in 
 various other ways, by the nature of the machine in which it is 
 incased. But it remains steam, nevertheless, under all possible 
 modifications arid influences, as long as it continues to exist 
 at all. 
 
 I have said that it is as impossible to explain the way in 
 which the Son of God could take flesh, could " empty himself,"* 
 as it were, and shrink to the limits and conditions of flesh and 
 blood, as it is to understand the birth of any other spirit into 
 this world. Neither do I pretend to understand why a human 
 father is necessary in the ordinary genesis of mankind, though 
 not in the case of him who is the Head of Humanity and the 
 Original Man. I can easily believe that this difference would 
 arise from the fact that the Son of God is the root and origin of 
 mankind, and probably, therefore, as I said above, t the medium 
 
 * Philippians ii., 7, eavrov eKei'OJcrei'. f Chap. VII. 
 
149 
 
 through whom God gives life, physical as well as spiritual, to 
 every one of His human offspring. We cannot, indeed, but 
 believe that there is some divinely beautiful plan whereby this 
 comes to pass, simple, harmonious, like the movement of the 
 stars, into the beneficent mystery of which we can even here 
 have some faint glimpses, and which will surely be plain to 
 us in all its beauty and blessedness hereafter, even as the pro- 
 gress of science is continually revealing to us, by the will of 
 God, the grand and beautiful laws of His universe. But for 
 the present we must be content to receive it as a mystery, and 
 adore the wisdom and love of our Heavenly Father while we 
 gaze upon our Saviour, first, as dwelling in the bosom of the 
 Father, before his appearance on earth, then as moving and 
 walking among those "whom he is not ashamed to call his 
 brethren," clothed in flesh and blood after his incarnation, without 
 too curiously seeking to lift the solemn veil of silence and mys- 
 tery that lies upon the meeting point, the isthmus of unknown 
 conditions, where he passed from the life in God to the habitation 
 of clay. 
 
 Proceeding, then, to inquire how this incarnation of God's 
 holy Son bears upon our reconciliation and atonement with 
 God, let it be observed that the first and necessary effect of 
 this change of state would be to reduce the Son of God to the 
 same condition in which any human being commences his 
 existence on earth. The spirit-life and nature would be reduced 
 to the smallest possible dimensions. This follows from the 
 position that the spirit is always modified by the conditions in 
 which it is placed ; and, as we see that the state of a new-born 
 babe is incompatible with any but the very feeblest amount of 
 spiritual life, and that the Son of God was in that state, we can 
 only infer that he was thus limited by the change of condition 
 he underwent. The words of the Apostle Paul, just quoted 
 (€K€i'0)(T€v kavrov), would seem exactly to express this idea. 
 Hence, during the earlier stages of his life on earth, our Lord 
 
150 
 
 would forget the past as completely as, perhaps, we also do, 
 when we enter this earthly scene, except by having occasional 
 glimpses, half- remembrances, such as sometimes seem to \isit 
 ourselves. But whether the spirit-life first commences for ordi- 
 nary human beings at birth, or having been of a fuller measure 
 is then attenuated away to what we behold in a new-born babe, 
 it would make no difference in the absolute identification of the 
 Son of God, by means of this incarnation, with his brethren. 
 
 Moreover, he would hereby be separated to a certain extent 
 from God, would be exposed to and dependent upon the impres- 
 sions of the senses and the nervous system even as we are. He 
 would have to contend against and rise above " the bondage of 
 corruption," and would be precisely as dependent as ordinary 
 men upon the communication of God's Spirit, both for preserving 
 his relationship to God, and for the gradual unfolding of his 
 spiritual life. " Tempted in all points as we are," he would 
 have to strive upwards by painful effort, by watching and prayer, 
 according to the universal law of progress. Then he would 
 gradually be filled once again " without measure " with the Holy 
 Spirit, and with a sense of the Father's love, for " he would do 
 always those things that pleased Him," and thus he would be 
 unfolded in all the grace, strength, and beauty of human 
 nature as it exists in the ideal of God ; he would gradually 
 come to a consciousness of what he had been, of what he might 
 be, for good or for evil, of what all men are intended to be, and 
 of all that lies between them (in the way of hindrance or help), 
 and the final perfection of their being. But he would recognise 
 and be impressed by all things, whether spiritual or earthly, 
 past, present, or future, under the same limitations as to the 
 spiritual, and the same exaggerations as to the earthly, which 
 our subjection to these animal bodies imposes upon us. Thus 
 he showed as completely by his own developement on earth what 
 man may and ought to become even under the laws imposed by 
 matter and an animal nature joined with our original spiritual 
 
151 
 
 nature, as if he had never pre-existed in that state of glory 
 " which he had with the Father before the world was." John 
 xvii., 5. He grew up " to the measure of the stature of a per- 
 fect man " under exactly the same conditions as any other man, 
 except so far as the fuller outpouring of the Holy Spirit would 
 supernaturally develope and quicken his whole spiritual nature. 
 13ut his nature was the same as ours, for he is our Head and 
 Archetype, and hence he showed on earth * what form human 
 
 nature may assume when God and man consent 
 
 When the spirit of the Father meets the spirit of a Son such is 
 the possible result. Is not that the Revelation? God and 
 man consenting, Christ is human perfectness."* Those condi- 
 tions, under which he entered and dwelt in this world, would no 
 doubt be holier and more blessed in all respects than those 
 under which ordinary men enter and dwell in it, but this would 
 be a difference of degree not of kind, just as a plant in the con- 
 servatory may receive greater warmth, may grow in a richer 
 soil, and have more abundant moisture, and its growth thereby 
 be proportionately more rapid and complete, than the develope- 
 mcnt and life of its humbler sister in the hedge-row. Still the 
 difference in culture surely docs not make the more favoured 
 plant less suitable as an illustration of what all such plants may 
 and will become as they also grow to perfection under condi- 
 tions wisely adapted to their needs. 
 
 But there was another, and that a pre-eminently important 
 reason, for the incarnation of God's holy Son. The Son of 
 God might be the word of life to men, and the life might be 
 their light — the Light that lighted their inmost heart, and soul, 
 and secret conscience. " He was in the world, and the world 
 came into existence through him, but the world knew him not." 
 " The light shone in darkness, and the darkness retained 
 
 * " Christ the Revealer," by J. Hamilton Thorn, p. 46. I have endeavoured 
 to meet the objection, urged in one part of these very interesting discourses, 
 to the doctrine of our Lord's pre-existence. 
 
152 
 
 it not." " He came unto his own, and his own received him 
 not." John i. It was needful' that the world should know him, 
 or they would not receive him, — even as they must know God 
 before they would receive Him. Hitherto they had not known 
 Inm. Dim guesses at the truth were made by a few of the 
 noblest minds, both among the Heathens and the Jews, — a 
 Socrates or Plato, Philo, Isaiah, Job, or Daniel ; and multitudes 
 dreamed, in distorted fancies or wild aspirations, of some being 
 that would answer to the vague clamorous instincts of their 
 souls. But they needed a revelation of the true Light, not 
 only within but without them ; not only as an inspiration in their 
 souls, but as an object of their loyal affection. And here some- 
 thing of the sublime meaning of the incarnation of the Son of 
 God dawns upon us. We see that he by whom our Heavenly 
 Father had long been guiding, inspiring, elevating the sons of 
 men in every age and clime ; who had been pleading with them 
 in the secret recesses of their heart and conscience for the Eight 
 and True ; who had been the "Word" which God had been 
 speaking to them (wherever they would hearken to it) on behalf 
 of all that is just and generous, merciful and gentle, pure, faithful, 
 and heroic ; Ave see that he who was united to the human race 
 by such very intimate ties, — who had so profound an interest in 
 their welfare, and so tender a love for them as individual children 
 of Adam and of God, — was at length to be manifested to them, 
 that they might behold him with their bodily eyes, and discern 
 the power and loveliness of his character, the divinity of his 
 nature, beaming through an earthly form like unto their own, that 
 through the records of what he was and did, all might behold 
 him as he is to the latest period of time, and rejoice in his 
 glory, " the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father," and 
 give God thanks for that blessed manifestation of " the Word 
 made flesh, dwelling among us, full of grace and truth." John i., 
 14. Then, indeed, might it be hoped that all men would know 
 him, and, knowing, love him as he deserves to be loved, and 
 
153 
 
 obey him faithfully, became they knew and loved him, and 
 
 " confess him to be their Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
 Phil, ii., 11. 
 
 And, lastly, through this gracious manifestation of himself 
 on earth, " being found in fashion as a man" (Phil, ii., 8), 
 i.e., in our earthly form (fxop(f>rj), men have learnt, will 
 learn more and more, on the one hand, how unspeakably 
 noble and beautiful is this humanity of ours, what it is 
 created, destined to become, — and, on the other, to what a 
 depth of baseness it has too often sunk. Beholding it in 
 the Son of Man, in all its power and loveliness, but beholding it 
 shrined in the mortal form and earthly state wherein they them- 
 selves now dwell, men gradually are brought to understand what 
 they may, ought to, do and be, what in fact is a true and perfect 
 man, brought to know how holy, lovely, and divine is the original 
 nature which God, in His infinite love, has bestowed upon every 
 child of Adam, however mournfully that nature is stunted, per- 
 verted, or polluted by sin. And in the same way they have 
 learnt gradually to recoil from, denounce, and even abhor the sin 
 that is in their own hearts, and in the world around. 
 
 Considering the extent of human degeneracy and degradation, 
 looking at the imperfections of the best, as well as at the un- 
 worthiness of the baser sort of mankind, conscious as each honest 
 mind must be of its own inconsistencies, follies, and sins, we can 
 well believe that the manifestation of the Son of God in the 
 flesh, of the original Archetypal Man, was as much needed to 
 give men a knowledge of what they themselves are and ought 
 to be, as to enable them to know him as their true Head, and 
 Pattern, and King. By beholding once for all a perfect man, 
 human nature as it existed in the Divine idea of God, apart from 
 all the deteriorating influences to which they have been exposed, 
 mankind, in proportion as they have been influenced by the spirit 
 of holiness and truth, have been convinced (John xvi., 8-11, 
 14., not "reproved") "of sin and of righteousness," convinced 
 
154 
 
 of the meaning and reality of these things, have understood 
 what it is to be sinful, and in what true righteousness con- 
 sists, while they have at the same time learned, as we shall 
 presently see, that through this manifestation of the Son of God, 
 evil has been "judged," condemned, and conquered. 
 This brings us to the subject of the next chapter. 
 
CHAP XIII.— THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 
 
 The universe, and all that exists therein comes into existence 
 by the "Will of God. We cannot go beyond this conception. 
 But not only does all creation rest on that Divine will. All 
 growth, order, and government, all action and arrangement, must 
 equally rest upon it as their ultimate foundation. God has, how- 
 ever, willed that His intelligent offspring should also possess free- 
 will, and has thus so far imposed a limit on His own freedom. 
 But His will remains, nevertheless, the only perfectly, essentially, 
 good will. All goodness, rectitude, happiness, all right order 
 and action must spring from and subsist by conformity to that 
 Divine Will. Where that will is thus done and obeyed, God 
 reigns as King. The doing and obeying His will constitutes 
 the kingdom of God. 
 
 Now, for man to learn to give himself in filial self-sacrifice to 
 God, which we have seen to be the great purpose of his being, 
 it is evident that one of the first requisites is that he should know 
 God. Only so far as men do truly know God, — know Him in 
 His righteousness and power, in His glory, His wisdom, and 
 His tender love, — will they come to Him, give themselves to 
 Him in obedience and affection, and try to make their will one 
 with His. And so far as they do this, acknowledging His right 
 to their obedience, and striving to give it, they are His subjects, 
 dwelling, therefore, in His kingdom, belonging to the society or 
 fellowship of those who, whether on earth or in heaven, obey 
 God and do His will. God reigns with unopposed sovereignty 
 over the whole material universe, but He reigns in the heart of 
 man only so far as man gives him free obedience and uncon- 
 strained affection. 
 
156 
 
 It was in order that men might know Him, and thus bo won 
 to obey Him, that God revealed Himself, partially and by degrees, 
 to Abraham and his descendants. He revealed something of 
 His own nature and character as their Creator and Preserver ; 
 as a righteous God, loving goodness and mercy, hating evil 
 and sin ; as a God of Providence and Truth ; as a Deliverer, 
 and Saviour, and Guide, redeeming them from the hand of their 
 enemies ; as having a righteous claim, therefore, to their obedi- 
 ence, worship, and love. All this was a revelation of His holy 
 kingdom, and of Himself as their rightful King. At length it 
 pleased Him, "of whom are all things and through whom 
 are all things/' to reveal Himself to men in His divine Son, 
 that all men might "know Him, the only True God, and 
 Jesus Christ, whom He had sent." John xvii., 3. The Son 
 of God appeared on earth that he might reveal the King, 
 and establish the Kingdom of God of — Heaven ; i.e., that 
 he might bring all men to give themselves in free and loving 
 obedience to God, and "subdue all things''" to God (1 Cor. xv., 
 24-28), — that he might "assert his Father's righteous dominion 
 over the earth," and dethrone all the tyrants and usurpers, 
 whether physical, human, or spiritual, who were reigning in their 
 own names instead of in the name of God, whether afflicting, 
 corrupting, or enslaving the bodies and souls of men. The Son 
 of God was manifested that men might know him who was to 
 lead them to God — the good Shepherd who was to bring them 
 to eternal life, to heavenly holiness, and to heavenly joy. Here 
 was, indeed, a gospel, a message of " glad tidings," " good new3 
 of great joy for all people." 
 
 But the human race was not in the position merely of persons 
 suffering under the cruel yoke of usurping tyrants. Too often 
 they were traitors and rebels against their rightful King. Had 
 they been simply enslaved against their will, hating their bondage 
 and their tyrants, cleaving in faithful love to Him who alone had 
 a rightful claim to their worship and allegiance, nothing more 
 
157 
 
 would have been necessary for their salvation than the overthrow 
 of their enemies. But in a vast number of cases their own wills 
 and affections went with their tyrants ; their own passions were 
 their worst foes ; and while they naturally hated the sufferings 
 which, sooner or later, their treason and sins brought upon them, 
 they regarded the God who claimed their worship, the King who 
 asked for their obedience, with fear and dislike, if they thought of 
 Him at all, — as people generally do those whom they know they 
 have offended or wronged. 
 
 Hence it is evident that something more was needed to unite 
 men with God than simply that He should reveal Himself to them, 
 something more to make them subjects of His kingdom than 
 merely that it should be manifested, and its nature made known. 
 First, there must, of course, be a receptive disposition, a willing- 
 ness on the part of men, awakened in them to receive and obey 
 their God. Secondly, there must also be an act of submission 
 made by them, as of those who had been rebels and traitors ; an 
 act of confession and repentance, a renunciation of the false gods 
 and usurpers, a solemn declaration of allegiance to the kingdom 
 of God. Thirdly, it was needful that men should know the Son 
 of God himself, that they might know him who was their 
 Leader, Saviour, King — their elder brother and perfect example. 
 Fourthly, as it was sin in the heart of man that had separated 
 men from God, placing them in a state of antagonism to His 
 kingdom instead of submission to it, sin must, by some means or 
 other, be removed. Men's hearts must be cleansed from its power 
 and its pollution. Old sinful thoughts, passions, and tempers, 
 must be cast out, and a new state of mind, new and different 
 views, desires, and habits, — a new spirit, in short, — must be 
 introduced. But for this end a primary step is that men must 
 learn both the true nature of holiness and of sin,-— of the perfec- 
 tion, on the one hand, for which they were created, and the 
 degradation, on the other, to which they have been reduced. 
 The law had been given to prepare for the full knowledge of 
 
158 
 
 these great truths. It was " the schoolmaster to bring them 
 to " one who could do what it was unable to do. It gave " the 
 knowledge of sin " (Rom. hi., 20), though only in a preparatory 
 form. 
 
 To meet all these wants, then, the Son of God was manifested 
 in the flesh. lie appeared among men, spoke and acted in 
 such a way as to awaken in them a love instead of a fear of 
 God. He revealed God as a Father, " showed " men " the 
 Father/' and thus kindled anew within them, and in mightier 
 power than ever, a spirit of sonship, teaching them to look up 
 to God with filial trust, as their loving Father in heaven, not 
 merely as their Creator and King, thus awakening' afresh and 
 cherishing in them a willingness to receive Him into their soul, 
 and to enthrone Him in the affections of their heart. Eph. v., 
 8-14. Thus only could the kingdom of God be established 
 on earth. 
 
 Again, Christ appearing as the Son of Man, as a man among 
 men, and yet as the head or chief of the human race (for we 
 must remember he was the Original Man, the true and perfect 
 man), did make the needful act of submission to the rightful 
 King of the Universe for his race, and by giving himself to 
 death, which is the penalty of sin, and confessing, thereby, the 
 sins of men as having justly incurred that penalty, he " made 
 reconciliation for the sins of his people." Ileb. ii., 17; Dan.ix., 
 24; 1 John ii., 1, 2. As the chief of a revolted tribe ma} r 
 come to their rightful monarch against whom they had taken 
 arms, and in the name of his followers make that confession of 
 disloyalty, and express for them that repentance and renewed 
 allegiance which would procure for them forgiveness and renewed 
 regard, so our Lord, in the name and on the behalf of all who 
 will signify their participation in that confession and self-conse- 
 cration to their true King, presented himself as the head of our 
 revolted race to God, confessing and sorrowing over our rebel- 
 liousness to him, thus "magnifying the law of God, and making 
 
159 
 
 it honoured;" by his zeal for the honour of God making atone- 
 ment between Him and His people ; renouncing all false gods, 
 all usurpers, tyrants, and pretenders, in his own name and in 
 the name of his race ; giving himself in loyal homage, obedience, 
 and love, to the God and Father of himself and his brethren.* 
 What we have to do is to express our desire to share in this con- 
 fession and repentance, in the act of allegiance to God, and in 
 the reconciliation or atonement with Him which these acts pro- 
 cure, our desire to share in the Divine Kingdom which His Son 
 came on earth to fully reveal and establish, confessing ourselves 
 subjects of that kingdom, bound by its laws, protected by its 
 power. The proclamation of this kingdom was the burden of 
 the Baptist's message, of Christ's preaching, and of his apostles' 
 declarations. The Gospels are full of its history. Christianity 
 is the revelation of its existence, the description of its nature, 
 statutes, penalties, and blessings ; — the revelation, above all, 
 of Him " who sitteth on its throne," and of the Divine Son to 
 whom the government is committed for a season, that " lie may 
 put down all rule, and authority, and power" opposed to his 
 Father's kingdom ; and so be able finally to deliver it up to Him 
 free from all enemies, clear of all evil, filled with love, holiness, 
 beauty, joy ; the Divine Spirit reigning triumphant in every 
 bosom, while every heart is uplifted lovingly to God, even the 
 Father, that He may be " all in all." 1 Cor. xv., 24-28. 
 
 Yes, this was the revelation made on earth. This also was 
 the song in heaven — "We give thee thanks, oh Lord God 
 Almighty, who art, and wast, and art to come ; because Thou 
 hast taken unto Thee Thy great power and reigned." Rev 
 xi., 17. And that kingdom has been unfolding in power and 
 
 * This view of the mission of Christ on earth has been so fully and ably 
 set forth by the Rev. Mc.Leod Campbell, in his noble work on the Atonement 
 (Macmillan, 1856), that it is unnecessary to pursue it further here. See, 
 •especially, his felicitous reference to the Atonement made by Phinehas, 
 Numb, xxv., 13., p. 118. 
 
160 
 
 glory ever since the Saviour was manifested in the flesh, and 
 died, and rose again for the blessing of man and the glory of 
 God. Happy they who believe that -God has thus given His 
 Son " dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, 
 nations, and languages, should serve him ; his dominion is an 
 everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his king- 
 dom that which shall not be destroyed." Dan. vii., 14. They 
 can understand how, by the manifestation of the Son of God 
 as the Anointed King and High Priest of men, — the "One 
 Mediator between God and men," the true " Christ," — the 
 world is being saved ; how evil and sin have been "judged," 
 condemned, conquered. They have been taught to distinguish 
 the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Satan, to believe in 
 the power and triumphs of their accepted Sovereign, to seek 
 deliverance "from the power of darkness" by "translation 
 into the kingdom of God's dear Son." Colos. i., 13. 
 
 But "the kingdom of heaven is within us." Luke xvii., 21. 
 
 Sin and all spiritual evil is to be fought and conquered in the 
 heart of man. Christ must rule there supreme, God must be 
 there enthroned if His kingdom is to come in all its power and 
 glory. It is a spiritual kingdom, the glad tidings of which 
 the Son of God proclaimed. It is the reign of God over 
 our thoughts, feelings, will ; and it was to be established, as we 
 have seen, through Christ's direct action upon our souls. But 
 it is evident that he could gain infinitely more power over men's 
 spiritual life, and over a far greater number of mankind, if, 
 having once revealed himself to them in the flesh, as a man, he 
 were to resume his pristine spiritual state, than if he were to 
 continue subject to all the limitations of a bodily existence. 
 By his incarnation, as we have seen, he taught men in 
 whom they were to trust, whom God had made to be unto 
 them " wisdom, and righteousness, sanctification and redemp- 
 tion (1 Cor. i., 30) ; but by his resurrection and ascension, 
 he regained the privilege with far mightier grace and power 
 
161 
 
 than before of coming into spiritual relations with all men, 
 And inasmuch as that power has always been, and from its 
 very nature must always be, greatly dependent upon the will 
 and affections of those whom he desires to influence, it is evi- 
 dent that the revelation of himself to men as one of themselves, 
 as "the Word of life," whom their ears had heard and their eyes 
 had seen and their hands had handled (1 John i., 1), would 
 prepare the way for an immeasurable increase of his power over 
 them, by drawing to him their obedient reverence and love. 
 When the Son of God had dwelt among them, and they had 
 beheld " his glory," when his gracious image was thus 
 given to the world to be enshrined in the hearts of all who- 
 knew or should know him by " the seeing of the eye, or the 
 hearing of the ear," they would be drawn towards him, through- 
 out all time, as they never could have been had he not once been 
 partaker of flesh and blood. And this will explain to us much 
 of the language of Scripture concerning both the King and the 
 kingdom of heaven, especially in the writings of St. Paul. The 
 Jews looked for a Messiah and a kingdom of God ; but they 
 expected an outward and earthly kingdom, and one which should 
 not include the Gentiles. Paul shows that Christ's kingdom is 
 wholly spiritual, and that men enter it, therefore, only in a 
 spiritual way ; that the qualification for it is not the partaking 
 of Abraham's body but of his spirit, the possession of faith like 
 his ; in short, that the faithful are the true children of Abraham. 
 Paul had cast away his notion of an earthly Theocracy at his 
 conversion, and tried hard to teach all men, both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, that since Christ had died and risen again, and ascended 
 to the right hand of God, it could not be a kingdom of this 
 world which the Saviour was establishing, nor one therefore 
 requiring worldly or fleshly qualifications, but needing only 
 repentance, faith, and loyal obedience to qualify a man to be a 
 subject and citizen thereof. He saw that our salvation from all 
 evil and sin, our attainment of light, holiness, peace, our union 
 
162 
 
 with God, all depended on our coming into that spiritual union 
 with Christ which has been dwelt on above. Paul felt in the 
 depths of his heart that it was a kingdom of spiritual evil, of 
 selfishness and death, a very real and terrible kingdom, far more 
 to be dreaded than Caesar's, from which Christ came to redeem 
 us. Hence ho proclaims alike to Jew and Gentile the king- 
 dom of God as a spiritual society into which he invited all to 
 enter, because Christ had opened his eyes to see in his, the 
 Messiah's, death, a proof that this society was a spiritual not a 
 worldly kingdom, a kingdom of * righteousness, peace, and joy 
 in the Holy Spirit" (Komans xiv., 17), one therefore that 
 must be entered by faith, and not by corporeal qualifications of 
 any kind. 
 
 Our blessed Lord gave a few intimations of this grand 
 truth while he was yet on earth (John vii., 39 ; xiv., 12-26 ; 
 xvi., 7-15), but his disciples could not then understand him. 
 It was not until the Holy Spirit had gradually transformed " the 
 natural man," and especially had made Paul the great messenger 
 of glad tidings to the Gentiles, that these truths were " spiritually 
 discerned." 1 Cor. i., 14. And if even they were thus blinded 
 to " the things of the Spirit," can we wonder that * the princes 
 of this world knew" them not ? " Had they known them (through 
 being spiritually minded themselves) they would not have cru- 
 cified the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. ii., 8), but would have humbly, 
 gratefully, hastened to enrol themselves members of his heavenly 
 kingdom, and become citizens of that State, that TroXiTevfia * 
 which is not reared by mortal wisdom, not doomed to perish 
 with the kingdoms of this world, but is " eternal in the heavens." 
 
 We have next to consider how this kino-dom is being: esta- 
 te o 
 
 Wished, and how, thereby, human redemption and perfection is 
 being carried forward in the Divine Plans. 
 
 * Phil, iii., 20. Our "polity or state," not " conversation ; " the society 
 to which we belong. 
 
CHAP. XIV.— JESUS CHRIST " THE MEDIATOR 
 BETWEEN GOD AND MAN"." 
 
 Since mankind had been brought under the power and pollu- 
 tion of sin to so terrible an extent that Heathen authors sometimes 
 appear rather to be describing Pandemonium than the world we 
 live in ; since the Scriptures confirm these statements in the 
 words found in Rom. i. and ii. ; while the Apostle speaks of his 
 Ephesian converts as having been "dead in trespasses and sins " 
 (Eph. ii., 1), and quoting the words from the Old Testament of 
 there being " none righteous, no not one," says that " all the 
 world had become guilty before God " (Rom. hi., 10, 19) r 
 with many other terrible exposures of the state both of the 
 Jewish and Heathen world ; while another Apostle says that 
 " the whole world lieth in wickedness " (1 John v., 19), it is 
 manifest that mankind needed to be cleansed both from the de- 
 filement and the power of sin, before they could make a truly 
 acceptable offering of themselves to God, and become truly 
 subjects of His kingdom. But the very fact of their being in 
 that state of spiritual slavery and unholiness, precluded them from 
 either understanding clearly their position, or from making 
 effectual efforts to escape from it ; or, in many cases, from even 
 desiring to escape from it. Therefore the Son of God appeared 
 among men on earth, not only for the reasons stated in the last 
 section, but also that he might reveal himself as the medium 
 through whom they might once again be restored to their rela- 
 tionship with God, in which alone they could find their true 
 perfection and bliss. They had been separated from God by sin; 
 and greater sin, with sinful tendencies, transmitted from father 
 to child, had been the consequences. To overcome and cast out 
 
164 
 
 these fearful evils, men must be brought into more living union 
 with God, so that the Divine Spirit might flow freely into their 
 souls, and " wash away " all that was opposed to the Divine 
 nature, all that was inconsistent with the Divine presence. For 
 this great purpose God came to them in His Son. He " was in 
 Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. v., 19; 
 John xiv., 10) ; so that if men came to the Son, they came to 
 the Father also. If they welcomed Christ, they welcomed God. 
 If Christ dwelt in them, and they in Christ, God dwelt in them, 
 and they in God. 1 John iv., 15 ; 2 John, 9 ; John xvii., 23. 
 He who was at once Divine and Human, — " the brightness of 
 the Father's glory, the express image of His person," and yet 
 the Original and Pattern and Head of Humanity, — "was 
 manifested in the flesh,"* became " the Son of Man," was born 
 of woman, was " made like unto his brethren," and " was in all 
 points tempted like as we are." Hebrews ii., 17 ; iv., 15. So 
 that as there was "one God," even so there was "one Mediator 
 between God and man, the man Christ Jesii3" (1 Tim. ii., 5), 
 and "through him we all have access by one Spirit unto the 
 Father." Eph. ii., 18. 
 
 Was it not thus that our Saviour revealed himself and his 
 Father in heaven to the sons of men when he stood among 
 listening crowds, or sat at their entertainments, when he healed 
 their diseases, or forgave their sins ? He came in His Father's 
 name, to do the will of the Father that sent him, — whoso had 
 seen him had seen the Father, for "the Father that dwelleth in 
 me, He doeth the works ; " he besought them, saying, " Believe 
 me that I am in the Father and the Father in me" (John v., 
 43,30; xiv., 9, 10, 11); "All things are delivered unto me 
 by my Father " (Matt, xi., 27 ; Luke x., 22) ; " I am the way, 
 
 * 1 Tim. iii., 16. The evidence to show that the antecedent to this sen- 
 tence is " he who," Os, not God, Os, has been so often and so lucidly dwelt 
 upon, more particularly by Sir Isaac Newton, that it is unnecessary to defend 
 the reading given above. 
 
165 
 
 the truth, and the life. No man coinetli to the Father but by 
 me." John xiv., 6. His great purpose was to reveal to men 
 their Father in heaven, and himself as " the way " to that 
 Father, that they might know Him and love Him, and do His 
 will, and establish His kingdom on earth as it is established in 
 heaven. 
 
 But he came reco<misino; to the full the sinful and rebellious 
 state of man. He knew that he "came into the world to save 
 sinners." His first word to them was " Repent." But his 
 second was, " Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy 
 laden. Come unto me in faith and trust, and be healed of your 
 sins, and be forgiven." So that the very publicans and harlots 
 were welcomed into the kingdom of God, and the word of mercy 
 went forth, " Thy sins are forgiven. Thy faith hath saved 
 thee. Go in peace." Luke vii., 48-50 ; xv., 7; Matt, ix., 6 ; 
 Mark ii., 1 0. This was all that he asked of the sinful race 
 whom he came to redeem to God, even as with his apostles in 
 after times, "Repentance towards God, and faith towards our 
 Lord Jesus Christ." Acts xx., 21. Repentance, /ueravoia, — a 
 change of mind, so that they should turn away from what is evil, 
 " from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God 
 that they might receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance 
 among them who were sanctified by faith that is in Christ" 
 (Acts xxvi., 18) ; — faith, trust, leading them to give themselves 
 up to the Saviour's power, that he might purify and heal them 
 of their iniquities, and reconcile them to God, and make them 
 meet for fellowship with Him and "His dear Son." Col. i., 12, 13. 
 For without this faith " he could do no mighty works " among 
 them, neither for the healing of their souls nor their bodies. 
 Mark vi,, v. But he did not preach the wrath of an indignant 
 Sovereign, but the yearning compassion of a loving Father. 
 He did not offer himself to men as their substitute, who was to 
 bear the punishment due to them, but as their Saviour from that 
 which was infinitely more to be dreaded than punishment — viz., 
 
166 
 
 sin. He did not ask them to trust in Lira that he might shield 
 them from God, but that he might lead them to God. lie did 
 not ask them, in a word, to believe in an atonement made to an 
 offended Sovereign, but in an atonement made with a forgiving 
 Father. Matt, i., 21; v., 44, 45; vi., 14; Luke i., 68-79; xv. ; 
 John iv., 23 ; xvii., 21-23 ; Rom. hi., 21-26 ; 1 Peter iii., 18. 
 He came, in a word, to " draw all men " unto himself as the 
 representative of their Father in heaven, that he might make 
 them one with the Father in love, holiness, power, and joy for 
 ever, even as he and the Father are one. 
 
 Jesus Christ is thus, then, plainly set forth in the Scriptures- 
 as the meeting point for God and man ; the medium through 
 whom God imparts Himself to man and man unites himself with 
 God ; " the mercy-seat "* from which God proclaims forgive- 
 ness of past sin, and the means of attaining to righteousness for 
 the time to come ; where God meets man as in a Holy of Holies, 
 and brings him into blessed communion with Himself. 
 
 And thus the appearance of Christ on earth was a more full 
 and perfect manifestation of the kingdom of God, of His will, of 
 the nature and objects of His reign or kingdom, of the mode in 
 which men are to enter and dwell in it, conforming themselves 
 to that will and obeying His rule, than had ever been previously 
 vouchsafed. It was thus also a fuller manifestation of God Him- 
 self; and one pre-eminently calculated to win men to repentance, 
 love, obedience, to the surrender of their own wills to the Divine 
 Will, and thereby also to make their wills essentially good like 
 the will of God, by its power to draw them to Himself through 
 His beloved Son. Truly might the Saviour say (John xvi., 14) 
 that the Spirit of Truth should glorify him, for it reveals to us 
 his ineffable glory both as Son of Man and Son of God, 
 " showing " to us the grandeur at once of Divinity and Humanity 
 
 * Eom. iii., 25. After long consideration of this passage, and the various 
 arguments urged with regard to it, the ahove seems to me the true ren- 
 dering. 
 
167 
 
 when a human being-, " the man Christ Jesus," realises God's 
 perfect ideal of man, and is at the same time •' filled with all the 
 fulness of God." Eph. iii., 19. 
 
 Men not obeying God are in the kingdom of evil, obeying 
 tyrants and usurpers. The Son of God, by taking flesh, exposed 
 himself to assaults from all the enemies of man. But he over- 
 came them all, and therefore so far as they could be conquered 
 for each human being, they were.* So far as these usurpers 
 could be driven back from the sphere of human life by any 
 external aid, that victory was finally won when Jesus said, " It 
 is finished." It was won, quantum potuit, for us, not by us. 
 Unquestionably there is much of this fighting that can only be 
 done by each human soid in grim and earnest conflict alone. 
 That is sufficiently manifest from what has before been said 
 about a right will. And for this, indeed, we never can be suf- 
 ficiently grateful. Thus Ave are permitted to rise, and thus only 
 can we rise, to the dignity and blessedness of likeness to God 
 and Christ. But to enable us to conquer as our Lord and 
 Master did, we need strength far beyond what we ourselves 
 possess by nature, or can impart to one another, which great 
 subject will be matter for further consideration in the next 
 chapter. Not help, however, different in kind from what was 
 given to Abraham and Moses, Samuel and David, for they were 
 strong only so far as they abode in God and God in them. 
 There can be no true help but what comes from Him. He was 
 speaking to the patriarchs and the prophets by His Divine Word, 
 dwelling in them, enlightening, reproving, and strengthening 
 them by His Son age after age. But when " the "Word was 
 made flesh," and He gave His Son to dwell among us " full of 
 grace and truth," "He visited and redeemed His people" in a 
 far mightier and more decisive fashion. Still more when " He 
 raised him from the dead and gave him glory," and made him 
 
 * Heb. u., 14, 15. 
 
168 
 
 the meeting point in which all men might finally be reconciled 
 to Himself, and be made one with the Father and the Son by 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But how was this needful help to come to man ? Simply by 
 the discourses and miracles of our Lord on earth, — merely 
 by any acts which he could perform, or any influence he could 
 exert while he Avas in the body ? Clearly he must be able to 
 come into at least as close relations with the human soul as those 
 existing before the incarnation, and which were dwelt upon in 
 chap. viii. He must be able to exert a direct spiritual in- 
 fluence upon men, such as he could only gain by resuming his 
 spiritual estate, casting aside the shackles and limitations of the 
 flesh, rising above the laws of space and time, and wielding the 
 sceptre of that spiritual kingdom over which his Father had 
 ordained him to reijm. Having revealed himself to men as 
 their Saviour and King, and provided for the establishment of a 
 society of faithful men, a church, which should be the visible 
 earthly representative of the society and kingdom of heaven, he 
 must leave this world in the body in order to return to it in the 
 spirit, and by that spirit " gather together in one all the children 
 of Grod who were scattered abroad." John xi., 52. See, also, 
 John vii., 39 ; xiv., 16-18 ; xvi., 7. 
 
>* OP THK 
 
 'university; 
 
 OHAP. XV.-^CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS AND 
 OUR LIFE. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION, REGENERATION, AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 The manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh has been 
 spoken of in all ages of the church as the grand turning-point 
 in the history of man,- — -the cardinal fact in the work of human 
 redemption from sin and death. But unquestionably that incar- 
 nation took place, not merely that men might know whom they 
 are to love, serve, honour as the image of God and the ideal of 
 man, the head and chief of the human race ; still less, merely 
 that they might know what they are to do and to refrain from 
 doing; — nor even solely in addition thereto that they might be- 
 hold the Father in the Son. Every thoughtful, conscientious 
 man, who strives with all his heart and soul to obey the law of 
 God, and grow in the likeness of the Son of God, knows well 
 enough by his own experience, often only too sorrowful, that 
 we need not merely a leader and king ; — still less, merely an 
 example, or simply a knowledge of what we are to do and to 
 become ; nor, finally, such help alone as we can give to each 
 other. Is not St. Paul's description of the terrible conflicts in 
 the heart of the natural man one that finds a response in the 
 consciousness of all sincere men ? " For we know that the law is 
 spiritual ; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I 
 do I allow not ; for what I would, that do I not ; but what I 
 hate, that do I." .... " For the good that I would 
 I do not ; but the evil which I would not, that I do.'' . . . 
 " For I delight in the law of God after the inward man ; but I 
 see another law in my members, warring against the law of my 
 mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is 
 
170 
 
 in my members. O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver 
 me from the body of this death. ?" But the saintly sufferer 
 closes with a song of triumph, — " I thank God, through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord ;" as in another eloquent strain, " . . . thanks 
 be to God, who giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 But how? I indicated the ansAver at the close of the last 
 chapter, and we have now to unfold it from the sacred writings 
 as fully as may be permitted. 
 
 This may be taken for certain — that avoiding to the consti- 
 tution of human nature, he who would help us must not stand 
 proudly aloof from us, nor merely teach us as from an elevation 
 afar off. However high above us he may tower in heroism, 
 genius, virtue, he must bow down and come near to us, — bodily, 
 if he has to give bodily help, — near to our soul and heart if it 
 is spiritual aid he would bring us. Only in proportion as his 
 spirit approaches, touches our spirit, so that deep inner sympa- 
 thies are awakened, and the secret recesses of our spiritual life 
 and affections are reached, can he exert any lasting and blessed 
 influence upon us. He must give himself, his spirit, to our 
 spirit, to our inner selves, as well as call forth our love and grati- 
 tude to himself. He must so far become one with us — for a 
 time identify himself with us ; not simply give us "Light" from 
 his own high sphere. This is what our Lord and Saviour had 
 to do, — this, as we have seen, is what he did do, — to redeem and 
 bless us, when he desired to deliver our race from the false, 
 unrighteous condition into which it had fallen. He gave him- 
 self. He gave his own spirit. He made himself wholly one 
 with the human race by his incarnation, sharing in the animal 
 nature of which men are partakers, and then " gave his flesh (his 
 bodily and earthly life) for the life of the world " (John vi., 51), 
 by privation and sorrow, temptation, agony, and death. Thus 
 he makes himself entirely one with us in our humiliation, in oili 
 
171 
 
 earthly condition ; not merely influencing us as the Son of God, 
 " the true Light " of the world, but identifying himself with us 
 as the Son of Man, so far as lieth in him. He can be com- 
 pletely identified only with those who receive him by faith. But 
 the doctrine of the Scriptures seems to be that those who do thus 
 accept and trust in him, are made one with him in his glorified 
 state also, even as he made himself one with them in their earthly 
 condition. It was not enough that he should once descend to 
 our lower sphere, even as it was not enough that he should be 
 the " inward Light," lighting every man, as before his incarna- 
 tion. Xor yet would it have been sufficient that he should have 
 remained dwelling in the flesh until now. He must come to us 
 in the Spirit, and thus bring us into that living union with him- 
 self, and so with God, which lifts us out of darkness, sin, and 
 eternal death. John i., 12.; xvii., 20-26; Rom. viii., 10, 11. 
 Being united with him, as he conquered and is now reigning 
 victoriously, " subduing all things unto himself," so his faithful 
 disciples have conquered and will conquer. " The body of 
 humiliation " they now wear, shall be changed into the likeness 
 of " his glorious body." Philipp. hi., 21. As he rose from the 
 dead to a life independent of time and change, so they " have 
 risen with him," (Colos. ii., 12.; hi. 1) and will rise to live their 
 true " life with him in God." Since he is righteous, and the}' 
 are united with him, filled with his life, his spirit, cleansed and 
 sanctified thereby, "they in him and he in them" (John xv., 5), 
 they are acquitted or justified, set right and made righteous. 
 That close and intimate communication which in the beginning 
 subsisted between the Son of God and humanity, which was 
 so often weakened, or wholly severed, by man's self-will, 
 and the usurping tyranny of his animal nature, now being 
 restored through the risen Saviour, for all who accept him in 
 faith, they are once more brought into a righteous state, are 
 being set free from the slavery of their lower impulses and 
 isolated selfishness, are being " delivered from the bondage of 
 
172 
 
 corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." 
 Horn, viii., 21. Thus he who " was delivered on account of our 
 offences," was "raised for our justification" (Rom. iv., 25) ; and 
 hence Paul says, " If Christ be not risen, your faith is vain, ye 
 are yet in your sins." 1 Cor. xv., 17. 
 
 We cannot, of course, fully understand liow we may thus be 
 united, made one with the holy Saviour, and so partake of his 
 righteousness, because we do not understand the nature of 
 spiritual life, or what spirit is, — how because he is righteous we 
 may be righteous also. But we know something of the blessed 
 influence on our characters of companionship with the wise and 
 good. And we can imagine how much greater must be that 
 influence, and how much closer the intercourse, when that 
 companionship is purely spiritual, when there are none of these 
 barriers, now interposed by the body, between spiritual beings. 
 
 Thus our Lord, after saying that God will give the disciples 
 the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, which shall dwell with them, and 
 be in them, he adds, " I will not leave you comfortless : I will 
 come unto you." John xiv., 17, 18. 
 
 We are not to go back to any mystical and un scriptural legal 
 •fictions, such as that God accounts us to be what we are not — i.e., 
 righteous, because Christ was righteous. There is not, cannot 
 be, any true good for us except in ourselves becoming really and 
 truly righteous. But the doctrine of the Scriptures clearly 
 appears to be that by intercourse with our Saviour, and through 
 him with God, by having u fellowship with the Father and with 
 His Son Jesus Christ " (1 John i., 3), by abiding in him as 
 the branch in the stem, Ave become justified — i.e., made righteous 
 in the sight of God, because we thereby become right in ourselves. 
 Rom. iii., 22, 24; iv. 25; v., 1, 10, 19, 21. 
 
 When the Son of God took our compound nature upon him- 
 self by taking part in flesh and blood, when in that nature he 
 offered himself daily, a perfect sacrifice to the will of God, espe- 
 cially in the agony of the garden and the cross, he presented it 
 
173 
 
 perfect and faultless before God, vindicated its relationship to* 
 the Divine Being, manifested what it might and was intended ta 
 become, restored it in his own person to its original ideal per- 
 fection. Then so far as men unite and identify themselves by 
 faith with him, giving themselves to him, they are restored, 
 regenerated, in him ; God " accepts them in the Beloved 9P 
 (Ephes. i., 6), regards them with complacency, and " by the 
 obedience of one many are made righteous " (Rom. v., 19) ; sins 
 that are past are forgiven by the mercy of God. Rom. iii., 25. 
 This is the commencement of Justification by Faith.* It has 
 been truly said that — 
 
 "By justified, all people understand [in the first place] acquitted. " But 
 St. Paul never forgets . . . that a man is acquitted of a charge or imputa- 
 tion, not of a penalty. By being true to the legal sense of the word, the 
 Apostle is true also to the moral sense of it. The burden of an accusing 
 conscience, the guilt which rests on the man himself, is that from which he 
 craves to be justified. St. Paul affirms that God does justify him from this. 
 He does not impute sin to him. But how could this be ? He had been 
 affirming before, with the greatest vehemence, against the Jew, that all 
 God's judgments are according to truth, that there can be no respect of 
 persons, no fictitious way of looking at acts or men with Him. If a man is 
 a sinner, and feels himself to be a sinner, how can it be a true thing to 
 pronounce him not a sinner, to account him righteous ? St. Paul clears up 
 the amazing paradox, having first had to find the solution of it as it bore on 
 his own being. ' In me,' he says, ' that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good 
 thing. I live, yet not I ; but Christ liveth in me. I feel myself a sinner, 
 for I am utterly and absolutely a sinner apart from him in whom all 
 righteousness dwells. God accounts me righteous, for He does not look 
 upon me apart from Him in whom He created me ; He does not look upon 
 me in the false way in which I have looked at myself. He justifies me ; 
 He does not account me that which in my proper legitimate state, as united 
 to Christ, I am not ; He treats me as that which, in this my proper and 
 reasonable state, I am. God justifies me, and His judgment of me is ac- 
 cording to truth. He holds me to be righteous because He has made me 
 so." I have not departed, you see, in the least from the force which people 
 ordinarily give to the words : I have vindicated their use of it. But in 
 doing so, I have claimed for the word its natural etymological sense. The 
 
 * See Neander's " Planting and Training of the Christian Church. 
 Book vi. 
 
174 
 
 justified man is not only one that is acquitted, not only one who is set down 
 as righteous, but one who, in the strictest sense, has become, or has been 
 made, righteous ;"* 
 
 because by this union, fellowship, with Christ, man is restored 
 to his right and natural condition, to that condition for which he 
 was originally created — viz., the most intimate sympathy, har- 
 mony, oneness with the Son of God, which of course must be a 
 just and " righteous " condition. The more closely we examine 
 the language of the New Testament, and especially the writings 
 of that great Apostle who was " called " and instructed by the 
 Lord Jesus to preach his gospel to all the world, the more 
 clearly these views of the atonement are confirmed. 
 
 In the commencement of his Epistle to the Eoman Christians, 
 we find the Apostle Paul showing them that God had given a 
 moral law, a law of rectitude, both to Jew and Gentile, which 
 they had not kept, — that all men, therefore, are guilty in the 
 sight of God. He then goes on to show how God has provided 
 a way in which He might at once " be just and the Justifier " 
 (Rom. iii., 26) of His sinful children, might at once maintain 
 and manifest His own righteousness, and make them righteous 
 also. The Apostle's reasoning will be made clearer by com- 
 paring it with a remarkable passage in his Second Epistle to the 
 Corinthians ; for when he is urging the claims of God upon His 
 children, and setting forth the sublime truth that " God was in 
 Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself," praying them to be 
 reconciled to God, St. Paul uses this striking expression, — 
 " For He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; 
 that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 
 2 Cor. v., 21. 
 
 Now, in considering the above and similar passages of 
 Scripture, it must first be remarked that God is revealed to us 
 in the Bible as a Covenant God ; and that these covenants 
 
 * " Maurice's Lincoln's Inn Sermons " (first issued to subscribers 
 only). Vol. ii., pp. 9, 10. 
 
175 
 
 which He has thus graciously condescended to make with man r 
 whether through Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Christ, were not 
 bargains, as some people appear to have thought, — as if a person 
 should say, " I will give you so much, on condition that you 
 give me so much," but they were a free mutual plighting of 
 faith each to the other, — of man to God and God to man, — a 
 free giving of oneself away in love and service, as in marriage 
 vows, or as in the ideal of the Feudal bond. But if the children 
 of Israel did not perform certain required works, or did perform 
 certain forbidden actions, was not the covenant annulled? 
 Certainly not. Faithlessness, treason, only could annul it. 
 The covenant was very different from the law. That said, — 
 do this, and thou shalt receive a definite reward — do that, and 
 thou shalt receive a definite punishment. Hence it is written, 
 " Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which 
 are written in the Book of the Law to do them." Deut.xxvii., 26; 
 Gal. iii., 10. But the covenants between God and men looked 
 rather to the inward spirit and feeling than to the outward act, 
 and could be made void only by the loss or destruction of that 
 spirit of loyal self-surrender and faithfulness on the part of men, 
 or of loving gracious regard on the part of God, in which they 
 were originally supposed to be made. The language of the 
 prophets uniformly illustrates this statement, and springs from 
 the profoundest, most heart-felt, rapturous, or, on the other 
 hand, agonising conviction of its truth. 
 
 St. Paul very forcibly sets forth this great difference between 
 the Law and the Covenant in his Epistle to the Galatians, 
 and urges the Christian converts to perceive that Abraham was 
 not under the law, but under a blessing. The law "was no 
 part of this blessing."* It was to give men a standard of 
 righteousness, and a conviction of sin, and so bring them as 
 " a schoolmaster to Christ." Gal. iii., 24. It could not redeem 
 them from the heavy bondage of sin and the consciousness of sin. 
 * See Maurice on " Sacrifice," p. 137. 
 
176 
 
 Christ only could do that. The law " cursed " them, made them 
 feel themselves under the curse of sin, and its punishment, death, 
 made them feel that they had offended God, that they were, 
 therefore, cut off from Him, and obnoxious to His displeasure. 
 But both the old and the new covenant were to make men 
 feel that (rod loved them, eared for them, in spite of their 
 transgressions and sins. And the greatest proof of tliis, 
 the sign and seal of God's love and pardoning mercy, the 
 crowning manifestation at once of His righteousness and of 
 His purpose to make all men righteous who would come to Him 
 through Christ in penitence and faith, was in the gift of His 
 only-begotten Son, in whom He reconciles the world unto 
 Himself. 
 
 It has been admirably said in the sermon on 2 Cor. v., 21, 
 quoted above, in reference to the words, "that we might be 
 made the righteousness of God in Him," 
 
 " Here, as everywhere, St. Paul declares that it is the end of all God's acts 
 and dispensations towards men, to make them righteous ; to bring them out 
 of that condition which they have chosen for themselves, — the condition of 
 distrust, alienation, sin, — and to bring them into that state for which He 
 has created them, of dependence 1 ; trust, union with Him. He is declared, 
 here, as everywhere, to be the only Eeconciler of His creatures. Here, as 
 everywhere, they are assumed to have no righteousness but His ; none but 
 that which they obtain by owning Him and confiding in Him. The giving 
 up of His Son to take upon Him their flesh and blood, to enter into their 
 sorrows, to feel and suffer their sins ; that is, ' to be made sin ;' the perfect 
 sympathy of the Son with His [God's] loving will towards His creatures, 
 His [Christ's]* entire sympathy with them, and union with them ; His en- 
 durance, in His inmost heart and spirit, of that evil which He abhorred ; 
 this is God's method of reconciliation ; by this He speaks to the sinful will 
 of man ; by this He redeems it, raises it, restores it. The acts which ex- 
 press His love to man ; the acts by which the Son of God proves Himself 
 to be the Son of man ; these are the means of destroying the barrier be- 
 tween heaven and earth, between the Father and the children ; the means 
 of taking away the sin of the world. In each man the sin — the alienation 
 and separation of heart ceases, when he believes that he has a Father who 
 has loved him, and given His Son for him ; when he confesses that this 
 
 * I am not sure whether I have rightly interpreted these pronouns, but 
 this appears to be the only way of " not confounding the persons." 
 
177 
 
 Son is stronger to unite him with his Father and his brethren, than sin is 
 to separate them ; when he is sure that the Spirit of the Father and the 
 Son will be with him to resist all the efforts of the spirit of enmity and 
 division to renew the strife."* 
 
 And thus we find explained many of those passages in the 
 Epistles wherein Christ's death is spoken of as opening a way 
 for the Gentiles to be admitted to the kingdom of God. Had 
 membership of that kingdom been confined to the descendants 
 of Abraham according to the flesh, as Saul of Tarsus and all 
 pure-blooded Jews believed, of course the Gentiles could have 
 had no part in it. So long as Jesus dwelt on earth in a human 
 body as the Son of David, he was only the Messiah of the Jews, 
 the anointed king of their race ; he was " sent only unto the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt, xv., 24. Not that 
 God ever intended to save, or that Jesus ever thought of saving, 
 only them. We must remember that even the strictest Jews 
 would admit Gentiles to the kingdom of God if they passed 
 through the ceremonies of baptism and circumcision, and being* 
 thus born again and " grafted in," became purified children of 
 Abraham. But by the old covenant all this was necessary c 
 It was not until death had set the Saviour free from these earthly 
 limitations, that the society he established could be apurely spiritual 
 society, requiring only spiritual qualifications for membership. Ac- 
 cording to their natural descent and position, the Gentiles were 
 •• without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, 
 and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, 
 and without God in the world." t The first covenant was made 
 with the Children of Abraham. The first offers of pardon and 
 grace must be made to them, and to the Gentiles only on con- 
 dition of their complying with the terms of the first covenant. 
 But the Jews rejected their Messiah, and thus cancelled the 
 covenant made with them and their fathers. Jesus at his death 
 ceased to be the Hebrew Messiah, and became the High-Priest 
 
 * So also Olshausen and Neander. f Ephes. ii., 12. 
 
 K 
 
178 
 
 and King of a Society, a kingdom, that was founded on a new 
 covenant, and was developed by spiritual laws of progress from 
 the Jewish commonwealth and the earthly Theocracy. This was 
 the revelation of that " mystery of God's will," which he had 
 "purposed in Himself" "from the foundation of the world," 
 "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might 
 gather together in one all things in Christ."* 
 
 In the second clause of this remarkable passage (2 Cor. v., 
 21), we read the reason why Christ " was made sin for us" — 
 viz., "that we might be made the righteousness of God in 
 him." A similar idea is expressed in St. Paul's first epistle 
 (i., 30), where he says that Christ is made unto us " wisdom 
 and righteousness, sanctification and redemption." Leaving, 
 for the present, the full consideration of the words " made sin 
 for us," I think it will at once be manifest that the phrases in 
 question are closely connected with the general truth so urgently 
 set before us in the New Testament of this fellowship or identi- 
 fication into which the Son of God enters with us, and invites us 
 to enter with him, and which we have been considering. 
 
 There is evidently a very deep significance and power in- 
 volved in this idea, and we need not wonder at the prominent, 
 almost exclusive part, it has held in the theology of all the 
 great Protestant reformers, both on the continent and in this 
 country. We can understand how the whole of Luther's teach- 
 ing with respect to the benefits of the atonement sprung from 
 " that root conception of Christ's identifying himself with us." f 
 Let us consider that significance and power hj investigating the 
 primary elements of the idea. 
 
 There can be no doubt of the purpose of God to bind His 
 
 * Eph. i., 9, 10. See also the chapter on " the Blood of Christ." It can 
 scarcely be necessary to refer the reader, for a complete view of this 
 part of the subject, to the Rev. Jas. Martineau's masterly lecture, in the 
 " Liverpool Controversy," on " Vicarious Eedemption." 
 
 f Mc.Leod Campbell on the Atonement, p. 37. 
 
179 
 
 rational offspring together in family bonds and close relationship, 
 nor of tlie deep force and meaning of that purpose. Everything 
 points both to His desire that they should know and feel them- 
 selves to be thus united, and that the purposes of their existence 
 for time and eternity are to be fulfilled by recognising and 
 developing that union and all its rightful consequences. We 
 see mankind united in the family relationships, in the tribe, clan, 
 civil community, or federal organisation. We see the mighty 
 working of the principle of association in the innumerable 
 societies, orders, fellowships, which have been established in the 
 world for religious, political, commercial, handicraft, benevolent, 
 educational, and other objects. And in all these ways we are 
 taught the wonderful power which we exert on one another for 
 good and evil; taught how, if one suffers, all suffer; if one is 
 righteous, brave, successful, all benefit ; if one sins, all are the 
 worse for it. Every family learns that it is the better for the 
 father's faithfulness, for the mother's, brother's, sister's, well- 
 doing. Solemn warnings, as well as blessed encouragements, 
 have continually been given, both in sacred and secular history, 
 to enforce this great truth. And not in vain does all an un- 
 righteous man's family, in numberless cases, perish with him for 
 his sin,* the innocent with the guilty, if thereby many are 
 reminded of the all-important truth of the identification, so to 
 speak, or what has recently been termed the " solidarity" of 
 human beings in all spiritual relations, whether relating to the 
 things that are seen or unseen. Spiritual good and evil are thus 
 mysteriously conveyed, circulated, throughout the spiritual body 
 or community. That very word " community" is taken from the 
 idea of the common life which such associations have. And thus, 
 in ways which it would be impossible for us to explain until we 
 know more of the essential nature and laws of spiritual life, one 
 
 * In the case of Achan (Josh, vii.) even his cattle and goods are destroyed 
 also (though, probably, not his children), because nothing that belonged tu 
 him must survivo. All had become unclean. 
 
180 
 
 member of a family or community may be, and probably is ? 
 benefitting by the righteousness of another member, quite inde- 
 pendently of the obvious benefits he is thereby consciously or 
 unconsciously receiving. We know, indeed, how powerfully 
 example influences us ; but many facts in nature, and expressions 
 in Scripture, point to the probability of secret bane or blessing 
 coming to us through the character and conduct of those with 
 whom we are united by bonds of relationship or otherwise. One 
 brother acting righteously in the sight of God, saying " a devout 
 amen" to His judgments on sin, is probably doing good to 
 and for his brethren in ways they cannot discern, and of which 
 he and they are alike unconscious. A' striking illustration of 
 this view is found in the declaration of the Apostle (1 Cor. vii., 
 14) : " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, 
 and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were 
 your children unclean; but now are they holy." But the 
 strongest proof — one that, as far as apostolic evidence goes, is 
 decisive — will be found in those comparisons in which St. Paul 
 speaks of Christ as the Head, and his disciples as the members 
 (1 Cor. vi., 15 : Eph. i., 22 ; iv., 15, 1G ; v., 30 ; Col. i., 18 ; 
 ii., 19) ; and especially again in the 12th chapter of the 1st 
 Epistle to the Corinthiaus, where the writer urges the closest pos- 
 sible analogy between " the body," into which, he says (v., 13) 
 we are " all baptised by one Spirit," and the human body per- 
 taining to each individual man. For we know how greatly any 
 one part of the body is affected by the healthy or diseased con- 
 dition of other parts, but especially by that of the head. 
 
 To understand this matter, it is evident that we must seriously 
 and devoutly reflect upon the testimony borne in Scripture to the 
 very intimate and tender relationship into which Christ comes 
 with the children of men, not merely through his original relation 
 to them, but especially by his being born of woman, living as a 
 man, and as such dying ; rising from the dead, and ascending 
 into the unseen spirit-world. The holy marriage bond is used 
 
131 
 
 to symbolise this relationship, both by the greatest of those men 
 of God who preceded the Messiah (John in., 29 ; Isaiah liv., 5 ; 
 Jer. iii., 14 ; xxxi., 32), and of those who followed him. Eph. v., 
 25-32. No language could be more emphatic to impress us 
 with a sense of the closeness of the union of Christians with the 
 Son of God than that which they here employ. " For we are 
 members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." These are, 
 of course, fi gurativ e expressions, but what sublime and blessed 
 realities must be referred to by such figures. We cannot fully,- ,; , 
 understand them, because, as I have often had occasion to say, we 
 do not know what is spiritual existence. But we can see that as 
 there is a profound and solemn meaning in the striking words of 
 our Lord when, speaking of the marriage tie, he referred to the 
 account of the original creation of man and woman, and said, " so 
 then they are no more twain, but one flesh " (Mark x., 8) 
 even so there must be a doctrine of the deepest importance, and 
 of the holiest significance, in these declarations that Christ's 
 disciples become one flesh with their Lord, — " one body and one 
 spirit." And we must not forget that St. Paul speaks of this 
 truth in connection with very solemn subjects ; and even refers 
 to that glorious and tender relationship of Christians to Christ 
 as the argument against those deadly sins that defile the body 
 and destroy the soul. 1 Cor. vi., 15-17. 
 
 Bearing all this in our hearts, let us reflect on the extent to 
 which the man and woman are identified in the marriage state 
 how they become one as to joy and sorrow, temporal prosperity 
 and adversity, and even as to reputation ; how they are viewed 
 as one, both by human and divine law ; and especially to what 
 an extent they influence each other's character, temper, faith, 
 piety, happiness. Then let us consider how great must be the 
 identification, how vast the influence, in that union of our spirits 
 with Christ, whereof the marriage bond has been given as a 
 symbol, and of whose holy and tender intimacy even it must be 
 but so very faint an image. 
 
182 
 
 It is in this point of view that the expressions of Luther and 
 those who follow him at the present day,* hecome intelligible 
 (though by no means entirely satisfactory) respecting the com- 
 plete identification of Christ and all who believe in him, con- 
 cerning his being the representative of humanity, nay, being 
 Humanity itself, and so making full and complete satisfaction for 
 our sins, either by suffering for them or confessing and repent- 
 ing of them, making reparation for them, and so forth. How 
 far, as it seems to me, Christ could thus " deal with God on our 
 behalf," as the representative of humanity, the head and chief 
 of our revolted race, I have already briefly indicated above. • 
 
 It is in connection with these views that we must probably 
 understand the whole subject of intercessory prayer, both as 
 regards the intercession of Christ for us and of human beings 
 for one another. Neither our prayers nor even the Redeemer's 
 can for one moment be supposed to be necessary or efficacious 
 for altering the purposes of God. But we can understand how 
 it is a part of those purposes to accept, pardon, purify, and bless 
 the disobedient children for the sake of the loving, faithful child, 
 whose deepest happiness would thereb}^ be fulfilled, and to whom 
 heaven would be for a time but weariness and sorrow, if the guilty 
 yet beloved brother were not there. Just in proportion as we 
 love our brethren, we desire to identify ourselves with them, and 
 can understand that sublimest of human prayers recorded in 
 Exod. xxxii., 32, offered by him who will one day, perhaps, be 
 seen standing nearest to the throne of the Lamb. 
 
 But it will be evident that if the influence of the Saviour upon 
 mankind be in proportion to the completeness with which he 
 identifies himself with us (as we have already seen in part, and 
 shall do so more fully, that it unquestionably must be), that in- 
 
 * Olshausen, Maurice, and Mc.Leod Campbell, for instance, though differ- 
 ing from each other and the great Reformer, 
 f Pp. 158, 159. 
 
183 
 
 fluencc permeating- and pervading the whole human race will have 
 been immeasurably increased by his making himself wholly one 
 with us, even unto the " partaking of flesh and blood," like his 
 brethren, and at last " humbling himself unto death," coming 
 under the burden of all their sorrows and sins, and giving 
 himself up " even to the death of the cross." Hence it has 
 been truly said that the manifestation of Christ was not merely 
 a revelation of the nature of God, nor simply " of the formative 
 power of Christ that is at work to cancel distorted growths, and 
 even mere natural deficiency, in every human heart." It was 
 also " to reveal . . . the great divine law that as through 
 the unity of human nature, 'if one member suffers, all the 
 members suffer with it/ so, through the same unity, a new life 
 may spread into even the weakest and corruptest member. It 
 was to reveal it as the highest privilege of this great central 
 human life to purify others when once their will begins to turn 
 towards him, by entering into the very heart of their evil, and 
 reaching the very core of their inward misery ; so that while 
 new life returns to them the shadow of pain inseparable from the 
 perfect knowledge of human guilt falls back on the spirit of the 
 great Purifier. This was the revelation of the true nature in 
 man ; a nature that not only, as the Gentile nations felt, asserted 
 the primitive truth and goodness properly belonging to every 
 human creature, but that is capable of restoring that truth and 
 goodness, cancelling the sinful habit, melting the rigid heart, 
 emancipating the sullen temper, by the mere exertion of its 
 spontaneous fascination over any spirit which once surrenders to 
 its control. And this, accordingly, is the great subject of 
 Christian writers after once Christ had left the earth. It was 
 to them a new discovery that the restorative power in every 
 heart was not the power of their own wills, which they knew to 
 be limited at most to a rejection of evil acts, but the very same 
 power which had grown up into a perfect humanity in Christ, 
 and only required an act of continuous trust to claim them for 
 
184 
 
 its own. To trust in such a power was not hard, to stifle the 
 active rebellion of their own wills was possible ; but to purge 
 the turbid fountain of their human life, had that also been 
 required of them, as both Jew and Gentile had often dreamed, 
 was mere impossibility. To Jcnow who it was who was working 
 in them, was to multiply infinitely the regenerating power of his 
 life."* 
 
 Thus much may safely be said respecting what may be 
 termed the unconscious benefits arising from the union of the 
 Son of God with humanity in its earthly state. 
 
 But in regard to its more obvious effect in promoting our 
 " righteousness," see how mightily this principle of association 
 works through the mysterious power of sympathy. We see 
 some man bravely denouncing a great wrong, nobly resisting a 
 fearful temptation. A deep interest in him is awakened in our 
 hearts. Similar emotions and principles to those manifested by 
 him are quickened in our oavh souls, and we are powerfully 
 attracted towards him. Now in proportion, of course, as we yield 
 to this influence, give ourselves up to his views and plans, feels 
 with him and for him, take part with him, we are made one with 
 him, share in his character and fortunes, are lifted out of our 
 previous state into a new sphere. And hereby a great meaning 
 of justification by Christ becomes plain enough. When we thus 
 o-ive ourselves in faith through the influence of sympathy^ 
 admiration, trust, to Christ, we receive a new life — we are 
 lifted out of the rebel ranks, out of the kingdom of darkness 
 and sin. We are " born anew of the spirit," become " new 
 creatures in Christ Jesus," are regenerated in Mm, born into the 
 spirit-world. Where he goes we go, what he becomes we 
 
 * "National Review," July, 1859, p. 227. This is a noble exposition of 
 a great truth, and it is a matter for deep thankfulness to find sentiments in 
 the "National Review" so entirely harmonising with the views enunciated 
 by Campbell, Olshausen, Neander, and Maurice. The unity of the church is, 
 perhaps, not so far from realisation as some have deemed. 
 
185 
 
 become, what he doeth we do likewise, even as he speaks of the 
 results of his own union with God. " The Son can do nothing 
 of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things 
 soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the 
 Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all tilings that Himself 
 doeth." John v., 19, 20. "While Peter is yet in his uncon- 
 verted state, though under the influence of ardent, yet unstable 
 affection for his Lord, the Son of God has to say to him, 
 " Whither I go thou canst not follow me now : but," he adds, 
 " thou shalt follow me hereafter" (John xiii., 36) — hereafter, 
 that is, " when thou shalt have been lifted up into living union 
 with me by the spirit of my God." This is Eegeneration. 
 
 Observe, again, how naturally and consequentially this thought 
 of Christ being our righteousness, of our being "made the 
 righteousness of God in him," or made righteous in him accord- 
 ing to God's standard of righteousness through fellowship with 
 him, follows from all that was said in chapter iv. on the influence 
 of spirit acting upon spirit. Evidently in this our earthly state 
 we continually go astray, become unrighteous, for want of sym- 
 pathy and help from the right quarter. Yet this help and 
 sympathy are always awaiting us, always ready to be given. 
 God is only " waiting to be gracious," but He gives His blessings 
 through certain channels, or according to divinely wise arrange- 
 ments of one kind or another, and loves us too well to adopt any 
 less perfect and admirable means. But in fellowship with His 
 Son, and so witli Himself, He gives all who will accept it, pre- 
 cisely that help and sympathy which we need to secure our 
 righteousness. A being like Jesus of Nazareth, at once the 
 Son of God and Son of Man, the crucified and now glorified 
 Saviour, who feels, on the one hand, the full force of the filial 
 sentiments towards God which we need to feel, and, on the other 
 hand, the profoundest consciousness of the terrible downward 
 tendencies in our earthly nature which it is also most deeply 
 needful for us to possess, is clearly fitted to be "the merciful 
 
186 
 
 and faithful High-Priest," who. "touched by a feeling o our 
 infirmities," is able to succour them that are tempted by the 
 communication of his own spirit. He becomes our righteous- 
 ness so far as we become filled with his filial spirit towards God, 
 filled with his courage, fortitude, self-sacrifice, holiness, and 
 disinterested love, by atonement, communion, sympathy, and 
 identification with him. The Son of God, before his incarnation, 
 could prompt our hearts to that spirit of filial piety which is the 
 essence of his own spiritual being ; but after experiencing the 
 trials and temptations of the world, the flesh, and all the powers 
 of evil, he could not only sympathise with us and comfort us* 
 under those trials, but could awaken and quicken in our hearts 
 with far mightier power all that overcomes and uproots evil, and 
 so lead us on to final victory and perfection. 
 
 In the eternal counsels of God, then, while we are set right, 
 made righteous, so far as God comes unto us and we unto God, 
 since He is the only original Fountain and Source of all righteous- 
 ness, some channel, as it were, has ever been decreed neces- 
 sary for His spirit through which it might flow in upon our 
 souls. His holy Son has always been that medium, but since 
 he was manifested in the flesh, and men have learned to love 
 him and open their hearts to him, they have met God in Christ, 
 and God has there met them, as it was not possible before. In 
 proportion as they have thus dwelt in God, and God in them, 
 they have been " washed, sanctified, justified, in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. vi., II. 
 Hence the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the fulfilment of the 
 promise, is closely connected with the presence and power of the 
 glorified Son of God, as shown by the passages referred to at 
 p. 162. Hence, also, the reason for that solemn conjunction of 
 names in the great commission given by our Lord ere he 
 
 2 Thcss. ii., 16, 17. 
 
1S7 
 
 "ascended on high." Mattli. xxviii., 19. For his prayer was 
 not, could not be offered in vain " that they all may be one ; 
 as thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may he 
 one in us : that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me. 
 And the glory which Thou gavest me I have given them ; that 
 they may be one, even as we are one : I in them, and Thou in 
 me, that they may be made perfect in one ;" made perfect in the 
 Father and Son by the Holy Spirit ; God in Christ, and Christ 
 in us, filling us with the spirit of holiness and love, with the 
 spirit of sonship and the life of God. 
 
 Let us also here observe the bearing of this principle of asso- 
 ciation with a righteous Saviour upon those elements in justifica- 
 tion which have already been adverted to in connection with the 
 subject of intercessory prayer, and which consists in God's for- 
 \g or acquitting us. For is it not most natural that we should 
 be more inclined to pardon and bless one who has trespassed against 
 us, because he is nearly related and very dear to one whom we 
 love wholly, who has ever been true and faithful to us ? Would 
 not God be more willing, more desirous to justify us if we were 
 closely identified with His beloved Son, in whom He is always 
 well pleased ? 
 
 And again., with regard to what has been said respecting our 
 being justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, there is 
 evidently a great deal of truth in the remarks of an eloquent 
 writer which will be found in the Appendix.* According to this 
 view we arc justified by the righteousness of Christ in the sense 
 of having our place in creation vindicated, and our existence 
 made well -pleasing in the sight of our Creator, by our relation 
 to the perfect holiness, obedience, and goodness of His Son. 
 He looks not merely at what we are. That is a sight too often 
 anything but well pleasing to Him. But He looks also to what 
 Ave are to become in Christ, and is satisfied. 
 
 * Robertson on the Corinthians, pp. 401-3. See Appendix C. 
 
188 
 
 Independently, however, of this view, there is another sense in 
 which we are justified through our relationship to Christ, and 
 which will be referred to in connection with the subject of for- 
 giveness of sins. I mean Christ's relation to us as our federal 
 head. As I said above, God has prepared us to understand 
 something of the meaning and power of this bond of union by- 
 various analogies. The head of a tribe or clan, of a family or 
 nation, acts for those over whom he has been set, with whom he 
 is thus responsibly connected. If a tribe had revolted from its 
 lawful sovereign (to take the case before supposed), and the head 
 of it makes submission, every member thereof who does not 
 stand aloof in sullen hatred, or continue in active rebellion, is 
 considered to be included in that act of submission, and in the 
 acquittal or justification which follows. So far as we choose to 
 identify ourselves with Christ, we are cleared from past guilt by 
 that act of confession and submission in which we humbly and 
 penitently share, even as the Jew was received into divine favour 
 again, and acquitted of guilt, when he had penitently slain his 
 sin-offering,* and made confession and submission thereby. 
 
 And thus, in a great variety of points of view, the sacrifice of 
 the Son of God is brought before us as the source of immeasur- 
 able blessings to man, and the whole race with which he is 
 identified are seen to be benefitted in a degree strictly infinite 
 by his righteousness, — by his sacrifice of himself, and of his life, 
 to God. 
 
 Sanctification is a word frequently applied in the New 
 Testament to the condition of Christian believers. In its original 
 signification it simply means "setting apart to God," and is 
 equivalent to " consecration." But it is more frequently used in 
 the apostolic writings to express the results of this consecration 
 to God, the holy condition of soul and body to which the ayioi or 
 
 * See Chap. XVIII. 
 
189 
 
 saints have attained, — the purification of the will and the affec- 
 tions, the cleansed heart, the quickened conscience, the new and 
 holy life and being of the whole man after he has been redeemed 
 from bondage to the senses and the world. Sanctification is the 
 consequence of living to God instead of to idols, — the result of 
 our abiding in Christ and Christ in us. But all this is precisely 
 what was described in chapter vi. as the work of God's Holy 
 Spirit — the effect of that spirit flowing in upon our souls, not 
 overwhelming our free-will, not uprooting our whole nature 
 and substituting one totally different, but unfolding, quickening, 
 our original nature, stimulating into noble and righteous activity 
 our conscience, affections, reason, and especially our will. 
 
 It cannot be urged too frequently, or too forcibly, that the 
 greatest and only lasting blessedness we can receive, the essen- 
 tial condition of all other good is that we ourselves should become 
 righteous, as well as be accounted righteous, that our wills should, 
 co-operate with the Spirit of God, that we should become holy, 
 pure, humble, loving. But our great mistake has too often been 
 the supposing that these qualities can be developed in us by and 
 from ourselves, as if we could be the root of our own righteous- 
 ness ; whereas, the Scriptures teach us no less decisively than 
 Christian experience, that these can only be unfolded from "Christ 
 in us." In proportion as he dwells in us, and is identified with 
 us, we become holy and devout, strong, loving, brave, and 
 humble. But then there must be a corresponding action on our 
 part; first, a willingness to receive him, and then an effort of will 
 to co-operate with him. He imparts the desire and disposition 
 to obey, by coming into spiritual union with our spirit; but un- 
 less we give ourselves up to his influence, and at the same time 
 by our free-will exert ourselves to do and to be what is right, 
 we cannot be righteous. " God worketh in us to will and to 
 do of His good pleasure" (Philipp. ii., 12, 13), but we are 
 " to work out our own salvation." " My sheep hear my voice, 
 and I know them, and they follow me : And I give unto them 
 
190 
 
 eternal life; and they shall never perish; neither shall any man 
 pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, 
 is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my 
 Father's hand. I and my Father are one." John x., 27-30. 
 
 Let it, then, be agreed that we are in our natural, righteous, 
 legitimate state when Christ abides in us and we in him— that 
 we are in an unnatural, abnormal, fallen condition when we are 
 separated from him. Baptism is the ordinance which we are 
 bidden to use as the sign of our voluntarily accepting this union 
 which is offered to all men, a union as of the branch with the 
 vine, of the limbs with the head, of subjects with their king. 
 The Lord's Supper is the sign of our continuing in that union, 
 receiving its benefits, and performing its obligations. Justifica- 
 tion is the mode or process by which we are restored to our 
 right condition ; atoned with God. Regeneration and sancti- 
 fication are the result. 
 
 And let us observe clearly at the same time that the being in 
 this righteous state is by no means the same as being in a per- 
 fect state. It simply implies that our affections, conscience, 
 will, are all cleansed, made healtlry, that we are set in a right 
 direction, turned toivards God and goodness, instead of away 
 from Him — that we are beginning a new life. It means that 
 we are starting or walking in the right vjay — that we have the 
 free, healthy, natural use of all our powers, and a tendency to use 
 them rightly, "not as if we had already attained, or were already 
 perfect." Philipp. iii., 12. All that can be understood by the 
 analogies of growth, of scholastic education, and especially of 
 perseverance in an arduous ascent or a dangerous journey, must 
 be applied to what still lies before the Christian who has been 
 justified by faith in Christ, and born again of the spirit. His 
 life in Christ has commenced; but whether it shall for the future 
 be healthy in its holiness and love, or diseased by the inroads of 
 selfishness and sin, whether it shall be prolonged for everlasting 
 ages, or go down to the second death, depends upon the will of 
 
191 
 
 him who is thus born into the spiritual life. It is not the will 
 of his Heavenly Father that one of these new-born souls should 
 perish. Matthew xviii., 14. But while our Father gives us 
 life, while He gives all needful means to cherish it, doing 
 abundantly for us, far more than we can ask or think, both in 
 answer to prayer and without waiting to be asked, He does not 
 take from us that freedom without which we should have no 
 spiritual life, but become simply machines. 
 
 The need and the mode, then, of this new life, which is thus 
 bestowed upon us, will explain the meaning of those solemn 
 declarations of our Lord's, that " except a ma?i be born again " 
 he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. John iii., 3, 5. 
 Man's first birth simply ushers him into this world of material 
 and perishable things, gives him the animal life which is fitted 
 for the use and enjoyment of "the things that are seen," makes 
 him a member of the family of his parents and of the com- 
 munity of mankind. But the second birth, that birth which 
 comes " not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
 of God" by the power of His Spirit, introduces us into the 
 spiritual world* of "the things that are unseen and eternal," 
 fits us to lay hold upon and enjoy, to live and grow by spiritual 
 realities, makes us children of God, and members, therefore, of 
 His family, enables us to rejoice in the fellowship and love of 
 spiritual beings ; in a word, gives us that spiritual " eternal" life 
 which is above the range of Time, and Sense, and Death. 
 
 Much needless controversy has taken place on the question 
 whether this new birth is a sudden or a gradual change. 
 Evidently such a question lies beyond our ken. Well did the 
 ancient fathers say " Explain to us the first birth, and we will 
 explain to you the second." All that we can say is that like 
 every other change there must be a point of commencement ; 
 but like every other change also which is the commencement of 
 
 * See three admirable sercuons by Dr. Arnold on " Regeneration. " 
 
192 
 
 life and growth, of course it is not at once concluded in the 
 moment when it is begun. The difficulty has, perhaps, arisen 
 from confounding the words regeneration and conversion. The 
 first should undoubtedly be applied only to that new birth of 
 which our Lord speaks to Nicodemus, and which, according to 
 the physical analogy, must certainly mean the starting-point of 
 the new and spiritual existence then first entered upon ; while 
 conversion is the gradual results of the work of God's spirit in 
 " turning " our hearts wholly to God. 
 
 But while we thus receive the gift of a new and higher life, 
 and become " new creatures in Christ Jesus " (2 Cor. v., 17), 
 it is no less important to remark the stress laid by our Lord and 
 his apostles upon the necessity for our preserving that life by 
 constant communion with Christ. Lessons of the deepest 
 importance lie in such words as these, " I am the bread of life ;" 
 " This is the bread which came down from heaven that a man may 
 eat thereof and not die;" " If any man eat of this bread he shall 
 live for ever." " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
 drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my 
 flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." "He that 
 eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in 
 him, as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, 
 so he that eateth me shall live by me." John vi., 48-57. Well 
 might the Apostle write of the Saviour as " Christ, who is our 
 fife." Col. hi., 4. Comparing the worth and duration of our 
 physical and spiritual existence, it is not difficult to believe that 
 God arranged the whole process by which we support the former, 
 so that, and in order that, we might understand how to preserve 
 the latter. When men believe that as bread sustains the one, so 
 Christ sustains the other, and believe both truths with equal 
 depth of conviction, there is some cbance of their living and 
 growing unto perfection, " unto the measure of the stature of 
 the fulness of Christ." Eph. iv., 13. It is quite true that we 
 
193 
 
 do not understand how our spirit-life is sustained, nor the precise 
 mode in which we can so appropriate the spirit of Christ that it 
 shall become assimilated with our souls, as bread is with our 
 bodies. But here, as often before, we must remember the two- 
 fold action by which our perfection is to be gained — viz., the 
 internal energy of our own wills, and the external influence of 
 the Spirit. These internal energies and external influences are 
 the condition of all life, from the lowest plant to the highest 
 seraph ; and all we are called upon to do is, to give ourselves up 
 to the Saviour, that " the power of Christ may rest upon us " 
 (2 Cor. xii., 9), and to co-operate with him. And I think we 
 can see, " as through a glass darkly," how by meditating on our 
 Saviour's character, words, actions, by loving him and serving 
 him, and continually " looking unto " him, his thoughts, pur- 
 poses, feelings, pass into our souls, and become part of the living 
 tissues of our character, spirit, life. We can also understand 
 how, through want of that nourishment which God has destined 
 for our soul's strength and health, as bread for the body, they 
 may languish, sicken, and finally perish. It would be foreign to 
 my purpose to dwell at greater length here on the nature of 
 spiritual life, or the processes by which it is quickened and pre- 
 served. The main point, and one of very solemn importance, is 
 that except we are nourished by receiving Christ into our souls, 
 we have no life in us (John vi., 53) ; but if we do, day by day, 
 humbly and in faith, eat of this bread, do take him to be our 
 strength and "our life," day by day, we shall find renewed 
 health, strength, and we " shall live for ever." Here, again, we 
 perceive the deep symbolical meaning of the communion of the 
 Lord's Supper, and can understand how powerful a " means of 
 grace " it must be to the humble and believing soul — as well by 
 the nourishment it is meant to bring to our spiritual life, as by 
 " the full and entire oblation " of ourselves to God, to which it 
 is intended to prompt. Jesus Christ is God's answer to man's 
 wants and prayers : — " And this is the record, that God 
 
194 
 
 hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 
 He that hath the Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son 
 of God hath not life." " The Father loveth the Son, and hatk 
 given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son 
 hath everlasting life : and he that believeth not the Son shall not 
 see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." John iii., 35, 36. 
 It is not necessary to prove, however, either by reasoning 
 or Scripture, that Christ meant something when he said, 
 " I am the bread of life ; " nor that he meant he could be to us, 
 if we would receive him, all that these powerful metaphors 
 describe. The blind man need not stand arguing on the river's 
 brink as to whether there be a bridge across it. If one, who he 
 believes can see and may be trusted, assures him that there is, 
 let him try first with one foot and then with the other. The 
 best proof to him of its existence will be that he has safely passed 
 over it. The Christian pilgrim who daily finds Christ to be his 
 righteousness and his life, can wait a few years to understand 
 fully " hoiu these things can be." Therefore he desires all men 
 to find this for themselves also, and asks them to take Christ to 
 their hearts, and steadfastly do their part, never doubting that their 
 Lord, who died for them, will surely do his ; while they never 
 forget that the first beginning of this new and righteous state, 
 the influences which not only are to justify and regenerate, but 
 also to dispose the heart to receive the Spirit, and the will to 
 .co-operate with Christ, must come "from above," whence 
 cometh "every good and perfect gift," even "from the Father 
 of lights " (James i., 17), the God of glory and of love. Self- 
 justification, self-righteousness, as it has been truly said, is 
 utterly false in principle, — the greatest of all contradictions.* 
 As well might we expect to be able to cause our own birth. 
 Both by our Adam-inherited nature and our actual sins, our 
 tendencies and wills have become more or less distorted, crooked 
 
 * Maurice, " Theological Essays," pp. 200-5. 2nd edition. Macmillan. 
 
195 
 
 (pravus). God only can set them right, make them straight. 
 Hence it is written that Christ M was put to death in the flesh" 
 (1 Pet. iii., 18), because " in the flesh dwelleth no good thing * 
 (Rom. vh., 18) ; but he " was justified in the spirit" (1 Tim. iii., 
 16), " quickened in the spirit" (1 Pet. iii., 18), because at 
 his resurrection, even as " in the beginning," he received all 
 righteousness, spiritual life, from the Spirit of God. 
 
 Now all this was done to Christ and for him, as man. There- 
 fore it may be done to and for all men, as men. His resurrection 
 (Bom. i., 4) declared that God accepted him as His well-beloved 
 Son, and at the same time as a perfectly justified and righteous 
 man ; it proclaimed him to be such ; and thereby also proclaimed 
 that all men might and must become righteous children of God 
 by becoming like him, by being nourished with his righteous 
 spirit, quickened hj his filial, divine, and spiritual life. 
 
 Baptism is thus made the sign and seal of this justification, 
 because it is the outward symbol whereby the disciple of Christ 
 submits himself to the operation of God's Spirit on his heart, 
 and at the same time expresses his renunciation of the kingdom 
 of evil. It symbolises the washing away his sins by the Holy 
 Spirit, while he himself declares his allegiance to the kingdom 
 of righteousness, the kingdom of God. Infant baptism is only 
 intelligible when one believes in Original Sin and Baptismal 
 Regeneration. 
 
 And since one of the greatest, if not the greatest work, that 
 has to be done for us, and by us, while we live in this world, is to 
 get a deliverance from selfishness, pride, and self-will, it must 
 be observed how admirably God's mode of justifying us is 
 adapted to make us renounce all pride and selfism, to give up 
 self as the centre of our being, by making us find our true centre 
 as well as our true righteousness, not in ourselves, but out of 
 ourselves, in going beyond our own individual being, and humbly 
 giving ourselves up to God through Christ, surrendering our- 
 selves to Jesus, asking him m all humility to take us and make 
 
196 
 
 us one with himself, that so (see Philipp. iii., 9) " we may be 
 found in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the 
 law [which comes, if it comes at all by obeying the law, and 
 which none of us do or can truly obey], but that which is through 
 the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith," 
 or the righteousness which God requires, and which comes to us 
 by giving ourselves in faith to Christ. This great doctrine is 
 also, of course, set forth by the communion of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 And let it always be borne in mind that God deals with us 
 thus through His beloved Son, because (as remarked in another 
 connection), He Himself is righteous, and therefore desires to 
 see us righteous.* He has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, 
 but infinite pleasure in that sinner's becoming holy and good. 
 
 And let it be especially remembered that this justification and 
 new birth of the Christian disciple is not the destruction of one 
 being and the creation of another. It is simply bringing out, 
 uncovering as it were, the original man formed in the likeness 
 of Christ, but crusted over and deformed by sin ; restoring God's 
 image in the soul, casting out that which is evil, conquering 
 all intruding tyrants, foreign usurpers, and unfolding that which 
 is good, the native and original tendencies towards what is 
 spiritual and divine, f 
 
 The work of Christian atonement and redemption then is 
 strictly a restoration and recovery — a " buying back "J (redimo), 
 
 * God is always spoken of in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, 
 as the source of our righteousness, the original fountain and cause of 
 human excellence, of all that makes right what before was wrong. (Psalms 
 xxiii., 3 ; xxiv., 5 ; xlviii., 10., &c.) 
 
 f This is probably the idea contained in the words of the Apostle, "But 
 when it pleased God .... to reveal His Son in me" (Gal. i., 16). 
 Some have thought it pointed rather to Christ being revealed or preached 
 through the Apostle ' ' among the heathen ; ' ' but he says Christ was ' ' revealed " 
 in him at his first awakening, and this was three years at least before he 
 began to preach to the Gentiles. 
 
 % 1 Cor., vi., 20. The nature of the purchase-money will be adverted to 
 in a subsequent chapter. 
 
197 
 
 a bringing back of man to the society or order for which he was 
 created — to the fellowship or family of God. This is the great 
 argument of the Apostle, as in various places, so in Romans viii., 
 and especially in Gal. hi., 28, 29 ; iv., 1, 8 ; where he speaks 
 of the converts to Christ, whether Jews or Greeks, bond or free, 
 male or female, as children, indeed, of Abraham by faith, and 
 therefore as heirs of the promises made by God to Abraham. 
 But then, as he goes on to say, " The heir so long as he is a 
 child dhrereth nothing from a servant (8ov\os), though he be 
 Lord of all ; but is under tutors and governors until the time 
 appointed by the Father," when he is to be out of his minority 
 and recognised, formally received as a son. Gal. iv., 1, 2. 
 Even so Jews and Gentiles had hitherto been in the state of 
 servants, but were now being received into the condition of son- 
 ship (not i{ adopted " as if they were only sons by a legal fiction), 
 but recognised as sons (vio-^ecria), and had received the spirit of 
 His Son which would lead them to call on God no longer 
 merely as Lord and King, but as — " Abba, Father." 
 
 We understand, then, how from the creation of the world, but 
 especially since the resurrection and glorification of Christ, God 
 has been not only revealing and establishing on earth tliis 
 spiritual kingdom or order, society, family of heaven, but 
 bringing men into it so far as they would yield to His " drawing" 
 — causing them to be born anew into the kingdom of Heaven, a 
 kingdom of grace and glory, of righteousness and peace, whereof 
 He has made His Son the Head and King, and into which He 
 welcomes all who will pass through the baptism of repentance, 
 and give themselves to Christ in faith. When they pass from 
 "the condemned cell," in which all are naturally "shut up 
 under sin" (Gal. hi., 22), into this kingdom of "righteousness, 
 peace and joy," they are said to be justified. Hence it is 
 to be observed that God reveals Himself in the New Tes- 
 tament, not merely as a King, but pre-eminently as a Father. 
 His kingdom is a family, the society of which Christ is the 
 
198 
 
 head, and which "is named" of him, is "the whole family in 
 heaven and earth" (Ephes. hi., 15), of all who are in Christ 
 Jesus. For "he is not ashamed to call ns brethren." Hob. 
 ii., 11. Those who are born again of God's Holy Spirit thus 
 become His children, members of this great family ; " and if 
 children, then heirs ; heirs of God, joint-heirs of Christ" (Rom. 
 viii., 17), and both in present possession and in eternal reversion 
 they receive the atonement of their souls with God in Christ, 
 and know that nothing " can separate them from the love of 
 God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. viii., 39. Now, 
 to realise the existence of this spiritual kingdom and family, to 
 dwell in it, and therefore to be obedient, trustful, loving sub- 
 jects, children of God, — therefore one with Him and His 
 well-beloved Son, — is not this just the highest purpose of life ? 
 If one of the greatest works we have to do i3 to get freed from 
 selfishness, next in importance is learning to realise "tilings 
 unseen," to trust in an Unseen God and Saviour, to live a 
 spiritual life amid all the things of time and sense. And 
 if this be so, can we not discern again, from another point, 
 of view, the infinite wisdom and meaning of Christ's " death in 
 the flesh," that he might be " quickened in the spirit," — of his 
 going away from his disciples bodily, that he might come near 
 to them spiritually ? From the call of Abraham to the ascension 
 of Christ, we see the same grand purpose of God to lift us 
 above the pressure and the dominion of " the tilings that are 
 seen," into the region of spirit-life and spiritual realities. All 
 the training of the Jews was beautifully adapted to enable 
 them "to endure as seeing Him who is invisible" (Heb. xi., 
 27), to realise and trust in the Unseen God and the Unseen 
 World, which were nearer to them and far more real than 
 all the shadow}-, fleeting phenomena by which human beings 
 are surrounded and enslaved. In pursuance of the same 
 great plan, the Saviour of the world abode not long on earth in 
 visible form, but was soon withdrawn from the bodily sight of 
 
199 
 
 men into the spirit- world. " It is expedient for you that I go 
 away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto 
 you ; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." John xvi., 7. 
 Into that spiritual world all his disciples are to rise now, and 
 dwell with him by faith and love, even while still in the body, 
 entering into those spiritual and blessed relations with him to 
 which he invites us, and of which we have these dim shadowy 
 types on earth. Therefore we are " buried with him by baptism 
 into death ; that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
 glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
 life " (Eom. vi., 4 ; Coloss. ii., 12) — " that if we be risen with 
 Christ, we may seek those things which are above" .... 
 setting oiu* " affection on things above, not on things of the 
 earth. For we have died,* and our life is hid with Christ in 
 God." Col. hi., 1-3. Like the holy Apostle we may say, "we 
 are crucified with Christ ; nevertheless we live ; yet not we, but 
 Christ liveth in us ; and the life which we now live in the flesh, 
 we live by the faith (we have) in the Son of God, who loved us 
 and gave himself for us." Gal. ii., 20. This is the perpetual 
 burthen of the Apostle's teaching, and it becomes filled with a 
 divine meaning to all men, when they see how it explains why 
 we have an Unseen Saviour, reigning in his Father's name on 
 the right hand of God, one who, because he laid down his earthly 
 life and power, is exalted " far above all principality, and power, 
 and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in 
 that which is to come" (Eph. i., 21), and hath all power given to 
 him both in heaven and on earth, and therefore is able " now to 
 save unto the uttermost all that come unto God through him " 
 (Heb. vii., 25), even " according to his working, whereby he is 
 able to subdue all things unto himself" (Philipp. iii. 21), " for he 
 must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet " (1 Cor. 
 xv., 25), because "he humbled himself unto death, even the 
 death of the cross." Philipp. ii., 8. 
 
 * Second aorist ; not " are dead." 
 
200 
 
 This, then, appears to be the main element in Scripture teach- 
 ing on these great subjects, and it may be summed up thus : — 
 We are pardoned, justified, regenerated, sanctified by the death, 
 resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, " delivered 
 from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of 
 God's dear Son," " cleansed from all sin," " made meet to be 
 partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light" (Col. i., 
 12, 13), " washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (1 Cor. vi., 11), because 
 through Christ's having wholly identified himself with mankind, 
 having then " overcome the world," and risen into the spiritual 
 life, having conquered the powers of evil, and been exalted to 
 his Father's throne at the right hand of God, he is able to 
 receive into spiritual union with himself all who come to him in 
 penitence and faith, filling them with his own divine life, the 
 life of God. This union of our spirit with his, and the con- 
 sequent reception of his holy spirit and life, gives us a new and 
 higher life, makes us holy and righteous, justifies us, so far as 
 tlxis can be done for us by external* influence. Especially let it 
 be observed that this justification, regeneration, and sanctifica- 
 tion, docs that which we cannot do for ourselves, — purifying, 
 cleansing our hearts, rectifying our motives and our will, taking 
 us out of ourselves into a divine life and a heavenly being. 
 
 In concluding these imperfect glances at the great subject of 
 justification and sanctification, let it finally be remarked, as a 
 fact of the highest significance, that St. Paul continually speaks 
 of our being justified by faith. The reason of this is evident 
 when we consider, in the first place, that it is only by faith 
 we can now realise Christ's presence in our hearts so as to 
 feel the influences of his spirit. Faith is the power by which 
 beings and "things unseen" become realities to us. We cannot 
 behold our Saviour with the bodily eye, or apprehend his presence 
 
 '* Meaning by this word anything not the result of our own will. 
 
201 
 
 by any of the senses. But faith is the power given to us by 
 winch we can come into spiritual relations with spiritual beings, 
 into contact with spiritual realities. To " live by faith " is just 
 the opposite of sensuality ; it is to be free from the dominion of 
 the senses, and the tyranny of "the things that are seen and 
 temporal." Especially it is to be free from the terrible sin of 
 idolatry. " The just shall live by faith" — i.e., the man who is 
 more or less living a righteous life, and who is in a righteous 
 state, who is at least tending towards that which is right, desiring 
 and striving after it, is and does all this by resisting the 
 temptations around and within to bow down to and worship the 
 visible things around him. Such a man worships and serves an 
 Unseen God, believes that He is, and that He is the Rewarder of 
 them that diligently seek Him. Heb. xi., 6. In like manner 
 the Christian also believes in a Saviour, " whom not having seen 
 he loves ; in whom, though now he sees him not, yet believing, 
 he rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory, receiving the 
 end* of his faith, even the salvation of his soul." 1 Peter i., 
 8, 9. '-'Blessed are they who have not seen me, and yet have 
 believed." John xx., 29. 
 
 But, in the second place, it must be remembered that faith is 
 not only an intellectual power, but a moral affection. It is a 
 feeling of trust, an act of affiance, loyalty, self-surrender to 
 another. It is through faith that we open the door of our heart, 
 of our whole sphere of being, so that the Saviour can come in 
 and do his glorious mission in us and upon us. He does not 
 break open the portals. " Behold, I stand at the door, and knock : 
 if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to 
 him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Like the Lord 
 God, our Redeemer respects man's free-will, never forces it; 
 and of one unhappy city even we read that while he was on earth 
 "he could there do no mighty works because of their unbelief." 
 Mark vi., 5 ; Matt, xiii., 5S.f 
 
 * reAos, the completion or perfecting, not (TK07TOS, the aim or object, 
 f See p. 165. 
 
202 
 
 Now, in both these senses of the word, — viewed as an intel- 
 lectual realisation, and as a loyal self- surrender, — it is evident 
 that we can only be justified (according to the explanation of 
 the word given above) by faith. It is this which is needed to 
 bring us into union with Christ, and this which is equally needed 
 to make us give ourselves up to his influence. Faith brings us 
 to the Saviour, and places us in his hands, so that we may by him 
 be made righteous and set right, be redeemed from the burden 
 of a guilty conscience, and be made to rejoice in the glorious 
 liberty of the children of God. 
 
 On the other hand, it is not difficult to see in what sense 
 Ave are justified by works ; for we have already seen that a man's 
 own will must co-operate with the influence of God's spirit on 
 his soul. And what are a man's works, except his will taking 
 effect in some outward result — outward, that is, ^as far as the 
 man himself is concerned. For the silent efforts of will by 
 which hidden victories are won in the depths of the soul, noticed 
 by the Lord of our hearts alone, are as unquestionably " works/* 
 in the theological sense, as any act of almsgiving or of theft, any 
 deed of sin, or piety or love. And thus we see how a man 
 cannot be justified by faith alone. His will must co-operate; 
 and if it do, it must necessarily take effect in some actual result, 
 else it will be no true effort of will. The man's good works, 
 his efforts to obey God and conscience, are necessary to keep 
 him in the righteous state to which God's spirit has brought 
 him. "Little children, let no man deceive you ; he that doeth 
 righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." It is no- 
 use being set on the right path, and turned in the right direc- 
 tion, unless we try to walk therein. Righteousness, sanctification,. 
 perfection, can only be found where the man walks in the right 
 way himself, not where he is carried passively along. "Would 
 Abraham, after he had been unspeakably privileged and blessed 
 by being separated from idolaters, and being brought to God, so 
 that through his faith he was set right, and made righteous, — 
 
2(X 
 
 would he have been a just or justified man, would he have 
 continued to be a righteous man, a man whose face was turned 
 in the right direction, and his feet walking in the right path, if 
 he had refused to do what God asked of him ? His own works, 
 aided of course by the Spirit of God, kept him righteous, kept 
 him in the right way. Hence, we naturally ask, if the tree is 
 good must it not bring forth good fruit ? Will not n. man who 
 has true faith, necessarily show it by his right actions ? And 
 then these right actions in turn react upon a right faith, 
 strengthening it, proving by experience the solid grounds on 
 which it rests, enabling it both to realise more vividly, and to 
 trust more unreservedly? "Was not Abraham our father 
 justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the 
 altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by 
 works was faith made perfect ?" 
 
 Let the blind man fearlessly trust the bridge that God has 
 offered him, and as he walks by faith his works will justify 
 him and his faith together. 
 
CHAP. XVI.— THE REASON OF THE SUFFERINGS 
 OF CHRIST. 
 
 Seeing, then, that the Son of God came into this world that he 
 might become wholly one with us — thereby making us righteous 
 like himself — that he might establish his Father's kingdom over 
 us, making us wholly subject to, and therefore wholly one with, 
 God, in holiness and joy, in life and power, it is not to be won- 
 dered at that men should feel shocked, even appalled, when they 
 discover, or reflect upon, the awful circumstances that attended 
 the Saviour's death on earth. Why should he even have 
 died at all ? Why should he not have passed in due time from 
 this lower state to the higher, by a divine transfiguration of his 
 earthly body into a heavenly one, and have then ascended to the 
 right hand of God, whence he could have exerted on men's souls 
 that saving spiritual influence spoken of in the last chapter as 
 needful for our redemption, and have drawn unto himself all who 
 then received him in faith. Would not this peaceful withdrawal 
 from the world of the promised Messiah, after he had reigned 
 on earth during a limited period, have answered all the required 
 purposes ? The first Covenant would have been fulfilled. All 
 the descendants of Abraham would have had the offer of an 
 entrance into his kingdom. That kingdom would have be«n 
 established for a time on earth, and then, as the Saviour re- 
 ascended to the heavenly and spiritual life, it would have been 
 transfigured, like him, into a spiritual and heavenly form. It 
 would have been developed into a spiritual society, requiring, 
 thenceforth, only spiritual qualifications for 'membership ; and 
 Jesus could have come in the spirit to the hearts of all who would 
 receive him, justifying, regenerating-, sanctifying them, according 
 
205 
 
 to the views given in the foregoing chapter. At all events, why 
 would not this " lifting up" (John xii., 32), in celestial peace* 
 have sufficed to " draw all men unto him," without the shame, 
 and sin, and agony of the cross ? 
 
 Because " sin had entered into the world." Men's sins stood 
 in the way of what would otherwise have been the simple, natural 
 developement of Christ's mission for bringing all men to union 
 with God. "He was delivered on account of our offences." 
 Eom. iv., 25. 
 
 But why should men's sins have involved or required the 
 violent death and awful sufferings of the Son of God ? The 
 answers given, alike by Scripture and reason, appear to be these : 
 
 I. By coming into our world, and identifying himself with 
 us, — taking upon himself all our earthly conditions of being, our 
 Lord came under the operation of all the laws that govern our 
 mortal state. Among those law3 we find that, " If one member 
 suffer, all the members suffer with it." 1 Cor. xii., 26. He 
 who becomes one with -a suffering body must suffer also. But 
 another, no less solemn, is that Suffering shall follow Sin, — 
 suffering, not only to the guilty, but to all who unite and identify 
 themselves with the guilty (severe in proportion to the closeness 
 of the relationship, and the greatness of the sin) — to all who, 
 from any cause, are more or less directly related to those who 
 commit sin. This divine law, while it declares how irrevocably 
 God has linked suffering with sin, also reveals to us how inti- 
 mately human beings are connected together, — shows us how the 
 innocent must suffer for, on account of, and with the guilty, — 
 speaks to them of a fellowship wherein they are bound, for good 
 or for evil. Hence the fact that the character, happiness, and 
 conduct of all are wonderfully affected by the conduct, happiness, 
 and character of each. Consider how deeply a parent suffers in 
 the sin or suffering of his child ; how husband and wife must 
 suffer for and with each other. A very solemn law. Certainly 
 
206 
 
 it was not suspended in the case of the Son of God when lie came 
 into our sinful, suffering world. On the contrary, it was never 
 so clearly and awfully proclaimed. The divine hatred of sin 
 which that law manifests, the terrible wrath of God against all 
 unrighteousness, was preached in piercing tones from the 
 darkened mount of Calvary ; and since neither the spotless inno- 
 cence, nor the illustrious dignity of the divine sufferer could 
 save God's beloved Son from its operation, truly that law was 
 vindicated, magnified, honoured, as it could only be by such a 
 fearful scene. 
 
 Let us, however, be very careful not to confound suffering with 
 punishment. God permits the innocent to suffer with the guilty. 
 But He never confounds them together. The light in which 
 He regards their respective sufferings, the purpose for which He 
 permits or inflicts it, is in many respects totally different. 
 
 Every unsophisticated conscience confesses that punishment 
 is rightly inflicted on sin — even the sinner feels this, if he does 
 not acknowledge it. This consciousness may be confused or 
 obliterated, like the sense of right and wrong. But it increases 
 in depth and clearness in proportion as the character grows in 
 holiness and worth. Perhaps the word " retribution" best ex- 
 presses what we feel to be the proper characteristic of penal 
 suffering. But the suffering which a guilty person brings upon 
 others is often the severest part of his own punishment. It acts, 
 not only as retribution for sin, but also like other punishment as 
 deterring from the commission of sin. 
 
 Suffering follows upon ignorance and error, but it should not 
 be spoken of as penal or retributive, except by a figure of speech. 
 It is entirely educational. 
 
 The suffering which falls upon the innocent through the sins 
 of others is to be viewed as ennobling, unfolding, and perfecting 
 in its object and tendency, like many other pains and sorrows 
 which do not arise from either ignorance or sin, as far as we arc 
 aware, but which are needed for unfolding the various moral 
 
207 
 
 qualities of faith, patience, fortitude, piety, self-sacrifice, moral 
 power, and disinterested love. This suffering, I said, is elevating, 
 developing, perfecting in its purpose and results. Penal suffer- 
 ing includes both the two ideas last named, but these do not 
 include the other. 
 
 Our divine Lord, then, having identified himself in their 
 earthly condition with that race of which he was the Head and 
 Pattern, as to their spiritual nature, and having thereby come 
 under the operation of all the laws that affect their state, suffered 
 in consequence from the sins of men, even as a man or woman, 
 by identifying themselves with each other in the holy bond of 
 matrimony, suffer from each other's sins. But inasmuch as this 
 identification was far greater in the case of our Lord, because 
 he not only united himself by a spiritual fellowship with man, 
 but became "a partaker of flesh and blood," his sufferings would 
 be proportionately great, for he was thus, to a certain extent, 
 separating himself from God, entering into that condition wherein 
 the flesh and the world raise great barriers between the soul and 
 God, shutting out "the things that are unseen," the glorious 
 realities of the spiritual world, by the dull, dark pressure of the 
 things that are seen, — drear and gloomy as even the brightest 
 of earth's scenes and its fairest visions would appear to one who 
 had beforetime breathed the air of heaven, and dwelt in the sun- 
 shine of the immediate presence of God. Hence those occasional 
 indications in the Gospel histories of our Lord's sense of isola- 
 tion, of his deep sadness and infinite longing for that more 
 intimate and blessed union with his Heavenly Father which he 
 once enjoyed — and hence, I believe, especially the dread agony 
 of Gethsemane, and the appalling cry upon the cross, "My God, 
 my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ? " On this supposition 
 alone, it seems to me, can we understand that agony, which 
 would indeed (as it has been often urged) be inexplicable had 
 he been an ordinary mortal like Peter or Paul, looking forward 
 simply to a martyr's death by crucifixion. Equal or greater 
 
208 
 
 bodily suffering has surely been often fronted with calm serenity, 
 and it cannot for a moment be supposed that such a man as 
 Jesus of Nazareth would have had less fortitude in en- 
 countering suffering, shame, and death, than those whom he 
 summoned to bear his cross, or even than some of the nobler 
 heathen patriots. 
 
 No, the sufferings of our beloved Lord must have been such 
 — not in their kind, but in their degree — as no ordinary human 
 being has ever known, or could ever know, such as could be felt 
 only by one who had dwelt in God, and God in him, before his 
 partial separation from his Heavenly Father, by partaking of 
 human existence in flesh and blood on "this dim spot called 
 earth." But inasmuch as he was himself " without sin," those 
 sufferings, of course, must not for an instant be viewed as penal 
 or retributory. Strange, indeed, would it be, if we were to 
 imagine that he who was absolutely without sin, the only being 
 that ever walked this earth of whom that could be said, had been 
 especially marked out as the object of punishment, or even per- 
 mitted to endure punishment at all. Stranger still if we were 
 to suppose that at the very moment when he was manifesting 
 the holiest, clivinest spirit of self-sacrificing love, lie should have 
 been selected by his Heavenly Father as a fitting object of penal 
 suffering. To suppose such a shocking violation of the eternal 
 laws concerning holiness, suffering, and sin, is to outrage the 
 deepest and most solemn instincts of our moral nature, and per- 
 vert the essential meaning of words relating to the holiest and 
 most awful subjects. 
 
 II. But, then, were our blessed Lord's sorrows educational, or 
 disciplinary ? Were they endured only for his own sake, or for 
 ours ? "We have seen that they were a necessary result of a 
 great law ; but what was their value and influence as regarded 
 both himself and mankind ? How did they affect human salva- 
 tion? If they were necessary for our salvation, was there 
 
209 
 
 anything that made them so, independently of the law just 
 alluded to ? If they were necessary for his own perfection, 
 why and how? 
 
 Had there been no sin in the world, no unwillingness to love 
 and worship God, no animal tendencies, no self-will in man's 
 heart, the Son of God (as I observed in speaking of "Sacrifice") 
 would have had only a peaceful and blessed work to do as far as 
 man is concerned, — only to reveal the Father in His perfect 
 holiness and love, to reveal himself in his devout and filial 
 piety, to breathe into them his own life and spirit, and the 
 spirit and life of God, first by dwelling with them in the flesh, 
 and then abiding with them in the spirit. Then all men would 
 at once have gladly hastened to offer themselves to God in 
 loving filial sacrifice. They would have welcomed, — oh, how 
 joyfully, — the blessings thus proffered to them by Christ ; and 
 the kingdoms of this world would have become the kingdoms of 
 Jehovah and His Son. 
 
 Then the full force of his divine character and example would 
 have been felt at once — all men would have striven to acquire 
 the one and follow the other. 
 
 We are not to suppose that even in this case nothing more 
 would have been required than Christ's appearance on earth. 
 We must never forget that twofold action of external influences 
 and internal energy needful for the salvation of man. All 
 human effort to follow the example of our Lord, to obey the 
 moral law of the heathen, the ten commandments of the Hebrew, 
 or the precepts given in the sermon on the Mount, are utterly in 
 vain unless we also receive help from God, have His Divine Word 
 and Spirit working in our hearts, and receive His Son by faith 
 into our souls, that he may be a light and a strength to bring us 
 to righteousness. Great, indeed, ought to have been the benefit 
 and power of such a manifestation of perfect holiness, of Divine 
 and human excellence, as was made in Palestine 1,800 years 
 ago ; but it would have availed little had it not been followed 
 L 
 
210 
 
 by a far mightier and more spiritual influence, which has led 
 millions to bow themselves in humility as subjects of the Deli- 
 verer and King whom God had sent to rule over them, and made 
 them give themselves up in loving faith to his influence. 
 
 "We see the need of this higher influence exemplified in the 
 case of the Apostles. They had the amplest opportunities of 
 receiving all the benefit that could be derived from daily 
 witnessing the example and character of Christ, yet how slight 
 the influence thereby produced before his Ascension, upon their 
 hearts. Yet they loved and honoured him profoundly. How 
 much more inefficacious, then, must have been his manifestation 
 (as we see it was) for the regeneration of those who felt no 
 sympathy with or admiration for him — sometimes only intense 
 antipathy and fear. It is quite true that the incarnation of the 
 Son of God did reveal to men that gracious and holy being in 
 loving and obeying whom they would find, and only so, their 
 true and perfect atonement with God; but it is also evident that 
 very few could at all appreciate the meaning and feel the force 
 of this revelation, — that even these few required a deeper and 
 more spiritual influence before they could really become renewed 
 in the likeness of the Son of God, could wholly surrender them- 
 selves and their wills to his power and authority. If atonement 
 with God can only come through union with Christ, and that 
 union can be accomplished only when the human heart and 
 will go freely forth, with penitent humility, in obedient self- 
 consecration to Christ and so to God, in answer to the drawing 
 of their Spirit, it is evident that something more was needed 
 than that the Son of God should show himself to man in the 
 divine and lovely character, in the God-like power, which the 
 Gospel records so faithfully pourtray. 
 
 What was it, then, that was needed? He has himself 
 answered the question : — " And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all 
 men unto me." John xii., 32. 
 
 As the first reason for the sufferings of Christ was found in 
 
211 
 
 the great law that all sin brings suffering, not only to the sinner, 
 but to those also who love him and unite themselves with him, 
 so the second is learnt from observing the operation of another 
 of God's moral laws — viz., that he who would confer benefits on 
 others must, in some way and to some extent, more or less — 
 even where no sin exists nor has existed — make sacrifices himself. 
 He must give up something, deny himself, renounce, — if he 
 would gain the privilege of serving and blessing others. This 
 is true even as to the inferior animals — nay, as to the whole 
 animate and inanimate creation. Every creature and tiling that 
 ministers to the wants of other things and creatures, does so at 
 some cost, more or less, to itself. But as it has been truly observed, 
 in general they do it unconsciously or unwillingly, except in the 
 parental, and sometimes the conjugal relations of animals j and 
 such ministrations, therefore, cannot bring with them that bles- 
 sedness which waits upon voluntary self-denial or self-sacrifice 
 for the good of others. But the law is manifest enough ; and 
 he who, " though rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we 
 through his poverty might be rich" (2 Cor. viii., 9), he who 
 left his home in heaven that he might save his brethren on earth, 
 illustrated and magnified that sublime law more wonderfully 
 than it had ever been before or since his appearance in this world. 
 Even as it is divinely true that sacrifice lies at the very founda- 
 tion of the moral being even of God Himself, and is manifestly, 
 also, the root of all piety towards God, so we find it the radical 
 principle of all beneficence, whether on the part of God or of 
 His creatures. The Creator must have been giving forth from 
 Himself life and power, light and joy, beauty and harmony, from 
 all eternity. "But when He spared not His own Son, but 
 delivered him up for us all" (Rom. viii., 32), He revealed this 
 glorious law of His own being, and of the universe, in a form as 
 luminous and decisive as it was unspeakably sublime. 
 
 And we know that the sacrifice needful for thus blessing others 
 is abundantly blessed to him who makes it ; — we know it is 
 
212 
 
 divinely true, in all cases, that " it is more blessed to give than 
 to receive." Herein is the infinite love of God manifested ; — 
 first, in providing for the deliverance from selfishness of every 
 free moral being who will accept and conform himself to the law 
 of sacrifice, which is the law of love ; who will yield to the 
 impulses which prompt him to do good to others, and thereby 
 receive the greatest of all good himself by being called out of 
 himself, being led to deny himself, and give up for the sake of 
 others: secondly, by the deep joy and blessedness, the abundant 
 fulness of riches, which flow in upon him as the consequence of 
 such self-sacrifice. 
 
 III. But a sadder feature of this principle must now be dwelt 
 upon. When sin has been at work, he who would deliver its 
 victims and slaves from their smferings and bondage, must not 
 only give up something of his own possessions, but endure 
 suffering as well. Not simply because he has to approach the 
 sinner, to enter his sphere, and so to come under the operation 
 of the law spoken of above. But — in the case of our Saviour — 
 
 1st. Because he had not only to draw near to men, but to win 
 them to draw nigh to him. Their salvation, as we have seen, 
 was to arise from union with him, and so with God ; yet there 
 can be no true spiritual union, except both parties freely seek it. 
 But how could beings sunk in superstition, ignorance, and sin of 
 various kinds, be brought to desire this spiritual oneness with the 
 perfect Son of God? They could not appreciate the holy 
 beauty and divine excellence of his nature and character. He 
 must win their trust and affections in some other way, — that is, 
 by helping and blessing them. Generally, we must in some way 
 do people good, before they will trust and love us ; and, more- 
 over, we must do them good in a way which they can understand, 
 before they will let us do them good in a way which they cannot 
 understand. The latter may be infinitely the higher and greater 
 good ; but if those whom we would serve do not know this, or 
 
213 
 
 do not value the proposed benefit, — and if the benefit itself 
 depends upon their freely accepting it — or, at all events, upon a 
 certain willingDess to receive it — as in the case of spiritual 
 blessings, it is evident that we must first gain their confidence 
 and regard by some other kind of service. It was not only 
 needful that Christ should freely give, but that men should be 
 willing to receive his spiritual influence. Hence our Saviour 
 did not stand apart from the sorrows and diseases of humanity, 
 but " himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses " 
 (Isaiah liii., 4; Matth. viii., 17; 1 Pet. ii., 24); he entered 
 into the full knowledge of, and sympathy with, mortal trials, 
 that he might heal and remove them. But all this know- 
 ledge, and especially this deep sympathy, would cause great 
 suffering to a spirit so loving and sensitive, as that of Jesus of 
 Nazareth. He who would contend against powers of evil 
 of any kind must suffer to some extent in the contest. That 
 is a warfare in which no faithful soldier can escape with- 
 out a wound. In proportion to the greatness and blessedness of 
 the victories won over evil will generally be the greatness of the 
 sufferings of him who wins them. This is God's divine law. 
 Yet every occasion on which the Son of God shared the sorrows 
 of his brethren, and at the expense of yet greater suffering to 
 himself sought to relieve them of their heavy burthens, would 
 be a time when he was drawing them to himself by ties of 
 gratitude and love, leading them to give up their hearts and 
 lives to his influence, and knitting those hearts to his in the vital 
 union of ardent affection. Above all, when mankind understood 
 how he had finally been " lifted up " upon the cross for their 
 sakes, that they might be delivered from the power of all evil, 
 and the pollution of all sin, they felt an influence attracting 
 them to the Saviour such as nothing else in the history of the 
 world can parallel. Jew, Greek, and Scythian, Goth, Frank, 
 Saxon, and Northman, rich and poor, male and female, bond and 
 free, in various measure were drawn to the Son of God who 
 
214 
 
 loved them, and gave himself for them ; and amid all the 
 wrangling of Christian theologians, all the sins of Christian 
 disciples, one great common sentiment of admiration and grati- 
 tude has rallied generation after generation round the self- 
 sacrificing Saviour, and so far preserved " a unity of spirit " in 
 the Christian church amid the greatest diversities of doctrine 
 and the saddest corruptions of life. Thus the sufferings of 
 Christ tended to make atonement between himself and man, and 
 so between man and God. 
 
 But, secondly, Jesus would only deliver men from sin through 
 suffering for them, because, as we have seen,* all sin lies in the 
 sinful will. The occasion of temptations to sin are infinitely 
 varied, and arise from our animal nature, our individuality, and 
 many other sources noticed above. Hence the work which he 
 who came " to save us from our sins" had to accomplish was 
 to influence our wills. He came to destroy the root of sin, not 
 to lop off its branches. How was he to do this ? Not merely 
 by punishing men's sins — not by inflicting on them deserved 
 penal retribution. This is necessary in certain stages of man's 
 moral education, — necessary, alas, when all other influences have 
 failed, — in the shape of utter destruction and death. But men 
 are not won to love and freely choose goodness or practise 
 righteousness, especially they cannot be won to love and seiwe 
 God with glad and filial obedience and love, by any amount of 
 mere pain. "We must never forget that, even as no true union 
 of spirits can be effected except by free loving self- surrender, 
 so no free moral agent can be made holy and righteous by 
 compulsion — only when his own will freely chooses that which is 
 right. Hence the true opposite to sin is sacrifice or consecration. 
 The Saviour had to bring men to give themselves in loving, 
 reverent sacrifice, to God — to sacrifice all they had and all 
 they were, especially their wills to God. But men's sins 
 
 * See pp. 130—2. 
 
215 ((UJTIVEESITY 
 
 stand in the way of this peaceful union^Sfe^fiQsi 
 cast out, their Saviour and King. Now, under 
 stances, he could have met evil by force, and subdued his 
 enemies, as they sought to subdue him, by the weapons of this 
 world, or by " fire from heaven." But in that case he would 
 not have been conquering sin, only preventing and punishing 
 the outward manifestation of it. He would not, in reality, even 
 have been overcoming evil — only substituting one evil for 
 another. For all coercion and destruction are in themselves 
 evils, although in certain cases the lesser evil of two. The 
 Almighty had employed them extensively before Jesus was 
 manifested in the flesh, has since and still does employ these 
 agents for the prevention or punishment of wrong-doing. But 
 in the revelation of His beloved Son on earth He adopted a very 
 different mode — " God was then in Christ, reconciling the world 
 unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them " (2 Cor. 
 v., 19), but overlooking " the sins that were past ;" and because 
 " He was rich in mercy, for the great love wherewith He loved 
 them, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins" 
 (Eph. ii., 4, 5), He was willing to let His beloved Son suffer 
 the extremity of evil rather than inflict punishment, in order 
 that He might hereby reach the hearts of men, and turn their 
 affections and their wills in free loving sacrifice to His beloved 
 Son and to Himself for ever ; so that they might not merely be 
 restrained from sin, but resist it ; not merely avoid sin, but hate 
 it ; not merely practise virtue, but love it. For thus and thus 
 only could they finally be delivered from the power of evil and 
 sin, and be united with Himself in Christ for ever. 
 
 Imagine our Saviour meeting force with force. He came 
 unto his own and his own received him not. He stood face to 
 face with enraged and vindictive foes. How was he to deal 
 with them ? He must either have desisted from preaching the 
 glad tidings of the kingdom of God, or have used physical force 
 of some kind to conquer them, or submit to an agonising death. 
 
216 
 
 Let it never be forgotten that it was not a death of our Saviour's 
 own choosing, or of God's appointing, except so far as all 
 events are ordained or permitted by God, in which sense the 
 Scriptures speak of " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
 world." Eev. xiii., 8. But the crucifixion was devised and 
 desired by evil men, not by a holy God. Jesus " was delivered 
 for (on account, in consequence of) our offences." The plan, 
 alike in its conception and execution, was the fruit of sin, — of 
 hatred, selfishness, hypocris}-, malice, and covetousness. God 
 forbid that we should think all that concatenation of villainy, all 
 the abominations of that hell -born plot, — the darkest crime ever 
 perpetrated under the sun, — was a scheme devised by a righteous 
 God or invented by His holy Son, no matter for how blessed a 
 purpose. No. The plot was man's. Christ did not form nor 
 seek it. The death lay before the Saviour in his path of mercy. 
 The question for him to determine was, should he remove that 
 opposition by force? His answer is given in one sentence, 
 " My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this 
 world, then would my servants fight that I should not be 
 delivered to the Jews ; but now is my kingdom not from hence." 
 John xviii., 36. His kingdom was a spiritual one — the reign 
 of love and holiness over the wills and affections of men. 
 He sought to reign over their hearts ; and such a kingdom as 
 this, the kingdom of heaven, cannot be established by physical 
 force. The kingdom of evil must, indeed, often be overthrown 
 by physical force. Hence the diseases, famines, fires, wars, and 
 evil accidents, whereby God contends against selfishness, sloth, 
 cowardice, sensuality, animalism, pride, and self-will. Hence, 
 also, the terrible " coming of the Lord" in permitting the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem by the Komans, when all measures of mercy had 
 failed, and in the destruction of the Roman empire itself when 
 the day of grace had passed. But, as I said above, God seeks 
 first to win men by His tender mercies before He destroys them 
 in His righteous wrath. He gives time for repentance ; time 
 
217 
 
 for spiritual influences to establish His heavenly kingdom, 
 bearing injury rather than inflicting it, seeking to overcome 
 evil with good. But if all this avails not, then u indignation and 
 wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man that doeth 
 evil, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." . Rom. ii., 9. 
 
 And in thus bearing the cross which his enemies thrust upon 
 him, rather than nail them to it, as their crimes deserved, — 
 rather, even, than sweep them and the Eoman power from his 
 path by the more merciful sword, he was strictly dying in their 
 stead, giving his life for theirs. And not only for theirs, but for 
 that of all among the nations then living on the earth, who, 
 being steeped in worldliness and idolatry, or hardened in any 
 kind of indifference and sin, would have resisted his claims and 
 rejected his sovereignty, and arrayed themselves against it, as 
 did the Jews. Yes, and not for all these only did he die, 
 but also instead of all men, " the children of God scattered 
 abroad," who have been, or who shall be, turned from sin, and 
 saved from spiritual death by the history of his love and suffer- 
 ings, down to the latest period of time. Caiaphas, as it has been 
 truly said, * unconsciously declared the great law of vicarious 
 suffering for the good of our brethren when he spoke with the 
 weight of inspiration, saying, " Ye know nothing at all, nor con- 
 sider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the 
 people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake 
 he not of himself: but being high-priest that year, he pro- 
 phesied that Jesus should die for that nation j and not for that 
 nation only, but that also he should gather together in one 
 the children of God that were scattered abroad." The Son of 
 God died upon the cross, not to appease the wrath of God, not 
 because God so hated, but because " He so loved the world " 
 (John iii., 16), that He was willing even to let "His only- 
 begotten," " well-beloved Son," die upon the cross in extremest 
 
 * See a beautiful sermon, by tbe late Kev. F. W. Robertson, of Brigbton, 
 on tbis text. 
 
218 
 
 agony, rather than destroy His enemies; being "not willing 
 that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance * 
 (2 Pet. iii., 9), that He might "gather them together in one," 
 atone them with Himself for ever. 
 
 The Saviour's death was strictly vicarious, substitutionary, 
 in so far as he died instead of all who by that death are, and 
 have been, saved from sin and its consequences. He was their 
 substitute — i.e., stood in their place, endured what otherwise they 
 must have endured, had he not suffered to turn them from sin 
 and atone them with God. But it was not vicarious nor substi- 
 tutionary in the sense of his being regarded as a sinner in our 
 place, and therefore enduring our punishment. No words can 
 describe the importance of never confounding suffering with 
 punishment, or supposing, for an instant, that God regarded 
 Jesus as guilty of human sin. All the instances which Butler 
 brings forward in Ins celebrated work, to meet objections against 
 the doctrine of the atonement, are cases of vicarious suffering, 
 not 'punishment ; and though he unhappily uses the latter word 
 instead of the former, the fact that so acute a reasoner, bending 
 all his powers to the subject, can find no single instance of 
 vicarious punishment in God's dealings with mankind, is strong 
 presumptive evidence against their existence.* 
 
 Since, therefore, if men are to be saved, they must be brought 
 to give themselves in voluntary, loving, penitent sacrifice to God, 
 because thus only can their sins be conquered and their sinfulness 
 destroyed, it is evident that so far as Jesus could win them thus 
 to give themselves to God, he would take away their sins. And 
 it is important to notice that the very sinfulness of men, which 
 caused his sufferings, was most powerfully assailed and conquered 
 by the way in which Jesus endured and dealt with the trials thus 
 brought upon him. 
 
 For the atonement of men with God, since sin has entered 
 
 * Butler's Analogy, part ii., cliap. 5. 
 
219 
 
 into the world, on their part consists of two ^elements, — first, 
 Repentance ; second, Sacrifice. Now I have said that the oppo- 
 site of sin is sacrifice; but when sin has been committed, 
 repentance must talce place before sacrifice can be accepted. Let 
 us, then, observe the relation of Christ's sufferings to these two 
 elements of reconciliation. 
 
 1st. Men being led to love the Saviour by what he endured 
 for them, are led to hate that which wrought such anguish for 
 him — even sin — and arc thus brought to that first stage of their 
 reconciliation and atonement with God which I said consisted of 
 repentance. " And they shall look on me, whom they have 
 pierced, and they shall mourn on account of him. . . ." 
 Zech. xii., 10. Sorrow for sin, hatred of sin, a complete change 
 of mind Qieravota) with regard to all they had before valued 
 and esteemed, a change in their whole estimate of " the things 
 which are seen," would and did arise in the hearts of millions- 
 But this sorrow came with mighty power from the sufferings to 
 which Christ was subjected in consequence of man's sins. Men 
 seldom, if ever, realise the sinfulness of sin, or truly hate it, until 
 they see the evil and suffering it causes, especially to those whom 
 they have been led to love. How many a heart has been first 
 brought to repentance over the grave of some beloved one, who 
 went down to that grave sorrowing for the sins thus repented of 
 too late. 
 
 2nd. Men beholding how the Saviour gave himself up to God, 
 seeking not his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him, 
 are led by their love for him, and taught by his example, to 
 come to the second stage of atonement — viz., sacrifice, to give 
 themselves to God, to bow their wills to His. The example 
 of our blessed Lord alone would have been insufficient to bring 
 men to this great triumpli of good over evil. The motive to 
 follow tltat example must also be supplied — and it is given in 
 the gratitude, admiration, and love which are called forth in the 
 heart of man by the mercy, holiness, and love manifested by 
 
220 
 
 Christ and his Heavenly Father in the mission, the sufferings 
 and death of the Saviour. " I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men 
 unto me," — yea, Lord ! with a mighty power and a divine force. 
 Love awakens love, and calls forth whatever goodness may still 
 he found within us. 
 
 In proportion as the righteousness and love, the sufferings 
 and sacrifice, of the Son of God, bring men to a conviction and 
 hatred of sin, to a genuine surrender of themselves to their 
 Father in heaven, in penitent love, and filial trust, and unreserved 
 submission, just in that proportion Christ's sufferings save them 
 from sin, and make them one with God. It is at the best, we 
 know, but very imperfect repentance, obedience, and sacrifice, 
 which is thus procured. All the infinite blessings which have 
 flowed from Christ's exaltation to the right hand of God, as the 
 fruit of his " humbling himself unto death, even the death of the 
 cross " (Phil, ii.), were needed, as we well know, for our salva- 
 tion. But for the present let us remember that if Christ had 
 not obeyed God wholly, if he, " the great captain of our salva- 
 tion," had not made " a full and entire oblation " of himself, 
 amid all the trials and anguish of our mortal lot, we, his followers, 
 should certainly never have been brought to give ourselves to 
 God, in even the poor, imperfect fashion which the Christian 
 Church has exhibited. To inspire us with a spirit of self-sacrifice, 
 he must manifest it himself, to teach us to give up our wills to 
 God, he must himself do this under all the heaviest trials that can 
 befal mortal man. See the infinite difference between a command 
 to go, and an invitation to come, and perform our duty. It was 
 because he could say, when all other means had failed to atone 
 men with their justly offended Creator, " Lo, I come to do Thy 
 will, oh God " — especially because he shrunk not from even that 
 last terrible cup of sacrifice, which it was the Father's will 
 that he should drink, to turn a world from sin and death, 
 that so much has been accomplished in the work of redemp- 
 tion, however little that may sometimes seem. Once for all, 
 
221 
 
 let it never be forgotten that sin cannot be conquered by 
 brute force. No, nor by all the subtlety of the intellect, the 
 power of the imagination, or the commands of conscience. 
 Deepest love and admiration, fervent gratitude, and that profound 
 personal sense of duty which is called forth by the principle 
 of loyalty to one who has convinced us of his right to our 
 obedience, and his claim upon our love, these alone, as far 
 as human power is concerned, can enable men to subdue their 
 passions, abate their pride, restrain their appetites, and sacrifice 
 their wills. But in proportion as men have understood and felt 
 the infinite love of God in " not sparing His own Son, but 
 delivering him up for us all," and of that Son "in humbling him- 
 self unto the death of the cross," they have cast away their sins 
 at the foot of that cross, and become " new creatures in Christ 
 Jesus." " For scarcely for a righteous man will one die ; yet, 
 peradventure, for a good man some would even dare to die. But 
 God commendeth His love toward us in that while we were yet 
 sinners, Christ died for us." B,om. v., 7, 8. " Herein is love, 
 not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son 
 to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John iv., 10. And let 
 it not be forgotten that it is a greater sacrifice, and therefore a 
 greater proof, of love, to allow a beloved child to suffer, or to see 
 his sufferings, than even to endure them oneself. As men have 
 been brought to know the love of the Father and of the Son, 
 they have felt within them a new and mightier power than they 
 had ever experienced before rousing them to live a new and 
 higher life. Hence the saving influence exerted on the human 
 heart and will by the vicarious sufferings of the Son of God, — 
 full of might and power, have they been for many an age to 
 melt the hardened heart, and humble the proud self-righteous 
 spirit, to subdue the stubborn will, and control the raging passions, 
 to bring men, on the one hand, to a deep consciousness of sin, 
 and, on the other, to love and honour and serve the Saviour 
 " who loved us and gave himself for us," and the glorious God 
 
222 
 
 who gave His Son to be the Saviour of the world 
 
 " When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death 
 of His Son " (Rom. v., 10), and thus through the Cross of Christ 
 men learn to deny themselves, and take up their own cross, to be 
 crucified unto the world and the flesh, to " die unto sin " and to 
 " live unto God." 
 
 IV. Thus the holy Saviour " once in the end of the world 
 hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 
 Thus he "was once offered to bear (i.e., to bear away, to 
 remove, ava<£ep<o) the sins of many." Heb. ix., 26, 28. And 
 it must be observed that there is no other sense in which the 
 sin of one being can be " put away " by another, because sin is 
 so intensely and absolutely personal. We cannot even conceive 
 of sin as a thing apart from the sinner. I repeat it, there can 
 be no sin unless there is a person guilty of that sin. It is, by 
 its essential meaning, an act or a failure to perform an act, a 
 disposition or the want of a disposition on the part of an intel- 
 ligent, morally responsible being. Hence no person can be 
 guilty of any sin which he has not committed. He may be 
 guilty of having instigated to it, or of not having tried to prevent 
 it. But that is, of course, quite a different thing. Hence the 
 only way in which one person can put away, bear away, the sin 
 of another, must be by leading that person to forsake his sin and 
 to give himself to God. 
 
 The meaning of the expression " bear the sin," " bare our 
 sins" (1 Pet. ii., 24), "bear their iniquities" (Isaiah liii., 11), 
 is well illustrated by that most merciful symbol which God per- 
 mitted the children of Israel to make use of on the great annual 
 day of atonement — viz., the scape-goat concerning which it is 
 said (Levit. xvi., 21, 22), that the high-priest shall " confess 
 over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, .... 
 putting them on the head of the goat .... and the 
 goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not 
 
223 
 
 inhabited," and which ceremony is doubtless referred to in 
 Psalm ciii., 12. " Far as the east is from the west, so far hath 
 he removed our transgressions from us." Only in the lowest 
 stage of moral life could any one suppose that sins were literally 
 transferred to the scape-goat. But all may admire the touching 
 assurance hereby given of the Almighty's will to cleanse and 
 deliver us from our sins, if we will confess them, and give up 
 our will to God's will, that He may ivorJc in us, and that we may 
 work ivith Him, for this blessed end. So far as Christ brings us 
 to do this, he bears our iniquities, bears them far from us, and 
 leaves us in holy union with God. 
 
 Unquestionably there is an additional sense in which our Lord 
 bore the burden of men's sins, — just as he bore the burden of 
 their sicknesses and sorrows — viz., by the grief which they caused 
 him ; but that is not the main or primary idea of the words 
 employed in these passages ; and in the principal expression, 
 avafapay, not the idea at all. 
 
 It has been one of the strangest and saddest mistakes in 
 theological doctrine, that our holy Saviour has been supposed by 
 some persons to have borne our sins by figuratively becoming a 
 sinner himself, and so by a legal fiction having become justly 
 obnoxious to the punishment due to us.* And this, moreover, 
 in spite of the Evangelist applying that touching description of 
 Isaiah, in the 53rd chapter, to the healing works of the Saviour, 
 saying, " Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses " 
 (Matt, viii., 17),t certainly not by himself becoming diseased, 
 but by taking away their sicknesses — i.e., by restoring them to 
 health. 
 
 * See Luther on Galatians iii., 13. His language is rather strong — 
 " And this no doubt all the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should 
 become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and 
 blasphemer that ever was, or could be in the world " ! 
 
 + The marginal reference in the Bible also applies this quotation to 
 1 Peter ii., 24. 
 
224 
 
 However, it is better to dwell on what we ourselves believe to 
 be truth, than on what we deem the errors of others. These 
 must be glanced at, and sometimes searchingly exposed, but it 
 is not the work I have chiefly now in hand. 
 
 V. The sufferings, then, of our blessed Lord save men from 
 their sins, so far as they touch our conscience and our affections, 
 and thus influence our will to give up what is sinful, and to 
 sacrifice ourselves to God. They save us from punishment, so 
 far, and only so far, as they save us from sin. This is evident 
 both from Scripture and experience. 
 
 1st. We always find it said in Scripture that Jesus came to 
 save us from our sins, not from punishment, except as a result 
 of our being turned from sin. " He shall save his people from 
 their sins." He came preaching " repentance and remission of 
 sins ;" " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
 world;" "he was manifested to take away sin;" "he hath 
 appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" "the 
 blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin ;" " my blood 
 . which is shed for many for the remission of sins ;" 
 " that ... he might make reconciliation for the sins of 
 the people ;" " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ;" 
 "who, his own self, bare our sins;" "for this is my covenant 
 with them when I shall take away their sins ;" " unto him that 
 loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood ;" " God 
 having raised up His Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in 
 turning away every one of you from his iniquities." It should 
 be observed, also, that in the expression so frequently used, 
 "remission of sins," the original word conveys just the same 
 idea as "taking away," although unfortunately^it has become 
 too common to read it as if it signified " remission of punish- 
 ment," and that again has been erroneously supposed to be 
 synonymous with forgiveness. But a full consideration of the 
 meaning and conditions of Divine forgiveness must be reserved 
 for another chapter. 
 
225 
 
 2nd. The sense in which our Lord speaks of himself, and is 
 spoken of by Paul, as our " ransom," and in which he is said to 
 have "redeemed" us, may then be clearly seen from the 
 foregoing views. 
 
 Men are in bondage, captivity to the tyrant Sin. Jesus comes 
 to rescue them. Sin refuses to let them go. The Saviour will 
 not abandon his mission of love. He suffers cruel injuries from 
 the tyrant who holds men in his grasp ; but the consequence of 
 Christ's loving them, and giving himself for them, is that multi- 
 tudes of prisoners perceive that they are prisoners and slaves, 
 learn to hate their taskmaster, work heartily with their deliverer 
 to break their chains, and then return to the dominion of their 
 rightful Lord. The means by which slaves have ordinarily been 
 redeemed from captivity is the payment of a sum of money, 
 termed their ransom, but anything, a house, a piece of land, 
 egr., or another captive given in exchange, would equally be 
 called a ransom. Hence, by a natural process constantly going 
 on in language, the word comes to be applied to whatever is the 
 means of effecting, or by which is effected, a captive's deliverance. 
 And hence the sufferings of the Egyptians, which were the 
 means of inducing Pharoah at length to let the Israelites go, 
 are spoken of thus. Jehovah, in appealing to the children of 
 Israel by Isaiah, says, " I gave Egypt for thy ransom" (Isaiah 
 xliii., 3), and Solomon says, " the wicked shall be a ransom for 
 the righteous." Prov. xxi., 18. In like manner men were said 
 to be " redeemed by the blood of Christ from their vain conver- 
 sation" (1 Pet. i., 18, 19), and he is declared to have "redeemed 
 us to God by his blood" (Rev. v., 9), because, by allowing his 
 blood to be shed on the cross, he turned men from their sins.* 
 Redemption, signifying in its primary sense the paying back the 
 price of a slave so as to procure his freedom, gradually came to 
 signify deliverance however procured. 
 
 * There is, however, another and extremely important sense in which the 
 blood of Christ is figuratively spoken of, which will be treated of in a 
 subsequent chapter. 
 
226 
 
 But in reference to all such expressions, it must be carefully 
 observed that God is invariably proclaimed in the Bible as the 
 origin and source whence all redemption flows. He is throughout 
 revealed as a redeeming God, one who is the enemy of all tyrants 
 and oppressors, whether earthly or spiritual — whose love for men 
 prompts Him to use all righteous means for their deliverance — 
 and as seeking to bring them " into the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God." 
 
 It is of the deepest importance, for the quickening and growth 
 of true piety and love to God, that we should understand and 
 proclaim this great truth to which I have before referred — viz., 
 that all God's prophets, and, most of all, His beloved Son came 
 to redeem us to God, not to protect us from Him. For a con- 
 sciousness of sin, a fear of the wrath of a justly offended Deity, 
 has in all ages, not in heathendom alone, driven men to seek for 
 something that may be interposed between themselves and their 
 God or gods. And as their own rulers when offended were 
 placated by offerings and bribes, sometimes even by the suffer- 
 ings of innocent victims and prisoners, so they have imagined it 
 necessary to present some kind of bribe, or inflict suffering upon 
 an innocent substitute, as a satisfaction to their celestial King 
 and Judge, and so induce Him to overlook their past offences, 
 perhaps even to tolerate their sins for a certain time to come.* 
 The true nature of the atonement which our Heavenly Father 
 has always sought after, which His beloved Son came on earth 
 to make, is of a very different character. No satisfaction can 
 be offered to Him, no sacrifice, no propitiation, can satisfy 
 either the righteousness or the love of God, save the penitent, 
 purified hearts of His children. It is, as I said above, because 
 He is righteous Himself that he seeks to make us so, and 
 
 * This enormous and most pernicious error in even Christian theological 
 systems has heen so fully and eloquently denounced hy Priestley, Worcester, 
 Nicol, Carpenter, Scott Porter, Maurice, Mc.Leod Campbell, Robertson, 
 and Jowett, that it is unnecessary to dvrell upon it further here. 
 
227 
 
 because He loves us so deeply that He seeks to have us 
 with Him for ever. How mournfully that love and holiness 
 have been misunderstood, when men have imagined that a 
 just and loving God would be pleased and satisfied with the 
 sufferings of His innocent and holy Son, that justice and 
 righteousness could be appeased by unjust and wicked deeds. 
 Only when the sufferings of Christ bear away, remove our sins, 
 and lead us to give ourselves in sacrifice to God, only when by 
 his chastisement our peace with God is effected (Isaiah liii., 5), 
 when, in a word, " by his stripes we are healed," — only thus and 
 then, it seems to me, are the sufferings of Christ any satisfaction 
 io our God. " It pleased the Lord to bruise him, to put him 
 to grief," in order that " he might see the fruit of the travail of 
 his soul " in millions of new-born regenerate Christians. " The 
 pleasure of the Lord will prosper in his hands," and God rejoices 
 in an " offering for sin" made by his beloved Son, so far as that 
 Son can behold " a seed," a family of redeemed and glorified 
 spirits, who shall "prolong their days" unto holiness and joy 
 and life eternal. 
 
 VI. And thus we see how the sufferings of Christ illustrate 
 the great truth, and magnify the all-pervading law referred to p. 
 211, that sacrifice is the bond of union, the means of union be- 
 tween God and His holy Son, between the Creator and all created 
 spirits, between those spirits themselves ; that which alone makes 
 union possible, which is the ground of all religion, all national 
 and family life, of all genuine ecclesiastical and civil institutions, 
 of all individual life and developement, — nay, the foundation 
 even of the very being and character of God, the source of all 
 love, holiness, beauty, power, and peace.* It will be remembered 
 that it consists of two elements. First, the consecration of one- 
 self to goodness ; the giving up for the sake of others, for the 
 
 * See page 127. 
 
228 
 
 sake of righteousness, of order, of beauty, of happiness, as parts 
 or manifestations of that self-consecration to "the good." 
 Secondly, self-consecration, giving up oneself to God our Father 
 in heaven. The first element is that which forms the very basis 
 of the nature and character of God, of all His being and doing ; 
 it was especially manifested in His giving up His Son for the 
 salvation of the world. The second, conjointly with the first 
 (from which except for temporary purposes of clear understand- 
 ing it need scarcely be distinguished), is that which has formed 
 the divine heroic element in the character and actions of all true 
 devout men, from Abel downward to the latest genuine saint or 
 martyr, but which most of all was manifested in the Son of God, 
 especially in his coming into this world, and in his whole life and 
 death while dwelling in the flesh. For the perfect obedience 
 of the Saviour was set forth by his sufferings on earth ; and the 
 sacrifice which he then offered has revealed to all men the true 
 divine law by which alone they can come into union with God, 
 has taught them that their true blessedness, the real end of their 
 existence, both in time and in eternity, can only be attained by 
 giving up to God, as Christ did, all they have and all they are, 
 at whatever cost, in filial trust and loving submission. Christ's 
 obedience unto death was the one great sacrifice that takes away 
 sin by taking away self-will, self-seeking, distrust, disobedience. 
 It is the one perfect sacrifice in which we should all partake, by 
 yielding ourselves up to God as he did, in which we do all par- 
 take, so far as like him we can say, even in our darkest hour, 
 " Lo, we come to do Thy will, oh God." 
 
 It has been well remarked that, " As man's departure from 
 the One God was caused by his giving up his heart to the 
 things of this world, God ordained that men should bring offer- 
 ings of the things of this world to Him, both as an acknow- 
 ledgment that He was the Lord of the whole material world, no 
 less than of mankind, and as a token that they were bound 
 and were willing to make sacrifice of the things of this world 
 
(whereby they had been withdrawn from their communion with 
 the One God), in order that they might be received again into 
 that communion."* One great purpose of the Jewish sacrifices 
 was to illustrate and enforce this truth ; but when the Son of 
 God gave himself to his Heavenly Father, in life and in death, 
 especially in Gethsemane and upon the cross, he taught men by 
 that sacrifice " that they were to draw nigh to God, not by this 
 work or that work, not by the sacrifice of this thing or that 
 thing — for that all partial obedience and service left them in 
 that state of disunion and separation — but by the entire sacrifice 
 and resignation of their whole being to the will of God."* 
 Hence it becomes plain how, in virtue of the great law on 
 which all union is founded, Christ by his "perfect oblation" of 
 himself, " draws all men unto himself," and so to God. When 
 we realise what he gave up and endured for us, what God gave 
 up in sacrificing His Son, we feel drawn towards them in love 
 as we never could otherwise have been. And not only by love, 
 for then we feel also the intense stringency of the obligation to 
 give ourselves up to their service. We feel that our Father and 
 our Saviour ought to have us, — that we have been " bought with 
 a price." 1 Cor. vi., 20. This has been the true strength of the 
 Christian teaching from the Day of Pentecost, wheii Peter 
 preached the first Christian sermon, down to this day. Herein 
 has lain the chief power of the Gospel over human hearts. In 
 view of that sacrifice men have continually felt, as they have felt 
 nothing else, that every human being, however degraded, for 
 whom Christ died, ought to belong to him and his Father in 
 heaven. 
 
 And in this connection we are reminded of a great truth 
 mentioned before. Sacrifice is the ground of all real permanent 
 increase of power and possession.f That which we give up 
 
 * Hare's Mission of the Comforter. " Unity of the Church." pp. 279—281. 
 + See page 129. 
 
230 
 
 yields proportionate increase, and comes back to us in thirty, 
 sixty, or a hundred-fold measure. Sacrifice is the foundation 
 of the Law of Increase. But inasmuch as every act of genuine 
 sacrifice to goodness and to God brings increase of power, 
 wealth, and blessedness, as well as of holiness and love, so 
 pre-eminently must the greatest of all such acts. Had Christ 
 not suffered, and in his humiliation and sufferings given himself 
 up to God, he could have gained no power comparable to that 
 which he has won for the salvation of man. Hence, when a few 
 days before his death he felt the awful prospect weigh heavily 
 on his soul, he answered the request of certain Hellenists to see 
 him by saying, " The hour is come, that the Son of Man should 
 be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of 
 wheat die, it abideth alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth much 
 fruit." John xii., 23, 24. By becoming " perfect," he can 
 make us wholly one with the Father, and through having con- 
 quered everything that would have separated him from God 
 (including his own will), he can be the uniting medium through 
 whom we may come to God, and overcome all that now tends 
 to separate us from our Father in heaven while we are in the 
 flesh. He has gained in perfect measure that holy and divine 
 spirit of self-sacrifice which alone unites, atones, the children 
 with their Father above, which he can, therefore, impart to them, 
 and which enables us, his sinful brethren, to overcome appetite, 
 pride, self-will, and rise to God. 
 
 VII. Once more. By the sufferings of the Son of God, his 
 Father's love to men is proved by the mightiest of all testi- 
 monies, and thus that spirit of distrust of God which, perhaps more 
 fatally than any other sin, severs men from their Heavenly 
 Father, was vanquished and cast out. "When He * spared not 
 His own Son but delivered him up for us all " (Rom. viii., 32), 
 He gave the proof which, above any other conceivable evidence, 
 ought to make men feel — in a myriad instances lias made them 
 
231 
 
 feel — that God does love them, that He desires with infinite desire 
 to draw them to Himself in a Father's embrace, to deliver them 
 from the power of all evil. And thus men learn to trust God, 
 to believe that He is their friend, that the parable of the Prodigal 
 son is divinest, most blessed truth, that all the horrid dreams 
 by which mankind have been tortured, representing Him as 
 thirsting only for vengeance on their sins, are miserable slanders 
 on His character, the blackest of lies, and coming from the 
 father of lies. When " God so loved the world as to give His only- 
 begotten Son, that whoso believeth in him should not perish, but 
 have everlasting life," we can understand why that glorious song 
 was heard in heaven, " Now is come salvation, and strength, and 
 the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ : for the 
 accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before 
 our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood 
 of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony ; and they 
 loved not their lives unto the death." Eev. xii., 10, 11. 
 
 " For the men in those clays overcame the dragon hy the blood of the 
 Lamb and the word of His testimony. The blood of the Lamb was a per- 
 petual witness to them that God had reconciled the world unto Himself, 
 not imputing their trespasses unto them. The blood of the Lamb was a 
 living sacrament of a perpetual and living union between the children 
 on earth and their Father in heaven. And the word of this testimony 
 was that God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son for 
 it. These were the answers to the accuser, which rose above all the 
 arguments and subtleties with which he would persuade them that they 
 are an accursed and not a redeemed and blessed race ; that death is a sign 
 of separation from God, and from each other, as it must be when we 
 contemplate it in any individual case, not a bond of reconciliation and 
 atonement to God, and to each other, as it must be when we contemplate it 
 in the death of Christ, the head, and representative, and redeemer of the 
 whole race. Therefore, these witnesses did not love their lives unto the 
 death ; they could throw away their lives as witnesses for the truth, knowing 
 that the truth was worth more than their lives, and that they might trust 
 their lives with the God of Truth." * 
 
 Yes, the sufferings of the beloved Son of God are mighty to 
 
 * Maurice on the Apocalypse, p. 223. 
 
232 
 
 bring many other "sons unto glory," — the glory of loving 
 trust, and filial consecration to their Father in heaven, of perfect 
 confidence in Him alike in their joys and sorrows, in their weak- 
 ness and strength, — mighty, above all, in their penitence and 
 shame when "they come to themselves," and feel that they 
 "perish with hunger," perish through need of that divine 
 bread and water of life, which the Father has offered " enough 
 and to spare," to all His children at such unspeakable cost. It is 
 by the word of this most precious testimony — " God so loved 
 the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son" to save 
 it, — that the terrible demon, Fear, which has driven millions of 
 those whom God loves with an infinite love to despair and 
 death, — casting them even, "with the abominable and murderers, 
 and idolaters and liars, into the lake that burneth with fire," 
 into the deadliest pangs the human soul can know, — it is by the 
 word of this testimony and the blood of the Lamb, that fear is 
 conquered, and that the "perfect Love," which is God and 
 heaven, finally casts out that basest of passions which is the 
 slanderer of God, the arch-tempter of man, and the coward's 
 native hell. 
 
 VIII. But while it cannot, then, for a moment be admitted 
 that the Saviour had to encounter agony, shame, and death, 
 in order to overcome the unwillingness or the inability of God 
 to forgive His children on earth, — that he had any work to do 
 in rescuing us from God, — it must as emphatically be remarked, 
 that the Scriptures are most explicit in declaring that by his 
 sufferings our Lord had to redeem us, and did redeem all who 
 believe in him, from the power of very terrible enemies. It was 
 no sentimental metaphorical kingdom of evil, as I have said 
 before, from which Paul preached "redemption by Jesus Christ." 
 He felt that men were in "the power of darkness" until "trans- 
 lated therefrom into the kingdom of God's dear Son." Colos. i., 
 13. "Redemption" was no figure of speech with him. Neither 
 
233 
 
 should it he with us. And if we realise anything of the nature 
 and amount of that "darkness " and evil, if we at all understand 
 Paul's meaning when he says that " we wrestle not against flesh 
 and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the 
 rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness 
 in high places " (Eph. vi., 12) ; or when he exclaims, with such 
 triumphant eloquence, that he is persuaded that " neither death, 
 nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, .... 
 shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in 
 Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eom. viii., 38, 39) ; we can under- 
 stand why our Lord must have suffered with great suffering 
 when he " wrestled " against these various forms and forces of 
 evil, doing battle against them on our behalf, and at our head, 
 as "the great Captain of our salvation." If, indeed, a person 
 believed that there was no mighty power and kingdom of evil 
 around him ; that there was no evil or sin, not even in the sinful 
 heart or will of man, only errors, mistakes that can easily be 
 corrected, and their consequences easily averted, he would find 
 no reason for Christ's sufferings from the above point of view. 
 But this is not the doctrine of the New Testament, neither of 
 Jesus, of Peter, John, or Paul. Their language is, no doubt, 
 often figurative, but all figures refer to some reality behind, and 
 it may be a very difficult question to determine whether the 
 figures used by the Saviour and his apostles refer to some other 
 reality than sin in the soul of man, or to the existence of 
 personal evil spirits besides. Certainly Satan appears to be 
 identified with the "prince of this world," and that would as 
 certainly seem to refer to human sin. But this much is certain, 
 — the " glad tidings " of the Gospel are not only a revelation of 
 the willingness of God to welcome all men into the kingdom 
 of heaven, but the proclamation of victory over the kingdom of 
 evil, whatever and wherever it may be. " Now is the judgment 
 of this world ; now shall the prince of this world be cast out." 
 John xii. ? 31. 
 
234 
 
 And whether or not " the prince of this world " represents 
 spiritual enemies, personal but unseen evil powers and spirits, or 
 simply the wickedness of worldly, grasping, selfish men, sinful 
 human beings in any rank and station, it is equally evident that 
 Christ could do no battle against one or the other, even as man 
 can contend against no evil of any sort, without suffering more 
 or less in the contest, however victorious in the end. It is the 
 old law so often referred to, that even as no good can be conferred 
 upon others without giving up something ourselves, so when the 
 good to be done involves an encounter with evil influences or 
 sinful passions of any sort, suffering of some kind must be 
 endured by him who would be a true benefactor. And, accord- 
 ingly, no figure of speech is more common in history and 
 biography, in connection with heroic patriotism and beneficence, 
 than that which speaks of the hero or philanthropist as having 
 purchased blessings for others by his own sufferings. But that 
 it is simply a figure of speech, a very natural transference of the 
 ideas derived from the process of redeeming slaves by money 
 from their captivity, is evident when we inquire to whom the 
 sufferings of the heroes and martyrs of humanity, especially of 
 the Redeemer of the world, could be an acceptable offering, a 
 literal bribe or " consideration," in consequence of which could 
 result the emancipation of captives. Supposing that a personal 
 evil spirit held them in bondage, it would still be far more 
 reasonable to view the sufferings of Deliverers as wounds inflicted 
 in the warfare than as bribes presented in a truce. There is no 
 doubt that to a thoroughly fiendish disposition, or to other 
 natures in a devilish mood, the sufferings of rational or irrational 
 creatures are an acceptable sight. But we have no warrant 
 whatever from Scripture for regarding the mental and bodily 
 pains above spoken of, as such an offering to malignant demons ; 
 while the more reasonable and probable explanation of redeeming 
 by suffering, in the figurative sense, receives much support from 
 the sacred volume. That, however, which is of most importance, 
 
235 
 
 and on which alone I desire to lay emphatic stress, is the all- 
 important truth that, whatever the means employed, and 
 whosoever the tyrants contended against, we are " redeemed to 
 God " (Rev. v., 9), not from Him, by the life and agony, the 
 death and glorification of His Son our Lord. 
 
 IX. Another deeply important reason for the sufferings of 
 the Son of God on earth can only he briefly considered. It is 
 suggested to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iv., 15 ; ii., 18). 
 4i For we have not an high-priest who cannot be touched with 
 the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted like 
 as we are, yet without sin." "For in that he himself hath 
 suffered being tempted (or tried), he is able to succour them 
 that are tempted." 
 
 It was observed in a former chapter that he who would help 
 another must come near to him. But he must also understand 
 him. This is true even of physical help ; much more of 
 spiritual aid. Sympathy is essential to effective benevolence, 
 and there can be no true sympathy without knowledge. Hence 
 the necessity for the Saviour's " partaking of flesh and blood," 
 and undergoing the infirmities and trials of our earthly state, if 
 he would know us truly, and be " touched with a feeling " of 
 true sympathy for us. But this would apply not merely to the 
 ordinary infirmities and sorrows of men. If he is to be the 
 Saviour of all men, the noblest as well as the meanest, of the 
 greatest sufferer as of the happiest child, he must himself have 
 shared in the deepest of human sorrows — have known, in their 
 fullest extent, the extremest sufferings that men can be called to 
 bear, and understood the utmost capacity of the human body 
 and soul to endure anguish. And from even this he did not 
 shrink — since it was thus only that he could " succour them that 
 are" so tried. 
 
 Moreover, it is only in great suffering that a whole class of 
 temptations can be experienced and vanquished ; such, especially, 
 
236 
 
 as resistance to the will of God, discontent, and distrust of His 
 goodness, above all, fear. "Without the sufferings of our mortal 
 state and nature, there would be little temptation to complain 
 of God's will, to be faithless and repining, — none at all to 
 that deadly sin of fear. Hence, inasmuch as the Saviour is 
 especially to save us from our sins, and therefore to help us to 
 conquer our temptations, it is manifest that he must himself 
 have "overcome" those temptations, have understood their 
 nature and power, before he could be " made unto us wisdom 
 and righteousness, sanctification and redemption." Our Lord 
 himself said, " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man 
 lay down his life for his friends " (John xv., 13), yet it must 
 seem to us an even greater proof of his unutterable love for the 
 race whom " he was not ashamed to call his brethren " (Heb. 
 ii., 11), that he was willing to live for them, live in this mortal 
 state of suffering and temptation, surrounded by so much misery, 
 disease, and sin. But, indeed, this ivas laying down his life for 
 them — it was giving up his higher, happier life, the life and 
 " the glory which he had with the Father before the world was " 
 (John xvii., 5), that he might be fully " able to succour them 
 that are tempted." But thus it must ever be. It is according 
 to the divine law, which at once proves and perfects love by 
 asking it to suffer for the sake of the beloved. Therefore " in 
 all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that 
 he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things 
 pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
 people." Heb. ii., 17. 
 
 X. One other reason for the sufferings of our beloved Saviour 
 is also suggested by passages in the same epistle. "For it 
 became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all 
 things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain 
 of their salvation perfect through suffering ;" and again, " Who 
 in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and 
 
237 
 
 supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was 
 able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared 
 (or rather, reverenced) ;■* though he were a Son, yet learned he 
 obedience by the things that he suffered ; and being made 
 perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them 
 that obey him." Heb. ii., 10 ; and v., 7 — 9. 
 
 Herein is expressed a wonderful and solemn truth — that 
 suffering is essential to the complete perfection, to the highest 
 holiness, piety, heroism, love, of every moral and intelligent 
 nature subordinate to God, — that it is not sufficient for the 
 perfection even of the only-begotten Son of God to dwell in 
 closest union and harmony with his eternal Father, — but that if 
 he voluntarily descends from that serene and heavenly blessed- 
 ness, to wrestle with the woes and temptations of earth, he shall 
 reach a yet higher degree of perfection and blessedness than 
 before. Nevertheless this cannot seem strange to those who 
 have known the glorious power of suffering to purify and 
 ennoble the soul. Least of all can it seem incredible to those 
 who know how much the divinest quality that can inspire a child 
 of God, that which most truly makes him kindred with God, 
 Love, is quickened and increased as well as purified, how real 
 also it becomes to him who possesses it, when he has suffered 
 for those he loves, — how it becomes thus deepened and glorified 
 in proportion to that suffering. 
 
 But the words of the sacred writer point also to another 
 solemn fact — viz., that it is only in suffering that that complete 
 and perfect self-sacrifice of one's whole will to God can be made 
 which has been shown to be essential to perfect atonement with 
 God. And as it was observed under the last head, that the 
 temptation to self-will could only be finally conquered in the 
 midst of such trials as those of Gethsemane and the Cross, so it 
 will now be remarked, that the final consummation of perfect 
 
 * As it should be frequently rendered in reference to God in the Old 
 Testament. 
 
238 
 
 union with God can only be attained when the heart cries, in 
 bitterness of its agony, " Oh, my Father, if it be possible let 
 this cup pass from me," and when the spirit adds " Nevertheless, 
 not as I will, but as Thou wilt." 
 
 " Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the 
 things which he suffered." Yes. For though he never could 
 have known what disobedience was, for " he was without sin," 
 yet how coidd he learn in the bosom of the Father, when all was 
 holy and blessed within and around him, when the Father's will 
 and his own must ever have moved in perfect harmony, the true 
 meaning of obedience as it was taught him amid the stern 
 discipline of his mortal life ? Only in that dread fire-baptism 
 could he understand the full meaning of his relationship to God, 
 the true meaning of the word " obey," — only then and there 
 could he "overcome" the terrible possibilities of disunion, 
 separation from God, which must wait upon every being made 
 in the image of God, and possessing, therefore, the awful endow- 
 ment of a free-will. And hence it is because throughout his 
 earthly existence he was continually meeting and conquering 
 temptations to establish his independence of the Father, to seek 
 his own glory, and to work his own will, rather than the glory 
 and the will of God, it is because his whole life on earth was thus 
 a continual sacrifice of the holiest and most perfect kind, that 
 such a saving and divine influence streams forth from him, to 
 bring men in like manner to offer themselves to God — that 
 " virtue goes out of him and heals them all." Luke vi., 19. 
 By thus giving up himself to God, amid all the sore trials of 
 humanity, our divine Lord must have gained wonderfully in 
 spiritual power and in the spirit of self-sacrificing love. Hence 
 he must have gained proportionately in the power of bestowing 
 it upon men more and ever more abundantly ; while the spirit 
 which he thus imparted to them would be of a yet nobler and 
 diviner character than before he had thus endured for their sakes, 
 and overcome even unto the end. Thus he would be able 
 
239 
 
 u through suffering " to bring them nearer to God, and " being 
 made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all 
 them that obey him." Heb. v., 9. 
 
 We learn from all this how grandly men are privileged in 
 being subjected to sorrow, temptation, and pain. If a descent 
 from the serene blessedness of heaven to our lower world, wrought 
 out such glorious results for the Son of God, we may be well 
 assured that not less glorious, according to their condition, will 
 be the results to all his brethren, if they too will " endure," and 
 " overcome unto the end." There can be no greater sign of 
 the grandeur of our nature than that which is to be found in its 
 capacity for moral suffering, and in the greatness, the holiness, 
 the heroism and love which grow from such trials. Yes, 
 heroism — pre-eminently. The Son of God was made perfect 
 through suffering, perfect through descending into this earthly 
 state of mingled good and evil, among the other reasons before 
 mentioned, because thereby he had to confront evil in all its 
 forms, and so become perfected in courage. It is difficult, if 
 not impossible, for us to understand how this sublime quality 
 can be developed at all, much less perfected, except in the 
 presence, near or remote, real or imaginary, of evil. That it 
 formed part of the Saviour's character before he contended with 
 the woes and sins of humanity, is evident when we reflect upon 
 the courage manifested in a willingness to leave the divine 
 abode of holiness and peace, and encounter the fearful suffer- 
 ings that lay before him if he should take part in the conflict 
 which was being sustained by his sinful brethren on earth — 
 especially in a willingness to endure partial and temporary 
 separation from the Father, and in that state to be " tempted 
 in all points as we are." I can conceive of no greater valour 
 than was needed to make that sacrifice, — except that which was 
 required for the contest itself. But unquestionably we can 
 understand how this infinitely important and glorious virtue was 
 strengthened, unfolded, perfected, by the actual encounter with 
 
240 
 
 evil into which our blessed Lord entered for our deliverance 
 therefrom, while not less admirably fitted for the developement 
 of fearless heroism in every child of Adam, is all this wonderful 
 and awful mass of evil against which, in a thousand forms, men 
 have to contend. Infinitely blessed the results brought out of 
 it by the over-ruling love of God. 
 
 The reader will remember that, according to the views sug- 
 gested in chap, vi., our Lord attained to and preserved the per- 
 fection of his being through his union in one substance with 
 his Heavenly Father, and by his perfect self- surrender under 
 those conditions to God. Now, if he had maintained that 
 union and perfection only while dwelling "in the bosom of 
 the Father," in that holy and blessed oneness which he had with 
 Him " in the beginning," we, while existing in the body, might 
 well despair of ever attaining to that divine condition ; and even 
 if there were any hope of our attaining it in another world, 
 all our experience in this, all our miserable follies, sorrows, 
 and sins would seem calculated only to drive us further from 
 that blessed state. But it was not so. " When the fulness 
 of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a 
 woman" (Gal. iv., 4); and "forasmuch as the children are par- 
 takers of flesh and blood, Christ also took part of the same." 
 Heb. ii., 14. He came into our world, dwelling here under all 
 the conditions of our earthly nature ; and, while under them, 
 maintained his union with the Father, giving up his whole being 
 and will to God, and thereby showing all men that these limita- 
 tions and tendencies of the flesh, and this free-will, which so 
 often separate us from God, are not insurmountable hindrances 
 in the way of coming to Him and abiding in Him. Nay, we 
 learn from Christ's life on earth the same grand lesson already 
 drawn from a survey of man's nature and history, only far more 
 emphatically — viz., that all these trials and temptations may 
 actually become the glorious means of making us more wholly 
 one with our Father in heaven, than we could have been if we had 
 
241 
 
 not been subject to them, but had always dwelt in that blessed 
 intercourse with God which was the condition of our divine 
 Lord before he appeared on earth. Clearly, then, we are 
 taught by the manifestation of the Son of God on earth, as 
 by all other sources of instruction, that our condition in 
 this world, with all its hindrances and temptations, the very 
 bodies in which we have to dwell for a season, and which seem to 
 shut us out from God, with all the animal passions that con- 
 tinually draw us away from God, — nay, as we have seen, the 
 very freedom of will which gives the capacity of rebelling against 
 Him, — may all be made the very best possible conditions for 
 attaining to the most complete union with Him that is possible 
 to created beings. But whether men shall attain to that most 
 blessed oneness with their Father in heaven, whether these 
 earthly and fleshy conditions, and this sublime endowment of 
 freedom, shall hinder or help that consummation, evidently de- 
 pends upon their yielding to the influences of God's word and 
 spirit, and on their giving themselves wholly to God as Jesus 
 did, identifying their wills with the will of God, continually 
 striving to will what is good, and true, and beautiful, and that 
 alone. 
 
 XI. Thus we are brought to that final and general explana- 
 tion of the sufferings of our Lord, to which all the previous 
 reasons adduced have been gradually conducting us, and which 
 seems to sum up, in one inclusive view, the main elements in 
 the solution of the problem. 
 
 1st. The Son of God came to establish the kingdom of God, 
 and to overthrow all that resists and opposes it — to establish a 
 dominion over the affections, thoughts, acts, and especially over 
 the wills of men — a kingdom which is the authority and influence 
 of a loving Father. Now, it is clear that if any beings possess 
 free-will, they must be in danger, at some period of their exist- 
 ence, of resisting the will of God in some way or other. But 
 
 M 
 
242 
 
 it is equally plain that this danger cannot be overcome ; or, if 
 the temptation be yielded to, the sin cannot be destroyed, by 
 force. Hence the invariable refusal of our Saviour, first during 
 the temptations in the wilderness, afterwards at various times 
 during his ministry, to take to himself an earthly crown, and 
 establish his kingdom by the sword. But as, on the one hand, 
 if any being has to confront and conquer moral evil without the 
 use of force, he must suffer more or less from its virulence, so, 
 on the other hand, if he is willing to suffer for the sake of those 
 whom he would govern and bless, he wins their affections, and 
 leads captive their wills. The sin that was in the world was the 
 efficient cause, the primary reason, therefore, of the Saviour's 
 sufferings ; his desire to win men to holiness and God was the 
 final cause or reason. For by thus giving himself unto death 
 the Saviour has conquered sin in the heart of man, and by yield- 
 ing for the time to wrong, gained a lasting dominion for the 
 right and true — has established, in short, the kingdom of God. 
 By being " lifted up," he " draws all men unto him," and so 
 atones them with God. The cross of Christ is the throne of 
 Christ, and the crucifixion of the Son of God becomes an atone- 
 ment for the world, reconciling it unto God. 
 
 2nd. But, inasmuch as " God is love," and bestows rewards on 
 all faithful obedience, self-sacrifice, and generous love, — rewards 
 so far transcending all proportion to that obedience and sacrifice, 
 Christ suffered that he might receive the reward his Father 
 offered him of " leading captivity captive, and bringing gifts 
 unto men," of receiving also gifts and " all power " for himself 
 which should enable him to redeem them from bondage, and 
 help effectually their efforts to give themselves to him. This 
 was " the joy set before him." He accepted the trying charge 
 of " a few things" that he might become the victorious " ruler 
 over many things," and make his subjects " more than con- 
 querors through him that loved them, and gave himself for 
 them." 
 
243 
 
 These, then, are answers, however imperfect, to the ques- 
 tion why our divine Lord could not have atoned us with God by 
 a peaceful withdrawal from his earthly status, and a painless 
 entrance upon his spiritual kingdom with all its glorious duties 
 and heavenly power. 
 
OHAP. XVII.— THE NATUKE AND CONDITIONS 
 OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS. 
 
 Having considered the reason of our Lord's sufferings in the 
 flesh, and some of their bearings upon human salvation, the 
 solemn subject of divine forgiveness of sin, what it means, as 
 well as when and why it is granted, must be briefly glanced at. 
 
 In the first place, we must bear in mind the original meaning 
 of the word acftecris (translated in our version "forgiveness," and 
 sometimes "remission") — viz., a sending away. " Remission " 
 was dismission. But when applied to debts the word was 
 naturally used to signify releasing the debtor from his obliga- 
 tions, dismissing or cancelling his debts; and thence by an 
 equally natural metonymy it was applied to overlooking or 
 cancelling sins, putting them out of sight, treating the sinner 
 as if he had not committed sin. We find precisely this latter 
 signification of putting sin out of sight in the Hebrew. Where 
 we have the word atone or atonement in our Old Testament, 
 the original signifies "to cover," or "covering," something 
 that removes out of sight, and hence occasionally that which 
 " cleanses." In Deut. xxi., 8, and Psalm lxxviii., 38, God is 
 spoken of in the Hebrew as making atonement, the same word 
 being used which is elsewhere translated "atonement," and 
 where it evidently means, not that He is making compensation, 
 or offering an expiation to sinners, but that He is putting out 
 of sight, forgiving their sins. We never find in the Bible that 
 atonement is made to Grod, but either with Him, as in Levit. 
 xvi,, 10, or for those who have sinned. Thus again in Psalms 
 xxxii., 1, and lxxxv., 2, "Blessed is he whose transgression is 
 forgiven, whose sin is covered." "Thou hast forgiven the 
 
245 
 
 iniquity of Thy people ; Thou hast covered all their sin." And 
 as all this was a process of reconciliation, the two words "atone- 
 ment" and "reconciliation" were considered synonymous and 
 interchangeable when our Bible was translated, and long pre- 
 viously.* 
 
 Hence there is the twofold meaning of the word in ques- 
 tion, afecris. 1st. A cancelling, destroying by sending away. 
 2nd. A covering, putting out of sight, shutting one's eyes to. 
 Now, it is evident that in the first sense remission of sins can 
 only mean bringing a sinner to give up, abandon his sins. I 
 know not of any sense in which sin can be said to be cancelled, 
 destroyed, except when it ceases to exist — i.e., to be committed, 
 ceases to be practised, loved, or even thought about. The past 
 cannot be cancelled. What is done can never be undone. But 
 in tbe second sense, remission, or (as more correctly rendered 
 for this second meaning) forgiveness of sins, signifies putting 
 the past out of sight, shutting one's eyes to it, behaving as if it 
 had never existed. The word is undoubtedly used in both 
 senses in the Scriptures, and hence the nature of Divine 
 forgiveness of sin becomes apparent. It consists in God's 
 receiving the sinner back once more to His favour and love, 
 putting his sins out of sight, receiving him as the loving father 
 in the parable is represented as receiving his prodigal but 
 repentant son. But remission of sin must never be confounded, 
 as it too often has been, with remission of punishment. 
 Forgiveness of sin, even, by no means necessarily implies 
 remission or giving up of punishment. It must include the 
 remission of some part of the penalty of sin, the prevention of 
 some of its consequences, because the Divine displeasure, the 
 withdrawal of God's favour and smile of love, are among the 
 worst of those consequences. It may include more, for sincere 
 repentance (and God always, of course, knows when it is sin- 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
216 
 
 core) puts the sinner's heart into such a far more favourable 
 condition for spiritual improvement that some of the chastening 
 discipline that would otherwise have been necessary to subdue 
 sin in his heart is rendered unnecessary by real repentance. 
 But, on the other hand, the very fact of God's favour and smile 
 having returned to the sinner might be the very cause why 
 punishment would be inflicted. For there can be no truer proof 
 of God's love to sinners than His inflicting such suffering or 
 punishment upon them, as He sees to be necessary for their 
 purification and perfection. To be left in prosperity may be 
 the saddest of all proofs that we are so hardened in our sins, so 
 hopelessly indifferent to goodness and to God, that no purifying 
 discipline would be of any avail, and nothing is left the sinner 
 but finally to receive "the wages of sin, which is death." 
 
 Therefore, let it not be forgotten that forgiveness of sin may 
 be, and to some extent must be, followed by punishment. For 
 the deeper our sense of God's love and mercy the greater for a 
 season would be our remorse at having grieved Him and sinned 
 against Him. And, as long as memory remains, there will be 
 one source of retribution open, one that must in some cases be 
 very terrible, in most for a season full of bitter pain. Moreover 
 the Apostle enunciates a momentous truth, to which all history 
 and experience bear witness, that " whatsoever a man soweth, 
 that shall he also reap." Gal. vi., 7. No, Divine forgive- 
 ness does not signify saving the sinner from the consequences 
 and punishment of his sins. It may be accompanied by such 
 relief from punishment, but that is a totally different thing. 
 Punishment will assuredly be inflicted or averted, both in time 
 and in eternity accordingly, and only thus, as it would be 
 needful and effectual for the purification of the soul from sin, 
 and its developement in holiness, life, power, beauty, love, 
 and joy. 
 
 Our Lord has given us a wonderfully clear and practical 
 illustration of the meaning of Divine forgiveness in that petition 
 
247 
 
 which we are to offer daily to our Farther in Heaven — < k Forgive 
 us our debts, as we forgive our debtors ;" adding, "For if ye 
 forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also 
 forgive you." Matt, vi., 12, 14. And again, " If thy brother 
 trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive 
 him." Luke xvii., 3. We know what kind of forgiveness 
 we desire to receive ourselves, and what we ought to extend 
 to an offending brother, and I think it will be found to be such 
 as I have now described. 
 
 It is a truth men are slow to learn that sin, error, and 
 spiritual death are the only absolute evils; — that pain and 
 punishment are evils only relatively, — that they are the greatest 
 of all blessings viewed in relation to error, sin, and death, 
 because they tend and are sent to prevent or cure these absolute 
 evils. They are, indeed, also sent to mark God's righteous 
 indignation against sin, but if their gracious purpose of turning 
 from sin, and saving from death, had been more generally 
 remembered, we should not so often have had the great purpose 
 of Christ's mission and sufferings misrepresented, and the 
 remission of punishment substituted in the preaching of men 
 for that remission of sins which is the preaching of the Gospel 
 of God.* 
 
 But, while we thus discern the loving purpose of our 
 Heavenly Father amid all the calamities that afflict mankind, 
 and are very careful also not to think those on whom the tower 
 of Siloam fell, necessarily greater sinners than all then living 
 in Jerusalem, we must as carefully avoid neglecting that 
 
 * As an instance of the change taking place in the views of learned and 
 thoughtful divines on this subject, see the admirable essay on the Atone- 
 ment in Maurice's " Theological Essays," especially p. 146, 2nd edition. 
 Jowett's Essay, also, is an able ally, but I have not yet seen the 2nd edition, 
 which, I believe, is far more complete. But other earnest theologians had 
 contended for these doctrines many years before, through obloquy, privation, 
 and loss, grievous to be remembered, and not altogether unknown among us 
 now. 
 
248 
 
 aspect of them just adverted to. The benefit of the sinner is 
 not the only reason why pain, disease, and sorrows of manifold 
 kind, wait upon all wrong-doing. " Sin is the transgression of 
 the law." " The majesty of this law" requires a vindication. 
 The eternal holiness and rectitude of God's nature and character 
 require a vindication when that law is trampled on, and that 
 holiness insulted. Never let us suppose that God has nothing 
 to do with sin, but to chasten and purify the sinner, and forgive 
 him freely when he repents. It has, again and again, been 
 truly urged by devout writers on this solemn theme, that undue 
 lenity to the criminal would be an insult to the majesty of the 
 law of holiness. Weak compassion might be the characteristic 
 of a merely loving nature ; but God is a God of Holiness, 
 Justice, Eighteousness, as well as a God of Love. Hence, as 
 it was urged in the commencement of the last chapter, He has 
 connected indissolubly suffering with sin, suffering not to the 
 guilty alone, but to all connected with him. Hence, also, the 
 Divine displeasure against sin was never so awfully manifested 
 as in the sufferings of him who came in his spotless holiness to 
 save us from our sins. The penalty of sin was then inflicted in 
 a way that the world is not likely to forget ; and man has had 
 no room since then to doubt, if ever before, that sin must bring 
 its terrible consequences with it to all united in any way with 
 sinners, to the innocent as well as to the guilty, no matter how 
 saintly and perfect they may be. 
 
 But this brings us to the question — Can God, then, or does 
 He, never remit the penalty of sin ? Does forgiveness consist 
 merely in that passing away of the Divine displeasure, spoken 
 of above ? Or if it also implies remission of the whole or part 
 of that penalty, which a just and righteous God has affixed to 
 the commission of sin, how can such an act be consistent with 
 His justice and holiness? How, also, can it be safe? If 
 sinners see the penalty thus escaped, will they not think the 
 law may be transgressed with impunity, — will it not be lowered 
 and degraded in their eyes ? 
 
249 
 
 Forgiveness certainly does involve in many cases, as I said, 
 a remission of some part of the penalty of sin. But this is 
 not inconsistent with — 
 
 1st. The holiness of God, because it only takes place when 
 there is sincere repentance, and that implies a hatred of the sin, 
 a complete change of mind with regard to it, a thorough 
 forsaking of it. Now, when a sinner has thus become " holy 
 unto the Lord" the holiness of God is satisfied. The 
 righteousness of God cannot be satisfied with anything else, 
 and can be wholly, absolutely, satisfied with that. Pain to the 
 sinner, much more to the guiltless, cannot give God satisfaction, 
 any more than food could still the craving of the heart for love. 
 But we constantly find the attributes of righteousness and 
 mercy in the character of God, spoken of in the sacred 
 writings as the one involving the other. Psalm cxii., 4 ; cxvi., 
 5, &c. It is because He is merciful that He desires to make us 
 righteous, and because He is righteous that He exercises mercy 
 when we are become that for which we are created, chastened, 
 and redeemed — viz., "righteous, even as He is righteous." 
 
 But secondly, remission of the penalty of sin is not inconsistent 
 with the justice of God, because He has nowhere declared that 
 He neither can, nor will, remit that penalty in whole or part. 
 On the contrary, He has always proclaimed in words and tones,, 
 as clear and emphatic as they are merciful and touching, that if 
 the sinner will return unto Him, He will show Himself a God 
 "full of compassion," "forgiving iniquity, transgression, and 
 sin." Exod. xxxiv., 7. "Let the wicked man forsake his 
 ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return 
 unto the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and unto our 
 God, for He will abundantly pardon." Isaiah lv., 7. In fact, 
 the Old Testament abounds with declarations, descriptions, and 
 promises which prepare for the parable of the prodigal son, 
 and the yet diviner reality, the manifestation of " God in Christ 
 reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their 
 
250 
 
 trespasses unto them," and overcoming their evil with good. 
 Matt, v., 45. 
 
 All this applies equally to the forgiveness of debts. We are 
 debtors to God for the innumerable blessings and talents we 
 have received from Him, and for which we have done so little 
 in return. Our Lord's parable in Matt, xviii., expresses the 
 magnitude of these debts pretty forcibly. And it also shows 
 how freely God forgives us these debts when we have nothing to 
 pay, if we in like manner will forgive our debtors. But it by 
 no means follows that there would be any true kindness in 
 forgiving debts where there is an ability to pay. On the 
 contrary, in proportion as the mind of a debtor is in a righteous 
 state he will desire and strive to repay according to ability and 
 opportunity. 
 
 Thus, then, we see how the Lord God had laid down " con- 
 ditions of peace," a basis of reconciliation on which He could 
 mercifully forgive sinners, and yet vindicate the honour of the 
 eternal laws of rectitude — viz., the conditions of sincere con- 
 fession and repentance, true sorrow for sin, and entire renun- 
 ciation of it. This is declared to us, as with the voice of many 
 waters, from the holy Scriptures, and is confirmed by those deep 
 parental instincts and those impressive voices of the moral sense 
 of which God Himself is the author. I can find no teaching, 
 either in the Bible or the human conscience, which declares 
 that God cannot freely forgive sin when it is truly repented of 
 and forsaken. It might, indeed, be unsafe for human beings 
 always to remit punishment, or to receive a sinner into favour 
 on these conditions, because ive cannot always tell when repent- 
 ance is sincere. But that danger does not exist for God. He 
 can both honourably and safely, therefore, forgive, because, by 
 requiring this thorough repentance before forgiveness, men are 
 in no danger of despising God's laws, and by invariably con- 
 necting suffering with sin, often to the innocent as well as the 
 
251 
 
 guilty, and sometimes continuing that suffering long after the sin 
 is repented of and forgiven, He effectually prevents men from 
 thinking lightly of sin, in consequence of being received into His 
 favour once again, — from imagining that God was thus merciful 
 because He was indifferent to sin. His indignation against sin 
 has been manifested too sternly and solemnly for us to suppose 
 that He inflicts punishment merely for the improvement of the 
 sinner, and remits it as soon as that object is answered. By 
 the voice of His chosen prophets, and the witness of conscience, 
 -—by the pangs of remorse in the heart even of the forgiven 
 sinner, — by the frown of God, which darkens over the bad 
 man's soul and life, — by the pains and privations which follow 
 upon all sin, — by the fearful woes in which so often the guilty 
 involve the innocent, — by the terrible rebukes uttered by the 
 Son of God against Scribe and Pharisee, — by the awful 
 warnings he gave of the future consequences of sin, — by the 
 appalling judgments that ultimately fell alike on all, both Jew 
 and Gentile, who shared in the guilt of crucifying him, and, 
 after space for repentance, still rejected him, whether in 
 Jerusalem or Rome, God vindicates the majesty, the sacred 
 glory of the everlasting laws of rectitude, and His righteous 
 abhorrence of sin. But it would seem that even because of all 
 these witnesses, even on account of the very weight and terrible- 
 ness of His manifestations against sin, God has made all the 
 more emphatic and plain His fatherly love and mercy in the 
 Holy Scriptures and through Jesus Christ. No language has 
 ever equalled, in its touching pathos, those declarations and 
 similitudes in the Scriptures, whereby God teaches us that if 
 men will repent and forsake their evil ways, M and return unto 
 the Lord, He will have mercy on them, and unto our God, for 
 He will abundantly pardon," — that while they are " yet a great 
 way off," He * has compassion on them," and comes forth to 
 meet their returning steps in mercy and love. 
 
 But what written declaration, what spoken parable, or divinest 
 
252 
 
 words of mercy, could be compared in their power to assure us 
 of God's forgiving love, with the actual fact of God's holy Son 
 being sent on earth "to save sinners," and, above all, of his 
 being permitted to die upon the cross, that all sinners, even those 
 that murdered him, might have the opportunity of repentance 
 given them once for all ? How can we doubt God's desire to 
 forgive even the worst and most hardened, if they will but 
 " turn from their evil ways," when we see that the apostles were 
 bidden to preach everywhere "repentance and remission of 
 sins" in the name of Christ, " beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 
 xxiv., 47),* and that those who did repent and were baptised, 
 even then, were saved ? How can we doubt, on the other hand, 
 God's abhorrence of sin, and of His judgments against it, if 
 unrepented of, when we see the fate of those "Jerusalem 
 sinners," who would not confess their guilt, and come to the 
 Saviour's feet. 
 
 But if God had thus laid down conditions of forgiveness, 
 proclaimed the terms on which He could and would receive 
 sinners into favour, we can understand why it is written, " If 
 we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our 
 sins." 1 John i., 9. For it is just of Him to forgive us on 
 the terms which He Himself has proclaimed, and when we 
 comply with the conditions He has thus mercifully laid down. 
 It is faithful and just of Him to keep the precious promises He 
 has made to His frail and sinful children. It is nowhere said in 
 Scripture that His justice cannot be satisfied unless punishment 
 is inflicted to the utmost, either on the innocent or the guilty. 
 There can be no justice, only frightful injustice, in punishing the 
 innocent instead of the guilty. But when His promises of 
 mercy are kept to the penitent, and His hatred of sin is marked 
 by the suffering it brings, when His erring and penitent children 
 are welcomed at last to their Father's home, when the sinner 
 
 * See Bunyan's "Favourite" Sermon. 
 
253 
 
 has " ceased from sin, " and become righteous in the presence 
 of the Lord, — the justice, the holiness, the love, and the right- 
 eousness of God, are all alike satisfied, His laws are magnified, 
 and His purposes fulfilled. 
 
 And, in the last place, it is manifest that the repentance of 
 the Jews alone would have saved them from destruction, with- 
 out the need of Christ's sufferings as a satisfaction to the 
 justice of God ; because, if they had repented, even at the last 
 hour, Pilate would not have crucified him, and the supposed 
 satisfaction would not have taken place. But as Grod sent His 
 Son into the world " to save sinners," would this divine pur- 
 pose of mercy have been frustrated because the effect of Christ's 
 character, miracles, and preaching, had been so mighty as to 
 bring even the Scribes and Pharisees to repentance ? Clearly, 
 this is an impossible supposition. It would be making it impos- 
 sible for God to pardon the sins of mankind in general, and of 
 the Jews in particular, because the latter had been brought to 
 repentance by Christ. This would be rather a different doc- 
 trine from that contained in the Saviour's pathetic appeal to the 
 rebellious city, — " Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem ! how often would 
 I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth 
 her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." Had they 
 let him thus gather them together, are we to believe this would 
 have been the act that would have made their salvation impos- 
 sible — that the tenderest love, when successful on earth, would 
 have rung the knell of their doom in heaven ? And when he 
 came near, and " beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, — If 
 thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things 
 which belong unto thy peace ! but now they are hid from thine 
 eyes " (Luke xix., 41, 42), are we to believe that the things 
 which belonged to their peace, and to that of the world — to their 
 present and eternal salvation, was that they should reject their 
 Saviour, and crucify him ? Yet these deplorable suppositions 
 are necessary, if we are to believe that God could not forgive 
 
254 
 
 sins unless His Holy Son was "taken, and by wicked hands 
 crucified and slain." Acts ii., 23. 
 
 In a word, repentance is always set forth as the condition on 
 which God will forgive sinners, as in general, so in the case even 
 of the " Jerusalem sinners " in particular, for, says St. Peter, — 
 referring to what seemed so long a delay in the coming of 
 Christ in judgment, — "The Lord is . . . not willing that 
 any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 
 2 Peter iii., 9. While, on the other hand, the sufferings of 
 Christ did not avail to save from a horrible fate, at the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, those who refused to repent and submit 
 themselves to his divine authority. 
 
CHAP. XVni.— CHEIST OUK PROPITIATION. 
 
 There is, however, one other way in which, as it has been urged 
 with great earnestness and eloquence, our Saviour satisfied the 
 demands of justice, requiring special notice — viz., by his profound 
 consciousness and confession of human sin.* The Amen which 
 Jesus pronounces to the judgments of God against sin, is 
 admirably shown by Mr. Campbell to have an atoning power for 
 the reconciliation of God and man, and, as I have previously 
 remarked, the instances of Moses's confession of the sins 
 of his countrymen, and the stern condemnation by Phinehas 
 of the sin at Baal-peor, are ably brought forward, among 
 other instances, as proofs of the willingness of God to accept 
 the confession of another's sin by an innocent member of 
 the race or family, as a means of atonement. This view is, I 
 think, as true as it is original, provided there be no confusion 
 of ideasf allowed to creep in, whereby the innocent person is 
 supposed to be repenting of, as well as confessing, sin of which 
 he has not been guilty. The former is as monstrous a legal 
 fiction as any in theological systems, because no one can really 
 repent of sins he has not committed. But it must surely be 
 well-pleasing to a righteous father, and, so far, an act of pro- 
 pitiation and atonement, when his younger sons have disobeyed 
 him, perhaps even rebelled against him, to find the elder, 
 instead of taking part in their sin, instead even of being in- 
 different to it, or ignoring it, emphatically lamenting and sternly 
 
 * Mc.Leod Campbell on the Atonement, 
 t Such as we find in Mr. Campbell's work, and which was well exposed in 
 the National Review, for April, 1856. It seems to me the only serious 
 fallacy in that truly valuable work. 
 
256 
 
 condemning it. "When the Son of God made himself wholly one 
 with our erring race, in their humiliation and weakness, in their 
 temptations and infirmities, but steadfastly set his face against 
 their sins, — when he confessed and mourned over their trans- 
 gressions, and acknowledged his and their Father's righteous 
 rule and authority over them, when he gave himself up to 
 his Father's will in sublime self-sacrifice, — as their high- 
 priest, "holy, harmless, and undefiled, and separate from sin- 
 ners," gave himself as the federal head and chief of his race, 
 the true representative man, gave himself in their name and as 
 their example that they should do likewise, he was offering a 
 " propitiation for our sins " (1 John ii., 2), making atonement 
 between man and God, "making reconciliation for the sins of the 
 people" (Heb. ii., 17), and offering a sacrifice on behalf of 
 humanity, wherewith God was well-pleased. Heb. vii., 26, 27. 
 
 In like manner, when amidst all the trials and temptations of 
 earth, he preserved his allegiance to God uncorrupted, and his 
 holy innocence undefiled, when he manifested how divine and 
 beautiful a thing is human nature, and showed what men may 
 become in spite of all their backslidings and sin, he was "the 
 propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the 
 sins of the whole world." 1 John ii., 2. He was com- 
 mending that Humanity to God which human sin had too often 
 made displeasing to the holiness and righteousness of the Divine 
 Being, binding up again the rent and jagged wound that had 
 been made in the union of man and God, " condemning sin in 
 the flesh" (Eom. viii., 3), and even in the flesh presenting 
 humanity " faultless before the presence of His glory." " For 
 he is our peace who hath made both one" (Eph. ii., 14), not 
 only man with man, but also man with God. By being and 
 doing all that he was and did " in the likeness of sinful flesh," 
 he manifested what humanity might become, what it was in- 
 tended to be. In figurative language, God was "weary of 
 men's sins," of their ingratitude and backsliding, and trans- 
 
257 
 
 gressions. Hence Christ's perfect developement of human nature 
 in the image of God, his absolute devotedness and perfect self- 
 sacrifice to the will of the Father, his presentation of our nature 
 in all the bright perfection of God's original idea, must have 
 been that to which God, as it were, looked forward "from the 
 foundation of the world," when he created men free, and had, 
 therefore, also to look forward to the appalling accumulation of 
 human sin which has polluted the earth for six thousand years. 
 That sight we can well believe would be one which God could 
 bear with only by looking to the perfect holiness and obedience 
 of His beloved Son, "the man Christ Jesus," and the righteous- 
 ness which through him should come unto all men, and we can 
 understand, from this point of view, therefore why we are said to 
 be " accepted in the beloved." Eph. i., 6. Only so far as we 
 become like that beloved one, enter into his obedience, partake of 
 his spirit, confess and sorrow with him over human rebelliousness 
 and sin, can God receive us into His favour, and accept us, recog- 
 nise us, as His children. It is this atonement of our mind and 
 will, with the will and mind of Christ on the subject of sin, as on 
 all other points, that is acceptable to God. When we feel and say, 
 with regard to any act or habit of sin, that whatever others may 
 do we will have no part in it,* when we hate and abjure it, and 
 strive to uproot and crush it, when, moreover, we feel penetrated 
 with a sense of shame and grief if any of those near or dear to 
 us have been involved in such sin, and we humble ourselves 
 before God for their sakes, then we make atonement and pro- 
 pitiation for them, an offering acceptable to God. 
 
 In this point of view, we see how it may be said that Christ 
 reconciles not only us to God, but also God to us ; for in thus 
 glorifying humanity he was, of course, making it once more well- 
 pleasing in the sight of God, and making Him delight in it as in 
 the rest of His glorious works 'when he beheld them in the 
 
 * This is evidently the idea in Job i., 5. 
 
258 
 
 day of Creation, and saw that they were good. While the 
 
 whole world was "dead in trespasses and sins," and "lying in 
 
 wickedness," men were not, could not be, pleasing to God. 
 
 The words of St. Paul (Gal. iv., 9) have been oppositely quoted 
 
 in connection with this subject, " But now after that ye know 
 
 God, or rather are known of Him, how turn ye again to the 
 
 weak and beggarly elements," <fcc. 
 
 " St. Paul is there describing the Christian state, and he declares that 
 the being recognised of God is more characteristic of the Gospel state than 
 recognising God. 'Know God:' here is man reconciled to God. 'Are 
 known of him :' here is God reconciled to man." * 
 
 When God becomes well pleased with man by his repentance 
 and faith, when He receives him into favour, and " accepts him 
 in the beloved," it is not only a legitimate use of terms to say 
 that God is reconciled to him, but it is most important to mark, 
 by some term or other, our belief that a change has taken place 
 in the Divine mind — a change in the way in which He regards 
 us, a change that consists in the passing away of displeasure, of 
 " indignation and wrath," and in His regarding us with divine 
 complacency and satisfaction. It is quite true that the Scrip- 
 tures nowhere use this exact expression of God being re- 
 conciled to us; but everything they declare of His character 
 proclaims unmistakably that He does feel " indignation " 
 against "every soul that doeth evil," and which changes to 
 complacent approval on sincere repentance and faith. And 
 the phrase " to be reconciled " would probably never have been 
 objected to for the expression of this truth, had it not been for 
 two errors that have found shelter under it. 1st. God has been 
 represented as the enemy of the sinner, and as needing to 
 be changed into a friend. 2nd. His divine Son has been 
 represented as the third party, who, loving both, strives success- 
 fully to overcome the Father's enmity to man. If the root of 
 all superstition is a consciousness of sin, v the stem of the poison- 
 
 * Robertson on the Corinthians, p. 411. 
 
tree whence shoot forth the fruitful branches of fear, cruelty, 
 and all manner of vileness, is men's tendency to view God 
 as their enemy on account of their sins. The darkest, saddest 
 bane of superstition in every age, whether in savage or civilised 
 nations, the most frightful enormities inflicted by it, have 
 all originated in this view of their God or gods. It has 
 been the blighting curse even on Christianity for ages; the 
 natural fruit of sin is fear. But, oh, if the first and greatest 
 of all the commandments is to love the Lord our God, with 
 all our heart, and soul, and strength, must it not be worth more 
 than all that earthly life can offer to expose this fatal error, and 
 unfold truer views of God in its place ? " Thou shalt love the 
 Lord thy God." Yes. But how is that charge to be obeyed 
 with such a creed as thousands hold ? And, alas ! how wonderful 
 that creed should ever have been held by Christians in the face 
 of such words as these, * God so loved the world, that He 
 gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him 
 should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii., 16. 
 
 Is it so difficult to understand that God could love men in 
 their sins, even in spite of their sins, and yet feel * indignation 
 and wrath" against them (not merely against their sins, but 
 against them) ? Is it not a puny sentimental love that vanishes 
 at the discovery of faults in the beloved one ? Especially has 
 not God shown us by the parental affections how a human heart 
 may yearn towards a guilty child, even when all other hearts 
 are hardened against him? 
 
 And is it so difficult to believe that even because He is our 
 truest friend, God sets His face sternly against our sins, and 
 bends His awful frown upon the unrighteous soul ? Nay, but 
 His indignation is one of the surest signs of His interest in us, 
 His love for us. He would feel none at the actions, whatever 
 they might be, of " the beasts that perish ;"■ — only at the wrong- 
 doing of beings made in His own likeness, made to become His 
 dear children in heaven. 
 
260 
 
 Hence, so far as the word " reconcile " implies that God is 
 or was the enemy of any man on account of his sins, and 
 required to be persuaded to forego His resentment or to have 
 His wrath appeased by a third party, it is a very objectionable 
 term. But if it be understood as simply meaning that God was 
 or is displeased with men for their sins, and indignant at their 
 evil-doing, and that He required to see a change in their hearts 
 and lives before He could receive them into favour and view 
 them with complacency, it can pass unchallenged. It is pro- 
 foundly true that Jesus came to change the sentiments of God 
 towards men, as well as those of men towards God ; but he does 
 this by changing our hearts and lives from evil to good, by 
 influencing our minds, not by acting on the mind of God, — 
 changing men so that they should become " new creatures " in 
 Christ, new in the sight of God, so that where God before saw 
 only what grieved Him, He should now behold all in which He 
 could delight, and thus be " propitiated " in the true Scripture 
 sense of the term. 
 
 Unquestionably there is a deep truth in this doctrine of the 
 necessity for Christ's sacrifice as a propitiation for the sins of 
 mankind. Not in unmeaning verbiage, or aimless declamation, 
 did the beloved Apostle write those comforting words — " If any 
 man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ 
 the righteous : and he is the propitiation for our sins ; and 
 not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 
 1 John ii., 1, 2. Keverting to the illustration used in a former 
 chapter, imagine a great captain confronted by a body of rebel- 
 lious troops, and then realise the feelings with which he would 
 see that the chief among them was striving to bring them back 
 to their allegiance, with which he would behold him stepping 
 forth from their ranks to express profound sorrow and shame at 
 the conduct of his fellows, denouncing their sin and imploring 
 them to sue for pardon. Would not such an act be a true 
 propitiation for the sins of the mutineers, an act well-pleasing 
 
261 
 
 in the leader's eyes, one that would incline him even to forgive 
 them for the sake of him who thus, in such an awful hour, 
 and at such tremendous risk to himself, confessed the sin 
 of his associates, and sought to turn them back to duty. So 
 far as that act was a righteous act, an act of devoted loyal 
 self-sacrifice, an act very sweet and precious to the great cap- 
 tain's soul, it would incline a truly, great-hearted, generous 
 nature, to pardon and love all for whom that officer might 
 intercede, to reconcile him to all with whom that officer was 
 connected and identified. Now, this is, no doubt, to some 
 extent, giving an anthropomorphic representation of the feelings 
 and character of God ; but that is not only frequently done in 
 the Bible, but is absolutely necessary, in many cases, in order 
 to attach any ideas to our language concerning God. All 
 these ideas and conceptions can be but faint approximations, at 
 the best, to the reality. We must be content to draw as near 
 as we reverently can, always remembering the alloy of error and 
 imperfection in our views, and striving to eliminate those 
 errors while not rejecting the truth. I have already mentioned 
 how. And hence it is right to bear in mind that, when the 
 great Hebrew leader presented himself before God, bowed down 
 with grief and shame at the guilt of his people, and yearning 
 to make atonement thereby between them and God, his con- 
 fession and intercession were accepted as a ground of effica- 
 cious atonement and forgiveness of their sin. See Deut. ix., 
 19, 20. 
 
 And it will be seen also from that instance how greatly the 
 atoning power of such an act is increased, how much, indeed of 
 its essential blessedness and efficacy lies in the fact that he who 
 is thus confessing and condemning the sin of his brethren, does 
 not sever himself from them ; but, on the contrary, desires to 
 abide in closest fellowship with them, identifying himself with 
 them, not, indeed, in their sins, but in their sufferings, in their 
 capacities for a nobler life, in the possibilities of their returning 
 
262 
 
 to their true allegiance, interceding for them in the spirit of that 
 generous love which we believe to be the deepest thing in the 
 nature of God, and which we can, therefore, believe to be the 
 thing dearest to Him in the souls of His children. Hatred of 
 the sin, love and compassion for the sinner, are just the elements 
 in any act or effort of theirs to " make reconciliation for the 
 sins" of one another, which would be most effectual with Grod 
 for that purpose.* 
 
 * This appears to "be the explanation of the statement (Heb. vii., 25) that 
 Christ " ever liveth to make intercession" for us, according to the remarks 
 made in chap, xv., in reference to intercessory prayer. 
 
CHAPTER XIX.— HEBREW SACRIFICES. 
 
 SIN, BURNT, AND PEACE OFFERINGS. THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. 
 
 Fully to understand the language of Scripture on all the topics 
 that have been treated of in the last four chapters, it is neces- 
 sary to apprehend the meaning of the sacrifices which the 
 writers of Scripture had been accustomed from infancy to regard 
 with the reverence due to typical ceremonies instituted by their 
 great Lawgiver under the divine sanction, and the more care- 
 fully we inquire into that meaning, the more we are struck with 
 the admirable manner in which those outward symbols were 
 adapted to prefigure, and teach the same great lesson that has 
 been throughout the subject of this essay — viz., of life, pro- 
 gress, perfection, coming forth from union with the Son of 
 God, and so through him with the eternal Father. 
 
 It is evident, at once, even from a cursory examination, that 
 the Scripture writers (as we might expect, considering their 
 familiarity with this wonderful Hebrew economy of ceremonies 
 and types), discern and vividly set forth the redeeming work of 
 Christ, by continual allusion to the ordinances and sacrifices of 
 the Mosaic Law. For these, I believe, were all instituted with 
 reference to the great truths and solemn facts exhibited in that 
 later developement of the kingdom of God, which is called the 
 Christian dispensation, and certainly there is an admirable fit- 
 ness and harmony to be discerned between them. 
 
 Among the principal of these symbols were the sacrifices of 
 slain beasts, and especially the blood of the animals devoted to 
 these purposes. 
 
 The leading idea of the Jewish dispensation, from the first 
 call of Abraham, was unquestionably this — that God desired to 
 
264 
 
 separate unto Himself a holy people, a family of righteous men, 
 to whom He would gradually reveal Himself, who should love 
 and worship Him, and live as brethren towards one another ; 
 so that through them " all the families of the earth" should at 
 length learn to worship the one true God, and " be blessed." 
 " Holiness unto the Lord," was the great designation of the 
 children of Abraham. And every part of God's dealings with 
 them was adapted, on the one hand, to reveal His holiness to 
 them, and, on the other, to promote that holiness in themselves. 
 Thus, also, they were taught something of the true meaning of 
 sin ; taught that it was not merely an act of rebellion against 
 Him as their king, but a personal offence against Him as a God 
 of holiness, against His whole nature and character — something, 
 therefore, essentially hateful in His sight. Thus a sense of 
 sin was awakened in their souls, altogether different from the 
 ordinary convictions of heathen nations in regard to wrong- 
 doing.* 
 
 Other nations having fallen more or less into idolatry and its 
 hateful vices, are described in the Bible therefore as rebels 
 against God or strangers to Him, who were not in covenant 
 with Him, and who, not having consecrated themselves to His 
 service, were unsanctified, and "unclean." Hence the Apostle, 
 in writing to the Galatian converts, says: "We who are Jews 
 by nature [by natural descent], and not sinners of the Gentiles " 
 (ii., 15); "not by any means intending to say that all Jews 
 were good and holy, and all Gentiles wicked, but that this was 
 the general term to signify those persons who were not heirs 
 of the promise, nor partakers of the covenant made with 
 Abraham." f 
 
 Heirs of the promise they certainly were in the true spiritual 
 sense, as the Apostle shows in the epistle just referred to, espe- 
 
 * See "Neander's Church History," vol. i. Introduction. "Religious 
 Condition of the Jewish People." 
 
 f Walter Bernard, p. 39, 2nd edit. 
 
265 
 
 dally in chapter iii., 7-9. But this was just the mystery which 
 the Jews could not or would not receive. And no doubt it was 
 necessary, in the earlier stages of their national life, that they 
 should be made to feel, in the only way possible to them, that 
 they were specially distinguished from other nations, both by 
 peculiar sanctity or consecration, and peculiar privileges. " They 
 were surrounded by idolatrous neighbours, and the greatest care 
 was requisite to preserve them from being corrupted by evil 
 example. Hence the numberless ceremonies instituted by 
 Moses for the purpose of keeping constantly before their eyes 
 these all-important truths : — First, that they were God's chosen 
 people, separated from the heathen world in order to maintain, 
 pure and undefiled, the worship of One God, and the practice of 
 the Ten Commandments. Secondly, that if they performed 
 these duties (and kept their faith to Jehovah) they should 
 inherit the great blessings promised to their forefather ; but that 
 if they failed, they would lose the benefit of being descended 
 from Abraham, and be treated, like the Gentile world, as aliens 
 from God."* But the temptations and transgressions arising 
 out of all these ceremonial observances, and especially that- 
 deeper sense of sin which I have spoken of above, would have 
 utterly crushed or hardened the children of Israel, and frus- 
 trated the great object for which they were set apart (for of 
 course human infirmity and passion constantly led them 
 astray) had they not at the same time been taught that Jehovah 
 was " a God merciful and gracious," willing to forgive, and 
 showing them the way of reconciliation with Himself when they 
 truly repented of their sins and returned unto their God. And 
 in order to direct and secure that attention to the spiritual act of 
 repentance which it would be hard for a barbarous, sensual- 
 minded people to give, a material emblem of penitence was 
 permitted to be used by them, and the death of the sin-offering 
 
 * Walter Bernard, p. 39. 
 
206 
 
 was made the outward type of that inward destruction of sin in 
 the heart, which takes place when repentance is sincere.* The 
 animal which represented their sin, which, in fact, was called 
 their " sin," t was slain and its body burnt " without the camp," 
 or outside the city walls, as something polluted and accursed. 
 Levit. iv., <fcc. But the blood of the victim was brought into 
 the temple, and sprinkled on the altar — i.e., was consecrated 
 to God, like the blood of all the temple sacrifices, to make 
 atonement for their sins. The reason is given us in Leviticus 
 xvii., 11. "The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have 
 given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls ; 
 for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." 
 Here we see that blood was made an emblem of life by 
 Jehovah, because life is dependent on the blood. % And 
 hence the wonderful fitness and significance of this typical 
 action of sprinkling the blood of the various offerings upon 
 the altar. The lives of all God's people are to be consecrated 
 to Him ; and the offering of the blood of the victims on the 
 
 * See " Nicol on Scripture Sacrifices," section 4. A very valuable work, 
 now, unfortunately, extremely scarce. The author was a minister of the 
 Scotch Kirk, and died in 1819. The hook in question was then edited by 
 his friend and correspondent, the Rev. B. Mardon. See also Appendix C. 
 
 f The word " offering " (sin-offering) is an explanatory addition of the 
 translators, and useful as such, but it is not in the original. Doubtless 
 Gen. iv. 7, is to be explained as above. A lamb from the flock was to be had 
 close to the door. 
 
 % Great misapprehension of the meaning of the sacred writers, when 
 speaking of redemption by Christ, has arisen from the serious mistake of 
 conceiving that the blood of the sacrifices represented death instead of life. 
 Nothing can be plainer than the language of Scripture on this point in the 
 above chapter (Levit. xvii.) ; and yet many, I believe most, theologians, of 
 every church, have spoken of the blood of Christ as synonymous with his 
 death. Mr. Maurice is the first writer on the subject, as far as I know, who 
 has lifted our thoughts on that matter, as well as on sundry others, out of 
 the rut in which they had hitherto rolled. Even Nicol just misses this most 
 important truth, though he makes a valuable application of Levit. xvii., 11, 
 in reference to the death of sin. See further on. 
 
267 
 
 altar, therefore, represented that consecration of a man's life and 
 spirit, that making his heart holy unto the Lord, which, as was 
 said above, was one great purpose of all God's dealings with the 
 children of Israel j an act, therefore, which made him at one 
 with God, and as an act of renewed consecration to God, 
 reconciled, or at-oned him once more with God. For in the 
 case of the sin-offering there was this further meaning of 
 reconciliation evidently involved. When a Jew committed sin, 
 either moral or ceremonial, he fell out of his covenanted, 
 privileged condition, as one of God's family, and lapsed into the 
 state of uncleanness, the state of the Gentiles who had not yet 
 been separated unto holiness and the worship of God. He 
 came thereby under the sentence of death,* " the curse " pro- 
 nounced against all Jews who kept not the law. " Cursed is 
 every one who continueth not in all things which arc written in 
 the book of the law to do them." Deut. xxvii., 26 ; Gal. iii., 10. 
 But by the Mosaic ordinances an animal from the herd was 
 permitted to be slain instead ; for Jehovah hath no pleasure in 
 the death of a sinner, " but had rather that he should turn from 
 his wickedness and live." Ezekiel xviii., 32; xxxiii., 11. 
 Repentance is what God desires; and it consists, first, in 
 confessing sin before Him in sorrow and humiliation. (This was 
 expressed by bringing their " sin " to the priest at the door of 
 the temple.) Secondly, in renouncing sin or destroying it. 
 (This was signified by putting their " sin " to death outside the 
 camp, as an accursed thing.) But since all wilful sin arises 
 either from separation, alienation from God, or rebellion against 
 Him, so all holiness must come from offering up, consecrating 
 the life of all our impulses, faculties, and powers to Him, as 
 that which rightfully belongs to Him. This, therefore, must be 
 the third stage of sincere repentance — the consecration, making 
 holy to God the perverted impulse or power, so that what before 
 was evil might thus become good, what had been crooked might 
 be made straight, and that which was turned away from God be 
 
26S 
 
 brought hack to Him. For it is worthy of note, that even in 
 our sins there is some part of them (that, in fact, which con- 
 stitutes their life), that may he separated from them, like the 
 blood from the flesh, and offered up to God. Our virtues and 
 vices often grow from the same root. Thus in pride there is 
 the element of self-respect, in resentment and revenge there is 
 something of righteous indignation against iniquity. In 
 ambition, even in covetousness, there are noble elements, and 
 so with other sins. Something, therefore, in these our acts of 
 repentance is to be preserved, brought into the sanctuary, 
 consecrated as a holy offering to God, whereby we become once 
 more reconciled unto Him, made at-one with Him, if whatever 
 is thus offered is at 'the same time a sign or proof that the body 
 of sin is destroyed by sincere repentance. This was all repre- 
 sented by the blood of the victim, which being brought to the 
 altar, as that which rightfully belonged to God, was at once a 
 sign that the animal which represented the sin of the person 
 bringing it was really slain, and a solemn consecration of the 
 life or spirit of the sinful impulse, habit, or thought to the Most 
 High. The taking away the animal's blood was the cause of 
 its death, and the bringing that blood to the temple was a sign 
 of its death. And thus we see how " the blood made an at- 
 onement or reconciliation for their souls " with God, provided 
 the inward disposition corresponded to the outward sign.* 
 
 It is not a little striking that Moses (according to this view 
 of the sin-offering) should thus have borne such emphatic tes- 
 timony to the great truth hinted at above, and have vindicated 
 the essential worth and holy capacities of human nature, teach- 
 ing by these sin-offerings that even in our sinful tendencies and 
 evil impulses themselves, there is something, nay, their very 
 spirit and life, that may be made holy and become worthy 
 
 * The prophetical "books are full of denunciations against using the 
 emblem without the right spirit which it was to foster and represent. 
 
269 
 
 of God. Man's bodily carnal nature is the occasion of sin, and 
 must perish ; but his spiritual nature, even when it has yielded 
 to sin, may be redeemed therefrom, and rise to God. By 
 putting to death the animal and selfish nature, the spirit, thus 
 set free, may be offered in holy sacrifice to God. And the 
 mercy of God was manifested in sparing the sinner and allowing 
 the sin-offering to die instead, accepting his repentance and 
 allowing him once more to become a member of the holy 
 society or kingdom which rested on the covenant God had made 
 with His people. Thus he was "cleansed," brought out of 
 "Gentile uncleanness" into the holy condition of the covenant 
 children of Abraham. 
 
 The burnt- offerings followed the sin-offerings with admi- 
 rable significance. In their case the victim having been slain, 
 and the blood sprinkled as before upon the altar, the whole 
 body was then burnt thereupon as a holy sacrifice to the Lord, 
 representing the complete consecration to God, body and soul 
 and spirit, of him who made the offering. But this sacrifice 
 could not strictly be permitted until repentance had been mani- 
 fested by the offering for sin.* 
 
 But before we can examine how far these institutions explain 
 those passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ as 
 a sin-offering, or allude to his blood in connection with our 
 redemption from sin and death, I must notice the use of blood 
 on the eventful night when the Angel of Death passed over 
 the children of Israel, but smote the first-born of the Egyptians 
 (Exodus xii., 22); and also on that memorable day when 
 God made his covenant with the Israelites at the foot of Mount 
 Sinai. Exodus xxiv., 6, 8. In the one case the blood of the 
 lamb was sprinkled on the door-posts of their dwellings, and 
 in the other, half of it was sprinkled on the altar, the other half 
 on the people. 
 
 * See p. 219. 
 
270 
 
 Now, following the chain of argument commenced above, does 
 it not seem that in the first case the blood was made a token 
 that the lives of those within the house were consecrated to God, 
 belonged to him, and therefore were not to be touched by the 
 Angel of Death, and at the same time a sign of (rod's purpose 
 to give them a higher and more spiritual life by direct communi- 
 cation from Himself? while in the latter instance do we not 
 understand that the blood sprinkled on the altar represented 
 the self-consecration of the people to God, which was their part 
 of the great covenant, while the portion sprinkled on them sym- 
 bolised the promise and purpose of Grod to give them His own 
 divine and spiritual life as His part of that covenant ? But so 
 far as they thus gave themselves to God, and He gave His life 
 and spirit to them, they became a holy people, separated from 
 the idolatrous Gentiles, cleansed from the pollutions of their 
 carnal nature, pardoned and forgiven, received into a state of 
 peculiar privilege and covenanted mercies. In every sin and 
 burnt-offering the Israelites renewed this consecration of them- 
 selves to Jehovah, but the sprinkling had no need to be 
 renewed. For God's promises are never broken, as man's 
 are. His covenant once made stands sure and steadfast to 
 the end. 
 
 And thus that blood which represented the divine life and 
 spirit was, of course, viewed as having a cleansing, sanctifying 
 influence. It represented, in truth, the Spirit of God, the divine 
 life which purifies, hallows, and unfolds the life of man. 
 
 But observe, again, how this blood of sprinkling was also a 
 pledge of faith for both parties to the covenant. By sprinkling 
 half the blood upon the altar, in the name and on behalf of the 
 children of Israel, Moses symbolically gave their life into God's 
 keeping. By sprinkling the other half upon the people, in the 
 name and on behalf of God, he expressed God's promise to give 
 His life to them in return for theirs. That life was given to 
 them in all the vast spiritual and even physical blessings they 
 
271 
 
 received while and whenever they were faithful to Him, — the 
 life of God in their souls and in their limbs, in the knowledge of 
 Him that raised, inspired, and sanctified their souls, in the free 
 and buoyant gladness that filled their hearts, in the bounding 
 life-blood that coursed exulting through their veins. But when 
 they forgot God, or rebelled against Him, their lives, which had 
 been pledged to Him, were forfeited, and we have observed the 
 merciful provision made for permitting and winning them to 
 return to Him in penitence and renewed self-dedication — not 
 without punishment, indeed, when the sin had been more than 
 ceremonial, for, as we have seen, punishment for moral offences 
 is the truest mercy. 
 
 And hence we understand, also, why the blood of the sin- 
 offering was sprinkled on whatever was set apart and sanctified 
 to the service of God. It was the sign or seal of God's owner- 
 ship. As the owner's mark would be placed upon the merchan- 
 dise coming to a merchant from a foreign port, and that mark 
 would generally be a stamp or seal on wax, so those persons or 
 things which had been consecrated to God or claimed by Him, 
 were to be marked and sealed by the symbolical blood. It was 
 the sign of their being redeemed from the dominion of evil 
 and sin, cleansed from the defilement of the world and the flesh, 
 and translated into the kingdom of God. But, under the New 
 Covenant, the reality which the blood of animals only pre- 
 figured — viz., the Holy Spirit, was abundantly bestowed ; and 
 the disciples were said to be u sealed " thereby " unto the day 
 of redemption." 2 Cor. i., 22 ; Eph. i., 13 ; iv., 30 ; 2 Tim. 
 ii., 19 ; Kev. vii., 3-8, &c. 
 
 Thus the symbolic ceremonies of the old covenant prepare us 
 to understand the language of the new. 
 
 That language speaks of Jesus as being made our sin- 
 offering (2 Cor. v., 21), — for thus, as I have said, we must 
 understand the word afxaprta in this passage, even as we so 
 translate it in the Septuagint, where it refers to any of these 
 
272 
 
 sacrifices, and as it is translated in Isaiah liii., 10. All the 
 expr essions used with regard to the Saviour, both in the Old and 
 New Testaments, such as his being made " a curse for us," 
 (Gal. hi., 13), "sin for us" (2 Cor. v., 21), and "an offering 
 for sin" (Isaiah liii., 10 ; and Heb. xiii., 11, 12), are easily 
 intelligible when we see that the sin-offering among the Jews 
 was the means of reconciliation with God, because it was an 
 emblem of the destruction of sin — a putting to death the animal, 
 selfish nature, leaving the spirit (or blood), freed therefrom, to 
 be offered in sacrifice to God. Jesus, identifying himself with 
 the human race, does that on their behalf, and for their example, 
 which alone can reconcile human beings to God, He " gave 
 Ins flesh for the life of the world." John vi., 51. He gave his 
 earthly and animal life to death, that men might repent and 
 live, "condemned sin in the flesh," and offered his spirit in 
 sacrifice to God. So far as we make ourselves one with Christ 
 in faith and obedience, doing the same things, therefore, that he 
 did — living his life, dying his death — we share in the efficacy, 
 meaning, and power of that "offering for sin;" "we are cruci- 
 fied with Christ to the world and the flesh" (Gal. ii., 20 ; v., 
 24 ; vi., 14) ; we have died to sin, have put sin to death, so 
 that " our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin 
 might be destroyed." Rom. vi., 6 ; Eph. iv., 22 ; Col. ii., 
 11 ; iii., 5., &c. And thus we are reconciled to God by the 
 blood of the sin-offering which, on the one hand, is the sign that 
 sin has been destroyed, and, on the other, that, so far as we are 
 Christ's, there has been a true consecration of our life and spirit to 
 God. For every genuine act of repentance, of conquest over sin, 
 and of self-surrender to God, is just that act which does reconcile 
 us to Him, makes us at one with Him, and, like the blood upon 
 the altar, " makes atonement for our souls." But both the type 
 and antitype, the Mosaic sacrifice and the death of Christ, were 
 alike God's merciful provision for sparing the sinner whose life 
 was forfeited, for allowing the victim to die instead, for teaching 
 
273 
 
 the sinner to come to repentance, to put his sin, and his sinful, 
 selfish, carnal nature, to death, and to give himself, in the spirit, 
 thenceforth, once again in newness of life to God. Thus, 
 " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, feeing made 
 a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that 
 hangeth on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham [i.e., promised 
 to Abraham] might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, 
 that we might receive the [fulfilment of the] promise of the 
 Spirit through faith." Gal. iii., 13, 14. Christ delivered 
 every Jew and Gentile from the condemned cell (in which they 
 all alike lay waiting the punishment of death pronounced upon 
 them by the law),* who would accept him as their sin-offering 
 in humble penitence and faith. He was said to be " made a 
 curse" because the sin-offering was "made a curse" (i.e., de- 
 voted to death as an accursed thing), and he was thus put to 
 an accursed death on the cross. But having thus died and 
 risen again, all who have done that in reality which the sin- 
 offering was to do symbolically — viz., repented of their sins, and 
 given themselves to God, could now come to lum in faith and 
 "be made the righteousness of God in him" — i.e., be made 
 righteous, be justified, according to God's will and standard, 
 righteous even as His Son is righteous. Hence we find, in the 
 Scripture narratives, that all who would understand and receive 
 this doctrine of repentance and faith, when preached to them by 
 the Apostles, — all who in faith accepted Jesus as their sin-offer- 
 ing, acknowledging that they had need of one, confessing and 
 repenting of their rebellion and sins against God, — all, in short, 
 both then and since, who did or now do, that in their own hearts 
 which every sin-offering from the time of Moses, especially this 
 most solemn offering of all, was intended to teach them, — were 
 " sanctified (made holy to God) by his blood " (Heb. xiii., 12); 
 have '' redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of 
 
 * See Macknight on the Epistles. Horn, and Galat. 
 
 N 
 
274 
 
 sins " (Eph. i., 7 ; Col. i., 14) ; were pardoned and saved ; re- 
 conciled to, and accepted by, their Sovereign and their God. 
 Eom. v., 10. 
 
 The law, as I have said, could not make men righteous, 
 
 could only convince them they were not so (see Horn, iii., 19, 
 
 et seq.), and so "stop their mouths" if they attempted to prove 
 
 themselves righteous, and make " all the world " know that it 
 
 was " guilty before God." " For by the law is the knowledge 
 
 of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law 
 
 [that righteousness which He imparts to us who could not obey 
 
 the law, which the law could not give us the power of attaining 
 
 to] is manifested .... even the righteousness of God 
 
 which is by faith of Jesus Christ [which comes to us by having 
 
 faith in Christ, uniting ourselves with him in faith] unto all and 
 
 upon all that believe [whether Jew or Gentile] ; for there is no 
 
 difference [for all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
 
 God ;] being justified freely by His grace [being cleansed from 
 
 sin, and acquitted of guilt by His unpurchased mercy and grace, 
 
 and made holy unto the Lord], by the redemption that is [found 
 
 through union with and abiding] in Christ Jesus : whom God has 
 
 set forth to be a propitiation [a mercy-seat,* such as existed in 
 
 the Jewish Temple in the Holy of Holies, whence God declared 
 
 His forgiveness of sins year by year after the high-priest had 
 
 slain the sin-offering, and made confession for the sins of the 
 
 people, and sprinkled the mercy-seat and ark of the covenant 
 
 with the blood of the sin-offering] through faith in his blood 
 
 [Christ was a mercy-seat, sprinkled with his own blood (Levit. 
 
 xvi., 15), a holy sanctuary whence God proclaimed forgiveness 
 
 of sin, and gave a new and holy life to all who accepted in faith 
 
 the blood of the Saviour as at once the symbol of their own 
 
 penitence, and of the new life-blood of the Holy Spirit, which he 
 
 * This appears after all that has heen written on the suhject to he the 
 test rendering of iXao-Trjpiov. 
 
275 
 
 would pour into their hearts to make them clean and righteous. 
 Thus 'God in Christ' deigned] to declare His righteousness 
 for the remission of sins that are past [to explain or vindicate* 
 His character for justice iii overlooking f human sin in past 
 ages] through the forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at this 
 time His righteousness, [and which forbearance was exercised 
 then because He had always intended to manifest His righteous- 
 ness now, in order] that he might be [shown to be] just [or 
 righteous in all His dealings with men], and the justifier [a God 
 who acquits and makes righteous] of him who believeth in 
 Jesus." Kom. iii., 19-26. God mercifully overlooked men's 
 sins to a certain extent and for a while, as Paul told the 
 Athenians, " And the times of this ignorance God winked at ; 
 but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent " (Acts xvii., 
 30), for He did not mean that the world was always to go on in 
 sin, but at length fully revealed His own righteousness in the 
 character of His beloved Son, and then commanded all men to 
 put away sin, and to receive the new and holy spirit of righteous- 
 ness which He was willing to give by Christ to all who manifested 
 " repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus 
 Christ." God helps us to put away sin and to become holy, 
 because He is holy, and thus He at once declares His righteous- 
 ness and makes us so likewise. By becoming one with Christ 
 we become filled with his spirit of piety, obedience, holiness, 
 self-sacrifice, and love ; he prompts and inspires us to give 
 ourselves up to goodness and to God, even as he himself did and 
 ever does ; and through his righteousness he becomes " the author 
 of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.' Heb. v., 9. 
 In spite of all that would slay us, " we nevertheless live ; — yet 
 not we, but Christ liveth in us." Gal. ii., 20. 
 
 These truths are set forth with great urgency by the writer 
 to the Hebrews, to reconcile them to the idea of a crucified 
 
 * Alford in loco. + Ibid. 
 
276 
 
 Messiah, especially with reference to the great annual ceremony 
 by which reconciliation or atonement with God was made for the 
 sins of the whole people. Levit. xvi. He views Jesus as the 
 sin-offering made for all the nation (Heb. xiii., 11, 12), and re- 
 minding his fellow-countrymen that the high-priest went alone 
 once every year into the holy of holies, " Not without blood, 
 which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people " 
 (Heb. ix. 7), he adds "But Christ being come .... 
 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, 
 entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal re- 
 demption for us " (11, 12) ; and again, "how once in the end of 
 the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
 himself (26) ; and again, " for by one offering (for sin), he hath 
 perfected for ever them that are sanctified " (x., 14) — i.e., hath 
 made it unnecessary for those who have accepted Christ as their 
 Saviour and Lord, have confessed and repented of their sins, 
 have been crucified with Christ, and who are sanctified — i.e., con- 
 secrated to God in the name and by the Spirit of Christ, to have 
 any more sin-offerings of bullocks and goats made for them. 
 God pardons and accepts them — " their sins and iniquities will 
 I remember no more." (17.) They may draw nigh to God, 
 even to the mercy-seat, "having .... boldness to 
 enter into the holiest (where the mercy- seat was placed) 
 by the blood of Jesus " (19) ; * so that those who in faith 
 accept the blood of Christ as at once the sanctifying emblem 
 of the destruction of their sin, of their renewed consecra- 
 tion to God, and their covenanted acceptance by Him, may 
 come to Him "in full assurance of faith," having their 
 " hearts sprinkled " with the " blood of Christ " (as the Jewish 
 altar was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering, and 
 the people in the great day of the covenant), " who through the 
 Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, — " sprinkled 
 
 * See Levit. xvi., 14—16, 
 
277 
 
 from an evil conscience " (i.e., cleansed from a consciousness of 
 sin, because by repentance, and the destruction of sin, by self- 
 dedication to God, and a consciousness of acceptance with Him, 
 they were once more made clean and holy unto the Lord, and 
 were freed from the terrors of His wrath, having " their bodies 
 washed with pure water " (by baptism). Heb. x., 22 ; ix., 14.) 
 This, then, appears to be the sense in which Christ is spoken of 
 as our sin-offering. The death of his body was a type of the 
 death of the animal nature of man (Rom. viii., 3), even as his 
 final conquest over self-will, in the agony in the garden, was a 
 type of the death of the rebellious or self-seeking will of human 
 nature. All sin results either from the animal nature, or from 
 self-will and self-righteousness, and these must be overcome, 
 brought into subjection to God, before we can be atoned with 
 Him. Even so, the life that is in us, that which alone lives in 
 us, whether we be sinful or righteous, is given by God, and must 
 be consecrated to God. It is true that Christ's body was sinless, 
 but so were those of the bullocks slain at the altar ; and even 
 as they could represent sin, if that meaning were duly attached 
 to them, though in one sense arbitrarily (not arbitrarily in 
 another, because any animal may naturally represent our animal 
 nature), so could the earthly animal body of the Lord Jesus. 
 And it is as a sign and a declaration, on the one hand, of the 
 necessity for our being "crucified unto the world, and the flesh, to 
 self-will and self-righteousness, and, on the other, of the necessity 
 for the life that is in us being consecrated to God, that Christ 
 died as a sin-offering for the whole human race.* If, with the 
 Philippian gaoler, we would learn what we must do to be saved, 
 the cross of Christ teaches us that we have to crucify all that 
 cannot be made holy unto God, and to rise from the death of 
 sin to that life in Christ of self-denying, self-sacrificing piety and 
 love, which is imperishable and divine, so that, with the saints of 
 
 ^ See " Nicol on Scripture Sacrifices," section viii. 
 
old, we " may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and 
 the- fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his 
 death ; if by any means we may attain unto the resurrection of 
 the dead." Phil, hi., 10, 11. Repentance must be manifested, 
 and then Sacrifice may be acceptably offered to God. 
 
 And thus we see how it is said that Jesus made peace through 
 the blood of his cross (Col. i., 20) ; or as it is expressed else- 
 where, " That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the 
 covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the 
 world : but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off 
 are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, 
 who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall 
 of partition between us ; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, 
 even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to 
 make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace ; and 
 that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, 
 having slain the enmity thereby : and came and preached peace 
 to you which were afar of, and to them that were nigh." A 
 peaceful death of the Saviour would have sufficed for the 
 ceremonial admission of the Gentiles to his kingdom, according 
 to the views given pp. 177-178 ; but as sin crucified him, the 
 Apostle points out how his blood should be regarded as the 
 symbol of that spirit which was making " of twain one new 
 man." The blood of Christ was the blood of the sin-offering 
 for Gentile as well as Jew, — cleansed both alike, redeemed both 
 alike from the outcast, sinful state into which they had fallen, 
 and therefore restored the heathen as well as the children of 
 Abraham to that condition of grace and privilege from which 
 their sins and the sins of their fathers had previously excluded 
 them. A sin-offering, literal or metaphorical — sincere re- 
 pentance — would have been necessary for the admission of 
 the Gentiles, whether Christ had died or not. 
 
 The view now taken of the sin-offering, and of our Lord's 
 
279 
 
 death as its antitype, will illustrate and in turn be confirmed by 
 those passages in the New Testament in which the opposition 
 between the flesh and the spirit is dwelt upon ; e.gr., " the flesh 
 lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the 56811" 
 (Gal. v.. 17); "to be carnally-minded is death, but to be 
 spiritually-minded is life and peace ; because the carnal mind is 
 enmity against God." "... they that are in the flesh 
 cannot please God." (Rom. viii., 6, 7, 8.) And again, when 
 Christ is spoken of as " being put to death in the flesh, but 
 quickened in the spirit " (1 Peter iii., 18), or as a sin-offering, 
 we learn how all that belonged to the earthly and sinful nature 
 of Christ perished finally on the cross, as it had been continually 
 perishing throughout his mortal life in every conquest over 
 temptation, while all that was spiritual and holy in him rose as 
 " an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling 
 savour." Eph. v., 2. 
 
 And even as "the death of the Lord" teaches us these 
 things, and leads us in like manner to die unto the flesh and to 
 sin, so the Communion Supper " shows forth " that teaching 
 " until he come." 1 Cor. xi., 26. As the Jew was reminded 
 of God's redeeming love and mercy by the Passover Supper — 
 reminded also thereby, and especially, that he was conse- 
 crated unto God, one of a people "holy unto the Lord," so 
 are those who, receiving Christ as their great Sacrifice, partake 
 of those emblematic memorials of his death and his life, — 
 reminded of God's forgiving love, and His second greater 
 covenant, in the way which Christ ordained when he said, — 
 " Do this in remembrance of me." Accepting Christ as our 
 sin-offering, we are taught to do personally, day by day, that 
 which he teaches us by his death, typically ; and we learn to die 
 daily unto sin. 
 
 But there is one reflection of no slight importance connected 
 with the fact that Christ is said to be our sin-offering;. The 
 
2S0 
 
 victim, under the Mosaic law, was called the "sin" of the offerer, 
 — was so far "made sin." But there was a far deeper and 
 truer sense in which Christ, the antitype, was "made sin" for 
 us, than in this merely figurative or representative meaning, 
 which was the only one that could be applied to the animal slain 
 for sin. For it must never be forgotten, that by taking our 
 compound nature upon himself, the Son of God so completely 
 identified himself with men, that he must have understood and 
 felt, with an intensity that would sometimes rise to agony, the 
 meaning of sin, although he himself was " without sin." Its 
 unutterable evils and loathsomeness must have been present to 
 his soul in a degree that we cannot realise, because a perception 
 of the hatefulness and horrors of sin will always be in proportion 
 to the sinlessness, the purity and holiness, the piety and love, of 
 the being who contemplates it. The very completeness of 
 Christ's identification with the human race, the intensity of his 
 sympathy with men, would be the explanation, as his perfect 
 holiness wcu-n bs the measure, of his consciousness of the 
 nature aiiu !^<?eousness of sin. He was " made sin," because 
 " He knew no sin." * 
 
 There is another sense in which " we are reconciled to God 
 by the death of His Son" (Kom. v., 10), of unspeakable interest 
 to every sinning child of humanity, though, from its obviousness 
 and simplicity, there is no necessity to dwell upon it at any 
 length in a simply doctrinal work like the present. The death 
 of Jesus reconciled sinners to God, because it is the mightiest 
 and most convincing proof of God's love to us, of His desire to 
 save us, of His unwillingness " that any should perish." It is 
 a glorious sign to men that He will give time for repentance to 
 all who will accept His Son in faith; that he will spare us if we 
 put our sin to death, and give ourselves once again to God. 
 
 * For a powerful exposition of this view, and confutation of the popular 
 explanation of 2 Cor. v., 21, see Maurice on " Sacrifice," pp. 182-194 ; 
 though he needlessly, as I think, objects to the translation " tin-offering. ," 
 
281 
 
 Yes, a wonderful and blessed sign of God's infinite love for men, 
 since He let His Son die on the cross, rather than slay those 
 who rejected him. John iii., 16 ; Rom. y., 7, 8 ; viii., 32 ; 
 1 John iv., 9, 10, <fcc. It is in this point of view, among 
 many others, that we see one great reason of the stress 
 laid by our Lord and his apostles on the declaration that \\e 
 is the " Son of God." In addition to all the importance attach- 
 ing to it, as showing that through his relationship to God we 
 may by union with him become sons of God also, there is the 
 very solemn appeal to our trust and love now referred to. 
 
 If Jesus had not submitted to death, had not been willing to 
 be made a sin-offering and a curse for us, or if God had not 
 been willing to suffer him to do so, those who rejected the 
 Saviour and rebelled against their King, who as the Son of God 
 came to receive his Father's kingdom (Luke xix., 12), must 
 have been destroyed. But even as the Passover Supper com- 
 memorated the mercy of God towards the Israelites in bringing 
 them out of cruel bondage, though at the cost of destroying all 
 the first-born of their tyrants ; even as every sin-offering was 
 a memento to them of God's forbearing mercy in allowing the 
 animal to be slain instead of the sinner ; so the death of Christ, 
 and the Communion Supper which commemorates it (1 Cor. xi., 
 26), continually remind us of the love of God, who gave His 
 only-begotten Son, and the love of Christ, who gave himself to 
 die rather than destroy those who rejected him ; reminding us 
 also thereby that we are become the subjects of a kingdom of 
 love and holiness that shall overcome evil with good, not merely 
 punish or crush it by pain and destruction. Hence, even as 
 Jehovah pleads His tender love so touchingly to the children of 
 Israel as a reason for their loving Him, saying " I gave Egypt 
 for thy ransom" (Isaiah xliii., 3), so our Lord said of himself, 
 that he came "to give his life a ransom for many" (Matth. xx., 
 28), — a ransom, the price paid, as it were, to the tyrants, evil 
 and sin, to make them deliver up the captive to God — to good- 
 
282 
 
 ness and love, to joy and peace for ever. And we see how far 
 mightier was the appeal to men's gratitude, how far weightier 
 the proof of God's infinite love to man, if Jesus of Nazareth, 
 who died upon the cross, were indeed the only-begotten Son of 
 God, existing before all worlds, whom the Father had loved 
 with such tender affection for ages, who was the rightful monarch 
 of mankind, than if he were merely an ordinary man, born, 
 living, and dying like any other noble martyr before or since. 
 
 But there is a considerable number of passages in the New 
 Testament, in which the blood of Christ is spoken of, that re- 
 quire some further elucidation than that given above. Thus, in 
 the verse preceding the one just expounded, it is said — " Much 
 more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved 
 from wrath through him." Rom. v., 9. And again, Matth. 
 xxvi., 28 ; Eph. i., 7; Col. i., 20; Heb. ix., 20, 22 ; x., 29 ; 
 xii., 24; xiii., 12 ; 1 Pet. i., 2, 19; 1 Johni., 7; Rev. i., 5; v., 9; 
 vii., 14, &c. Now it has already been remarked that God made 
 the blood of their offerings a symbol to the Jews of their own 
 lives which were to be offered up to Him. But the explanation of 
 the above passages is found in the correlative truth, that as a 
 symbol of life generally, God graciously allowed it to represent 
 also the life, the spirit, which in return He gave to them as 
 the fulfilment of His covenant with them. The blood of the 
 victims, then, on the solemn clay when that covenant was 
 inaugurated, represented both the spirit of self-sacrifice in 
 which the children of Abraham were to give themselves to God> 
 and the spirit of holiness which God gave to them. But 
 Christ, as the Son of God, the mediator between God and man, 
 the meeting-point and mercy-seat in which God and man are 
 made one, united in himself at once the character of man 
 desiring to be reconciled with God, and of God desiring to 
 atone man with Himself. Hence his blood was made typical 
 not only of the spirit of self-sacrifice to God, but also of the 
 new and divine life which God gives to all his disciples, that 
 

 spirit of holiness which takes away our sins, cleansing us from 
 their pollution and power, which purges us from our selfishness? 
 sensuality, pride, and self-will, and makes us " meet to be par- 
 takers of the inheritance of the saints in light." Col. i., 12. 
 And as the blood of the Mosaic sacrifices could not of itself, 
 of course, ••'take away sins" (ITeb. x., 4), it continually pointed 
 to that holy spirit, that divine life from God, and the Son of God 
 which alone can really purify our souls, " create a clean heart ? 
 or renew a right spirit within us." Psalm li., 10. Thus the blood 
 of Christ represents the spirit or life of Christ, the holy spirit 
 and divine life which God gave to him, and through him to all 
 who accept him as their sacrifice and saviour, as the Son of God 
 bringing life to man and taking away the sins of the world. "We 
 are, therefore, said to be "justified (that is made righteous, set 
 right*), by the blood of Christ," " and the blood of Jesus Christ 
 cleanseth us from all sin " (1 John i., 7), because we are re- 
 deemed from our sinful state, purified, cleansed, delivered from 
 sensuality, selfishness, pride, ingratitude, by the holy life, the 
 divine and blessed spirit, the new life blood, in short, poured 
 into our souls from the soul of Christ. He hath " washed us from 
 our sins in his own blood" (Rev. i., 5), and "redeemed us to 
 God by his blood" (Rev. v. 9) ; " we have redemption through 
 his blood, the remission " (removing) " of sins " (Eph. i., 7) ; 
 " we are sanctified by his blood " (Heb. xiii., 12), and " redeemed 
 by the precious blood of Christ" (1 Pet. i., 19) ; because a higher, 
 holier life, — from that root and stem of humanity whence 
 Christ's disciples grow as the branches, naturally or grafted in 
 (John xv., 5 ; Rom. xi., 16, 17, &c), — is imparted to those who 
 manifest " repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Acts xx., 21. 
 
 And, let it be observed, how beautifully the type and anti- 
 type correspond. What is this life blood, this spirit of Christ ? 
 
 * See Chap. XV. 
 
284 
 
 The spirit of Sonship — of perfect trust and obedience, of entire 
 self-surrender to God in filial love — the spirit of self-sacrifice. 
 Hence the writer to the Hebrews, after saying that " it is not 
 possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins," 
 goes on to quote from the 40th Psalm, " Wherefore when he 
 Cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering Thou 
 wonkiest not, but a body hast Thou prepared me. In burnt- 
 offerings and sacrifices for sin, Thou hast had no pleasure " (for 
 the right spirit in which alone they could be offered, acceptably, 
 was wanting). " Then said I, Lo, I come . . . to do Thy 
 will, oh God" It is this spirit of entire, absolute, self-sacrifice 
 to God, in the trustful loving spirit of a dear child, which 
 cleanses and renews our whole soul ; which when given to us by 
 God through Christ, reconciles us to Himself, makes us at one 
 with Him, justifies and saves us. 
 
 The remainder of the passage above quoted, in Bom. v., 9, 
 10, hereby becomes plain to us " . . . . if when we 
 were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His 
 Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." 
 It has been shown how we are reconciled to God by the death of 
 His Son, and is it not manifest that the expression being " saved 
 by his life " must refer to this new life, this divine spirit of Christ 
 which he communicates to all who receive him, not to his life on 
 earth, healing and saving as the record of it is? Thus St. 
 Paul says, " I am crucified with Christ " (" reconciled to God 
 by the death of His Son," because he had put sin to death on 
 his own cross by the side of Christ's) ; " nevertheless I live ; yet 
 not I, but Christ Uveth in me." Gal. ii., 20. Paul felt that he 
 was being saved from sin and death, because though he was 
 continually losing something of his earthly and animal life, 
 constantly " being crucified unto the world," "always bearing 
 about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, 1 ' the life also 
 of Jesus was being poured into him, was being made manifest 
 in him (2 Cor. iv., 10) ; "the old man" in him, "the first 
 
285 
 
 Adam," was being destroyed, but " the new man," " the second 
 Adam, the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. xv., 47), was living in 
 him, renewing his life from a diviner and more enduring source 
 than any earthly fountain could supply. So that being "justified 
 by the blood " of Christ is a correlative expression to being 
 "saved by his life," except that the latter includes more, 
 describes not only the commencement but the full developement 
 of that condition which justification commenced. 
 
 The phrases in Eev. i., 5 ; vii., 14 ; and xii., 11, are easily- 
 understood according to the above explanations. It seems 
 strange, at first, to Englishmen in the nineteenth century, that 
 blood should be spoken of as washing anybody or anything 
 clean, or as the means of victory over sin. But the difficulty is 
 removed when we understand that blood was to the Jew an 
 emblem of life, and thence made the outward sign both of the 
 consecration of man's life to God, and of the gift of God's life to 
 man. We then perceive that, as the emblem of that which 
 makes holy unto the Lord, which sets apart or sanctifies to His 
 service, which removes therefore the old sinful state, and infuses 
 a new divine life into whatever it touches, the blood of the 
 sacrifice must be fitly spoken of as having a cleansing, purifying 
 influence ; and we see that the redeemed " who came out of 
 great tribulation " are said to " have washed their robes and 
 made them white in the blood of the Lamb," because in earnest 
 penitence and faith, in the devout self-sacrificing spirit of the 
 Lord Jesus, they had died to sin, and renounced all earthly 
 allurements, and consecrated themselves and all they had, all 
 their ways, and habits, and possessions, to God. 
 
 Those passages which refer to the u sprinkling of the blood 
 of Jesus Christ " (such as 1 Peter i., 2 ; Heb. xii., 24) receive 
 their explanation from those which refer to the " blood of the 
 New Covenant." Matt xxvi., 28 ; Heb. x., 29 ; xiii., 20. As 
 the writer to the Hebrews reminds us (Heb. ix., 19, 20), when 
 the first covenant was made, the people were sprinkled with 
 
236 
 
 blood for the reasons given above ; and in like manner, he urges, 
 must those who receive the New Covenant be figuratively 
 sprinkled with the blood of Christ — i.e., they must receive the 
 spirit, the life of Christ, and feel that they are thereby made a 
 holy people, consecrated unto the Lord, persons who have 
 entered into very solemn and blessed relations with Him, into a 
 sacred covenant of love and holiness, who have exchanged their 
 plighted faith with the Most High God, and have given them- 
 selves to Him thenceforth and for ever. " The blood of the 
 covenant" was the outward sign of these solemn spiritual 
 realities, and to preserve them continually in the memory of the 
 disciples, the Son of God, the night before his death, took the 
 cup at the Paschal Supper and gave the wine it contained as an 
 emblem to his whole church and to the world of the " blood of 
 the New Covenant, which was shed for many for the remission 
 (the removal) of sins." The particular form of conveying great 
 spiritual lessons may easily be varied with varying circum- 
 stances. At one period the people thus consecrated to God, 
 and made partakers of a holy covenant, may be sprinkled 
 with the blood of bullocks and goats ; at another they may 
 be bidden to drink of the fruit of the wine ; but the object 
 in either case is the same, viz. — to signify the new and holy 
 position, "separate from sinners," in which the parties to the 
 covenant are placed. And because nothing could be considered 
 fit for the service of God that was not cleansed from defilement 
 by special consecration to Him, "almost all things," as the 
 writer to the Hebrews reminds us, "are by the law purged 
 (or cleansed) by blood ; and without shedding of blood is no 
 remission " (or removal of sin). Heb. ix., 22. Everybody and 
 everything consecrated to God must have this solemn cleansing 
 often renewed, significant as it was, on the one hand, of that 
 consecration, by which they were separated from idolaters and 
 idolatrous purposes, and, on the other, of their being accepted 
 under His covenant, sealed with his mark of ownership, and 
 
287 
 
 thereby made holy, clean. The same Divine Spirit which marks 
 or seals us as belonging to God, also sanctifies, makes us " holy 
 unto the Lord." All who receive Christ as their Saviour, and 
 so enter into the new covenant with God, belong to Him, and 
 are, therefore, spoken of as figuratively sprinkled with Christ's 
 blood, the blood of the new covenant. This is a the blood of 
 sprinkling " unto which the disciples were said to be called or 
 chosen (1 Peter i., 2), and " which speaketh better things than 
 the blood of Abel." Heb. xii., 24. That spoke of hatred and 
 death, of separation and retribution. This speaks of love and 
 reconciliation, of forgiveness, atonement, and life eternal. 
 
 Truly and beautifully it has been said, in a few sentences 
 which sum up the whole doctrine of atonement and salvation 
 by the blood or spirit of Christ : — 
 
 "Does not the Communion Supper . . . speak of a life-blood which 
 cleanseth from all sin ; of a Divine dying love which is more subtle than 
 sin, subtle as that is, and can enter into hollows of the spirit where that can- 
 not enter, and can at last drive it out, and occupy the ground which it ha9 
 occupied ? Whether we understand what these promises mean or not, will 
 anything else suffice to deliver us from that close, penetrating evil — that 
 poison in the blood — from which we are suffering ? If we cannot understand, 
 will not God give us understanding ? Is it not the very thing that we ask 
 of Him ? At all events, can there be any refuge from a cold, selfish, dark 
 nature, but in the nature of a pure and loving Being in whom is no darkness 
 at all?"* 
 
 Yes, this must be our justification, sanctification, our salva- 
 tion; " Christ in us," purifying our heart and soul from sin by his 
 pure and holy spirit, helping us to be unselfish and loving by his 
 loving self-sacrificing spirit; leading us to give ourselves wholly, 
 as he did and ever does give himself to his Father and our 
 Father, his God and our God. This is the perfecting of man 
 by atonement with God through Christ Jesus our Lord. Truly, 
 truly, is it said of those who conquer in the dread fight with the 
 spirit of evil, that "they overcome by the blood of the Lamb." 
 
 * Sermons by the Rev. F. D. Maurice, preached in Lincoln's Inn. Vol. i., 
 p. 75. 
 
288 
 
 Rev. xii., 11. There is no other means sufficient for salvation 
 but that is sufficient — all that every suffering, tempted soul 
 requires. Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift. 
 
 Thus, then, while Christ, " who knew no sin," is made sin 
 (or a sin offering) for us, we are made the righteousness of God 
 in him (2 Cor. v., 21) ;-+-i.e., we receive the new life in and 
 through Christ, which makes us righteous. And thus, once 
 again, we see how he " was delivered on account of our offences, 
 and was raised again on account of, with a view to, our justifica- 
 tion" (Rom. iv., 25); and hence the death and resurrection of 
 the Son of God became a sign and a memorial unto mankind 
 of the need and duty at once of destroying sin, and of then 
 giving themselves in body and soul as a holy offering to God. 
 
 It may be remarked in this place that the use of blood, as a 
 symbol of pledging faith between different parties, is very 
 ancient, and it was employed for that purpose among many 
 heathen nations, — probably originating in the above truth, that 
 the life of an animal is in the blood, and that in offering his blood, 
 a man was thus pledging his life. Hence both heathens and Jews 
 would be prepared to understand the meaning of "the sprinkling 
 of blood," and to feel that if, after accepting a covenant with God, 
 under those solemn circumstances, they forfeited their allegiance, 
 they forfeited their lives. But God had promised His life also 
 to the children of Israel, at Mount Sinai ; and, as I said above, 
 He was continually fulfilling his part of the covenant throughout 
 their history, both directly by His spirit or word, and indi- 
 rectly by those " to whom the word of God came" in a more 
 full and special manner, such as Moses, David, Isaiah, and a 
 host of noble prophets or leaders besides. Hence the Jews 
 would, in some degree, be prepared to understand, also, how 
 God's promises were receiving a far higher and more complete 
 fulfilment when they were sprinkled with the blood of the new 
 covenant, and learnt that God was giving His life to men in and 
 
289 
 
 by the incarnation and glorification of His beloved Son, through 
 and by whom (when he had "ascended on high") the Holy 
 Spirit was poured forth upon all believers. Acts ii., 33. Jews 
 and heathens alike were taught that the blood of the new 
 covenant represents, on the one hand, the offering, pledging, of 
 their own lives to God by those who partake of the sacramental 
 cup, and, on the other, His promise to give a new and spiritual 
 life to them through His Son, whose blood " was shed for many." 
 And this life was to cleanse them from their sins, " from all 
 unrighteousness," while it delivered them " from the bondage of 
 corruption," from the power of all real evil, from the chances 
 and changes of time, and matter, and death for ever. 
 
 " The blood of the Lamb," the communion-cup at the table 
 of the Lord, is, indeed, "a living sacrament of a perpetual and 
 living union between the children on earth and their Father in 
 heaven." And hence he who, according to the analogies of the 
 Hebrew economy, offered, on the one hand, the blood of the 
 victim on the altar, " entering into the holy place " (Heb. ix., 
 12) with "his own blood" "making atonement for the sins of 
 his people," and, on the other, brings down to them — " sheds 
 abroad" on them — the holy spirit of mercy and cleansing 
 grace, is declared to be our High Priest as well as King, the 
 true "Christos," " the one mediator between God and men," 
 who has " obtained eternal redemption for us," having esta- 
 blished an eternal bond of union between us and our God. 
 
 The reader will observe the connection between these views 
 and those set forth in the 15th chapter concerning the new 
 birth and spiritual life received from the Spirit of God, and 
 cherished by communion with Christ. 
 
CHAP. XX.— THE AUTHORITY AND INFLUENCE 
 OF THE SAVIOUR SINCE "HE ENTERED 
 INTO HIS GLORY." 
 
 If the views sets fortli in the preceding chapter are true, it is 
 manifest that the Son of God, ever since his ascension, must 
 have heen exerting a vast and glorious influence both upon his 
 church and upon the world. If the redemption and salvation of 
 men is accomplished by their being drawn into a living union 
 with the Saviour, if the Holy Spirit is communicated in all its 
 sanctifying grace and power to believers by and through that 
 Saviour, he will certainly be spoken of in Scripture as occupying 
 this position of active personal agency, of intimate communion 
 with his disciples, of kingly rule and exalted majesty. 
 
 In the list of passages given in the Appendix,* it will be seen 
 how conclusively this view is set forth by the evangelists and 
 apostles. I have been the more anxious to offer it in its com- 
 pleteness, because some excellent Christians, "who love the 
 Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," have at various times, but more 
 especially in modern days, feared to believe in the actual 
 presence of the Saviour to those who love him, or in the " power 
 of his might," "whereby he is able to subdue even all 
 things unto himself." Philipp. iii., 2 ; 1 Cor. xv., 28. They 
 have thought that such a doctrine put the Son in the place of 
 the Father, and inevitably led to that virtual "confounding 
 persons," which has been so earnestly deprecated in these pages. 
 But I think that this fear would never have entered the mind 
 of a Christian, had not idolatry of the Son of God been intro- 
 duced into the Christian Church, and his disciples been so often 
 
 * Let the readers postpone their examination for awhile. 
 
291 
 
 taught to lose all thought, knowledge, love of God our Father, 
 in absorbing reverence and love for His Son our Lord and 
 Saviour. Without presuming to say what are the limits to the 
 power and presence of our Lord, or venturing even to theorise 
 on the extent of God's universe, it is sufficiently evident that in 
 accepting the declarations of Christ and his apostles respecting 
 his presence with his disciples through all ages, and the power 
 given to him in heaven and on earth, we are not attributing to 
 him either omnipresence or omnipotence — not in any one parti- 
 cular confounding him with his Father and his God. But, on 
 the other hand, if under the influence of reaction from certain 
 grievous errors respecting the relation of Christ to God, we 
 fear to believe those declarations, try to explain them away, 
 treat them as if all plain meaning must be crushed out of them 
 lest they rob us of a living practical faith in the undivided 
 supremacy of one God the Father, then w r e are rejecting, under 
 the fatal influence of superstition, the essential characteristic of 
 what was once preached as a gospel, a message of glad tidings, 
 but which, under that process, becomes merely a more emphatic 
 announcement and developement of the truths of Judaism, with 
 a confirmation of its hope of immortality, and an improvement 
 on its code of morality by a greater man than Moses, who 
 established his authority by more striking and beneficent signs. 
 
 The early Christians felt that they were living in a very 
 different religious atmosphere to that. They were conscious of 
 a far mightier change in their position, as spiritual beings, than 
 such as could be wrought merely by the promulgation of com- 
 mandments or the confirmation of hopes — commandments far 
 harder to be obeyed than the code given to Moses on Mount 
 Sinai — hopes that must, more than ever, be mingled with harass- 
 ing, yea, awful, fears ; for at the gate of immortality stood the 
 judgment seat of Christ. 
 
 This was not a gospel that could have revolutionised the 
 world, not a gospel, indeed, at all. It was far more than this 
 
292 
 
 that translated men like Stephen, Paul, Justin Martyr, Augustine, 
 with thousands of unnamed saints and very humble heroes, " from 
 the power of darkness " into the kingdom of light and righteous- 
 ness, of " love, joy, peace." It was the revelation not merely 
 of a law-giver, a herald, and a judge, but of a personal Saviour, 
 a loving, sympathising Friend, who brought forgiveness from 
 God and a cleansing from sin, a great Deliverer, strong to " undo 
 the heavy burdens, and let the oppressed go free," one who 
 having suffered himself was " able to succour them that are 
 tempted" (Heb. ii., 18), one who was both able and willing "to 
 save unto the uttermost all that came unto God through him." 
 Heb. vii., 25. This living personal Friend, coming direct 
 from the bosom of "his Father and our Father, his God and 
 our God," coming with mercy in his heart and power in his 
 right hand, — with us, of us, and yet above us, human and divine, 
 the Son of Man, the Son of God, stooping to our weakness, 
 pitying our infirmities, sorrowing over our sins, bringing the 
 spirit of God in a full stream of grace to give us a new and 
 divine life, making us thus to triumph over sin, fear, and death, 
 making us one with our Heavenly Father, as he and the Father 
 are one, — this is the Saviour for whom the human heart crieth, 
 for whom the ages watched and yearned, a gift worthy of the 
 fathomless love of God. Nothing short of this would meet the 
 children's wants or satisfy the Father's love. And oh ! can we 
 believe that anything short of such power, such privileges, could 
 satisfy him who' came to redeem us from our slavery and death — 
 who gave himself for us, " the just for the unjust, that he might 
 bring us to God ?" 1 Peter iii., 18. If he so loved us while 
 he dwelt in the bosom of the Father, as to leave that blessed 
 home for our sakes, — nay, if he so loved us merely while on 
 earth as to die upon the cross that we might live, — could he be 
 content with having toiled and suffered for us during the year or 
 two of his earthly ministry, and then allow himself willingly to 
 be excluded from all communion with those who loved him and 
 
293 
 
 >* 0* THB x 
 
 'UNIVERSITY 
 
 clung to him, from all power of helping thei 
 
 saving them ? Would he have deemed this the* 
 
 loving parent would rejoice to bestow upon him for what he had 
 
 done to bring that Father's outcast children back to their 
 
 Father's home ? 
 
 Had there never been any tendency to push the doctrine of 
 the divinity of Christ into an assertion of his equality with God, 
 it would, at all events, have been willingly allowed that it was 
 most probable that his heavenly Father would bestow on him 
 power after his crucifixion and ascension, similar in kind, but far 
 greater in degree, to that which he had exercised before on earth 
 — that it was most probable Jesus would desire such power, 
 and that " having loved his own that were in the world, he 
 would love them unto the end" (John xiii., 1), not merely to 
 the end of Ms earthly trials, but to the end of theirs, and for 
 an eternity beyond. It must be admitted to be at least most 
 probable that he would continue to feel the deepest interest in 
 the work which he had so gloriously begun, that it could not be 
 a matter of indifference to him whether the kingdom of God 
 was prospering or suffering ; that he who wept over Jerusalem 
 and at the grave of Lazarus, who loved Martha and her sister 
 Mary, and Peter and John — that he who knew the terrible 
 power of evil in the world, and in the human heart, should desire 
 mightily to continue to strive against that evil and deliver the 
 race for whom he died from its tyranny and pollution. And if 
 these things be so antecedently probable, we shJIl not wonder to 
 find the whole New Testament, especially the Book of Acts and 
 Epistles, full of testimony to the truth that God did give His 
 beloved Son all this power, did answer and satisfy what must 
 have been the yearning desires of that Son's mighty love. If 
 Jesus, while in the flesh, could feel so intense a sympathy with 
 the human race, could so completely identify himself with them, 
 not merely then, but for all coming time down to the Judgment 
 Day, that he could say in solemn parable, " Inasmuch as ye did 
 

 it, or did it not, unto the least of these my brethren, ye did it or 
 did it not unto me," we cannot wonder to hear him saying, after 
 he had put off his mortal body and dwelt again at the right 
 hand of God, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou meV y If he 
 could declare to his followers, while he was yet on earth, that 
 wherever two or three are gathered together, there would he be 
 in the midst of them, it is simply what we should expect to find 
 the historian recording that the disciples "went forth and 
 preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and con- 
 firming the word with signs following." Mark xvi., 20. When 
 we read that our Lord made the solemn declaration, " Lo, I am 
 with you always unto the end of the world " (Matt, xxviii., 20), 
 why should we wonder to find his disciples after his ascension 
 known as those " who called upon his name ?" Acts ix., 21, et 
 passim* When we find our Lord declaring that if a man should 
 love him and keep his words, he would manifest himself to such a 
 one, and make his abode with him (John xiv., 21), can it seem 
 strange to us that, long after, St. Paul could say, "I am 
 crucified with Christ ; nevertheless I live : yet not I, but Christ 
 liveth in me" (Gal. ii., 20)? Or wonderful that he should speak 
 " of the glory of this mystery . . . which is Christ in you, 
 the hope of glory " (Col. i., 27) ? Or that he came to pray 
 " that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith ?" Eph. hi., 17. 
 Since Jesus made that solemn and sublime announcement to 
 his followers, after his sufferings and resurrection — " All power 
 is given unto me* in heaven and on earth " (Matt, xxviii., 18), 
 it is but a natural result (when we remember how he cleansed 
 the leper, and made the lame to walk while he was in the body), 
 that Peter should be found declaring unto a certain man named 
 Eneas, who had been eight years sick of the palsy, " Jesus 
 Christ maketh thee whole ; arise " (Acts ix., 34) ; or that he 
 
 * For the latest vindication of this rendering of €7rtKaAoi'/Aat, see the 
 Rev. Jas. Martineau's letter in the " Christian Reformer" for April, 1861. 
 
295 
 
 should say to all the people of Israel concerning another who 
 had been lame from his birth, " that by the name of Jesus 
 Christ of Nazareth . . . even by him, did this man stand 
 before them whole." Acts iv., 10. And when we remember, 
 in connection with the announcement of his having received that 
 power, how the Saviour had promised his disciples he would be 
 with them, even unto the end of the world, we can feel no 
 surprise that Paul besought him thrice to remove the weary 
 thorn in the flesh, or that the Saviour told him his grace was 
 sufficient for him; nor do we wonder that Paul should have 
 rejoiced, therefore, in infirmities, that the power of his Saviour 
 might be the more deeply felt by him and manifested through 
 him. 2 Cor. xii., 8-10. 
 
 Neither, again,' should we be surprised, after reading the 
 promises and declarations of our Lord above cited, that through- 
 out the history of the Christian Church, and especially in the 
 lives of Christians most eminent for their faith and works, to find 
 the consciousness of his presence and power, the conviction of a 
 deep, vital, and most real union of their soul and spirit with 
 their Saviour's, was continually the spring of new life, health, 
 strength to that church and his disciples.* It seems an 
 
 * Pliny's testimony that the Christians were noticed, a.d. 112, as 
 singing hymns during their religious services to Christ, " quasi deo,"— 
 "as it were unto a god," should be an argument to justify addresses to 
 Christ, whether vocal or otherwise, with those who maintain, and justly, 
 that the multitude during the first three centuries were strict worshippers 
 of one God, the Father only. For if they who were so near the time of the 
 apostles, and such strenuous advocates for the fiovapyia, could do what 
 Pliny describes without confounding the Father and the Son, or exalting 
 the latter to the place of the former, surely the " monarchists" of modern 
 days need not fear to do the same. If it be answered that such practices 
 led to the idolatry and confusion of the fifth and following centuries, I 
 reply that we are not to suppose the Unitarian controversy has been without 
 great and fruitful benefits. One of the greatest will be that it should 
 enable earnest Christians of every sect to draw nearer to the centre-point 
 of absolute truth, instead of having to stand upon the circumference of 
 error to balance some vehement upholder of precisely the opposite mistake. 
 
296 
 
 inevitable consequence of the truth of what Christ said while 
 still in the body, that we should everywhere find, as we do, both 
 in the New Testament, in ecclesiastical history, and in the 
 secular history of the world, that this living union of Christ 
 with his followers, this personal, active presence and agency of 
 the Son of God, has been manifested by such remarkable results. 
 Everywhere in the history of the Church we see how faith in 
 the personal Christ has been the source and spring of a new life 
 and power to men. The marks of his power and love are 
 stamped upon the history of the world as well as of the Church 
 in unmistakable characters. " For as tlie Father hath life in 
 Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have live in himself." 
 If the law of human progress is that of union with him, and 
 through him with God, we behold in those, results the simple 
 and necessary working out of the Divine Will as it has been 
 proclaimed from the foundation of the world. We have seen 
 how God has always been teaching man with a sublime unity of 
 purpose, and a glorious variety of method, that all our progress 
 to perfection, all our life and growth, must spring from sacrifice, 
 a voluntary surrender, a joyful consecrating of all we have and 
 are to goodness and to God, so that in Him, and in the life of love 
 and holiness which He gives us by His Spirit, we should find the 
 perfection of our being, and the consummation of our destiny. 
 But from union with one whose " life" is love, who is filled with 
 the spirit of self-sacrifice, who gave himself wholly up to his 
 heavenly Father's will for the salvation of mankind, from the loyal 
 loving obedience to such a Captain (himself "made perfect through 
 suffering "), which he above all could prompt and cherish, what 
 could result but such continual and effectual, though, of course, 
 imperfect but truly heroic and triumphant progress, as the 
 followers of Christ have made during eighteen centuries of con- 
 flict with all the evils that afflict the world of nature and man ? 
 He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth 
 much fruit." John xv., 5. Neither can we wonder if, on the 
 
2# 
 
 other hand, the only sect that (in bravely contending for the 
 strict unity of God, and absolute supremacy of one God the 
 Father) lias denied the personal presence of Christ with his 
 disciples, and his personal reign on earth since his entrance 
 into the spirit- world, the members of which have either feared 
 to address him even in hymns, lest they should be guilty of 
 idolatry, or have vindicated the use of such addresses on the 
 ground that they were mere poetical apostrophes, and could not 
 possibly be heard by him to whom they were addressed,* should 
 have languished and borne comparatively little fruit in spite of 
 its having cherished and proclaimed some of the grandest saving 
 truths of Christianity. 
 
 I would venture to ask those who now occupy this position to 
 reconsider it, and to see how far the natural reaction produced 
 by controversy may not have been concerned in leading them to 
 occupy it. I would ask them — If the Hebrew leper might say 
 to the Saviour while he was in the earthly body, " Lord, if thou 
 wilt thou canst make me clean," why may not we say to him 
 the same now that he is in the spiritual and " glorious body," 
 and has had " all power given to him in heaven and on earth ?" 
 If Paul might beseech him thrice to remove the thorn from 
 the flesh, why may not I? Of course there is danger in 
 so doing of falling into idolatry ; but thi3 would be an argument 
 against any worship, any religion at all. The Atheist alone is 
 secure from that danger, and the first stirrings within him of the 
 sentiment of reverence bring him within the fatal circle of 
 worship in which he may adore some other being than the One 
 True God. There is danger from the foregoing view3 lest they 
 lead us to forget the Father in thinking of the Son ; but that 
 possibility existed as soon as the Son was revealed to mankind, 
 and must continue through all eternity for those who know " the 
 Father and the Son." Yet the leper when cleansed " turned 
 
 * See " Christian Reformer" for March and April, 1861. 
 
298 
 
 back, and with a loud voice glorified God." He did not 
 confound the Supreme Being (the origin of all power) with the 
 Divine Son through whom this mighty power was manifested ; 
 neither need our recognition of the "mighty working'' of that 
 Son upon our souls and bodies now lead to such confusion, if only 
 we will remember how our Lord said, " The Father that 
 dwelleth in me, He doeth the works " (John xiv., 10), if only we 
 strenuously care, in short, " to know " our Father in Heaven, 
 "the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent." 
 John xvii., 3. That Ml out-pouring of the healed leper's 
 heart in giving the glory to God, did not for a moment stand in 
 the way, as we see, of his " falling down on his face at the feet 
 of Jesus and giving him thanks." Luke xvii., 16. Neither 
 can I think that our piety to God need be a hindrance in the way 
 of our realising and acknowledging the presence and power of His 
 Son, and giving that Son thanks for all that he is, and all that he 
 does for us. Bather, we should say, that true piety to God 
 would lead us to show our sense of His infinite love towards us 
 by gratefully welcoming so precious a gift. 
 
 I am aware that it is considered that the circumstance of our 
 Lord's being seen by the bodily eyes of those who once addressed 
 him, gave a justification for doing so which we do not possess. 
 But not to urge the improbability of Stephen when being 
 stoned, or of Paul, for instance (2 Cor. xii., 8), seeing their 
 Saviour with the outward eye, exactly in the way we see a 
 friend in the body, this argument surely lays a degrading stress 
 upon mere fleshly phenomena, and tends to ignore man's true 
 dignity, nay, his essential nature, as a spiritual not a fleshly being. 
 If I behold and realise the presence of my Saviour with spiritual 
 discernment, simply by the powers and affections of my heart 
 and spirit, surely I occupy a higher position than if I merely 
 beheld him with the animal eye. In fact, does not Jesus inti- 
 mate this, when he promises those who love him and keep his 
 
290 
 
 words, A that he will manifest himself to them as he cannot mani- 
 fest himself to the world. John xiv., 21-23. But if it be right 
 in Jesus to manifest himself to us, how can it be wrong in us to 
 recognise him and confess his presence ? Or what probability is 
 there that it can be erroneous or idolatrous to do that in the 
 higher spiritual condition and by spiritual power, — viz., realise 
 the Saviour's presence and power, and thus hold communion with 
 him, which it was not wrong to do in the lower state, and by 
 help merely of the bodily senses and capacities when he walked 
 in Judea ? And are we so miserably dependent upon our senses, 
 that while we should be in no danger of confounding Christ with 
 our Father in heaven, were we beholding him on earth heal a 
 leper or calm a storm, we must be unable to preserve our con- 
 viction of his subordinate position as the Son of God the instant 
 we behold him in the spirit working these and greater works 
 "because he is gone unto the Father?" This were, indeed, to 
 make us forfeit our true position and dignity as spiritual beings. 
 
 Again. No doubt is felt by these Christian believers that Christ 
 is to be their final judge. But do they realise the fearful meaning 
 of a doctrine which would assign to him the office of condemning 
 hereafter to " outer darkness, where shall be weeping, and wail- 
 ing, and gnashing of teeth," those for whom he died, but whom 
 he was never permitted, amid all their temptations and blindness 
 and weakness, to influence, here, for good ? Shall he who loved 
 us unto the death be appointed our final judge, and not em- 
 powered to be our present deliverer ? Shall he be employed to 
 condemn and not privileged to save ? 
 
 If, indeed, this were mysteriously the case, and he had ad- 
 dressed mankind, ere he put off the earthly body, in awful words 
 like these that follow, we must, of course, have mournfully bowed 
 to his command, " Henceforth, ye who learn of me are to think 
 of my Father only as present with you. Lo, I am no more with 
 you until the end of the world. I have no power given unto me 
 
300 
 
 either on earth or in heaven. I cannot now be with^vou or 
 with any that shall hereafter love and believe in me through 
 your word. I cannot come to save you or them, but ye must 
 all come to me hereafter to be judged. Neither where two or 
 three are gathered together in my name, nor where thousands 
 thus meet can I be in the midst of them. Beware, then, of 
 thinking that I am ever near you, or know aught concerning 
 you, lest ye draw nigh unto me rather than unto my Father, and 
 be led into worshipping the Son, instead of the Father who hath 
 sent him." 
 
 Surely something equivalent to this mode of address would 
 have been used by our Lord to caution his disciples against the ten- 
 dency which, he must well have known, would be so powerfully 
 manifested after his withdrawal from the world, to seek for com- 
 munion with him, sympathy and assistance from him, if he knew 
 that he should be unable to give either. But, thank God, his 
 language is precisely the reverse of this, and I know not how 
 to think he could have used it, if he were now what and where 
 some Christians have been driven by the reaction of controversy 
 to imagine. 
 
 Although Jesus reveals himself in the gospel records so un- 
 mistakably, as having all power given him over the diseases that 
 afflict humanity, some Christians who might be willing to believe 
 in his present influence upon our souls, and his present dominion 
 in the spiritual world, having " a name given him which is above 
 every name " (Philipp. ii., 9), shrink from admitting that he 
 has the same or greater power over our bodily life and health 
 now. It seems to them a more direct and dangerous approach 
 to invading the sole prerogatives of Deity, and as tending more 
 inevitably to the fatal error against which they have so zealously 
 and nobly contended, often to their own great suffering and social 
 martyrdom, to allow that the Son of God is still made unto us, 
 even as when in the flesh, the source of health, and life, and 
 victory over physical evil of every kind. Yet, which is the 
 
301 
 
 grander, the diviner work — that which heals and delivers the 
 soul, or that which does the same office for the body ? Surely 
 the greater power must include the less. Let us beware of a 
 debasing materialism. There can be no danger (except to 
 those who are in bonds to the idolatry of matter) of bringing 
 the Son to occupy that place in our belief which belongs to the 
 Father alone, by confessing that our Father has given our 
 Saviour power to " change our vile body " (or body of humilia- 
 tion), as well as our sinful souls, and " to subdue all things unto 
 himself" (Philipp. iii., 21), including disease, insanity, and all 
 bodily infirmity, even as when on the plains of Palestine 
 " virtue went out of him and healed them all." I can see no 
 reason why persons should shrink from this belief now any 
 more than those devout Jews who beheld Christ's miracles, 
 needed to shrink from it then. When the latter contemplated 
 those beneficent and blessed deeds, they did not, like the bar- 
 barous dwellers in Lycaonia, when Paul and Barnabas showed 
 forth the divine power among them, bow down before Jesus as 
 the God whom they had^ aforetime worshipped. They did not 
 suppose that they were to regard him who, wrought these 
 wonderful works as " the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the 
 only God;" but, on the contrary, "they glorified God who had 
 given such power unto men." Matt, ix., 8 ; xv., 31. Neither 
 need or ought our recognition of the blessed truth, that our 
 Father in heaven has given His Son " power over all flesh " (John 
 xvii., 2), power over our bodies as well as over our souls, power 
 over unclean spirits " (Matt, x., 1), over " thrones and dominions, 
 principalities and powers, and hath put all things under his 
 feet " (Eph. i., 21, 22), to lead us to glorify the Son to whom 
 this power is given, instead of the Father by whom it is given. 
 Sad, indeed, it would be, if through superstitious fear of error 
 we become its slaves, and lose the divine blessing conferred by 
 the truth which " sanctifies " and saves. John xvii., 17. 
 
302 
 
 But before proceeding further in this inquiry, we have to meet 
 a very serious consideration. Are we not dealing with mere 
 " idle questionings," with useless, if not dangerous speculations, 
 that can have no practical relation to the great subject of this 
 essay, — viz., the atonement of our Souls with God? What 
 practical bearing, especially, can they have on our characters 
 and lives ? Is not God all in all ? Is He not sufficient for our 
 wants ? Surely this line of thought tends to shut off God from 
 His creatures, and to put Christ in His place ? 
 
 I answer these objections — 1st. That God works His will by 
 intermediate agencies in all cases with which we are acquainted 
 (if the influence of the Holy Spirit be not the sole exception). 
 He continually employs human beings to help one another. 
 The Bible frequently speaks of His employing angels to fulfil 
 His purposes (Psalms ciii., 20 ; civ., 4 ; xci., 11 ; Hebrews i., 
 14, &c.) ; and if it pleases Him to employ His beloved Son in 
 carrying forward the work of human redemption, by giving him 
 " all power in heaven and on earth" needful for having spiritual 
 communion with us, and exercising spiritual influence over us, 
 thereby communicating to us a divine life, holiness, peace, — such 
 proceedure would be in strict accordance with His general modes 
 of action — nay, if the foregoing chapters are correct, it would be 
 the original archetype from which all the other modes of action 
 were deduced. 
 
 2nd. That God should employ Jesus now to influence us more 
 directly and powerfully, should grant him to dwell with us more 
 intimately and perfectly than when in his earthly body he stood 
 with his disciples on the hills of Palestine, or sat in the house of 
 Lazarus at Bethany, would be in strict analogy with his benefi- 
 cent plan of increasing the capabilities and enlarging the sphere 
 of those who have been faithful in "a few things," while 
 unquestionably such power and privilege would be the most 
 precious reward that could have been bestowed on the Saviour 
 for his obedience unto death. 
 
303 
 
 3rd. To suppose that Jesus should be thus endowed and 
 commissioned, is not shutting off God from His children, or 
 putting Christ in His place, more than to believe that God once 
 sent His Son into the world to reveal to men their Father in 
 heaven, by healing their bodies, forgiving and converting their 
 souls. 
 
 4th. All Scripture emphatically declares that although, of 
 course, God is omnipotent, and in a certain sense must always be 
 " all in all," both the church and the world are passing through 
 a transition state, during which God commits mighty functions to 
 His Son, who is reigning till he shall have put down all hostile 
 rule, authority and power, when he will deliver up the kingdom 
 to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. xv. ? 
 24-28; 1 Peter iii., 22. 
 
 5th. In speaking of himself as the vine, and his disciples as the 
 branches, in connection with innumerable other passages, Jesus 
 teaches us that God has made him to be the source of a new 
 and higher life to our souls, — that this is God's way of helping 
 us to become like Himself, to become His children beloved. 
 
 Hence we are prepared to see the practical bearing of the 
 subject on our lives and characters, on our atonement with God. 
 
 This may be taken as the very foundation principle of 
 Christianit}', that man's highest blessedness, his " life eternal," 
 is to know God, to come to the Father. If the tendency of the 
 doctrine now maintained were to separate us from Him and put 
 Christ in His place, that alone would be conclusive evidence 
 against it. Nothing must be permitted, no being could be 
 allowed to come between God and the human soul, in the way of 
 interference or separation. But the Son of God comes between 
 us and our Father in Heaven to unite us with Him, to make us 
 one with the Father as he and the Father are one. Surely this 
 was and is the first and greatest purpose of all that he has done 
 and is ever doing for his brethren of earth. 
 
 Now, if the doctrine of communion with Jesus, of his abiding 
 
304 
 
 in us, and being " the way " to God, seems to place us at 
 a greater distance from our Heavenly Father, it can legitimately 
 have that effect only by increasing our reverence for God, not 
 by lessening our affection towards Him, or our likeness to Him. 
 Communion with Jesus, receiving of his spirit, can only increase 
 our filial and adoring love to God, even as it must ineffably 
 increase the blessedness of that holy communion with God 
 to which we are invited as His children. The more our 
 reverence for God is heightened, provided our love keeps pace 
 with it, the deeper the rapture of knowing Him, and feeling His 
 love for us. It is not hard to believe that when having " been 
 with Jesus," and drawn life, love, holiness, filial trust, from his 
 devout spirit, as the branches of the vine from the stem, he 
 says to us "Let us go unto our Father, for ' my Father is 
 greater than I,"' we should then draw far nearer to God, 
 and enter into a far deeper and more blessed knowledge of Him, 
 than if we could only approach the awful presence of the Divine 
 Being in our solitary sinfulness. When persons complain of 
 these views, — saying, " Cannot the soul approach God without 
 thrusting between us and Him a mediator, even though that 
 mediator be Christ Jesus himself?" "I have God — I want 
 nothing more " — surely they indicate the existence in their hearts, 
 not of genuine piety, but of piety alloyed by self-righteousness. 
 They little realise, it would seem, the awful holiness and 
 and glory of the Eternal Spirit, or their own unworthiness and 
 sin. True piety is most prepared to recognise the distance 
 between oneself and the all-perfect God, most conscious of our 
 need of help to " draw nigh unto God." Let it never be 
 supposed that those who urge the absolute truth of the Saviour's 
 declaration, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me," 
 desire to increase the difficulties in the way of man's approach 
 to God. They desire, indeed, to make clearly known the 
 difficulties that do exist, — must exist from the nature of God, 
 and the self-will as well as sins of man. But in proportion 
 
305 
 
 as we grow in piety, a perception of those difficulties only serves 
 at once to increase our sense of the blessedness of coming- to the 
 Father, and our gratitude to Him for providing "the way." 
 The knowledge of them should stimulate us to press forward 
 only the more earnestly towards that heavenly union with God 
 for which Jesus prayed, and strive the more earnestly to over- 
 come the sinfulness, and to be cleansed from the unworthiness 
 which, in our unregenerate state, make us unfit for, and inca- 
 pable of, being one with God. And while our Saviour would put 
 back gently those who sought to rush towards their Grod, not too 
 eagerly, but too proudly ; while he beseeches us to receive all 
 the help he can give us, to prepare for continually nearer and 
 dearer intimacy with Ins Father and our Father, striving to 
 make us feel how much we need that help, he sets before us — 
 rather fills our souls with — such sweet and blessed revelations 
 of the love of God towards us, and of what He has prepared for 
 those that love Him, that any feeling of disappointment or dis- 
 couragement is speedily lost in renewed trust, in chastened 
 reverence, and in a yet deeper, holier love. 
 
 Moreover, if we attempt to come to God, but not by the 
 "way" of Christ; if we seek union with the Father without 
 being sanctified through fellowship with the Son, we need not 
 wonder at that disappointment so constantly, in such cases, 
 experienced. We had fondly counted on a degree of strength, 
 power, peace, devout joy in God, which we find we do not 
 .at'ain. Then we either think we are dwelling with God, in 
 God, and mourn bitterly to find ourselves so little the better 
 and happier in consequence, or we think we are baffled in our 
 endeavours, perhaps repulsed, and give up the hope as unattain- 
 able — at length lose even the desire for fellowship with our 
 Heavenly Father, in the worldliness, or perhaps the sins, of 
 advancing years. But the reason of all this is evident. Not 
 coming to God through Christ, we never did, in reality, come to 
 God at all — only to our idea of God, not to God Himself. We 
 o 
 
306 
 
 prayed to Him afar off. "We came as nigh to Him as our 
 unregenerate nature can come to the all-holy One. But into 
 that pure and blessed union of spirits to which God invites us 
 in Christ, we never did enter, and, therefore, we did not receive 
 that new life, strength, peace, which we should have found had 
 we really come into spiritual contact with the Spirit of God. 
 Neglecting (it may be from conscientious and pious fears, it 
 may be from unrighteous pride) God's mode of justification, we 
 "go about to establish our own righteousness " (Kom. x., 3), and 
 the consequences are as sorrowful as inevitable. But when we 
 humbly, gratefully bow ourselves to the authority of Christ, and 
 accept the way of salvation which God opens up to us through 
 him, not losing, meanwhile, our loftiest aspirations after that 
 divine likeness to God, and perfect union with Him, which we 
 know to be His own profoundest desire with regard to us, — 
 content to wait, in devout adoration, even afar off if need be, 
 until we are prepared and are called to "go up higher," — then 
 we gradually find more, and ever more, of that Divine strength 
 and joy, holiness and love, the presence of God in our soul, 
 which in its sublime fulness is the blessed inheritance of "the 
 just made perfect," and of " the saints in light." 
 
 If we believe the words of the Lord Jesus that this is the first 
 and great commandment, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" 
 (Matt, xxii., 37) ; if the fundamental principle on which 
 essay is based be true, there can be no necessity so great for 
 man as that he should come to God, and to God as his Father, 
 as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not 
 the place to enlarge upon that solemn theme. The harp of 
 David or of Milton, the pen of Jeremy Taylor or of Clianning, 
 is the fitting accompaniment of such discourse, and with less- 
 than their faith, piety, and poetic power, one scarcely seems 
 justified in attempting it. But especially in an argumentative 
 
307 
 
 treatise the attempt is uncalled for. Let me be satisfied with 
 repeating that our deepest, most urgent need, our highest and 
 infinitely our greatest want, as human beings, is to come to our 
 Father in heaven. 
 
 " No man cometh to the Father but by me " (John xiv., 6), 
 were the Saviour's words in reference to this awful and glorious 
 want of the human soul. 
 
 There are two senses in which we may be said to come to 
 God. The first is figurative, and signifies forming correct ideas 
 of God, holding true opinions about Him (as far as that is pos- 
 sible in our present state). In this sense it is evident that no 
 man cometh to the Father but by Jesus. A few devout philo- 
 sophers and poets among the heathens, with great numbers 
 among the Jewish people, had arrived at not altogether inade- 
 quate notions of God as the one supremely wise, and good 
 Creator, Preserver, Euler of all. But it is only from Jesus that 
 men have received their idea of " our Father in heaven." It 
 is only when they behold God in Christ, see " the brightness of 
 the Father's glory" in the face of Jesus Christ, that they can 
 even approximate to a just view of the paternal character and 
 fatherly love of God. But, surely, there is a far more vital 
 meaning than this in the words of Christ, that no man cometh 
 unto the Father but by him. We cannot be satisfied with cor- 
 rect notions or true opinions. We need to come to the living 
 God, not merely to think rightly about Him. Would true 
 affection, genuine loyalty, and love in any earthly relation, be 
 satisfied with thinking of the beloved one afar off, or even with 
 gazing on a faithful portrait of the dear features ? Love yearns 
 for companionship with the loved, and no man ever loved God 
 truly but desired to draw nigh to Him and dwell with Him. 
 The object of the foregoing chapters has been to show how men 
 come to God in this deepest sense through, and only through, 
 Christ. But our Saviour spoke not merely of coming to God, 
 " no man cometh to the Father but by me," and I have aimed 
 
308 
 
 at showing how it is only by union with the Son of God that we 
 receive that spirit of sonship which enables us to look up to God 
 as a Father, and draw nigh to Him as children. It has been 
 truly remarked by a great writer, that even as no change of 
 place could bring us to God, so no merely external change or 
 influence "can lead the soul to eternal good. Tins cannot be 
 accomplished except by the secret inward communication of 
 God's divine nature itself."* But it is His decree that this 
 communication should take place through Christ. Hence Christ 
 himself, and not merely his teachings, is God's answer to men's 
 wants. He does not lead us to God by means of anything 
 foreign to himself, not even by his character, precepts, example 
 alone, but also and especially through and by himself — i.e., 
 through the renewing and transforming power, through the 
 quickening, sanctifying, influence which we receive from him 
 when our spirits enter into union with him through faith and love. 
 For, as it is observed in the above commentary, " we can come to 
 God only by becoming God-like;" but if reason, experience, 
 and all the Scripture evidence adduced in these pages may be 
 believed, we have not the power of becoming God-like merely 
 by our own efforts, unassisted by the renewing power of Christ 
 upon our hearts. Yet reading and thinking about Christ is 
 simply our own action upon ourselves. And Jesus says, " no 
 man cometh to the Father but by me," which can only mean 
 (for the reasons just given) " by my personal agency and in- 
 fluence upon the soul." Nothing short of this would be adequate 
 to the requirements of the case. This, surely, is the reason why 
 the Saviour does not merely say, " I am your leader unto the 
 Father," but " I am the way ;" because it is by his own ele- 
 ment of divine life and spirit which he imparts to his people 
 that he makes them God-like, and thus enables them to enter 
 into union with God. In the same tone he says, " I am the 
 
 * Olshausen ; comment. John xiv., 6. 
 
309 
 
 door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved." "I am 
 the vine — ye are the branches." " I am the resurrection and 
 the life." " I am the bread of life. If any man eat of this 
 bread he shall live for ever." Observe, he does not say, as he 
 surely would (perhaps in a figure), if he had meant it, " my doc- 
 trine is the way to God, my example is the door, ray precepts are 
 the bread of life." It is true that our Lord constantly makes 
 use of figurative expressions, but when he simply means that 
 he is our leader and guide, he uses a suitable figure for that 
 purpose, and says " I am the good shepherd .... my sheep 
 hear my voice, aand they follow me." John x., 11-27. Cer- 
 tainly we must believe that God has arranged creation so 
 that it shall furnish all symbols needful or useful for teach- 
 ing us, through " things seen " those that are " unseen ;" and 
 we may be equally certain that our Lord would use this wonder- 
 ful array of symbolic apparatus so as most effectually to instruct 
 all who try to learn of him. 
 
 This doctrine of the communication of divine life to them 
 that abide in Christ is a great stumbling-block to those minds 
 which set themselves in hard (sometimes proud) opposition to all 
 mysteries — and also to those which, without either hardness or 
 pride, are naturally indisposed towards such thoughts, and prefer 
 only matter-of-fact views as they call them. But both of these 
 classes forget that they are surrounded on every side by solemn 
 and inscrutable mysteries, they themselves being among the 
 greatest. For is not the principle even of bodily life, — the life 
 of the smallest insect, nay, of the meanest weed, — an impenetrable 
 mystery. How much more, then, we should expect to find that 
 the nature, communication, and principle of spiritual life is a 
 profound mystery. Of course, our Lord's language is figurative 
 when he says " I am the vine, ye are the branches." But if 
 he did not intend us to understand that he held the same relation 
 to our spiritual life which a vine-tree holds to its branches, as the 
 source whence that life is supplied to our souls, we must suppose 
 
that lie used metaphors not to explain, but to confuse. . So also 
 when he speaks of himself as " the door by which, if any man 
 enter in, he shall be saved," and as "the way/' or road, he 
 must have meant far more than that he had set us such a good 
 example, and given us such admirable precepts, that if we 
 followed the one and obeyed the other we should be saved. We 
 do not follow a door or obey a road. But the other figures clearly 
 indicate a very much closer relationship between our souls and 
 Christ ; — and especially they show our absolute need of him as 
 the medium, or mediator, the means by which, and by which 
 alone, we can come into spiritual union with God — set him forth 
 as himself, and not merely his teachings and example, being 
 that medium. 
 
 True, a mediator may be a hindrance or a help. The spirit 
 of priestcraft in all ages has endeavoured to persuade men that 
 they cannot go to God unless they have priests to mediate 
 between them and Him, to offer up for them their prayers and 
 sacrifices, to intercede with Him on their behalf. Enormous 
 presumption, on the one hand, abject superstition on the other, 
 alone could have made this possible. Yet, as in most of such 
 cases, a deep truth lay at the root of the error. A consciousness 
 of unworthiness, inability to approach the holy or awful God, is 
 a true instinct of human nature. Considering our insignificance, 
 our meanness, and sinfulness, shut up in these tabernacles of 
 flesh, with so much in common with the animals, how natural 
 that human beings should have generally felt that they need 
 some mediator, some help to bring them to God. All religion, 
 as far as man is concerned, springs from these two principles of 
 our nature — the yearning of the heart for God, and its con- 
 sciousness of unworthiness and incapacity for coming to Him. 
 Priestcraft has taken advantage of these instincts, but in them- 
 selves they are right and true. Hence we need not shrink from 
 recognising "the one mediator between God and man, the man 
 Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. ii., 5. Priestcraft bids us trust in frail 
 
311 
 
 fellow-mortals like ourselves. Christianity offers us as a 
 mediator one far higher than ourselves, who could say " The 
 Father dwelleth in me," "I and my Father are one" — of whom 
 the eternal God declared, "This is my beloved Son" — a 
 mediator who is at once divine and human ; united to us as the 
 Son of Man, to God as the Son of God ; who attaches himself to 
 us, and us to him by his human sympathies, and who can thus 
 gradually draw us up to God, with whom he is of one substance, 
 one spirit. Such a mediation, unlike mere human priestly 
 intervention, is no hindrance, but an unspeakable blessing and 
 help — such a help and blessing as made Paul's piety purer, 
 loftier, than David's, and caused the least in the kingdom of 
 heaven to be more truly one with God than the noblest prophet 
 of the Hebrew dispensation. 
 
 " I am the light of the world." Yes ; our divine Lord does 
 come between us and God — but not as an opaque body, eclipsing 
 or repelling. He comes as the element of light, revealing, 
 showing, us the Father, drawing us to Him, filling us with the 
 life and power, and glory of God. He comes between man and 
 God as light comes between us and the sun, between our eyes 
 and the stars, the mountain, or the flower, revealing all God's 
 works of beauty and of love, thus making us to know God, and 
 in that knowledge to find our eternal life. 
 
 But if these considerations suggest to us, however faintly, 
 some of the reasons why we should accept with deepest grati- 
 tude " the one mediator between God and man," as the means 
 whereby we may come to God, next in importance are the 
 reasons for believing in the infinite need of our souls to have 
 fellowship with Christ for his own sake. I need not dwell on 
 this point. We all know, or can believe in, the blessedness of 
 companionship with any true, loving, noble-hearted friend, and 
 require little urging to confess how great a blessing it must be 
 to have the society and friendship of Christ. "We may feel 
 
3] 2 
 
 some difficulty In understanding how we can have this most 
 precious communion with him, now that he is no longer standing 
 on the earth clothed in flesh and blood. But, in reality, the 
 difficulty is very little increased by his being invisible to the 
 bodily eye. We might have seen Jesus with our eyes, and 
 heard his voice with our outward ears, and jet have had no real 
 communion with him, because of being utterly unlike him. 
 Souls commune with each other, understand one another, 
 in proportion as they have sympathy with each other, have 
 thoughts, feelings, purposes, experiences, in common. The 
 deeper this common sympathy, the less need of outward ex- 
 pression and signs to communicate it. And with regard to 
 these outward signs themselves, when we say that we see or 
 hear our friend, we must remember that all we really know is 
 that our souls receive certain impressions which we believe have 
 come to us from him, through what we call our senses. But 
 how certain rays of light or motions of the air can convey to us 
 the thoughts of our friend is, and must ever be in this world, an 
 absolute mystery. There is no greater difficulty or mystery in 
 believing that a friend, whom we can neither see, touch, nor 
 hear, may be able to communicate impressions to our soul with- 
 out material media, and receive them from us, if God so will, 
 than in believing that light or air bring us influences from the 
 friend whose bodily face we see, but whose real self we cannot 
 behold in this world, and never shall. Bash and presumptuous, 
 indeed, it would be to say that God could grant, or does grant, 
 no other means to His children of communicating with one 
 another than these material, media. Air and light, and nerves 
 formed of the dust of the earth, are not the only means at 
 God's disposal for carrying on His great purposes of developing 
 the souls of His children in His own divine image, of blessing 
 them with His infinite love. To believe otherwise, indeed, 
 would be to deny also the whole doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 
 of spiritual influences altogether. 
 
313 
 
 We can hardly doubt, I suppose, that, if it pleased God, He 
 could give His beloved Son power to come into holy and tender 
 communion with the souls of those who love him, and are 
 in sympathy with him, or that He could give them power to 
 recognise and rejoice in his presence with them, and manifesta- 
 tion to them, even though they cannot see him with the eye or 
 hear him with the ear. The only; question is, have we been 
 told, or have we not, that this power is given to him and to us ? 
 The answer is complete. " He that hath my commandments, 
 and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that loveth 
 me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will 
 manifest myself to him. Judas saitli unto him, not Iscariot, 
 Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not 
 unto the world ? Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man 
 love me, he will keep my words ; and my Father will love him, 
 and we will come unto Him, and make our abode with Him." 
 John xiv., 21-23. Although such a declaration requires, one 
 would think, but little confirmation for those who accept the 
 Evangelist's record as true, the passages referred to in the 
 Appendix,* seem to me overwhelming in their number and im- 
 portance. 
 
 In former parts of this work I dwelt upon the intimate 
 union which must subsist between Christ and his disciples, if 
 they are to " receive the atonement " of their souls with God. 
 But the reader, having accompanied me thus far, and having 
 carefully examined the bearing upon that doctrine of the various 
 texts given in the above list, may still be inclined to attribute to 
 them a merely metaphorical meaning, and to say that they 
 simply refer to the precepts, teachings, and example of our 
 Lord, he himself being altogether absent from our souls, and 
 utterly powerless in our world. As my whole aim and purpose, 
 
 : D. 
 
314 
 
 however, would in that case have altogether failed, I must ask 
 a little further attention to the subject before we finally part 
 company. 
 
 In Rom. xiii., 14, we find what seems to us a remarkable ex- 
 pression, but which was a phrase in common use to express the 
 most intimate friendship. " Put ye on the Lord Jesus." And, 
 again, " For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, 
 have put on Christ." Gal. hi., 27. Now, just as St. Paul's 
 exhortation, to "put on the new man" (Eph. iv., 24 ; Col. iii., 
 10), signifies that Ave are to become new men, and to " put on 
 immortality " (1 Cor. xv., 53), that we are to become immortal, 
 so to " put on Christ " is equivalent to " becoming Christ " — i.e., 
 being changed into him, into his nature and likeness, becoming 
 imbued with his spirit, filled with his presence, living in his 
 life, or, as he elsewhere expresses it, " becoming a new creature 
 in Christ Jesus." 2 Cor. v., 17. And in the same figure he 
 speaks of his earnest desire that " Christ may be formed in " the 
 disciples. Gral. iv., 19. But, above all, as I noticed formerly, 
 He speaks of Christ as " the head," we being " the members," 
 which is, perhaps, the strongest figure he could have used to 
 make us realise the closeness and importance of our relation to 
 the Saviour. Eph. iv., 15, 16 ; v., 30 ; Col. i., 18 ; ii., 19. 
 
 The following reasons seem to me conclusive against supposing 
 that such expressions, and those contained in the texts placed in 
 the Appendix, mean nothing more than that we are to love 
 Christ, to follow his example, and obey his precepts — reasons 
 why we should believe they mean a real presence of Christ in 
 the soul, a real interchange of sympathy and affection — an 
 actual influence exerted by him on the hearts and lives of those 
 who love him by means of that presence and sympathy. 
 
 It will not be disputed that both our Lord and his chosen 
 servant speak in the strongest terms, and by the most forcible 
 images that words can supply, of a spiritual union between 
 himself and his disciples. Now, whatever these words mean, 
 
315 
 
 clearly such a union, at least, requires us to have a deep faith 
 and love towards our Saviour, as one of the first conditions 
 requisite. But faith and love, admiration, imitation of another 
 being, are totally distinct from, though necessary to, that inti- 
 mate union of soul with soul, now spoken of. We love, revere, 
 and try to imitate, in many respects, the great and good men 
 of former days, but we do not suppose there is any actual 
 contact, any real spiritual union or intercourse, between their 
 souls and ours. It is true we are influenced, as I have already 
 maintained, by their thoughts and deeds. But that we may 
 be, whether they are now living or have utterly perished. 
 The way in which our union with Christ is spoken of necessarily 
 supposes that he is living, and exerting a life-giving power on 
 us ; that otherwise we should die as inevitably as branches die 
 when the parent stem perishes, and as limbs when the head 
 ceases to live. Every expression and metaphor used, teaches or 
 implies that he knows our feelings towards him and exerts some 
 influence upon us. He prays that we may be one with him, as 
 he and the Father are one. Surely this involves some know- 
 ledge on his part of the deep yearnings of our heart towards him, 
 some reciprocal action on his. If he does not know of our love 
 and service towards him, how can it lead him to love us and to 
 manifest himself to us ? If he does know our faith and loyal 
 affection, our yearning aspirations and secret trials, but is not 
 permitted to respond to them ; if he feels deepest sympathy 
 with those who love him, and whom he loves, but cannot manifest 
 that sympathy and love, by any act of service and tender care, 
 any word of saving love and pity, how sad, nay, miserable, must 
 be his lot, — far more distressing than that of the man who paces 
 beneath the dungeon walls where his younger brother is im- 
 prisoned, but who can neither reach him with his own voice, 
 nor catch the echo of the captive's moan. 
 
 In both cases we know that an all-loving Heavenly Father 
 looks down in mercy upon the prisoner, whether confined in 
 
316 
 
 stone or enclosed in flesh ; but in both cases alike, the human 
 heart cries for the elder brother also to whom that Father has 
 knit its affections in holiest sympathy. 
 
 But if the Saviour does know our feelings concerning him, 
 feels each loving beat of our heart towards him, and has the 
 power of answering to them, of influencing those hearts, and 
 making us feel and know that he has that blessed power given 
 him by the Father, is not this what must be meant by spiritual 
 union, by his spiritual presence with us? As I said just now, by 
 a friend's being present with us in the ordinary sense of the word, 
 we simply mean that by help of our sight and hearing, sensa- 
 tions and ideas are conveyed to our brain and mind which lead 
 us to believe that our friend is near to us in what we call space. 
 But if, as in the case of that very interesting sufferer, Laura 
 Bridgman, of America, at once deaf, dumb, and blind, we 
 possessed neither the faculty of sight nor hearing, the presence 
 of our friend would mean to us nothing more than that in some 
 way or other we knew that we had a friend who understood our 
 thoughts, who responded to them, and made us understand his 
 in return. The mode in which this interchange of thought and 
 feeling takes place is not the essential, but purely incidental part 
 of the proceeding. And if there were no such interchange at 
 all, there would be no spiritual presence, intercourse, or union. 
 We are not spiritually present with the stranger whom we never 
 saw before, but whom Ave walk beside in the street. Neither 
 are we, even if we recognise him with admiration and love, but 
 are ourselves quite unknown to him. All this is seen plainly 
 enough, if we suppose that, having lost some dear friend by death, 
 God were pleased by any means to make us feel sure that he 
 still knew our longing thoughts of love towards him and 
 responded to them, as when he was in the body, with answering 
 sympathy and trust. In such a case we should feel that our 
 friend was with us still, that the chief requisites for spiritual 
 union and a real presence of heart with heart were fulfilled. 
 
317 
 
 In short, we see that not only do our Lord and his Apostle 
 speak of his knowing our feelings, but also of his answering to 
 them, not only of his sympathy for us, but of his influence upon 
 us. He does not merely say, " abide in me," but adds, " and I 
 in you." Not merely " if a man love me, he will keep my 
 words," but also, " and I will manifest myself unto him." The 
 first expressions refer simply to what we have to do, but the 
 second, of course, can only refer to what Christ will do in return. 
 It is impossible to explain away this obvious sense of these 
 similar passages as figurative ; first, because they are not figu- 
 rative, but very plain, direct statements; and, secondly, because 
 if they were, the figure would still involve a reality wholly 
 incompatible with the theory that our Lord knows nothing of our 
 feelings, or can make no answer to them. Hence we do not 
 wonder that Paul prays for the Christian converts. " Now, our 
 Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, who hath 
 loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good 
 hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in 
 every good word and work." 2 Thess. ii., 16, 17. For what 
 could be a more fitting and blessed consequence of the promise 
 of the Lord (John xiv., 23), than that the Father and the Son 
 should come unto those Christian disciples and comfort and 
 uphold them, and make them to feel the blessedness of that 
 Divine presence ? And if there is any meaning at all in the 
 rejoicing and sublime words of another Apostle, " Truly our 
 fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" 
 (1 John i., 3), what can it be if it does not signify such spiritual 
 intercourse and mutual knowledge ? 
 
 "We cannot behold the Saviour with the bodily eye, and 
 therefore it is asked how can we know that he is present with 
 us? Do we then behold God with our bodily vision ? Yet we 
 are conscious that He is present to us, and we to Him, when we 
 seek Him, and draw nigh to Him with a lowly and contrite 
 heart. But our consciousness of His presence can only arise 
 
318 
 
 from feeling His influence upon our souls, even as we know 
 there is an atmosphere around us by feeling its influence on our 
 bodies. We accept the truth that there is a God, and one to 
 whom our spirits are present, as a truth of Eevelation. We 
 believe in His influence upon us, not merely on external grounds, 
 but from our own experience. It is exactly the same with the 
 steps that lead to a belief in the presence and influence of Jesus. 
 We cannot see our Saviour, but we may feel his holy and 
 blessed influence upon us ; at least millions have felt it on them- 
 selves. The Son of God promised that he would make himself 
 manifest unto us if we would keep his words, and that promise 
 has been fulfilled — will be to the end of time. For he knoweth 
 his sheep, and calleth them by name, and no one shall ever pluck 
 them out of his hand. 
 
 " But," it is urged, " this is a very different case from the 
 presence and influence of God. He possesses the attributes of 
 omniscience and omnipresence. You cannot assign these to 
 His Son without confounding the persons of the Father and the 
 Son." This is strictly true. Neither could I for one moment 
 argue for any doctrine that contravened the fundamental truths 
 of reason and revelation dwelt on in former chapters. 
 
 I believe that there is a difference strictly infinite between 
 God and His beloved Son. We can believe no otherwise if we 
 also believe that there is One God, and that " there is none other 
 but He." But in promising that he would be present with those 
 in all ages on earth, who love him and keep his words, our Lord 
 was not claiming the attributes either of omnipresence or omni- 
 science. Neither are we claiming them for him when we be- 
 lieve in his promise. To argue otherwise is to say that we 
 maintain a part to be equal to the whole. 
 
 Perhaps this confusion of thought may partly have arisen 
 from the erroneous view too often taken of God's omnipresence, 
 and which is so earnesty denounced by Coleridge when he speaks 
 of the evils of understanding " the Divine omnipresence in any 
 
319 
 
 sense rather than the alone safe and legitimate one, the presence 
 of all things to God:' ("Aids to Keflection," p. 398.) Surely 
 there is an infinite difference, nothing less, between the presence 
 of all things, all beings to God, and the presence of millions 
 of disciples, or even of all the inhabitants of earth to His Son. 
 
 But the truth is we are far too much in danger of forgetting 
 the truth adverted to in a former chapter, that the laws both of 
 space, and time are valid only for us in our earthly bodies — that 
 they are simply inevitable forms of human thought, pointing, no 
 doubt, to great realities in the spirit-world, but what those reali- 
 ties are, it would be folly and presumption in us to attempt to 
 describe. It is enough for us to resist the attempt sometimes 
 made to deter Christians from receiving and rejoicing in the 
 fulfilment of the promises of Christ by assertions that they imply 
 his possession of the powers of omniscience and omnipresence. 
 
 Equally incorrect is it to suppose that to realise Christ's holy 
 presence in our soul, and his blessed influence, to seek for it, to 
 invite it, and gratefully celebrate his answer to our call, to hear 
 his knock and to open unto him, and thankfully honour him for 
 the visits and blessings of his patient yearning love, is to give 
 him that worship and glory which are due unto God alone. 
 This, again, is to confound two things essentially different, and 
 is an attempt, however unconsciously, to rob us of one of the 
 dearest privileges God has given, on the ground of that con- 
 fusion. Unquestionably there is danger of worshipping the Son 
 of God as God himself, as I have already admitted. The whole 
 history of the Christian Church, from the second century down- 
 wards, proves only too plainly, and most mournfully, both the 
 temptation and the extent to which Christians have thus been 
 led astray by it. But, as it has been truly said, that " every 
 good, in proportion to its greatness, is encompassed with dangers 
 and difficulties,"* are we to abandon the possession of God's 
 
 * Cliauniug. 
 
320 
 
 choicest blessings and privileges, because they have been abused 
 or perverted ? To act thus would be to forego the privilege of 
 prayer; for we all know how sorrowfully it has often been 
 abused. Nay, such a principle would lead us to renounce 
 religion altogether ; for what has led to more frightful errors 
 and excesses ? Any worship may lead to idolatry, but we are 
 not therefore to abandon the practice. 
 
 In like manner it is said that to seek and welcome the pre- 
 sence, influence, and love of Jesus, is to run the risk of making 
 him dearer to our hearts than his Father and our Father. No 
 doubt, there is, and always has been, danger of the human soul's 
 seeking for some inferior being to rest upon, and love more 
 dearly than the Eternal God. If some Christians have yielded 
 to this danger in regard to the Saviour, others have been led 
 yet more astray by the worship of his earthly mother. But the 
 history of mankind proves that we do not escape this evil by 
 refusing, or being unable to accept, Jesus as a present Saviour, 
 strong to heal and bless. On the contrary, so mighty is this 
 tendency that among those by whom chiefly he has been 
 denied this access to the heart, and by whom the doctrine, which 
 would assert his power and will to make his abode with us, has 
 been most controverted, we find continual manifestations of a 
 tendency to rest upon, and love with paramount affection, some 
 inferior beings, heroes or saints, idolised objects of either sex, 
 living or dead, even to fall into superstitious and debasing 
 delusions with regard to clairvoyance, spirit-rapping, and other 
 visionary fancies. But if Christians could but generally come 
 to a rational and Scriptural recognition of the place which 
 Christ occupies, and claims as the living, victorious, loving Son 
 of God, dwelling with those that receive him ; healing, sancti- 
 fying, saving, all who will permit him to do his " mighty 
 works " upon them and among them ; guiding, governing, as 
 well in their secret souls as in the church and in the world ; 
 being unto them, in short, the vicegerent of God, and the 
 
321 
 
 Elder Brother of " the whole family " of our Father in heaven, — 
 if they would but understand and rejoice in his having all power 
 given him in heaven and on earth, to turn men's hearts to God, 
 I believe there would be a fuller and deeper piety rising up in 
 the heart of Christendom than it has ever yet known. How, 
 indeed, could it be otherwise ? The influence of him who loved 
 and worshipped the Father with such utter devotedness of piety 
 and lovff, and who gave us that divine prayer which we call by 
 his name, who, in the most terrible hour of his mortal agony, 
 prayed to his Father and his God, sayiug, "Nevertheless, not 
 as I will, but as thou wilt," must be antagonistic to all idolatry, 
 above all, to that which would make him dearer to men than 
 God, — must help us, as no other influence on earth or in 
 heaven could help us, to " love the Lord our God with all our 
 heart, and with all our mind, with all our soul, and with all our 
 strength." 
 
 When our Lord gave that gracious and merciful invitation, 
 " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I 
 will give you rest," — if, when he prophesied thus, " And I, if I 
 be lifted up, will draw all men unto me" — with similar blessed 
 words uttered at various times, — if he simply meant that we 
 were to read his history, precepts, and promises, that he should 
 draw us to try and obey his commands and follow his example, 
 he clearly failed to meet the deepest wants of humanity. If, in 
 our sore need of a Saviour, of a good shepherd, of an elder brother, 
 even the conquering Son of God, who shall be " able to save 
 unto the uttermost allthat come unto God through him," we have 
 only a name, a memory, a history to come to, only to some 
 words written in a book, then I know not how the Saviour's 
 promises can be fulfilled. For we may be well assured that, if 
 we are to find rest unto our souls, deliverance from our sins, 
 holiness, peace, and a close walk with God, this will not come 
 merely from reading the Gospel histories, or the mightiest 
 efforts of our unassisted wills. And if replied, " True, but it 
 
322 
 
 will come in answer to prayer," that is begging the whole 
 question ; because that question is, How does God answer our 
 prayers for these great mercies ? I believe that the Scriptures 
 teach us that the living personal friend, " the strong Deliverer," 
 His holy Son, is the answer which He gives us; and that, 
 therefore, if we do not seek and welcome that Saviour, but as 
 far as he is concerned, merely read what he said and what was 
 said about him, eighteen centuries ago, we are as sure of missing 
 his saving power as if when, in a dangerous illness, we contented 
 ourselves with reading the life and works of an eminent phy- 
 sician, instead of asking him to visit us personally himself. If, 
 indeed, it were sufficient for our redemption from sin and sorrow 
 that we should know what we ought to do and to be, for that 
 we were always able and willing to act at once upon that know- 
 ledge, certainly reading and meditating on the character, precepts, 
 and example of Christ would be sufficient for this deliverance. 
 But most men know, to their cost, instead, that " the thing they 
 would not that they do, and what they ought to do they do not." 
 It is not merely knowledge of truth and duty that are needed. 
 Would to God it were otherwise. " We find a law that when 
 we would do evil is present with us," and " how to perform that 
 which is good we find not." Thousands, even of Christian nur- 
 ture and moral respectability, exclaim, in bitter anguish, " Oh ! 
 wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me from the body of 
 this death ? " Rom. vii., 15—24. 
 
 It is health, power, and life that we need. And these cannot 
 come merely from ourselves, from our own desires, efforts, will. 
 " We are not sufficient unto ourselves." There is no hope for 
 any man until he has learnt this. But if we think we can receive, 
 or really can receive, nothing more now from Christ than we can 
 get for and by ourselves through reading and thinking about 
 him, we are trusting, or are compelled to trust, simply to our 
 own efforts, to our own influence upon ourselves, and often are 
 " of all men most miserable." 
 
323 
 
 Even if we needed no help for our deliverance, if we were 
 able to be our own saviours, far more would be wanted tban mere 
 notions, memories, opinions, or even beliefs, to satisfy our deep 
 spiritual wants. Certainly we can never draw true spiritual life 
 and power from these. We must ascend into a higher region, 
 and come into contact with realities, instead of merely thinking 
 about them, — not merely admiring Jesus at a distance, but 
 having fellowship, companionship with him. Our notions about 
 him, as about all spiritual realities, it has been truly observed, 
 are merely pictures, very imperfect. Would the photographed 
 likeness of a dear friend satisfy our heart, or influence our 
 character and life, as daily companionship with that friend him- 
 self would do ? If the promises of Christ, nay, of the whole 
 Bible, mean what they appear to mean, if they are not fair illu- 
 sions deceiving the soul that leans upon them, they signify that 
 so far as men are spiritual beings made in the likeness of God, 
 spiritual privileges shall be given to them, and not merely in- 
 tellectual or animal advantages. And among the greatest of 
 these is the power of having spiritual fellowship, companionship, 
 intercourse, with God, who is a Spirit, and with His beloved Son 
 Jesus Christ. Hence, I presume, the stress laid upon the out- 
 pouring of the Holy Spirit on all Christ's disciples when he was 
 " glorified," because it is by means of that spirit that we are 
 brought into this fellowship with the Father and with the Son. 
 We are baptised into the name of the Father and the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit, because it is by the spirit that we are united to 
 our Saviour and to our God, and in that spirit, therefore, find our 
 salvation and eternal life : for " they that are in the flesh cannot 
 please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so 
 be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." 
 
 It is quite true that most of our Lord's declarations, and those 
 of his apostles respecting his manifesting himself to us, being in 
 the midst of us, and so forth, may be interpreted (because some 
 do thus read them) to mean merely that the influence of his 
 
324 
 
 character and words will be manifested to us, will be in our midst* 
 But those who take this view are departing from the plain and 
 simple sense of the Scriptures on no other ground than their 
 own preference for such an interpretation. They are asking us 
 to give up the very great and blessed promises of our Lord for a 
 notion of their own, — nay, so far as they succeed in their purpose, 
 they substitute a vague abstraction called "the influence of 
 Christ," for the living personal Saviour himself. Not the 
 influence, however, of that Saviour, but of his words and actions 
 said and done 1,800 years ago and recorded in a book. It seems 
 to me that any one incurs a grave responsibility who on light 
 grounds endeavours to effect such a substitution as this. It 
 must require very weighty arguments to justify our renouncing 
 the blessed comfort and strength derived from faith in the actual 
 presence of a loving, powerful friend — still more to justify our 
 attempting to deprive another of that faith, and offering him 
 instead merely a belief that where two or three are gathered 
 together in the name of Christ there something of the influence 
 of his bygone earthly life may be felt, something of his spirit 
 exhibited by those assembled. I repeat it, we want far more 
 than faith in abstractions, in tilings. We need faith in persons. 
 We can find no sufficient strength or life, cannot find that 
 quickening vital warmth, energy and love, which are needful for 
 our deliverance from sorrow and sin, in merely recognising the 
 power and worth of a great man's character and life as he 
 manifested them ages ago. Such memories are, indeed, most 
 precious. Holy and elevating, very animating and strengthening, 
 is the memory of our heroes and saints, whether in the world or 
 the Church, whether they are honoured as our countrymen, as 
 "fathers in Israel," or as the property of the whole race of man. 
 But if God in His infinite Fatherly love has given us that 
 which is infinitely more valuable than the noblest memories, a 
 real living present friend, the actual presence, companionship, 
 love, of His holy Son, — a blessing that must transcend all other 
 
325 
 
 blessings, save His own presence with the soul, as greatly as 
 heaven surpasses earth, — alas, for us if Ave reject the gift and 
 turn away from the Saviour, and fasten the door of our hearts 
 against his entrance, by assigning a figurative meaning to his 
 explicit and solemn promises, having no other reason to give for 
 our conduct than our individual preference for such interpretation 
 unsupported by the letter or spirit of the Scriptures. 
 
 " But may not our Lord have intended to restrict his promises 
 to those disciples who were then living in Palestine, or at least 
 to those who might be dwelling on earth until the end of the 
 age (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Hebrew common- 
 wealth) ?" Let us consider this view. 
 
 On one occasion during our Lord's ministry on earth, we find 
 it recorded that he delivered the parable to his disciples, which I 
 lately referred to, and the burden of which was, — " I am the 
 good shepherd." John x., 11. And the parable being inter- 
 preted, I suppose will mean something of this nature. 
 
 In the fertile valleys and on the green hill-sides of Palestine, 
 alike when David sang and when Jesus taught, large flocks of 
 sheep were wont to roam, seeking their sustenance from the 
 hand of God. In the rugged fastnesses of the surrounding 
 rocks and mountains, wolves and robbers used to crouch, waiting 
 for opportunities to seize and rend them. The shepherds of 
 each flock kept watch over their sheep, led them to green 
 pastures, and beside the still waters, gathered them at night in 
 well-fenced folds, defended them from the spoiler and the beast 
 of prey. In the wider plains of the universe, where human 
 beings wander, also seeking their daily bread from Him who 
 " giveth to all their meat in due season," everywhere around 
 temptations, sorrows, and disease lie in wait to rend and destroy 
 the human soul. Is there no shepherd set over this human 
 flock, to guide and to guard it ? Jesus gives the answer. " I 
 am the good shepherd. . . . My sheep hear my voice, and 
 I know them, and they follow me ; and I give unto them eternal 
 
326 
 
 life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any one ever 
 pluck them out of my hand." John x., 11, 27, 28. The Son 
 of God, whose kingdom and glory, whose manifestation on earth 
 in lowly weakness and yet in mighty power, had heen fore- 
 shadowed and promised for ages before to patriarchs, kings, and 
 prophets ; of whom it was said that he should preach glad tidings 
 to all people ; who proclaimed that God had sent him to heal the 
 broken-hearted, to give deliverance to the captives, and sight to 
 the blind, and conditions of forgiveness and cleansing from sin 
 to them that had gone astray, was the same who said before his 
 crucifixion, " Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy- 
 laden, and I will give you rest," — the same who, after his 
 resurrection, proclaimed " All power is given unto me in heaven 
 and on earth. . . . Lo, I am with you always, even unto 
 the end of the world." 
 
 Now, must we believe that all these and many similar " exceed- 
 ing great and precious promises" were addressed only to those 
 persons who then lived in Palestine ? Were they the only sheep 
 whom he would care to bring to his Father's fold ? Is it not 
 written that he died, " not for that nation only, but also that he 
 might gather together in one the children of God who were 
 scattered abroad " ? John xi., 52. Hence he says in another 
 place, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; 
 them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there 
 shall be one fold and one shepherd." John x., 16. 
 
 When the Deliverer says, " come unto me all ye that labour 
 and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," it is evident 
 that the only qualification needful for receiving his gracious help 
 is that a person should need it. It is almost impossible to believe, 
 while reading words like these, that he restricted his invitation 
 and promise to those who were then living in Galilee or Judea. 
 I have shown that it is nearly as difficult to suppose he meant 
 that all who lived after his ascension were to come merely to his 
 memory, his precepts, his name, to find deliverance and rest. 
 
327 
 
 Equally difficult, it seems, is it to believe that when he said, 
 " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there 
 am I in the midst of them," and " Lo, I am with }^ou always, 
 even unto the end of the world," he simply meant that he would 
 be with those who were then living, or who should live till the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 For anything more opposed both to the Saviour's character 
 and the nature of his mission, than such restriction of his 
 love and power, anything more utterly inconsistent with the 
 character and love of his Heavenly Father who sent him, 
 it would be difficult, if not impossible, to imagine. Yet 
 it would necessarily involve a melancholy deficiency either 
 of the love or power of Christ, or of the love of God. For if 
 the Saviour loves us as well as he did those men who were then 
 in Palestine, surely nothing but the want of power could prevent 
 his giving us the same invitations and assistance he gave them. 
 But, if he lacks the power, it must be because God has not loved 
 him or us well enough to bestow it upon him. 
 
 " Yes," it might be replied, " for God may do for us all that 
 we need, and far more abundantly." Surely ; but then His Son 
 would be deprived of the glorious privilege of helping and saving 
 the race for whom he died. Could we reconcile such a supposi- 
 tion with that infinite love which He feels for His " only-begotten 
 Son," whom, because he humbled himself unto death, even the 
 death of the cross, He hath highly exalted, and given a name 
 above every name, both in this world and that which is to 
 come? 
 
 The chief difficulty, in the minds of many that prevents their 
 accepting this doctrine, no doubt is a persuasion that it involves the 
 attributing powers to Christ which they rightly deem can belong 
 to God alone. I have already referred to this difficulty, and, I 
 think, shown its groundlessness, by adverting to the generally 
 admitted axiom that a part is not equal to the whole. But to 
 see its refutation more convincingly, let us observe the fact that 
 
328 
 
 even on the narrowest ground which the promises of our Lord 
 can possibly occupy — viz., their restriction to all who should 
 compose his Church until the destruction of Jerusalem, — our 
 Lord must have possessed powers of precisely the same kind as 
 those needful for accomplishing- all that I contend for. If, where 
 two or three were gathered together in his name at Jerusalem, 
 he could he in the midst of them after he had put off his mortal 
 body, there can be nothing in the imture of the case to prevent 
 his being in the midst of any company of his disciples at Corinth, 
 Epliesus, Rome, Wittenberg, London. If he could be with the 
 apostles and the five hundred brethren " to the end of the age," 
 as some would translate it, — meaning to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, — with James in the holy city, with Paul at Antioch, with 
 Peter at Babylon, at the same time, there is nothing, one would 
 suppose, to prevent, certainly nothing in the nature of this case 
 either, to prevent his being with all his faithful followers in any 
 part of the world at the same time. And if he could be with 
 seven at one time, why not with seventy ? It would not be a 
 different power, simply an extension of the same kind of power. 
 In neither case should we be investing our Lord with the attri- 
 butes of Supreme Deity, but only believing him to have received 
 a certain portion of the power which is possessed by Deity, and 
 which God could, of course, as easily confer upon His divine Son 
 as the gifts of healing or the power of giving life, of quickening 
 whom he will. John v., 21. 
 
 And if Jesus had the power of coming in the spirit to the 
 assemblies of disciples before the demolition of Jerusalem, — if 
 during that first age he could be with all who loved him, and 
 called upon his name, why should that power have suddenly or 
 even gradually ceased ? And where are we to suppose the 
 cruel line was drawn beyond which he might not pass ? When 
 was the fatal knell sounded which told him he could no longer 
 be permitted to hold sweet communion with his beloved flock, no 
 longer be their " good shepherd," to guide, protect, deliver 
 
329 
 
 them, no longer give them rest ? If St. John might still lean 
 upon his bosom, even till death, was the faithful Polycarp, 
 who, until that sad hour, had enjoyed the same blessed privi- 
 lege, to be deprived at once of the presence, counsel, and sym- 
 pathy of his master on earth and his Lord in heaven ? Was 
 the death-hour of the last of the apostles the dread moment 
 when the power and the* presence and the divine ministrations of 
 the Saviour, and his infinite joy therein, also perished ? But if 
 Polycarp was permitted to be with Jesus while he yet lingered 
 on earth, why not Ignatius ? Why not every tempted, struggling 
 disciple since ? For surely they have needed the presence of 
 Christ as greatly (often far more) as those who were so much 
 nearer to the times when he had visibly dwelt among the sons 
 of men ? 
 
 The truth is that since, as I said before, we are utterly igno- 
 rant of the laws which regulate the powers and movements of 
 spiritual beings, and nothing can be more futile than to reason 
 concerning them, as if they were subject to the conditions of 
 space and time ; on a matter of this nature we are bound to accept 
 a statement of the fact, if we think we receive it on sufficient 
 authority. In our present inquiry I have simply to show what 
 is the direct and explicit testimony both of Jesus and his apostles. 
 We cannot understand how Jesus could appear unto Paul, how 
 he could communicate with him either on the way to Damascus, 
 or subsequently. We take the fact simply on Paul's authority. 
 But the difficulty lies only in this first step. That once passed, 
 there is no more a priori reason for objecting to the statements 
 that our Lord communicated with Peter and John, to believing 
 that he did so with Polycarp and Chrysostom, or that he does 
 now strengthen, heal, and bless those who come to him in faith 
 at this very time, than for disbelieving the declarations of Paul, 
 on the ground of the Saviour's being subordinate to the One 
 Eternal God, and not possessing the attributes of omnipresence. 
 But when the Scriptures further speak of the need and 
 blessedness of abiding in Christ, on account of the healing, 
 
330 
 
 strengthening, life-giving power which they receive who come to 
 him, and in whom he dwells, " the natural man " to whom such 
 thoughts are a vexation, again asks, " how can these things be ? 
 God alone can give life and health." Then those Scriptures 
 teach us to ask, in reply, How could Christ's touch heal the 
 leper when he was in the flesh ? How could his word restore 
 the impotent man or the maniac? "When the multitude 
 thronged around him, do we understand how it was that virtue 
 went out of him and healed them all ? When we can explain these 
 facts we may expect to understand how virtue goes out of him 
 now that he is in the spirit, to heal our bodies and give life to 
 our souls. The one is not more wonderful and mysterious than 
 the other — does not trench, even in appearance, one whit more 
 on the prerogatives of the Supreme Being. If the Son have life 
 and power " in himself," and can impart thereof in divine abund- 
 ance to others, it is because "the Father" "hath given" it unto 
 him (John v., 26) ; if he have all power in heaven and on earth, 
 it is " given " to him — and it is given, because he said " Lo, I 
 come to do Thy will, oh God." 
 
 We cannot possibly understand even the mode of our Lord's 
 existence at the present time. We do not, therefore, doubt that 
 he is existing. That we cannot understand how he should be 
 able to have access to the hearts of his faithful disciples, in all 
 ages, to heal and help them, is, of course, no argument against 
 his declaration and that of his apostles, that he does possess this 
 power. We cannot understand how God Himself can thus dwell 
 in the hearts of those who love Him, how He can influence us 
 except through our senses; but, happily, there are few Christians 
 who doubt that He both can and does. And if our Heavenly 
 Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, have such 
 power, is there any a priori impossibility or even difficulty in the 
 way either of His conferring some degree of similar power upon 
 His beloved Son, or of our believing He has clone so ? 
 
 But the difficulty of obtaining some satisfactory ground for 
 
331 
 
 reason to rest upon in this inquiry is greatly diminished when 
 we reflect upon the mysterious power of faith in bringing us into 
 contact with spiritual realities, and the sublime rewards which 
 are promised to it. As this subject was touched upon before, I 
 need merely now refer to the stress laid upon the exercise of 
 faith in the case of Christ's healing miracles when he was on 
 earth. But for his faith in the power of Christ, the impotent 
 man might have remained bed-ridden to the clay of his death ; 
 but for their faith the ten lepers must have died of their disease. 
 For want of faith in the power of the living glorified Saviour we 
 may remain the victims of disease now, or, far worse, lie bed- 
 ridden, diseased, in our selfishness, pride, sensuality, or hardness 
 of heart. If we want practical truths, I know of none more 
 vitally affecting our whole life and character, more nearly con- 
 cerning our " body, soul, and spirit," than the doctrine of this 
 need of faith in "the working" of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 "whereby he is able to subdue even all things unto himself." 
 We cannot wonder at the fervency of Paul's prayer, "that 
 Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith," if we Jbelieve that "he 
 is able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto God through 
 him." For see how strictly it is in accordance with what we 
 know of the laws of spiritual life, that God should have granted 
 to His holy Son the power of being present with all who love 
 and honour him. The mighty power of spiritual sympathies 
 between human beings on earth — how like rushes to like, as at 
 a first meeting, so after years of separation, and even when 
 separated by continents and oceans, these mysterious sympathies 
 drawing them — is too well known to require proof. See how 
 quickly like-minded persons recognise and draw near to each 
 other, divine each other's thoughts and feelings by spiritual 
 instinct, insensibly but most powerfully mould each other's 
 spiritual life and growth. It is improbable, hard to believe, that 
 it might be in accordance with God's great laws to give that Son 
 who came on earth, who suffered and died to bless mankind, 
 
332 
 
 power to draw near to the sons of men, power to heal and bless 
 all who will receive him by faith into the sphere of their life and 
 being ? Surely, when our Lord uttered those words so often 
 quoted, " Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden," 
 he did not merely mean that we were to come to the Gospel 
 records, and to try to obey his precepts. When the beloved 
 Apostle declared that " our fellowship is with the Father, 
 and with His Son Jesus Christ " (1 John i., 3), surely he 
 meant far more than worship of the .Father and disciple- 
 ship to the Son, — meant a true and blessed companion- 
 ship, friendship, such as personal interchange of sympathy, 
 thought, feeling, alone can bestow, such as the creature may 
 enjoy even with the Creator and the Redeemer, in spite of 
 feebleness, folly, and sin, if only he have received the spirit 
 which proceedeth from the Father and the Son, which can make 
 him a child of God, one of the brethren of Christ. 
 
 There is a very important passage which remains to be con- 
 sidered, and which appears to me so decisive of the question 
 concerning Christ's personal presence and influence in connection 
 with the affairs of this world that it must receive special notice. 
 
 "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
 kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down 
 all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he 
 hath put all enemies under his feet." 1 Cor. xv., 24, 25. Even 
 Belsham, one of the greatest supporters of the doctrine of the 
 simple humanity of the Son of God, in commenting on this text, 
 admits that "these expressions seem to imply some personal 
 authority and exertion of Christ himself; which, indeed," he 
 adds, "is more than probable, as Ave cannot suppose him to be a 
 mere inactive spectator of passing events."* Surely not. The 
 idea seems monstrous and incredible. The declaration that the 
 Saviour is now reigning and will reign till he has overcome all 
 
 * Belsham on St. Paxil, in loco. 
 
333 
 
 the enemies of his Father's kingdom, is both clear and emphatic. 
 The nationalists appear to offer us a dead king. There are 
 those who shrink from the deniers of his resurrection, and ask 
 us instead to believe in a banished king. But the function of 
 governing is as impossible to the one as to the other. To govern, 
 to guide, to protect, to punish, to legislate, to conquer, in short 
 to reign, requires a living present king. But if Christ be present 
 with his subjects, oh ! how much more with his disciples, his 
 friends ! Shall we believe that he has been commissioned to 
 govern the world, to act upon its living generations, to contend 
 against its iniquities and woes, and yet be shut out from his 
 Church, cut off from sweet and holy communion with those who, 
 in deepest love and loyalty towards him, in truest sympathy with 
 him, are labouring often amid heavy discouragement and grievous 
 pain, to extend his dominion and establish his throne ? Can we 
 believe he is thus exalted and commissioned, yet that Grod has 
 kept him from the loving hearts that would be his chosen home ? 
 But if present, are we coldly to pass him by, shutting close in 
 our hearts the guilty knowledge of his presence like Eastern 
 slaves, who meet their disguised caliph in the streets at night ? 
 What, then, shall separate us from Christ? These walls of 
 flesh that now enclose our spirit ? They might do so, if he were 
 still in the flesh ; but he has put off the body, and entered his 
 glorified state, and if our earthly state be no barrier to our 
 Heavenly Father's visits, so neither need it be to those of His 
 Divine Son on whom He bestowed all power in heaven and on 
 earth. Jesus is far nearer to us now than he could have been 
 had we sat at his feet in Bethany eighteen centuries ago. The 
 mighty power of spiritual sympathies is only beginning to be 
 understood. When we ourselves have put off these mortal 
 bodies, and perceive the true nature of spiritual life, how simple 
 will all those difficulties appear which we now feel in trying to 
 realise the blessed truth that Jesus, our Shepherd, Saviour, 
 King, is present with his Church and abides in his people. We 
 
334 
 
 shall, doubtless, look upon them even as one blind from birth on 
 receiving sight would smile at the difficulty he had formerly felt 
 in trying to understand how other people knew at a glance the 
 nearest way from place to place, or learnt their friend's emotions 
 from his face. 
 
 What, then, shall separate us from Christ ? Our mortal wants 
 and many infirmities ? Not so. For is it not recorded that 
 " seeing the multitudes " in their hunger and disease " he had 
 compassion on them," and the greater their need the greater 
 was his pity. When they were hungry he fed them — when sick 
 he healed them. And are not our hunger and sickness as 
 mournful as theirs ? Is he not the Bread of Life, and the Great 
 Physician ? Has he not now as then the Water of Life, and shall 
 he not minister unto us ? Rev. xxi., 6. He asks us thus to 
 minister unto the least of our brethren, and so unto himself. 
 But " it is more blessed to give than to receive." If when he 
 knocks we open unto him, will he not come in and sup with us, 
 and we with him ? What shall deprive him of the joy of making 
 his faithful servants " sit down to meat " when they are sore 
 spent, and coming to serve them ?" Luke xii., 37 ; Rev. iii., 20. 
 
 What can separate us from Christ ? Perchance our sins. Not 
 so ; for he ' ' came into the world to save sinners " (1 Tim. i., 
 15), — came especially " to seek and to save that which was lost," 
 came then, and surely comes now, " not to call the righteous but 
 sinners to repentance." 
 
 Shall sorrow or disappointment, then, separate us from him ? 
 Shall tribulation or distress, or persecution, famine, nakedness, 
 peril, or the sword ? " Nay, in all these things we are more 
 than conquerors through him who loved us ;" for, if we suffer 
 with him or for him, we have the deeper, tenderer sympathies with 
 him, and he with us. We shall realise the more fully for our 
 sorrows and pains what the holy Apostle experienced, and shall 
 find our Saviour's "grace sufficient for us" — find that we 
 " can do all things through Christ, who strengthcneth us " — 
 
335 
 
 learn with Paul to "glory in infirmities that the power 
 of Christ may rest upon us," and learn with him in devout 
 thankfulness for which words are vain, that " when we are weak 
 then we are strong." 2 Cor. xii., 9, 10 ; Phil, iv., 13. 
 
 The Christian's life never can be an easy one in any age or 
 condition. "Woe unto them who are at ease in Zion." While 
 there are so many duties to he done, and crosses to be taken up, 
 so many temptations to be vanquished, so many sorrows of 
 others', as well as our own, to be borne, we are constantly in 
 need of all the help and encouragement we can obtain. But to 
 one who loves, reveres, and serves Christ, who is conscious of 
 his infinite obligations to his Saviour, there can be no greater 
 support and encouragement, as far as his own mind is concerned, 
 than the knowledge that, by the infinite love of God, his Master 
 is with him, — that his Saviour's smile is on him, the holy, loving, 
 blessed presence that once made beautiful and happy many a 
 lowly home, and many a sinner's heart in Palestine, that brought 
 the maniac and leper to health and gladness, that made the 
 motherless widow's heart rejoice, and the penitent Apostle 
 peaceful, holy, and strong. And when Jesus said, " He that 
 hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth 
 me ; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I 
 will love him, and will manifest myself unto him," — he gave the 
 promise which alone can enable us to fulfil the " commandments." 
 If we sever the duty from the help and the reward, we deprive 
 ourselves of the means of performing the one and receiving the 
 other. The yoke of Christ is, indeed, easy and his burden light, 
 for those who abide in him, and he in them ; but its crashing 
 weight when we do not live in his presence, nor toil beneath his 
 eye, nor rest in his home, neither we nor our fathers have been 
 able to bear. 
 
 If we realise the loving presence of our Saviour, the con- 
 sciousness of being with him, of being loved, cheered, strengthened 
 by him, imparts the deepest happiness which a faithful disciple 
 
336 
 
 can receive next to the consciousness of the love and presence of 
 God. Hence to such a one it becomes a sweet and refreshing 
 work to meditate upon the Saviour's life, character, precepts, on 
 everything that brings him into one's thoughts. For all this 
 helps us to realise his presence. But if we only think of him as 
 far removed from us, unable to hold any intercourse with us, 
 there is a saddened, even melancholy, feeling connected with our 
 remembrance akin to the yearning sorrow with which we think 
 of a dear friend removed from us by death. We experience 
 this sadness especially in our hours of weakness and lonely 
 suffering, when we most want the consolation of human sympathy, 
 of a brother who could help us to arise and come to our Father, 
 who could give us the precious balm of peace such as the world 
 cannot give, and comfort us as one who was " touched with a 
 feeling of our infirmities," and knew our temptations, weakness, 
 and sorrows by his own experience. But if, instead of this com- 
 munion of sympathy, if, through disbelief of his power of thus 
 cheering us, we are unable to say with the Apostle, except in a 
 vapid figurative sense, " Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and 
 God, even our Father, who hath loved us . . . comfort 
 your hearts . . . " (2 Thess. ii., 16, 17), then not only 
 the thought of the vast gulf supposed to separate us, but the 
 contrast between the happy realm where he is imagined to be 
 dwelling in undisturbed serenity, and our sorrow and strife, make 
 us feel that now, at all events, he and we have nothing in com- 
 mon. Thence we think of him with the less delight and affection, 
 and the tendency, if not always the effect, is to estrange us from 
 our Master, to chill our relations with him, and disincline us, 
 among other mischievous results, to unite in the celebration of 
 his memorial feast and communion supper. 
 
 I think there cannot be a doubt that if we ought often to think 
 of Christ, if we shall grow like him in proportion as we do 
 meditate on him, on what he was and desired us to be, striving, 
 of course, at the same time to imitate him, it must make an 
 
337 
 
 immeasurable difference whether we believe that he is really with 
 us, knows our thoughts and love towards him, and gives us his 
 own personal help and sympathy ; or whether we believe him to 
 be either totally ignorant of our state and feelings, or beholding 
 afar off our struggles, and vain yearning aspirations towards him, 
 but being unable to draw nigh to us and satisfy them. 
 
 But some will say that they want nothing but the presence 
 and love of God — this must include everything needful. Surely. 
 But if the Scriptures have any meaning, they teach us that God 
 manifests His presence and His love in Christ. Jesus is 
 Immanuel, " God with us." A Christian can quote the beautiful 
 words of David (Psalm xxiii.), and feel as strongly as he did, 
 and with the same blessed comfort, that God is his shepherd, 
 though he has learnt more than David knew, from the words 
 of Christ (John x., xiv., (fee), how God comes to him in His holy 
 Son, leading, and nourishing, and "restoring " him by that "good 
 shepherd," because the Father dwelleth in him, and he and the 
 Father are one. This is precisely the way in which our 
 Heavenly Father has chosen to show His exceeding tender love 
 for the sons of men. It is, primarily, even because this is God's 
 mode of visiting us ; because Christ and the Father are one, that 
 the presence of the Saviour is such an infinite blessing. And 
 if it be God's mode of answering our great wants, in shutting 
 out Christ from our hearts, we shut out God. His highest 
 energy and deepest love are manifested to us through Christ. 
 Happy they who can live under a constant sense of their 
 Heavenly Father's infinite power, of His ever-present care and 
 unspeakably tender love, yet rejoice in the sublime prayer, " That 
 they all may be one ; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, 
 that they also may be one in us," ..." that the love 
 wherewith Thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." 
 
 But it is not true that any human being wants only God. 
 Our Heavenly Father has made us for Himself; but He has 
 also made us for one another. We do need the fellowship of our 
 p 
 
338 
 
 brethren ; — to be independent of it is no sign of true greatness, 
 or of growth in real piety. To be indifferent to the society, affec- 
 tion, of human beings, is inhuman. But it is also godless. The 
 devotee who begins by abjuring all human affections, ends by 
 losing all sympathies with the divine. But in sending to us one 
 who " is not ashamed to call us brethren," who taught us to pray 
 " to his Father and to our Father, to his God and to our God," 
 who became the Son of Man, was " in all things made like unto 
 his brethren," and " was in all points tempted like as we are " 
 (Heb. ii., 17 ; iv., 15), who was weary and hungered, who wept, 
 prayed, sorrowed, died ; in giving us such a being for a friend, 
 God has taught us with sublime emphasis that He meant us to 
 have fellowship not with the Father only, but also with the Son, 
 with one who is our brother, one with whom all the holy family 
 affections, all the deepest, tenderest feelings of our nature lead 
 us to seek companionship, intercourse, friendship of the most 
 intimate kind. In giving us brothers and sisters according to 
 the flesh, in uniting us in family groups as husbands and wives, 
 in giving us the blessings of human and earthly friendship, God 
 is always teaching men to understand and value the far higher 
 blessing that He has prepared for them who will accept and love 
 His divine Son. Some pure spirits there may be among the 
 children of men who may have always walked so closely with God 
 from childhood upwards, that either they may not so much need the 
 presence of a mediator, of a reconciler to bring them to God, as 
 other people do, or that Mediator may do his saving blessed work 
 in them and for them without their seeking or their welcome. 
 I cannot say. But of this I am sure, that he who says " I want 
 nothing but God " has come but to half his spiritual stature, and 
 is in fearful danger of gradually losing all his spiritual life. He 
 little knows how far he is from God until he has become " a new 
 creature in Christ," and is "accepted in the beloved," and 
 " cometh to the Father " through the Son. Still less does he 
 dream of what is yet before him, or that the greatest blessing 
 
339 
 
 that can await him is a season of despondency so drear, of 
 loneliness so absolute, or of agony so terrible, that in the midst 
 of it he may clutch at the hand which God has offered him in 
 vain during many a brighter hour, even the Saviour's hand 
 which has long been seeking his, while he exclaims, " Lord, 
 save me, or I perish !" 
 
 A man may say in his ignorant piety, or in his devotional 
 pride, " I want nothing but God." But would that all men's 
 eyes were opened to discern their need of asking what God may 
 want of them before He can " dwell in them and walk in them," 
 before the offering they would make of themselves to Him can 
 be cleansed, and sanctified, and made meet for His acceptance. 
 For " no man knoweth .... who the Father is but the 
 Son, and to whom the Son shall reveal Him." Luke x., 22. 
 
 I cannot help thinking that some sincere Christians who 
 love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and on most other 
 points hold " the truth as it is in Jesus," who have long and 
 painfully struggled with humiliating weakness or besetting sins, 
 who are bitterly mourning over the little progress they make 
 towards true holiness and Christian peace, would be startled 
 to find, on accepting this one great truth of the personal 
 agency, power, and presence of the Eedeemer, how unnecessa- 
 rily they had been thus troubled and defiled. If their eyes 
 could only once be opened to see the true and only way to 
 God, — if they would but once heartily believe in the present 
 power and love of Christ, and feel that " God has made him to 
 be unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemp- 
 tion," — they would rise up to a strength and health, to a blessed 
 peace and holiness which they had never known before. I 
 believe firmly that, on the one hand, it is the intense conviction 
 which Christians generally, in all ages, have cherished of the 
 necessity of this actual spiritual union and communion with their 
 risen Head, that has mainly given such vitality to the Christian 
 Church, in spite of its various doctrinal errors and terrible 
 
340 
 
 mistakes. While, on the other hand, we see the English 
 Presbyterian section of that Church, after rendering very noble 
 services to the cause of Puritanism and the Reformation in the 
 sixteenth, to civil and religious liberty in the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries, arriving, during the last hundred years, in 
 some important respects, at a far truer creed than their brethren; 
 but then, — as I believe, from looking, at length, to Jesus only as 
 a teacher and example, not as a present ruler, deliverer, guide, 
 not as a living head with whom they are to be united in living per- 
 sonal relations of sympathy, loyalty, and love, — gradually halting 
 in their career, languishing in their churches, diminishing in 
 their numbers, and accomplishing, comparatively, little, either 
 individually or collectively, for the advancement of the Re- 
 deemer's kingdom and for the glory of their Father in heaven, 
 at home or abroad.* 
 
 While, then, the whole argument of this essay tends to vindi- 
 cate the Saviour's actual rule and power over the hearts and 
 destinies of men, over those who do not acknowledge him, who 
 never heard of him, or who rebel against him, — while its aim 
 has continually been to maintain, as a Scripture truth, that God 
 is in Christ, still reconciling the world unto Himself, "dwelling in 
 him," and " doing the works " whereby the Saviour is subduing 
 all enemies, and unfolding all good ; acting, therefore, even upon 
 the hardened heart, and influencing the fate, alike, of each little 
 child and each mighty empire, we must never forget that that holy 
 and blessed union of heart with heart which I have endeavoured 
 to describe, — that sweet and strengthening intercourse between 
 the human soul and God's beloved Son, — can be enjoyed only by 
 those who seek him in faith. We are, indeed, saved (in the 
 largest, highest sense) by being united with him, and so being 
 
 * Their noble adherence to great, but unpopular truths, during that 
 period, their zeal in upholding freedom and diffusing knowledge, are 
 worthy of the highest respect. I am speaking of their religious zeal. 
 
341 
 
 made one with God ; but we must take care not to imagine that 
 Christ can dwell in our hearts unless we open the door. He will 
 stand long at the gate knocking ; but he will not, should I not 
 reverently say, he cannot force an entrance. Still more must we 
 be aware of falling into a miserable materialistic way of thinking, 
 perhaps half unconsciously, that in some mysterious way mere 
 contact of his spirit with ours, even supposing it could take place 
 without faith and consenting will on our part, would be of any 
 avail. We must never forget that spiritual union, the uniting of 
 soul with soul, can only take place through a voluntary turning 
 of the affections and trust towards the being with whom we are 
 to be atoned,— that although Christ assuredly can and will come 
 to dwell with healing, sanctifying power in the loving and 
 believing heart, yet that we can receive hira only by an act of 
 will, and can retain him only by a growing sympathy of thought 
 and feeling, as well as by continual efforts to live inwardly and 
 outwardly in conformity with his words and spirit. He can 
 dwell only in that heart where he is welcomed, and can commu- 
 nicate life, health, holiness, peace, only to that man who answers 
 to the voice, the look of his Bedeemer. If we would have him 
 to abide with us, we must exert ourselves as well as ask him to 
 help us. Our wills must co-operate with him, although (as 
 must often be the case even with advanced Christians) our 
 affections may be cold and languid. Christ's promises are to 
 those who keep his words. John xiv., 21-23. Unless we try 
 to obey him, there can be no continued communion between him 
 and us ; for there can only be common ground — thoughts, feel- 
 ings, purposes, all that makes up spiritual existence, in common, 
 so far as there are continued or renewed endeavours, efforts of 
 will, to overcome all that is repugnant to the Saviour's spirit, to 
 unfold and cherish all that is in conformity with it. Christ can 
 do little for us beyond a certain point, if we do not try to help 
 ourselves. He comes not to carry us, but to enable us to walk. 
 It is evident that full belief in his most precious promises, if we 
 
34; 
 
 dwell too much on what ho will do for us, may become a fatal 
 snare, by leading us to carelessness, sloth, self-seeking, relaxing 
 the tension of our will, and tempting us to forget that all real 
 goodness, therefore all true and actual communion with Christ, 
 all real union with God, depends not merely nor chiefly on our 
 good feelings, but on our good will, on willing what is right, 
 and loving, and divine. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we think too much of what we our- 
 selves must do, and too little of what God will do for us in and 
 by His Son, we become discouraged sooner or later by our want 
 of success, or by our slow progress and frequent backsliding, 
 and ultimately indifferent to all moral or spiritual improvement, 
 perhaps sceptical as to spiritual truths, unseen realities, Scripture 
 promises and Scripture warnings. We may be respectable in 
 the eyes of the world, be kind-hearted, and even do a little good 
 when it is not inconvenient, yet fall very far short of what we 
 might, and ought, and were created to become. Trusting only 
 to ourselves, we remain at a distance from Christ, and altogether 
 out of communion with those who dwell with him on earth, who 
 will rejoice with him in the Father's mansions above. Moreover, 
 since it is certain that no one remains stationary in his moral 
 course, if we are not growing, year by year, more like our 
 Saviour, more one with God, if we are not gradually becoming 
 more unselfish and spiritually-minded, " less of the earth earthy," 
 in our desires, habits, tastes, more humble, loving, and devout, 
 we may be well assured we are drifting further and further away 
 from that holy and blessed fellowship with the Father and the 
 Son for which we were created, to which we were redeemed. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 Our task is nearly finished. The sum of all I have 
 endeavoured to say is found in the promises of Christ, first, to 
 send to his disciples " the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit ;" 
 secondly, that " he would not leave them comfortless, — that he 
 himself would come unto them." John xiv., 18. For thus we 
 learn how his prayer that "they all may be one; as Thou, 
 Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may he one in 
 us" (John xvii., 21), is to be fulfilled. We see that we are 
 united with the Father and the Son by the spirit of holiness, 
 truth, beauty, power, happiness, love, which proceedeth from 
 them both, and which make our "fellowship to be with the 
 Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." 1 John i., 3. For it 
 is evident from our Lord's words that the giving, of this Spirit is 
 identical with his manifesting his presence to us, with the coming 
 of the Father and the Son to make their abode with us. The 
 Spirit is given, is poured out upon us, enters our souls, regenerates 
 us, makes us new creatures in Christ, atones us with God, because 
 the Saviour, who is himself full of holiness, power, love, — the 
 Saviour "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily" (Col. ii., 9), — comes and abides with us. The Holy 
 Spirit, the Comforter is given, because God is in Christ, and 
 Christ in us, " I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be 
 made perfect in one, and that the world may know that 
 Thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved 
 
 me And I have declared unto them Thy name,* 
 
 and will declare it; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved me 
 may be in them, and I them." John xvii., 26. 
 
 * That all men miy "h.xllow" that name, our " Fatheb," and learn 
 from it the Fatherly love of God. 
 

 Hence it is that when in the days of his mortal life the 
 Saviour in prophetic vision spoke of the Spirit which should here- 
 after be given, and be " a well of water" in those who receive it, 
 " springing up unto everlasting life," the Evangelist adds — (t This 
 spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should 
 receive : for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus 
 was not yet glorified." John vii., 39. And hence, also, before 
 the passage just quoted, our Lord says to his disciples when he 
 was about to die, " I will pray the Father, and He will give 
 you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever ; 
 even the Spirit of Truth," or the true Spirit. John xiv., 16, 17. 
 And that hereby he means that he himself will come to 
 them, not in that merely phenomenal body, but in the spirit, 
 will come in deed and in truth, a true " substantia," wroo-Tao-is, 
 as he is in himself, as a spirit, a spirit of love, power, goodness, — 
 is evident from the succeeding words, " I will not leave you 
 comfortless, I will come unto you, ... at that day ye 
 shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you ;" 
 and then the oft- quoted passages that follow, " I will manifest 
 myself. . . . We will make our abode with him." Thus, 
 surely, was the promise of the Spirit to be fulfilled, which was 
 given when Jesus said, " he dwelleth with you, and shall be in 
 you." 17. Thus, also, we see how his words towards the close 
 of that memorable and most blessed discourse with his disciples 
 are to be understood, and how they declare the same glorious 
 truth, that the regenerating, sanctifying, atoning spirit, comes to 
 us by the presence of Christ and the Father in our hearts, 
 making their abode with us. I mean the following — ■" Never- 
 theless, I tell you the truth : it is expedient for you that I go 
 away " ( i.e., to death ; go away in the body to return in the 
 spirit) ; " for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to 
 you " (for how could he comfort and regenerate them then, as 
 he could do if he came to them, not in the body, but in the 
 spirit) ; " but if I depart I will send him to you " (if I disappear 
 
345 
 
 from you, if I take from you this earthly self, I will send you 
 my other and better self, such as I was before ye knew me in 
 the flesh, such as I shall be in that day, to abide with you for 
 ever). ..." He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of 
 mine and shall show it unto you." (This new divine influence 
 on your hearts, produced by the presence of the Father and the 
 Son, shall enable you to understand somewhat of the glory that 
 the Father hath given me — shall show you what it has pleased 
 the Father to bestow upon the Son.) " All things that the 
 Father hath are mine ; therefore said I, that he shall take of 
 mine and shall show it unto you (John xv., 14, 15), because 
 the Father comes to us in His beloved, and by the influence of 
 their spirit we behold God's own glory and His own works, and 
 see that by His divine will they are also the works and the glory 
 of the Son). " The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of 
 myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. 
 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." 
 xiv., 10, 11. So that through the Son "we both (Jews and 
 Gentiles) have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. ii., 18. 
 Finally, I have endeavoured to urge, side by side with these 
 doctrines, the truth that the foregoing promises are conditional ; 
 that it is they only who keep his commandments of whom he 
 says that they love him, and that he will manifest himself to 
 them, — they only who keep his words will the Father love, and 
 with whom he and the Father will make their dwelling. Not 
 to the indolent or self-indulgent, the passionate and revengeful ; 
 not to the worldly-minded, the fearful, and the selfish, will 
 Christ grant his presence ; though from them assuredly he will 
 not withhold his influence, and to them, of all men, when they 
 repent and believe, will he come with compassionate mercy and 
 help. Neither in every assembly will he be there in the midst. 
 The promise is to those who are assembled in his name, gathered 
 together in discipleship to him, in the desire to learn of him, to 
 serve him, to meet and draw nigh to him. And where human 
 
346 
 
 beings are met together thus in his name, seeking his Spirit 
 whether they be two or two thousand, Jesus is with them, 
 animating, comforting, strengthening, healing them, lifting their 
 hearts to his Father and their Father, filling those hearts with a 
 sense of unspeakable love and peace, until, in the hushed stillness 
 of profound yet ardent emotion, they say, " It is the Lord." For 
 " The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his 
 hand." John iii., 35. 
 
 How these infinite blessings are conferred, as I have often 
 admitted, we cannot understand in this world. But while it has 
 pleased God to veil from our eyes, at present, the deep mystery 
 of the influence of spiritual beings upon our souls or bodies, and 
 we in vain attempt to understand its nature and mode of opera- 
 tion, He has made very plain to us what we have to do, by 
 faith and works, to receive and secure the blessings He thus 
 offers us through His Son and by His Spirit. And if even in 
 this world, where we see but through a glass darkly, we can 
 dimly discern the wonderfully atoning power of a spirit of love 
 and holiness, and perceive how eiforts to follow Christ, to serve 
 him, and to sacrifice in his name, bring us into blessed com- 
 munion with him, we can well rest content till that bright vision 
 shall fully dawn upon us, in which we shall know (even as now 
 we are known), the length and breadth and depth and height of 
 that uniting love which passeth knowledge, and which shall 
 make us one in the Father and in the Son through endless ages 
 of increasing holiness, love, power, and joy. 
 
 Yes, in the words of Archbishop Leighton, — "There is a 
 noble guest within us ; oh, let all our business be to entertain 
 him honourably, and to live in celestial love within." Then we 
 shall understand the divine meaning of those parting words of 
 the Saviour — " These things have I spoken unto you, that in 
 me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation : 
 but be of good cheer ; I have overcome the world." 
 
34: 
 
 Life's mystery — deep, restless as the ocean — 
 
 Hath surged and wail'd for ages to and fro ; 
 Earth's generations watch its ceaseless motion, 
 
 As in and out its hollow moanings flow ; 
 Shivering and yearning by that unknown sea, 
 Let my soul calm itself, O Christ, in thee ! 
 
 Life's sorrows, with inexorable power, 
 
 Sweep desolation o'er this mortal plain ; 
 And human loves and hopes fly as the chaff 
 
 Borne by the whirlwind from the ripen'd grain : — 
 Ah, when before that blast my hopes all flee, 
 Let my soul calm itself, O Christ, in thee ! 
 
 Between the mysteries of Death and Life, 
 
 Thou standest, loving, guiding — not explaining ; 
 
 We ask, and thou art silent — yet we gaze, 
 
 And our charm'd hearts forget their drear complaining ! 
 
 No crushing fate — no stony destiny ! 
 
 Thou Lamb that hast been slain, we rest in thee ! 
 
 The many waves of thought, the mighty tides, 
 The ground-swell that rolls up from other lands, 
 
 From far-off worlds, from dim eternal shores, 
 Whose echo dashes on life's wave-worn strands — 
 
 This vague dark tumult of the inner sea 
 
 Grows calm, grows bright, risen Lord, in thee 
 
 Thy pierced hand guides the mysterious wheels ; 
 
 Thy thom-crown'd brow now wears the crown of power 
 And when the dark enigma presseth sore, 
 
 Thy patient voice saith — " Watch with me one hour !' 
 As sinks the moaning river in the sea 
 In silver peace, so sinks my soul in thee ! 
 
 Mrs. H. B. Stowe. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 Since the foregoing work was written, the following beautiful 
 passage has appeared in a very interesting leader (entitled " Christ 
 with us ") in the Inquirer, the weekly organ of the Unitarians. 
 It is so significant of the state of thought among our brethren, 
 and bears so closely on the subject of my last chapter, that 
 I cannot forbear transcribing it : — 
 
 "A man shall sit in his study till the conclusion appears 
 inevitable — ' I cannot be intimate with Christ — there is no real 
 communion possible between my spirit and his ; he was a creature, 
 and is now far away from the scene of his toil.' But he shall 
 come out of his study, and go to the tiny bed where the one little 
 child of his love is lying nigh unto death ; or where the nearest 
 and dearest tie of life is breaking — breaking slowly, hour by hour, 
 and at that solemn time the soul shall reassert her mysterious 
 power, and feel out after the Christ who called the little child to 
 life, and wept at a new made grave. 
 
 " l How can he be with us ?' cries the student over his books. 
 Ah ! close them for awhile ; live in the Spirit, and walk in the 
 Spirit; give yourself up to 'the powers of the world to come;' 
 believe in something above the conclusions of the wisdom of this 
 world, and truer than that which we at present see ; get rid of the 
 tyranny of the senses, and the reasonings and logics that build 
 thereon; let the heart speak, and sorrow utter her plaint, and joy 
 tell her vision, and the soul that is deepest moved have audience, 
 as well as the mind that is steadiest poised, and then, perhaps, 
 this will not seem altogether impossible that 'eye hath not seen, 
 nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived the mysteries of the 
 Spirit- world, and what the Father hath prepared for them that 
 love Him ;' and then it may seem not altogether impossible that we 
 do a wise and blessed thing when we lean upon the sympathy of 
 a living Christ. We sometimes fondly hope, when parents die, 
 they may not be quite unmindful of the fair young lives they have 
 left behind — of the tempted youth, the innocent maiden, and the 
 little child. 'Ah! who can tell us,' we sometimes say, 'how 
 near they maybe at times — girding us by night and day, dwelling 
 in their world of light and beauty which our gross senses cannot 
 know ; encompassing us with that " great cloud of witnesses " of 
 which the Scriptures speak.' But these are only fond hopes and 
 beauteous dreams at which the rough word laughs, and creeds and 
 logics wonder. And yet men cling to them and will not let them 
 go; for the heart will cherish what the reason will not own, and 
 the spirit can rest on what syllogisms can never touch. 
 
349 
 
 " And this is why, in spite of all of our systems of theology, our 
 articles of belief, and our verbal accuracies, the Christian heart has 
 ever been, and is, so tenderly conscious of the presence and the 
 sympathy of him who left this word as our precious heritage — ■ 
 1 Lo ! 1 am with you always, to the end.' " — Inquirer, April 27, 
 1861. Whitfield. 
 
 The beautiful lines, also, at the end of the last page, were 
 originally quoted in the Inquirer, headed, " Peace in God," and 
 prefaced with the two following quotations : — 
 
 " Inconcevable enigme de la vie, que la passion, ni la douleur, 
 ni le genie ne peuvent decouvrir, vous revelerez vous a la priere ?" 
 Madame de Stael (Corinne). 
 
 " Let my soul calm itself in Thee : I say, let the great sea of my 
 soul that swelleth with waves calm itself in Thee." — St. 
 Augustine. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 Page 8. 
 
 The following extracts abundantly prove the original and legitimate 
 use of the word Atonement :— 
 
 Coriolanus. — Act IV., Sc. 6. — " He and Aufidius can no more atone, 
 than violentest contrariety." 
 
 (Note by Dr. Johnson. — " To atone, in the active sense, is to reconcile, 
 and is so used by our author. To atone, here, is in the neutral seuse, to 
 come to reconciliation. To atone is to unite" 
 
 Note by Steevens. — " The etymology of this verb may be known from 
 the following passage in the 2nd Book of Sidney's Arcadia. — ' Necessitie 
 made us see, that a common enemie sets at one a civil warre.' ") 
 
 Richard II. — Act I., Sc. 1. 
 
 " Siuce we cannot atone you, we shall see 
 Justice design the victor's chivalry." 
 Timon of Athens. — Act V., Sc. 5. 
 
 " To atone your fears 
 With my more noble meaning." 
 (Note by Steevens. — " i.e. to reconcile them to it.") 
 
 Othelb.— Act IV., Sc. 1. 
 
 " Lod. — Is there division 'twixt thy Lord and Cassio ? 
 Desd. — A most unhappy one ! I would do much to atone 
 them, for the love I bear to Cassio." 
 
 ■Cymbeline. — Act I., Sc. 5. 
 
 " I was glad I did atone my countryman and you." 
 
 Richard III— Act I., Sc. 3. | 
 
 " He desires to make atonement 
 Between the Duke of Grloster and your brother, 
 And between them and my Lord Chamberlain." 
 
 Second Part of Henry IV.— Act IV., Sc. 1. 
 
 " If we do now make our atonement well, 
 Our peace will, like a broken limb united, 
 Grow stronger for the breaking." 
 
351 
 
 Merry Wives of Windsor.— Act I., Sc. 1. 
 
 " If Sir John Palstaff have committed disparagements unto you, I am 
 of the Church, and will be glad to do my benevolence, to make atone- 
 ments and compromises between you." 
 
 Antony and Cleopatra. — Act II., Sc. 2. 
 
 " The present need speaks to atone you." 
 
 As You Like it. — Act V., Sc. 4. 
 
 Hymen sings, — " Then is there mirth in Heaven 
 When earthly things made even, 
 Atone together." 
 
 In Archdeacon Wares' s Glossary of Words, &c, illustrative of Shakes- 
 peare and his Contemporaries, — 4to., London, 1822, we find the following 
 references : — 
 
 "Atone, or attone, v. a. To reconcile; from at one. 
 
 " Nay, if he had been cool enough to tell us that, there had been some 
 hope to atone you ; but he seems so implacably enrag'd." 
 
 Ben Johnson's Epicane, Act IV., Sc. 51. 
 
 "Atone, adj. United; agreed. 
 
 " So been they both atone, and doen upreare 
 Their bevers bright, each other for to greet." 
 
 Spens. F. Q., II, 1, 29. 
 " Atonement. Reconciliation. 
 
 " Since your happiness, 
 As you will have it, has alone dependence 
 Upon her favour, from my soul I wish you 
 A fair atonements 
 
 Massinger, Duke of Milan, IV., 3. 
 
 " Leave nothing unsought to set them at one." 
 TyndalVs Workes, p. 193 — quoted in Richardson's Dictionary. 
 " One God, one Mediator (that is to say, advocate, intercessor or 
 atone-maker), between God and man ;" 
 — Ditto, p. 158— also 
 
 "There is but one Mediator, Christ (1 Tim. ii.); and by that word 
 understand an attone-maker, a peace-maker, and a bringer into grace 
 aud favour." 
 
 " I have been atoning two most wrangling neighbours." — 
 
 Beaumont and Fletcher's Spanish Curate, Act II, Sc. 4. 
 
352 
 
 " Though that hire husbond absent were or non 
 If gentilmen, or other of that contree 
 Were wroth, she wolde bringen him aton 
 So wise and ripe wordes had she." 
 
 Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (Tyrwhitt) verse 8313. 
 The Gierke's Tale. 
 
 " If any contention arose he knew none fitter to be their judge, to atone 
 and take up their quarrels but himself." 
 
 Drummond (quoted by Johnson). 
 
 " Otto is Rollo now, and Hollo, Otto; 
 
 Or, as they have one mind, rather one name, 
 
 Prom this atonement let our lives begin; 
 
 Be all the rest forgotten." 
 Beaumont and Fletcher's Bollo, Buke of Normandy, Act I. 
 
 " I'm satisfied ; let virtue have her due, 
 And yet I'm melancholy upon this atonement ; 
 Pray Heaven the state rue it not. I would 
 My lord Vitelli's steward and I could meet; 
 They should find it should cost 'em a little more 
 To make us friends." 
 
 Bitto Love's Cure, Act V., Sc. 3. 
 
 In Spenser we have, in 
 Book iv. canto v. v. 46. And with him eke that aged squire attone. 
 ,, „ vii. v. 14. Whom like unlucky lot 
 
 Hath linckt with me in the same chaine attone. 
 ,, „ viii. v. 21. Of final peace, and faire attonement 
 
 Which might concluded be by mutual consent. 
 
 In the Life of Chillingworth we have the following passage :~ 
 " The greatest part of the controversy (says Heylin) between us and 
 the Church of Eome, not being in fundamentals, I cannot otherwise look 
 upon it but as a most Christian and pious work, to endeavour an atone^ 
 ment in the superstructure." 
 
353 
 
 A friend has drawn our attention to the circumstance that the word 
 translated "Ransom," Job xxxiii., 24, in the authorised version by King 
 James' Bishops, is rendered "Reconciliation," in the " Breeches Bible" 
 (he says, dated 1607, but our copy is 1599). Also that in the edition of 
 1669 where it is given "Ransom," the marginal reading is " Atonement," 
 and that an Amsterdam Latin Bible of 1639 has " Expiatione." The 
 Vulgate has "propitier." The Hebrew has the original expression so 
 frequently translated " atonement " in the Authorised Version and signi- 
 fying " a covering," that which covers or removes out of sight ; hence 
 "a propitiation " or " reconciliation." 
 
 That the words "atonement" and "reconciliation" were considered 
 interchangeable if not absolutely synonymous, even by the translators of 
 the Authorised Version, is evident not only from Rom. v., 11, but from | 
 various passages in the Old Testament, such as Levit. vi., 30 ; viii., 15 ; 
 xvi., 20. Ezekiel xlv., 15, 20. Daniel ix., 24; and especially 2 Chron. 
 xxix., 24, — in all which places we find the same Hebrew root " Jcopher" 
 elsewhere translated "Atonement;" while in the "Breeches Bible" we 
 find these two words used almost alternately as in Lev. xvi. and else- 
 where. 
 
 It would certainly be unnecessary to bring any more evidence to prove 
 the true meaning of this important word (a meaning universally received 
 until perverted by the new theology which came in with the Lutheran 
 and Calvinistic reaction against Popery), except to observe that all the 
 instances given of its use in the sense of " expiation," by Johnson and 
 others, as far as we have been able to search, are quoted from authors 
 who wrote subsequently to the time of Charles I. 
 
 The Rev. Robert Wallace, of Bath, has kindly furnished the follow- 
 ing criticism : 
 
 "The word 'Atonement' was always used with a greater latitude of 
 signification than the Greek word KaTaXXayrj. (Rom. v., 11 ; xi., 15; 
 2 Cor. v., 18, 19.) It may be used of the reconciliation of two parties, 
 who had previously been in a state of mutual enmity. But you will 
 find that the Greek word KaraXXayrj never has this sense ; and that the 
 verb KaraA Xarruu, from which it is derived, means, not to reconcile two 
 parties who are alienated from each other, but to reconcile one party „. 
 only, who, from whatever cause, has conceived a dislike for another. In 
 this respect KaraXXaTTUv differs from SiaAAarTeei'. The former can 
 
354 
 
 be said of one person only ; the latter may be said of two or more persons. 
 Now it is the former which the writers of the New Testament use to express 
 the reconciliation effected by the death of Christ ; and it is uniformly 
 man, and not God, who is represented as the party reconciled. The 
 distinction between these two verbs, which I do not recollect to have 
 seen noticed by any Unitarian writer in our own country, is clearly 
 pointed out by Tittmann, in his admirable work on the Synonyms of 
 the New Testament." 
 
 The Kev. John Wreford, in sending the following extract from Halli- 
 
 well's valuable " Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words," observes : 
 
 " In the old writers I have repeatedly met with the word atone and 
 
 atonement, but never in the sense of expiation, which is a perfectly 
 
 modern sense, applied by the advocates of Calvinistic theology." 
 
 "Atone — To reconcile ; to agree. See Beaumont and Fletcher, i., 141 ; 
 Webster's Works, i., 73. As You Like it, v., 4. This verb is evidently 
 formed from at one. Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor, i., 1, has 
 atonement in the sense of reconciliation, agreement." 
 
 Under the head of the participle At-on, from the same verb Atone, is 
 the following : 
 
 "At-on — United; agreed. See Lay le Frame, 279 — 320; Prompt. 
 Pare., p. 6 ; Fairie Queene, II., 29 ; Eeliq. Antiq. i., 167. 
 Thou hase oure gude mene slane 
 I rede ye be at-ane. 
 
 Sir Begrevante, Lincoln MS, 
 In that manner they are at-on. 
 
 MS. Cantab:* 
 
 Since writing the above, we have observed the following passage in 
 Archdeacon Hare's noble sermons on " The Victory of Faith," 
 page 36. (Cambridge, 1840.) He has been speaking of Faith as a 
 practical principle, and of its being an act not of the Understanding only, 
 but of the Understanding, Affections, and Will, "in their central 
 aboriginal unity." Then referring to the divided state of our nature, 
 he continues, " Indeed, this our divided condition is the main cause of 
 our weakness . . . and from this misery nothing can save us, except 
 the atoning power of Faith." And again, page 136. " Her office [Faith] 
 we have seen, is to be the copula between the Heart and Mind . . , 
 
355 
 
 the atoning principle in man's disjointed nature . . ." And page 
 165, "Being the Atoning principle in the Mind . . ." [The word is 
 also often used in this sense in Mr. Maurice's writings, and will probably 
 ere very long be fully restored to its original and important meaning.] 
 
 [The above is reprinted from " The Great Atonement." 1847.] 
 
 Dean Trench dwelt upon the original meaning of " Atonement " in 
 the first edition of his " Study of Words," but I am sorry to see the 
 passage is omitted in the fifth edition. Why should this be ? 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 Page 80. 
 
 The following, from the writings of the late celebrated Dr. Hawker, of 
 Plymouth, a devout and earnest defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 illustrates the statement in the text : — " From this and several similar 
 texts an argument hath been drawn to prove that Christ cannot be God 
 from this acknowledged inferiority. This objection hath been replied to 
 by endeavouring to show that, when our Lord speaks at any time in that 
 language, it is to be considered as in reference to his human nature, and 
 not his divine. But I confess, to my apprehension, this is by no means 
 a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. It is, certainly, rather waiving 
 than answering the question. For, to suppose that our Lord in one 
 passage alludes to his divinity, and in another to his humanity, this 
 would be to make Christ speak and act as two distinct beings, which 
 would be an absurdity. And if this were made the standard for explain- 
 ing the difficulties of Scripture, to what errors would it lead ? I rather 
 think our blessed Lord meant exactly as the words express, ' My Father 
 is greater than /.'... That there is some mysterious superiority 
 in the Father as Father, and inferiority in the Son as Son, is not only 
 the doctrine of Scripture, but hath the concurrent opinion of all the 
 ancient writers." — Dr. Hawker's " Sermons on the Divinity of Christ," 
 as quoted by several writers, p. 177. 
 
 Coleridge always strongly objected to the Athanasian creed, because 
 he considered it manifestly denied the subordination of the Son to the 
 Father. It is difficult to understand how anybody can maintain that it 
 does not. In his " Literary Remains," vol. iv., p. 191, he says : — " The 
 denial in the assertion [of the said creed] ' None is greater or less than 
 the other,' is universal, and a plain contradiction of Christ speaking of 
 himself as the co-eternal Son, ' My Father is greater than I.' " 
 
 " Dr. Whitby, Dean Stanhope, Burkitt, and others, acknowledge that 
 the Father is greater than the Son, even in his divine nature." 
 
 The above extracts are taken from "Wilson's Concessions of Trini- 
 tarians." 
 
 It was not until the fifth century that this doctrine of the equality of 
 the Son with the Father was even heard of. Basil and the two Gregories 
 
357 
 
 were the first disputants of eminence to challenge attention to it. " The 
 Son," says Basil, " is all that the Father is." * " There is," says Gregory 
 of Nissa, "a whole Father in a whole Son, and a whole Son in a whole 
 Father."f "Whoever," says Gregory of Nazianzum, "maintains that 
 any of the three persons is inferior to the other, overturns the whole 
 Trinity." J 
 
 " The subject of the controversy [Nicene] was merely the point of 
 similarity in essence between the three persons. The unity and equality 
 of the persons, which necessarily resulted from holding similarity of 
 essence, was not fully acknowledged at once, even by the Nicenians, but 
 continued to be more clearly perceived, until at last it was expressed by 
 Augustine, for the first time, with decided logical consequence." || 
 
 * De Fide Opera, vol. i., p. 430. Quoted in Priestley's Ch. Hist., vol. ii., p. 329. 
 
 + Opera, vol. ii., p. 901. Ibid. t Or. xx., Opera, p. 338. Ibid. 
 
 || See Gieaeler's Eccl. Hist., 2nd period, let div., 83rd section. 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 Page 266. 
 
 So considerable a proportion of the offences for which, sin-offerings 
 were required under the Mosaic law consisted in simply ceremonial 
 transgressions, that endeavours have been made to show they were needed 
 for only such. But it must be borne in mind that most of the cere- 
 monies of the Jews had the object of cherishing sentiments of loyalty 
 and faithfulness to God, and hence questions of moral right or wrong- 
 doing were interwoven with their whole polity and ordinances. Their 
 ceremonial law was to separate them "as a peculiar people unto the 
 Lord," to keep them from idolatry, and make them " clean " or holy 
 vessels for the service of G-od. Hence, we cannot draw any sharp dis- 
 tinction, as proposed, between ritual uncleanness and moral guilt, so far 
 as sin-offerings were required. It is evident that the Jews were to view 
 themselves as defiled by offences either against the moral or ceremonial 
 law, and required these offerings in both cases. Thus, in Levit. vi., we 
 find trespass-offerings (which were only a particular species of sin- 
 offering) required in all cases of robbery, theft, and swindling. "I 
 believe that a little research will convince us that moral sin did, in fact, 
 always ceremonially disqualify,* and required ceremonial purification. 
 And in any case, since both moral and ritual sin certainly disqualified 
 men from becoming partakers of the New Covenant and heirs of ' the 
 better promises,' and, as the Apostles do not use any epithet restricting 
 the sins of which they speak to ceremonial transgressions, I do not think 
 we are justified in assigning such restriction to their words. There is 
 no necessity, however, to perplex the argument by raising this question, 
 because, all that is necessary for us to understand for the comprehension 
 of the Apostles' doctrine, is the simple fact that the sins from which 
 Christ's death cleansed those who had faith in him were disqualifyin6 
 sins." — Walter Bernard, pp. 53, 54. 
 
 * That is, for partaking of the privileges and blessings of the Old Covenant, 
 because they were to be regarded as breaches of that strict faithfulness required 
 by a perfectly righteous and holy God. 
 
APPENDIX D 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 (Those passages marked "A" appear to me decisive of the question. 
 The others rather confirm and allude to the doctrine of Christ's presence 
 and power, than establish the fact.) 
 
 (a) Matth. xxviii., 20. 
 
 ,, xxv., 35, 40. 
 (a) Mark xvi., 20. 
 John iii., 35. 
 
 „ xii., 32. 
 (a) „ xiv., 18, 13—14. 
 „ „ „ 20-23. 
 
 „ xv., 4, 5. 
 (a) „ „ 26. 
 
 „ xvii., 21—23. 
 
 Christ is to dwell in us as God in him ; and in this world, 
 not merely in heaven, because it is to this world, which is 
 thereby to believe that God sent Christ. 
 
 „ „ 26. 
 
 (a) Acts ii. 
 
 
 > » 
 
 36. 
 
 
 , iii. 
 
 , 16 
 
 
 , iv., 
 
 10. 
 
 
 » »i 
 
 30. 
 
 (a) ; 
 
 > v., 
 
 31. 
 
 
 , vi., 
 
 14. 
 
 (a) ! 
 
 , ix., 
 
 4. 
 
 (a) 
 
 Lord " of His kingdom. 
 Name," power. 
 
 Surely to rule over it. 
 
 " Exalted," to rule and to save. 
 That, then, was Stephen's view. 
 
 See how Jesus knew and felt all that went on. Did he feel 
 such profound interest in his disciples then, and none in 
 us now ? Or, if he does feel it equally, -why should God 
 have deprived him of the power he then possessed ? 
 
 10—17. 
 34. 
 
 How can he be Lord over all, if he has no " rule, authority, 
 or power ? " 
 
 „ 42. 
 xi., 21. Compare with Mark xvi., 20 ; also xvi., 10. 
 xiii., 47. 
 
 And, probably, xii., 7, 11 — 17. But certainly here, for he 
 he had this message direct from Christ. Also xiv., 3, and 
 xiv., 23. * KVpiov " in all the texts. But it is KVplOS 
 also xv., 17 ; also in Rom. xi., 34. 
 
360 
 
 Acts xviii., 9; xvii., 31. 
 
 How could Christ judge the world, if he has not ruled it in 
 the meantime? 
 
 „ xxii., 7—10, (a) 17—21. 
 (a) ,, xxvi., 16. 
 „ „ r, 23. 
 Eom. i., 5. Compare with Acts xxii., 21. 
 
 „ v., 10. 
 
 „ viii., 10—37. 
 
 „ x„ 6—9. 
 
 To helieve that God had raised him from the dead, Paul 
 evidently felt was the same as to helieve that he was ever 
 with his disciples, even to the end of the world, as he had 
 promised. 
 
 „ „ 12-14. 
 
 The Lord on whose name they are to call and he saved is 
 clearly Christ, hecause the Jews did already helieve in 
 God. 
 
 (a) „ xiv., 8, 9. 
 
 How can he he " Lord of the dead and the living," if he he 
 far from us, ignorant of our doings, without power to rule 
 and help us ? 
 
 „ xv., 12. 
 
 How can we " trust" in him, if he cannot help us ? 
 (a) „ „ 18. 
 
 " I will dare to speak of those things only which Christ has 
 wrought by me." 
 
 1 Cor. i., 17. 
 „ „ 24. 
 
 30. Not his doctrine, but himself. 
 
 Kvpiov in many manuscripts ; Griesbach, however, prefers 
 
 „ v., 
 
 , 4. 
 9. 
 
 
 Kvpiov ii 
 
 
 X/HOTOV. 
 
 (a) „ xv., 
 2 Cor. i. ; 
 
 24, 25. 
 
 57; 58. 
 , 2—5. 
 
 
 That peac 
 
 (a) „ v. 
 (a) „ xii. 
 
 21, 14—17. 
 15. 
 
 17. 
 , 8,9. 
 
 That peace is put in the same category as peace from God. 
 
 It is clearly Christ whom he besought thrice, because he 
 afterwards says "that the power of Christ," &c. See Dr. 
 Priestley's note in loc, where he forgets that both the 
 presence and the authority are declared by Christ himself 
 
361 
 
 to exist. See also Belsham, who admits ' ' personal inter- 
 course" " during the apostolic age." When, then, did it 
 cease ? 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 xii., '. 
 
 (a) „ 
 
 xiii., 3- 
 
 Gal, 
 
 . i., 
 
 16. 
 
 (a) „ 
 
 ii. 
 
 ,20. 
 
 
 iii 
 
 .,27. 
 
 >» 
 
 iv. 
 
 ,19. 
 
 19. 
 
 We are to be so closely identified with Christ that, in be- 
 coming like him, we are said to become Christ, as the 
 flower is formed in the bulb, grows up, absorbs the bulb 
 into itself, so that the bulb becomes the flower ; even so 
 we become Christ. This, I apprehend, is the analogy and 
 metaphor. 
 
 Ephes. i., 3, 4, 6, 10. 
 
 Here is the same great idea of being in Christ. Surely all 
 this means more than remembering and obeying him. 
 
 (a) „ „ 21-23. 
 
 „ ii., 6, 10, 13, 21, 22. 
 
 See last but one. (18), Through him. The Spirit the con- 
 necting medium, 
 (a) „ iii., 17. 
 ,, „ iv., 15, 16. 
 
 The head must be in constant living connection with the 
 members, or there can be no life. 
 
 (a) „ v., 14. 
 29. 
 ,', Philipp.'ii., 9, 10. 11. 
 „ „ iii., 21. 
 iv., 13. 
 
 " x/HcrTG>," spurious, according both to Griesbach and 
 Sachmaun. It should be " him who." Nevertheless, 
 that it means Christ is tolerably evident from Gal. ii., 20, 
 and 1 Tim. i., 12, in which last the same word is used 
 €v8vva[X0) ((ravTi). 
 
 Coloss. i., 13. 
 (a) „ „ 17—19. 
 
 >, „ 27. 
 
 „ ii., 6, 7, 10. 
 (a) >, iii., 11. 
 „ 1 Thess. iii., 11. 
 
 
 This is 
 rianisn 
 
 (a) 2 Thess, 
 „ 1 Tim. i. 
 
 ii., 16, 17. 
 , 12. 
 
 ry strong. See Yates's "Vindication of Unita- 
 ' pp. 230, 231. 4th edition. 
 
 See Yates. 
 
 Who hath strengthened me," endued me with power. 
 
362 
 
 2 Tim. iv., 17. ' 
 v » 22. 
 
 Probably refers to Christ, because the same word, 
 eyoWajUoco, is used as in 1 Tim. i., 12. 
 Titus iii. 6. 
 
 God gives the Spirit, through the instrumentality of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 (a) Heb. i., 3. " Upholding all things." 
 „ „ ii., 18. 
 
 „ iv., 15. Compare with v., 1, 2. 
 (a) „ vii., 25. 
 
 ,, xiii., 21. 
 
 " Through Jesus Christ." This is the great doctrine of 
 the New Testament. God working in us — " Christ the 
 Medium." 
 
 „ » 20. 
 
 What should we think of a shepherd who could take no care 
 of his sheep? 
 
 (a) 1 Pet. ii., 25. 
 
 Can he be the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls if he 
 knows nothing about us, and can do nothing for us ? 
 What is meant by coming to an earthly friend? Not 
 merely thinking about him. 
 
 (a) „ iii., 22. 
 
 Peter preached the same gospel then as Paul. And can we 
 
 conceive of Christ being thus exalted and endowed, yet 
 
 being stripped of the power he once possessed of being 
 
 with his Church, to guide and save them, as when he 
 
 ' delivered Paul from the Gentiles ? 
 
 (a) 2 Pet. i., 14. 
 
 Christ was present, then, to Peter as to Paul. 
 
 1 John i., 3. 
 
 So, also, with John. Fellowship (koivu>vlol), partaking 
 of. All these words imply far more than " thinking of," 
 " remembering." 
 
 iii' tSl 7, 28 ' } C^P 8 ^ with Joan xv -' 4 > 5 - 
 ," *.,ll! 12.' 
 
 Does not this declare the same great truth, that the Son is 
 
 the medium through whom we receive holiness, strength, 
 
 life? "Z— 
 
 Rev. i., 13. 
 
 , , .. ,. 1 Here Jesus is spoken of as exercising all that power and 
 
 {&) „ ii., o. [ direct government which are ascribed to him in so many 
 
 " ni ' J previous passages. 
 
363 
 
 (a) Rev. iii., 19, 20. 
 „ v., 12,13. 
 
 Tlxe same as Eph. i., 21, 23 ; Philipp. ii., 9, 10, 11, &c. 
 „ vi., 2 
 
 This does not look like the King being condemned to 
 
 inaction. 
 „ xvii., 14. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 17.— Footnote. Add, in Greek, woo-racm, the celebrated 
 
 "hypostasis." 
 Page 22.— Three lines from the bottom, for 6/ioOVTiOS, read 6/iOOVCTeos. 
 Page 85.— Footnote. For TO^rjs, read So^rjs. 
 
By the same Author, 
 And to be had of E. T. Whitfield, 178, Strand, London, 
 
 GONZAGA DI CAPPONI. A Dramatic Romance. 
 
 Price 6s., cloth. Longmans. 
 
 LECTURES ON THE DEVELOPEMENT OF RELIGIOUS 
 LIFE IN THE MODERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Illustrated by the Life and Work of certain Great Men. 
 Cloth, 3s. 6d. In Parts, 4d. 
 
 "YE ARE NOT YOUR OWN 5" OR, THE CLAIMS 
 OF THE CRUCIFIED CHRIST. 
 
 Published by request. Price 3d. 
 
 THE MIDNIGHT CRY. 
 
 Price 2d. 
 
 WHAT ARE WE TO PREACH ABOUT? 
 
 Published by request. Price 3d. 
 
 THE COMMUNION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER: ITS 
 
 AUTHORITY, SIGNIFICANCE, AND VALUE. 
 
 Price 4d. stitched; a few copies cloth, gilt, 6d. 
 
 OUR SUNDAY SCHOOLS : SIX MONTHS AMONG 
 THEM. 
 
 Published by the Sunday School Association. Price 4d. 
 
 WORKING MEN'S COLLEGES: A FEW THOUGHTS 
 ABOUT THEM. 
 
 Price 2d. (Macmillan and Co.) 
 
/ 
 
 5 7 m 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 

 aw*** » r *» 
 
 SHBBBB 
 
 ML 
 
 
 phi 
 
 seat" 
 9H 
 
 **!© 
 
 If 
 
 vi^noQ: