Y8%L

Redeemer and Redeemed

AN INVESTIGATION

OF THE ATONEMENT AND OF
ETERNAL JUDGMENT.

By CHARLES BEECHER,

GEORGETOWN, MASS.

" The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and neces
sary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." — Westmlnster Confession, Chap.
I. § vi.

BOSTON:
LEE AND SHEFARD,
149 Washington Street.
1864.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by
CHARLES BEECHER,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

rSf-

5 33

University Press:
Welch, Bigelow, and Company,
Cambridge.

To
her who gave me
birth ; consecrated me to the
ministry ; died before I knew her ; whom, next
to my Redeemer, I most desire to meet in the Resurrection,
TO ROXANA BEECHER
I dedicate this work, for the execution of which I am chiefly
glad to have lived ; in the hope that she will
not, on account of it, be sorry
for having borne
me.

PREFACE.

I awoke into consciousness in a sphere of intense relig
ious thought and emotion. My father was in his prime
when the first dawnings of my mind which memory
recalls occurred, and by his profound faith in eternal
things, evinced in every conceivable way, stimulated to
the highest degree those supernatural and ideal tenden
cies predominant in my constitution.
Almost the earliest feeling I can recollect is a constant
longing for something indefinite, — a feeling mysterious,
and sad beyond description. I can remember lying on the
floor and looking at the sunbeams on the carpet, when I
could not have been more than five years of age, and
thinking how unhappy I was, and philosophizing on the
subject in a kind of bewildered wonder. I can recall
summer evenings when the great family mansion at Litch
field was left empty, — the doors wide open, and the
crickets were cutting the air like a fife, shrill and keen, —
feeling a sense of desolation, and a yearning for some
thing unknown, that no sadness or sorrow of maturer
years has ever surpassed.
The great ideas my father's mind was unfolding and
exhaling like an atmosphere around him I breathed in
with faith as absolute as it was unconscious. The recep
tivity of my soul was boundless, its appetite insatiable.
All the sublime things my father caused to pass before

VI PREFACE.
me I received with avidity, asking only for more. I can
remember grave homilies on total depravity and other
abstruse doctrines, when I could not have been above six
or seven years old. " Henry, do you know that every
breath you draw is sin? Well, it is, — every breath!"
There was a profound satisfaction in being thorough, even
in those early days, that I have not yet entirely out
grown. The severity of the conception did not appal
me in the least, while its terrible radicalism was irresist
ibly fascinating.
Everything that my father thought I thought, every
thing he believed I believed, everything he felt I felt,
everything he described I saw. My father's sister, known
in the household annals only as Aunt Esther, who wa6
a mother to me, was a kind of lens which brought my
father's influence to a focus. For although more aes
thetic than he, and adapted to stimulate the ideal, she
had a pupil already developed, and in no need of stimu
lus. I remember once attempting to read aloud to her
in Pilgrim's Progress, and on coming to the escape from
Giant Despair's castle, I was seized with such a fit of
trembling that she was obliged to take the book away and
give it to Henry to finish the chapter.
To the power of my father's appeals from the pulpit my
whole soul responded from the beginning. I seem to hear
his voice coming up out of the mists preceding memory,
vibrating certain texts of Scripture as sharp two-edged
swords piercing my very spirit through and through. Par
back, when my spirit was just waking into life, as it were,
out of the cloudland of infancy, I can hear him pleading
with sinners to be reconciled to God. Certain texts of
Scripture are not to me, and never can be, merely verses
of a written word ; they are voices of my father, — voices
instinct with emotion deep as eternity , incarnating them-

PREFACE. VU
selves within me. I can remember sitting under the old-
fashioned Litchfield pulpit, before I was nine years of age,
with face concealed and tears rolling down upon my coat,
as I alternately listened to his words, and trembled lest
my agitation should be noticed.
All the features of his theological system were incor
porated with the substance of my mind, before I can
distinctly remember. I grew up into life one intellect,
one heart, one will with him. And as time passed on,
and he moved forward to more controversial seasons, I
moved with him, and into every blow he struck uncon
sciously threw the whole energy of my soul. Nor did the
waywardness and sin of boyhood make the least differ
ence. The wicked Boston school-boy was not a whit the
less ardent champion of the cross.
When my mind woke from passive receptivity to active
investigation, when I was born from the womb of my
father's faith to the outer sphere of independent reason
ing, my mind was agitated, agonized. The faith of
eternal realities was unchangeably fixed within me. The
belief of the Bible as the word of God was like a part of
myself. But the questions that have always fascinated
earnest minds began to fascinate me. The origin of evil,
the freedom of the will, and similar subjects, absorbed
me, and I abandoned myself to them with the instinctive
thoroughness and earnestness of my nature. They brought
me to grief, but I cared not ; .they threw me in collision
with my father, but I could not ignore them. For a time
they wrecked me, temporally, and threatened shipwreck
eternal, but I could not forego them. By the mercy of
God I outlived them. The time arrived when I could let
them alone, and look at them from a safe distance, as
I still do to this day.
Then commenced the original investigation of the

VIU PREFACE.
Scriptures ; and here the great problem that from the!
first most occupied my thoughts was the problem of the
cross. That Christ was God I never for a moment- doubt
ed. That man was a fallen, ruined race, born under the
just wrath of God and curse of a holy law, I was equally
certain. That Christ's death was necessary to man's sal
vation was to me self-evident. But why the blood of
Christ should be necessary, or what connection it had with
forgiveness, or how it operated to secure it, I knew not.
I had no ideas on the subject except such as I had de
rived from my father, and the idea of a literal punishing
of Christ in full for my sins was not among them. That
idea I never heard preached, nor alluded to, except to be
disproved. My starting-point of investigation, then, was here. In
what imaginable way could the blood of Christ have any
logical and intelligible connection with the forgiveness of
human sin ? On that problem my mind has worked and
struggled and agonized day and night, for twenty years,
almost incessantly, and has found rest in the views pre
sented in this volume. As such I present them. I have
no idea that many minds will be satisfied with them. I
have learned by sad experience that what convinces me
does not always convince other people. The most I can
hope for is, that these views will interest the thoughtful,
studious of the same grand system, as a specimen of the
working out of the problem by a sincere and independent
mind, whose sole desire is to grow in the knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is the way the subject looks to me. This is the
way my mind works out the solution. It is the best I can
do. Doubtless there are mistakes and errors involved,
but I cannot now discover them ; and one motive in pub
lishing is, that those who can may have the opportunity, if

PREFACE. ix
they deem it worth their while, kindly to point them
out. Here let me caution the reader not to imagine that I
propose the proof of pre-existence as the object of this
discussion. I do not. Regarding this as the most prob
able of the three possible theories of the soul's origin, and
deeming the argument of the " Conflict of Ages " logical
and unanswerable, I have not hesitated to assume pre
existence as the foundation of my investigations with
respect to the atonement. In Chapter XIV. I do not
endeavor to prove mere pre-existence, which might be
celestial, or terrestrial, or timeless, but simply that our
pre-existence was celestial, and our redemption a return
to native holiness and heaven. It is rather an argument
for something additional to pre-existence than for pre
existence itself.
I am aware that to those who reject pre-existence this
confession . will be deemed fatal to my whole scheme.
Your entire theory of atonement, it will be said, rests
upon a mere assumption. To this my only answer at
present is, that, if pre-existence be an unproved hypothesis,
it is equal, in that respect, to the two other possible hy
potheses, — concreation and traduction, — of which nei
ther is proved, nor can be. Any theory of atonement
founded upon either of these, then, is to one half the
Church as really founded on an assumption as one
founded on pre-existence. While the Church is divided
and the origin of souls a mooted question, I simply claim
that it is as scientific to found a theory of atonement
upon one unproved hypothesis as upon another ; nor can
concreation or traduction cast the first stone, in this
respect, at pre-existence.
Not that I would concede that pre-existence is, like"
these, a mere assumption. I am convinced that it is logi-

X PREFACE.
cally established by the " Conflict of Ages," and that it is
susceptible of confirmation by accumulated circumstantial
and moral evidence, equal in cogency to that for the im
mortality of the soul, the inspiration of the Bible, or any
of the great doctrines of religion.
In this connection I will add, that, while I agree with
my brother, Dr. Edward Beecher, in the belief of pre-exist
ence, he is in no degree responsible for the details of my
system here unfolded. The contents of these pages have
not been submitted to his inspection, and for them, in so
far as they innovate upon the current belief, I desire to
be held alone responsible.
If by the perusal of these pages any are incited to a
fresh study of the Bible, and encouraged to think more
freely and boldly on doctrinal subjects, and stimulated to
push original investigation to the utmost ; above all, if
any are sensibly attracted towards the adorable Redeemer,
and inspired with a livelier curiosity, wonder, admiration,
and love, as they gaze upon the chiefest among ten
thousand, the altogether lovely, I shall rejoice that the
life-long struggles of my spirit, agonizing to know the
truth herein, have not been altogether in vain.
Georgetown, Nov. 6, 1863.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.
Ancient Theoky  1
CHAPTER II.
Scholastic Theoky  14
CHAPTER III.
Attack on the Scholastic Theoky ..... 26
CHAPTER IV.
New England Theoky  40
CHAPTER V.
/Attack on the New England Theoky  49
CHAPTER VI.
The Ckoss to destroy Satan  60
CHAPTER VII.
AZAZEL  65
CHAPTER VIII.
The Anointed Chekdb  75
CHAPTER IX.
Son of God  88
CHAPTER X.
Only Begotten  95
CHAPTER XI.
The Pirst-bokn  m

xii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XII.
Dethronement of Lucifer . . • • • • .127
CHAPTER XIII.
Purification of Heaven  139
CHAPTER XIV.
Heavenly Fatherland  15°
» CHAPTER XV.
The Natural Man  I69
CHAPTER XVI.
Melchisedec  I89
CHAPTER XVII.
The Order of Melchisedec ....... 206
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Ordeal . . . . ,  227
CHAPTER XIX.
The Advocate  243
CHAPTER XX.
Divine Sokrow  259
CHAPTER XXI.
*/ Eternal Judgment ......... 272
CHAPTER XXII.
Eternal Judgment ......... 290
CHAPTER XXIII.
Condition of the Lost  312
CHAPTER XXIV.
The World Convinced  319
CHAPTER XXV.
The Vial on the Air  335
CHAPTER XXVI.
Universal Praise  348

REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.

CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT THEORY.
"For the love of Christ constralneth us." — 2 Cor. v. 14.
OUR Saviour said, " I, if I be lifted up, will draw all
men unto me." We feel the attractive power of
the cross. Our eye is irresistibly riveted upon that won
drous sacrifice. And as we gaze, in the mere act of
beholding that astonishing oblation, our affections begin
to kindle, our hearts are all aflame, and ere we are aware
the "love of Christ constraineth us."
It is only when we are thus influenced by ardent
emotion, that we are in a fit condition to search out
those depths " into which angels desire to look."
Jesus Christ crucified was first exhibited to the eye
of a sinful world. " Behold the Lamb of God ! " was the
message of the Gospel. And as the eye obeyed, and
the heart kindled, the human mind was led, under the
stimulus of love, to frame as it might a rational theory
of the fact presented to its inspection and appealing to
its affections.
The earliest theory — one which prevailed for more
than a thousand years — is now become wellnigh unin
telligible to a popular audience, because certain con
ceptions familiar to antiquity have entirely dropped out
\ 1 JL

2 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
of the civilized mind, and been replaced by concep
tions of which antiquity knew nothing.
To the ancients, for example, Hades was the name
of a sublime and awful reality, while we have lost both
name and idea. In their view, Satan possessed a
power of death over the inhabitants of Hades which
was most real. But in modern thought, Satan is either
denied or caricatured, or at best thrust into the back
ground, in discussions of the atonement, and forgotten.
The main ideas of antiquity involved in Christ's work
are almost as completely erased from the human mind
as if man had quaffed the waters of Lethe.
And the chief difficulty in giving an appreciative view
of the theory of atonement of the ancient Church, is the
lack of their customary, familiar, every-day ideas respect
ing the matters involved. To prepare the way, then,
a few elements of ancient thought will be mentioned,
which we should endeavor to reproduce in our own
minds. And first in respect to the place of the dead,
or Hades.
Says a distinguished writer 1 : " At the Christian era,
Hades appears to have been regarded as an immense
cavern in the depths of the earth. No living man was
supposed to have seen it, nor had any from the dead re
turned to describe it  This subterranean cavern was
popularly regarded as the dwelling of the human race."
" To us," says Tertullian (A. D. 200), " Hades is a
vast region extending upward and downward in the
earth; for we read that Christ passed the three days
of his death in the heart of the earth, that is, in an in
ternal recess hollowed out within the earth."
In this world Satan was regarded as all powerful,
having the power of death. Says the author above
mentioned 1 : " They supposed him to have detained in
1 Huidekoper, Christ's Mission to the Underworld.

ANCIENT THEORY. 3
his gloomy regions below, and to have ruled over, the
departed of the human family, until Christ descended
for their liberation." This power, they thought, was
in some sort Satan's right. Thus Irenasus, one of the
earliest Fathers (A. D. 175), says : " The law burdened
sinful man, by showing him to be the debtor of Death
(i. e. due to Satan), and in order to his release Satan
must be justly conquered  His suffering was the
means of awakening his sleeping disciples, on whose ac
count he descended into the lower parts of the earth."
So Clement of Rome, in the first century, says:
" The sole cause of the Lord's descent to Hades was
to preach the Gospel." And TertuUian says : " He
descended to the lower parts of the earth, that there
he might make the patriarchs and prophets partici
pators of himself." Nor were these ideas peculiar to
the few, but shared by all.
" In the second and third centuries," says Huide
koper, " every branch and division of Christians, so far
as their records enable us to judge, believed that Christ
preached to the departed ; and this belief dates back
to our earliest reliable sources of information."
" If we have evidence that the Catholics of the sec
ond and third centuries believed any proposition unani
mously, it is the following: Jesus Christ at death went
on a mission to the subterranean world."
We come, then, nearer to the pivot of the doctrine
in question, as it lay in their minds.
If Satan was the owner of lawful captives, if Hades
was his rightful realm and castle, how would he regard
this visit of Christ, or any attempt on his part to lib
erate the prisoners ? To this they answered, that Christ
could only do it by a fierce and desperate battle with
Satan. The near prospect of this dreadful conflict they thought

4 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
occasioned the agony in the garden, and the bloody
sweat. The whole of the twenty-second Psalm they regarded
as prophetically depicting his emotions in that crisis, and
the words, — " Be not far from me, O Lord, for trouble
is near ; for there is none to help  Save me from
the lion's mouth," — they understood to be spoken in
reference to the dreaded encounter with the infernal
powers. If we would realize at all the posture of the ancient
mind, " we should imagine the infernal powers, greedy
for their prey, as already gathering round their victim
on the cross, the angels as shrinking in panic from the
descent, and the Saviour as hurried .to the underworld,
in the gloom of whose mighty cavern, unaided and alone,
he was to prove his strength against the King of Terrors
and the thronging legions of darkness. No whisper of
incredulity should blunt our perceptions of the Saviour's
fidelity, — faithful to the conflict whence all save him had
fled, — or prevent us from realizing his dread of it ; for
he forgets the agony of the cross in a prayer, not for
support under his sufferings, but for the Divine aid in
that more dreadful struggle which impended. Doubt
should not check the rising enthusiasm when we learn
that he ' broke in the adamantine gates of Death,'
and 'wrestled with the powers there as their master.'
Unbelief should not quell the thrill of triumph, when
we are told that he crushed man's enemy in the se
curity of his own fortress ; that he rove asunder his
eternal prison-house, liberated his captives, desolated his
kingdoms, and drove him forth a homeless vagabond,
to glean by plunder in the byways a band of the un
faithful." 1
Thus Jesus became a ransom. " A ransom," says
1 Huidekoper, p. 79.

ANCIENT THEORY. 6
Origen, "is a gift to enemies given by the conquered,
or by their leader, for the liberation of the captives. If,
therefore, we were bought with a price, we were bought
from some one whose slaves we were, and who de
manded such a price as he pleased for the release of
those whom he held. It was the Devil who held us
by our sins. He therefore demanded as our price the
blood of Christ.
" To whom did Christ give his soul a ransom for
many ? Not, of course, to God. Was it, then, to the
Evil One ? Certainly, for he held us in his power,
until the soul of Jesus should be given him. as our
ransom, he being deceived by the supposition that he
could hold it in subjection."
The language of Irenaus, two centuries earlier than
Origen, is even more emphatic.
" And since the Apostate acquired his mastery over
us unjustly, the Word behaved justly even to the Apos
tate, redeeming from him his own, not by force, but by
persuasion, — persuading him without violence to accept
what he proposed." "It was proper that Satan should
be bound by a man, when conquered, that man being
freed, should return to God."
Still earlier, Justin Martyr says, we should give thanks
to God " for the overthrow of the ' powers and au
thorities,' (the evil spirits,) with a perfect overthrow
through him who, in accordance with his will, became
subject to suffering."
Says Neander : " The sufferings of Christ are repre
sented by Irenasus as having a just connection with the
rightful deliverance of man from the power of Satan.
The Divine justice is displayed here, in allowing even
Satan to have his due. Of satisfaction to Divine justice
as yet not the slightest mention is found."
" This theory," says Dr. Knapp, " was first adopted

6 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
by the Greek Church, and especially by Origen, through
whose influence it became prevalent, and was adopted
at length by Basil, the two Gregories, Nestorius, and
others. From the Greeks it was communicated to the
Latins, among whom it was distinctly held by Ambrose,
and afterwards by Augustine, through whose influence
it was rendered almost universal in the Latin Church.
Ever after the fall, they said, the Devil had the
whole human race in his power; he ruled over them
like a tyrant over his vassals, and employed them for
his own purposes ; from this captivity God might in
deed have rescued men by omnipotence, but was re
strained by his justice from doing this with violence.
He therefore offered Satan a ransom, in consideration
of which he should release mankind. This ransom was
the death of Christ. In the Latin Church they endeav
ored to perfect the theory. Satan, they added, was
deceived in the transaction ; for, taking Jesus to be a
mere man, and not knowing that he was also the Son
of God, he was not able to retain even him, after he
had slain him. And it was necessary for Christ to as
sume a human body, in order to deceive the Devil, as
fish are caught by baits." "
So prevalent was this theory in the Latin Chureh,
before the twelfth century, that Abelard declares, " All
our teachers since the Apostles agree in this." And Ber
nard of Clairvaux affirmed that whoever denied it ought
rather to be chastised with rods than reasoned with.
Hagenbach says : " They saw in the death of Christ the
actual victory over the Devil." This idea, says Bauer,
" was so congruous with the whole circle of ideas in
which the times moved, that they could not abandon it."
Says Schaff : " The negative part of the doctrine, the sub
jection of the Devil, the prince of the kingdom of sin and
1 Christian Theology, (Lond. ed.,) p. 354.

ANCIENT THEORY.

death, was naturally most dwelt on in the patristic period.
This theory continued current until the satisfaction theory
of Anselm gave a new turn to the development of the

The element of deception that runs through this
theory, and which is revolting to our conceptions of the
Divine character, was not noticed or felt by the less
sensitive mind of the Church during those many ages
while this theory prevailed.
The principle of pious frauds, or accomplishing good
ends by the use of deception, was so early introduced,
and so universally established, that the susceptibility was
deadened. There was nothing in the mind of Christen
dom to revolt from a theory which implied that God actu
ally cheated Satan out of his entire right and title to
the human race.
This feature, so abhorrent to us, and which would
prevent such a theory from exciting in our minds any
feelings of adoring love, would not in the least shock
them, nor prevent them from feeKng gratitude. It was
not, in their view, inconsistent for God to do so. They
rather exulted in it, as an evidence of his superior wis
dom, — that he could thus take the wise in their own
craftiness, and beat Satan at his own weapons. And
hence their minds could feel the unbroken stimulus to
love of Christ's sublime encounter with the Prince of
Hell.
There was something fascinating to the imagination in
it, ¦ that completely dominated over that rude and iron
age. It awoke all their love of the marvellous, all their
sense of the sublime, all their pity, horror, and shud
dering sympathy.
That Jesus, a helpless man, alone dared to meet the
wrath of demons dire, treading that downward path
from which the angels shrunk, — that in the heart of the

8 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
infernal dungeon he met the enemy, and engaged in
personal conflict against him and all his legions, — that
he defeated them, and with infinite strength broke the
adamantine gates, and crushed the eternal barriers, —
these ideas thrilled their whole being through and
through, and woke towards Jesus their highest admi
ration and adoring love.
It surrounded Jesus with all the coloring of romance.
It made him a hero, above all the heroes of tale or
song, and it gave him a direct and touching claim upon
the gratitude of those for whose captivity he had paid
the ransom.
For a thousand years and more this theory supplied
motives to gratitude and affection ; and, imperfect as
it was, yet contained so many elements of truth and
so many apparent truths, that the love of Christ actu
ally constrained men.
From a consideration of this subject several reflections
are naturally suggested.
It must be evident that a belief in a correct theory
of. atonement is one thing, and a belief in the fact, or
in Christ as an atoning Saviour, is quite another thing ;
and that, while to believe in the fact is essential to sal
vation, to believe in the theory is not. The theory
pertains to the higher truths of the system, for advanced
and mature minds.
If a belief in a theory of atonement be made essen
tial to salvation, we fall into a dilemma. Here is a
theory held by the Church for a thousand years, about
which the Church now knows nothing. And again, the
Church for more than six hundred years has held a
theory of atonement about which the ancient Church
knew nothing. Now, if one of these theories be true,
the other is false, and vice versa. And if a belief of
the true is essential to salvation, the belief of the false

ANCIENT THEORY. 9
must be fatal. Hence we have our choice of alterna
tives. If the modern theory of atonement be true, the
whole ancient Church for more than ten centuries is
lost. And if the ancient theory be true, then the whole
modern Church is lost.
Therefore it is plain, that a belief in the correct
theory of atonement is not absolutely essential to sal
vation, but only a belief in the substance, or fact. The
mistake that has been made here is somewhat the same
as if it should be thought necessary for a starving man
not only to eat bread, but believe in the correct theory
of bread-making ; or necessary, for the sick not merely
to take medicine, but also to be perfectly informed of
its nature and the scientific principles on which it oper
ates. The sick man needs medicine, not a theory of
medicine. The starving man needs bread, not a theory
of bread. The dying sinner needs the flesh and blood
of a slain Jesus, not a theory of atonement. It is the
fact that Jesus suffered and died for me that melts my
heart, and makes the love of Jesus constrain me ; not
the theory of how that death operated to effect my sal
vation. It is simply the fact of a dying Lord on which
faith feeds, — the fact of a body broken, and blood shed
for me, — not the manner, the philosophy, which con
stitutes the first principle of my faith and love. All
beyond that pertains to the higher truths of the sys
tem, and is strong meat for men of mature age. The
study of the theory, the philosophy of atonement, is for
Christian manhood, for perfection in Divine knowledge,
and as such is of great importance. But that which is
essential to be received by babes in Christ is no more
than can be understood by babes, the simple, the poor,
the illiterate, children of tender age, and converts from
the lowest grades of human guilt and distress.
The great multitude of those who have truly lie-
l*

10 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
lieved, have believed the fact that Christ died for their
salvation ; but how his death operated, the philosophy
of the problem, they have been no more capable of
understanding than the problems of geometry or conic
sections. They have felt that they were lost; they
have seen the Lamb of God that taketh away the
sins of the world; they have seen Calvary; they have
felt that there was a profound mystery of suffering
there ; they have believed that that suffering was for
them, that it was effectual, and they have loved the
suffering Saviour that endured it; they have loved him
with a gratitude which could hardly be made more
tender and ardent by their being acquainted with the
abstruse question of how his blood sufficed; they have
looked, not at the theory, but at him, — not at the prob
lem, but at the person ; and they have said, One thing
I know, — I love that sufferer, that astonishing suf
ferer ; my heart goes out to him, and the love of Christ
constraineth me." Therefore believers were saved under
that theory of a ransom paid to Satan, — believers in
numerable for more than a thousand years, — because
it was not the theory they loved, but the ransom, the
sufferer himself, who they supposed went through such
tremendous scenes.
And so it is yet. It is not the belief in the modern
theory, or theories, any of them, which saves the soul.
Believers now do not say, " The love of the theory of
atonement constrains me," but " The love of Christ."
They see Jesus, they see Gethsemane, they see Calvary.
And it is Jesus himself, loving, pitying, sorrowing, dy
ing, for our salvation, that pierces our heart with an
almost agonizing tenderness and love.
Hence we perceive the liberty that exists of investi
gation and difference of opinion upon the theory.
In saying that a belief in the theory is not essential to

ANCIENT THEORY. 11
salvation, we do not understand that the atonement itself
was not fundamental in the actual working out of God's
plans of love. On the contrary, the atonement was the
central measure of his eternal kingdom, on which all the
destinies of the universe depend.
But for that very reason, a full knowledge of it cannot
be essential to babes in Christ, but must be classed among
the higher truths of the system. Christians of advanced
growth and mature faculties can understand the theory
of atonement, because they can, and just so far as they
can, understand the system of the universe, of which it
is the central measure.
Hence we can look at the attempts made by the mind
of the Church, in all ages, to work out the problem, — at
its mistakes, its strange ideas, — with a genuine interest
and sympathy, but without horror, as if every mistake
involved certain damnation.
Another reflection which will occur to us is, that,
wherever a theory has had such a universal and long-
continued sway as the ancient theory had, there must be
some foundation for it.
The mind does not love unmixed error. Especially the
Christian mind does not. Although it may embrace im
perfect and erroneous views, there must be considerable
admixtures of truth. Hence there must have been in the
most , ancient and longest continued theory elements of
important truth.
What were those elements ? Not the deception prac
tised on Satan ; not the combat, part muscular and part
magical, in Hades : these are the excrescences, the crudi
ties, of a rude and unphilosophical age.
The grand element of truth must be in the prominence
assigned by the ancient Church to certain passages of
Scripture as vitally connected with this subject. These
were Gen. iii. 15, the twenty-second and sixty-ninth

12 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Psalms, Heb. ii. 14, 1 John iii. 8, and parallel passages.
However the ancient Church may have been mistaken in
interpreting these passages, and working out their detailed
application, in the belief that they were fundamental to
the atonement, they were not mistaken. The idea is im
possible. It is as certain that this class of passages are
vitally concerned with a scientific theory of atonement, as
that there is any atonement. And just to the extent that
they are overlooked by any theory will that theory be
imperfect, one-sided, and provincial.
Finally, it is of the greatest importance that the in
vestigation of this doctrine be conducted from a starting-
point of love to Christ. I have said, that a true conception
of the theory of atonement is not essential to salvation,
because the love of Christ, as a constraining motive, can
be inspired by Christ himself, and his seen sufferings, in
dependent of the philosophy of the case. But now I go a
step further, and say that a saving love to Christ, and a
present life in God, are the indispensable condition for
a right judgment of the sublime theory before us. The
love of Christ does not constrain us because we under
stand the theory of his atonement, but we understand the
theory of atonement, if at all, because the love of Christ
constrains us. First the fact, — Jesus dies for my salva
tion ; then the feeling, — His love constrains me ; then
the going on to perfection, to ask why and how was
this mysterious sacrifice. If the theory goes foremost,
it becomes abstract, metaphysical, cold, and deadening.
The mind is not excited to feeling, but the reverse ; any
little spark of feeling it possessed is quenched in a sea
of metaphysics.
Therefore love must go foremost. Love to Jesus should
burn hot, and flame high, and throw its radiance out on
the path of investigation. The love of Christ must con
strain us here as really as anywhere else. It should be

ANCIENT THEORY. 13
a warm, adoring, idolizing love to him, that asks every
question, Why was this ? what necessity called for it ? on
what principle did it operate to redeem ? Then the dis
cussion can never grow cold and barren, but will indeed
be strong meat for manly growth, and we shall go on unto
perfection. Hence, Christian brethren, in inviting you
to go on with me through the investigation of this great
subject, let me first exhort you to love. Are your lamps
trimmed and burning ? Is the fire on love's altar blazing
high and clear ? Is Jesus near and dear to you ? Do
your affections move artlessly and ardently forth to him ?
Does his love constrain you ? Here all believers can be
alike. We may differ about many things, and yet feel
alike towards the Saviour. All differences should be
subordinate, and this one agreement be the uniting bond.
Let us love that blessed One ; let our hearts be full of
tenderness and glowing affection. Let us feel that He is
"chiefest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely."
Let us say, " Whom have I in heaven but Thee ? and
there is none on earth I desire beside Thee."
" Whate'er my noblest powers can wisli
In Thee doth richly meet ;
Not to my eyes is light so dear,
Nor friendship half so sweet ! "

CHAPTER II.
SCHOLASTIC THEORY.
" Behold the Lamb of God." — John i. 29.
THE earliest theory of atonement, after prevailing over
a thousand years, was gradually supplanted, in the
eleventh century, by the modern theory, wrought out by
the scholastic divines, that Christ was a sacrifice to sat
isfy Divine justice. This theory may be reduced to two
main propositions, the first of which is as follows : —
Sin is so intrinsically deserving of punishment, that the
non-execution of penalty in a single instance would be a
crime in the Divine administration.
" This avenging justice," says Turretin, " belongs to
God as a judge, and he can no more dispense with it
than he can cease to be a judge, or deny himself."
" No man," says Dr. Hodge, " when humbled under
a sense of his guilt in the sight of God, can resist the
conviction of the inherent ill-desert of sin. He feels
that it would be right that he should be made to suf
fer ; nay, that rectitude, justice, or moral excellence de
mands his suffering  The justice of God, there
fore, is nothing but the holiness of God in relation to
sin. So long as he is holy, he must be just ; he must
repel sin, which is the highest idea we can form of
punishment." Professor Shedd thus affirms the principle : " The pri
mal source of law has no power to abolish penalty, any
more than to abolish law." It is not optional, he says,
with God to exercise justice, or not to exercise it, as is

SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 15
the case with the attribute of mercy. " For the Deity
cannot by an arbitrary and unprincipled procedure re
lease  from penal suffering, and inflict a wound on
that holy judicial nature." "For the correlate to guilt
is punishment, and nothing but the correlate itself can
perform the function of a correlate. A liquid, e. g., is
the correlate to thirst, and nothing that is not liquid can
be a substitute for it  A judicial infliction is the
only means by which culpability can be extinguished."
Bradbury declares that to relax punishment is " so
very inglorious to God, that it cannot be admitted."
Bellamy repeatedly declares that God must, and that
he " does always, throughout all his dominions, not only
in word threaten, but in fact punish sin, with infinite
severity, without the least mitigation or abatement in
any one instance whatever."
Accordingly, the celebrated Baptist preacher, Mr. Spur-
geon, does not hesitate to employ such expressions as
these : " We believe that God is so just, that every
sinner must be punished, that every crime must have its
irretrievable doom." " God does not absolutely pass over
sin." " The way that God saves sinners is not by pass
ing over the penalty."
Thus, in every form of words, do writers of this class
enforce the principle that the penalty of sin in the gov
ernment of God never must, never can, and never does
go unexecuted. If God did fail to execute a single pen
alty, he would be, in the language of these writers,
arbitrary, unprincipled, unholy, inglorious, and unjust.
The second proposition under this theory is as fol
lows : —
God does in fact execute the full penalty of the law
upon the sinner's substitute.
Before citing passages upon this point, a single remark.
It is not because God is supposed to be implacable and

16 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
cruel, while Christ was merciful, that these writers take
this position. " The love of God the Father," says Cal
vin, " precedes our reconciliation in Christ." " For God
in a certain ineffable manner, at the same time that he
loved us, was nevertheless angry with us." The prin
ciple is, that justice, pure and simple, calm and serene,
must absolutely be satisfied, or God be stained with
crime. Bearing this in mind, we proceed to develop
the opinion of Divines upon this point.
Calvin says : " It was requisite that Christ should feel
the severity of the Divine vengeance, in order to ap
pease the wrath of God, and satisfy his justice; hence
it was necessary for him to contend with the powers of
hell and the horror of eternal death." " He was made a
substitute and surety for transgressors, and even treated
as a criminal himself, to sustain all the punishments
which would have been inflicted upon us." " Not only
the body of Christ was given as the price of our re
demption, but there was another and more excellent
ransom, since he suffered in his soul the dreadful tor
ments of a person condemned and irretrievably lost."
" He experienced from God all the tokens of wrath and
vengeance." Luther went so far as to affirm that our sins were
so literally transferred to Christ, that they became his,
and made him a sinner. "And this, no doubt, all the
prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become
the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel,
blasphemer, that ever was or could be in the world."
This literal interpretation is, however, almost univer
sally rejected. It is mentioned to show the thoroughness
with which this theory was embraced by the Lutheran
as well as the Calvinistic Reformers.
In the Lutheran Formula of Concord, A. D. 1576,
occurs the following : " We believe simply that Christ's

SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 17
whole person, God and man, after the burial, went to
hell, overcame the Devil, destroyed the power of hell,
and took all his might from the Devil."
Similar views prevailed among Catholic divines. Thus
Bourdaloue exclaims : "Long didst Thou look for this
victim ! Seeing none but vile subjects in the world, guilty
offenders, Thou didst find thyself reduced to a kind of
impotency in avenging thyself. Now Thou hast where
with to do it fully, for behold a victim worthy of thyself,
— a victim capable of expiating the sins of a thousand
worlds ! Strike now, Lord, strike ! "
" God does not content himself with striking him. He
seems to wish to reject him, by forsaking and abandoning
him in the midst of his punishment. This desertion and
abandonment are in some respect the punishment of the
damned, which Jesus Christ suffered for us all." "For
it is not in the last judgment that an offended and in
dignant God will satisfy himself as a Godi It is not in
hell he will declare himself more formally a God of ven
geance : it is on Calvary. It is then his vindictive justice
acts freely, and without restraint, not being checked as it
is elsewhere by the littleness of the subject against whom
it is exercised."
Barrow, of the English Church, thus speaks : " God's
indignation, so dreadfully flaming out against sin, might
well astonish and terrify him. To stand before the mouth
of hell, belching out fire and brimstone upon him, to lie
down in the hottest furnace of Divine wrath, to undertake
with his heart's blood to quench all the wrath of Heaven,
and all the flames of Hell, might well in the heart of a
man beget inconceivable and inexpressible . pressures of
anguish." So John Howe declares that, " though sin be
forgiven, it is punished, too ; forgiven to us, but punished
in His own dear Son." And Bradbury says: "David
speaks of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, which

18 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
intimates that it was laid there ; that his sufferings were
of such a nature as to be thus expressed."
This, unequivocally, is the view of the Westminster
Assembly : — " The Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect
obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the
Eternal Spirit offered up unto the Father, hath fully satis*
fied the justice of the Father." They speak of him as
" having conflicted with the terrors of death and powers
of darkness," as having "felt and borne the weight of
God's wrath." They also say, he " endured most griev
ous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful
sufferings in his body."
President Edwards says : " God would not abate him
one mite of that debt which justice demanded." " Christ
was the mark of the vindictive expressions of the justice
of God. Revenging justice then spent all its force upon
him on account of our guilt, which made him sweat blood,
and cry out upon the cross, and probably rent his vitals
and broke his heart."
"It is not," says the late Dr. Spencer, of Brooklyn,
" because his body is in torment merely. No, no ; . . . .
the wrath of God lay heavy on his soul ; the Father had
forsaken him ; he was enduring the righteous displeasure
of an angry God, and bearing the punishment of a guilty
world." So also Dr. Spring : " The sins of the trans
gressor were set down to his account, and so imputed to
him, that he endures the punishment of them in the sin
ner's place." He " encountered the storm of wrath which
discharged itself upon the cross."
" We have heard and read," says Mr. Spurgeon, " of
many divines whose atonement is something like this.
.... Jesus Christ did in some way — we understand
not how — do something which allows God now to pass
over our sins without punishing them at all. We under
stand not such an atonement as that. We believe that

SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 19
God is so just, that every sinner must be punished,
that every crime must have its irretrievable doom. We
do not believe the atonement of Christ remits a single
solitary sin. We believe that all the punishment which
God's people ought to have endured was laid upon the
head of Christ  The punishment of all our guilt
was absolutely and actually borne by Christ. God does
hot pass over sin ; he punishes sin in Christ, and hence
forth sin ceases to be punishable in the person of those for
whom Christ died."
" Here I stand, the sinner. I am condemned to die.
Christ comes in and puts me aside, and stands himself
in my stead. When the plea is demanded, Christ says,
' Guilty ' ; takes my guilt to be his guilt. ' Punish me,'
he says ; ' I have put my righteousness on that man, and
I have taken that man's sins upon me. Father, punish
me, and consider that man to have been me. Let him
reign, and let me suffer misery.' "
" The moment the sinner believes in Christ, his sins are
no longer his. They were laid on Christ, and are gone.
The man stands guiltless in the sight of God ; more, he
becomes meritorious ; for the moment Christ takes his sins,
he takes Christ's righteousness."
The testimony of Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, is similar.
" Unless," says he, " the Redeemer was a sacrifice on
whom our sins were laid, who bore the penalty we had
incurred, it is no atonement." " Christ suffered the pen
alty of the law in our stead."
Professor Shedd also declares : —
" In the voluntary, the cordially offered sacrifice of the
incarnate Son, the judicial nature of God, which by a con
stitutional necessity requires the punishment of sin, finds its
righteous requirements fully met. Plenary punishment
is inflicted upon one who is infinite, and therefore compe
tent, upon one who is finite, and therefore passible." The

20 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
mercy of God " does not consist in outraging his own law
and the guilt-smitten conscience itself, by simply snatching
the criminal away from their retributions in the exercise of
an unprincipled and unbridled almightiness, or in substitut
ing a partial for a complete atonement, but in enduring the
full and entire penal infliction by which both are satisfied."
" When the suffering and death of God incarnate is
substituted for that of the creature, the satisfaction ren
dered to law is strictly plenary, though not identical with
that which is exacted from the transgressor. It contains
the element of infinitude, which is the element of value in
the case, with even greater precision than the satisfaction
of the creature does, because it is the suffering of a strictly
infinite person in a finite time, while the latter is only the
suffering of a finite creature in an endless but not strictly
infinite time. A strictly infinite duration would be with
out beginning as well as without end.
" Side by side in the Godhead there dwell the impulse
to punish and the desire to pardon; but the desire to
pardon is realized in act by carrying out the impulse to
punish, not indeed upon the person of the criminal, but
upon that of his substitute. And the substitute is the
Punisher himself."
Such is the theory of the atonement that for the last six
hundred years has been developed and defended in the
Church, Catholic and Protestant. God pitied his sinful
creatures, and desired to save them, but justice demanded
the execution of penalty. Justice actually made punish
ment a necessity. Not to punish would be a crime greater
than all the sin that creatures could commit, because it
would be a crime in the Most High himself.
Either, then, the sinner, however penitent, must bear
his penalty, or some one must bear it for him. To this
end Infinite Wisdom discovers a way. He gives his own
Son. Christ consents. Upon him, as the sinner's surety,

SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 21
God executes full punishment, — a punishment sometimes
identical with, sometimes only equivalent to, that due to
the transgressors. At the same time, Christ's perfect
obedience is imputed to the believer; he is freed from
penalty, and endowed with full title to heavenly felicity.
This theory is by no means obsolete. In New Eng
land, indeed, it is seldom heard. A few ministers, here
and there, still cling to it. But the great majority know
it only from books, as a thing of the past. Multitudes
of people, regular attendants on the sanctuary, cannot
remember ever to have heard it from the pulpit. But
though obsolete in New England, it is dominant through
out Evangelical Christendom, except where the new di
vinity has penetrated. All the creeds and formulas of the
Reformation have it, — all the Protestant churches of the
Old World. And it yet stands uncondemned in the
creeds of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches,
both Old School and New. The difference is, in the Old
School it is believed and taught ; in the New, it is sup
planted by a new theory, hereafter to be considered.
Let any one read the sermons of Spurgeon, or Dr.
Spring's Attractions of the Cross, or the Sermons on Sac
ramental Occasions by Dr. Spencer, if he would see this
theory in living exercise urged home with vital force and
energy. Nor can a true Christian, who heartily loves the
Saviour, read or hear such discourses, even though he
reject the theory in the strict literal sense, without interest
and profit ; for imperfect as the view may be deemed as a
philosophical theory in the literal sense of the term, it
readily yields, by the law of analogy, a figurative sense
that is of the very marrow of the Gospel.
In all that has been exhibited as the doctrine of atone
ment, the theory is one thing, the facts of Christ's personal
history another. The theory is in few words, — Punish
ment cannot be remitted, therefore Christ took it in our

22 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
stead. The facts are what we find them on the surface
of the Gospel, what we see with our mind's eye in the
life, sufferings, and death of Jesus. Nothing is easier
than this distinction between the theory and the facts of
history. And nothing can be more plain that it is not
the theory, but the facts, in which the chief power over
the heart resides. Is it essential to salvation to believe
this theory in its strict literal sense? Must we believe it
or perish ? Then the Church for a thousand years is lost.
Then the churches of New England, since the days of Ed
wards, are lost. It is not essential. It cannot be. It is
not the theory literally taken that affects the heart. It is
not in the theory that love begins. On the contrary, love
is awakened by the sight of the facts, the sight of Jesus,
his loveliness, his sorrows, his strange sufferings, and the
knowledge that those sufferings were for us, a thing we
believe on God's word, without knowing how. This
awakens love. And the moment we attempt to analyze,
and penetrate to the theory of satisfaction to justice, that
moment the mind is troubled, the feelings are cooled, and
the power of the cross begins to diminish.
Therefore it is not a belief of this theory, any more
than it was of the ancient, that saves the soul. On the
ancient theory Christ suffered most wonderfully, most
mysteriously. On this modern theory he did no more, no
less. And one theory is just as good as the other, so far
as power over the heart is concerned, because neither has
one grain of power which it does not borrow from the
facts, from Christ seen a sufferer for man. It may, indeed,
be urged in favor of the modern theory, as compared with
the ancient, that the suffering is greater. There it was
Satan, a creature, from whom the suffering proceeded.
Here it is no creature, but the Almighty himself that
smites. By some mysterious transfer, some ineffable im
putation, the sufferer acquires the power of feeling the

SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 23
guilt, the despair, the horrible agony of the lost under
the living wrath of the Omnipotent.
But although this language is used, the import is quickly
modified by statements that God was not really displeased
with him ; that he did not really suffer remorse ; that it
was not the identical suffering of the lost. This leaves us
about where we were before, with the facts of the record,
the sufferings visible to the eye ; and as to those deeper,
more mysterious, we know no more on the modern than
we did upon the ancient theory.
We observe, in passing, that the defenders of this theory '
seem to admit what in other connections they usually de
ny, namely, that God is bound by the principles of honor
and right. It is only in virtue of his justice that " he has
a right to sit on the eternal throne." They affirm, cate
gorically, that " God is inexorably obligated to do justly."
To remit penalty in a single case would be " unprincipled,"
" unbridled," " arbitrary." To fail in executing the en
tire penalty of sin, would be " outraging his own law,"
" inflicting a wound on that holy judicial nature," and
" doing damage to one whole side of his Godhead."
Not to punish fully every sin that ever was committed,
would be " unholy," " inglorious," " unjust." It would
be "mere arbitrary will Ind might striding forward to
reach its own private ends, and trampling down justice
by sheer force." They say God " cannot " do this.
They say he must not. "Whatever else God may be,
or may not be, he must be just." 1 In every conceivable
way, and with astonishing intrepidity, writers of this class
assert the doctrine that God is responsible to the princi
ples of justice, which are the principles of honor and right.
It is important to bear this in mind, when we come to dis
cuss presently the subject of the fall in Adam.
Suffer me, then, once more to set forth visibly ber
1 Prof. Shedd, Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct., 1859.

24 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
fore you Jesus the Crucified, as your suffering Saviour.
I ask you not at present to believe a theory or to dis
believe one, but simply to look at an object, — an object
of sight. How often do the Scriptures set forth the man
ner of receiving benefit in this way : " Looking unto
Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." " Look unto
me and be ye saved."
When Moses raised up the brazen serpent in the wil
derness, as many as looked were healed. And of the
future conversion of Israel it is written, " They shall look
upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn." The
idea seems to be that Jesus is such an object, such in
his beauty, loveliness, and compassion, such in his suffer
ings, that the very sight is calculated to produce a deep
effect, especially if we not merely glance, but look stead
fastly, look with fastened attention, with all the inquiring
powers of our soul awakened. If we look, saying in
wardly, " It was for me ! I know not how ; but it was
because I was guilty and lost. He loved me, he dies
for my salvation" ; — in this way, the effect on the heart
comes, if it come at all. Will you, then, thus look ?
Will you thus fasten the eye of the mind on Jesus ?
You cannot do it without being impressed. There is a
mystery of sorrow there that fovi feel, although — nay, I
had almost said because — you cannot fully understand its
nature nor measure its dimensions. You see at least that
it is the greatest sorrow that ever was known, and that it
is for you. " I saw One hanging on the tree
In agony and blood,
Who fixed his languid eyes on me
As near the cross I stood."
That Sufferer has looked in the face of human sorrow and
wept. His face is more marred than the face of any man.
You cannot measure his sorrow, for it is divine ; but can

SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 25
you not see that he has measured yours, — that in that
infinite sympathy your every woe is repeated, as the stars
are repeated on the bosom of the waveless sea ?
You can never know by words merely what the enigma
of the cross contains, but only by looking on His face.
Look with an eye fascinated by his, as Peter looked and
wept bitterly. Look at him, living, journeying, toiling,
praying, hungering, insulted, pierced, bleeding, dying, —
and shuddering cry: " Is this the Infinite ? 'T is He,
My Saviour and my God ! "
And through the eye, through the channels of the inner
sense, you will receive impressions inexplicable, unutter
able, transforming you to a child of God. You will look
on Him whom you have pierced and mourn for Hm.

CHAPTER III.
ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY.
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die." — Ezek. xviii. 20.
THE chapter from which these words are taken seems to
oppose the idea that punishment can be inflicted on
one person for another. The principle seems to be dis
tinctly laid down as fundamental to the Divine administra
tion, that only the sinner can be punished for his sin. It
is for this reason the passage is selected, when we are
about to exhibit the overthrow of the scholastic theory
of atonement by the logic of the New England divines.
The earliest attack on this theory is that of Socinus in the
sixteenth century. Among other objections were the two
following : —
1. The satisfaction of justice by proxy is impossible in
the nature of things. They who assert this doctrine "rep
resent God as attempting things in their very nature
wholly impracticable."
2. If it were possible, there would be no grace in for
giveness. " The mercy of God does not appear when no
liberality is perceived in him, and when he satisfies his
severity in the fullest punishment of sin  The idea
that both justice and mercy are exhibited in salvation is
plainly ridiculous, and can by no means be established;
for mercy demands that the sinner be freely forgiven, but
justice demands that those who have sinned be punished.
.... Nay, verily Christ did not suffer eternal death, and
woe be to us if he had ! "
Grotius, of the seventeenth century, attempting to de-

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 27
fend the doctrine, in reality gave up its fundamental prin
ciple, and in a measure anticipated the New England
theory, though he did not fully elaborate and defend it.
His defence, therefore, availed nothmg, and produced little
effect. Men continued either to hold the scholastic doc
trine, or became Socinians.
It was not until after President Edwards's day that the
new theory, of which the germs were found in Grotius,
was fully elaborated and enabled to take the place of the
old, so that a man might reject it without falling into
Socinianism. The method with this new theory, commonly called the
New England or Governmental theory, is first to attack'
and demolish the old, employing the above-mentioned
arguments urged by Socinus, together with a third fur
nished by the Universalists. Having demolished the old
theory in this way, they proceed to establish another in
its place, as I shall show at the proper time. At present
let us consider the attack upon the scholastic theory.
1. Satisfaction of justice by substitution impossible.
" Distributive justice," says the younger Edwards, " has
no respect to the character of a third person." " Our ill
desert," says Smalley, " is not taken away by the atone
ment of Christ : that can never be taken away." " Merit
is ever personal ; in the nature of things it cannot be oth
erwise." Emmons says : Christ " never transgressed the law, and
so the law could not threaten any punishment to him.
His sufferings were no punishment, much less our punish
ment." Dr. Griffin says : " Christ could not sustain our legal
punishment  If the law had said that we or a sub
stitute should die, this might be, but it said no such thing.
The law is before us, and we see with our eyes that it con
tains no such clause."

28 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" God's justice," says Dr. Fiske, " demands, not pun
ishment in general, but the precise punishment which
the sin ... . deserves. And inflicted, .... not on any
body at random, but on the identical sinner."
" To say that a substituted or vicarious punishment can
satisfy this demand of Divine wrath, is to say that that
wrath can be satisfied with something which it does not
imperatively demand, i. e. that it does not imperatively
demand the punishment of the sinner."
" It is said that punishment is the correlate to guilt, just
as a liquid is the correlate to thirst. But is the liquid
drank by one person a correlate to the thirst of another
'person ? " 1
Albert Barnes declares : " This cannot be ; men cannot
be required to believe it. Those who affirm this have
either no clear idea of what they profess to believe,
or else use language without any definite signification."
" The proper penalty of the law could be borne by the
offender only, and could not be transferred to another."
Such is the nature of the first objection against the
theory of substituted punishment. Under its pressure
there is apparent a breaking down of the theory in the
hands of those that hold it.
" Did Christ," we ask, " experience remorse ? " No,
they reply, that was not essential to the penalty. "Did
he, then, bear the wrath of God? Was God properly dis
pleased with him ? " They confess that this was not the
case, although God inflicted on him all the marks and
tokens of indignation. "Did he, then, suffer eternal
death ? " No, they reply, that was not the essential pen
alty of the law. '^ Did he, then, in any manner suffer an
infinite penalty ? Were his pains infinite ? " They an
swer in the negative. It was his human nature alone that
suffered, or could suffer. • It was not necessary there should
1 Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1861.

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 29
be infinite pains. " Did Christ, then," we ask, " suffer
the identical punishment due to our sins ? " No, it is said,
he suffered a strict equivalent.
Thus, under pressure, the theory crumbles down. First,
substitute one person for another; next, one penalty for
another ; then eliminate from that penalty all that makes it
real, namely, the living indignation of God revealed to the
guilty consciousness ; and how much is l'eft of that theory,
at first so strict, that dared to say that not even in hell was
vindictive justice so illustriously satisfied as upon Calvary ?
Consequently it is presently said that the theory is above
reason ; we must not question, but bow and adore ; it is
not only above, but against reason. " We cannot tell you,"
says Dr. Spring, " how it is that a God of justice and
holiness can, consistently with those attributes, inflict pun
ishment upon the infinite Saviour. We know that he does
so." " It is above the hght of nature, and either the in
vention or the capacity of reason," says Mr. Bradbury.
"Reason can neither contrive nor receive it."
2. The second objection is no less conclusive. It is this.
A literal satisfaction of justice renders pardon a matter of
debt, not of grace.
It is from this point that the younger Edwards com
mences his discussion of the subject. This has ever
been, he frankly confesses, one of the Gordian knots in
theology to him. And how, then, does he loose the Gor
dian knot ? We reply, he cuts it, by declaring that
Christ did not satisfy justice in any proper sense of that
term. Justice, he explains, is either commutative, as
relating to property, or distributive, as concerned with
personal character, or general, as respecting the public
welfare. The latter, he says, is improperly called jus
tice, being identical with benevolence. Yet "it is only
the third kind of justice which is satisfied by the death
of Christ." That is to say, the death of Christ satisfies

30 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
only that kind of justice which is improperly called jus
tice ; i. e. it does not satisfy justice properly so called
at all. If it did, he says, "there would be no more
grace in the discharge of the sinner, than in the dis
charge of the crimmal when he has endured the full
penalty of the law." Says Dr. Griffin : " The idea of
paying our debt .... stands diametrically opposed to
every idea of pardon." "Pardon or forgiveness in its
very nature implies grace. It is impossible to forgive in
any other way. Pardon on the ground of justice would
be a contradiction in terms."
" How can God," asks Dr. Fiske, " who has already
exacted punishment for sin to his entire satisfaction, be
said to forgive it?" The only answer attempted to
this is thus given by Dr. Hodge : " What is salvation
by grace, if it be not that God of his own good pleasure
provided redemption?" That is, God, not the sinner,
provides the substitute, and therefore to the sinner it is
of grace.
The reply is twofold. God cannot punish twice for the
the same offence. If he has actually punished sin once,
he cannot do it again, but must release the sinner ; that
release, then, is of debt, not of grace.
Again, if all the mercy there is lies before the atone
ment, as its logical antecedent and procuring cause, not
its consequent and effect, then it follows that God showed
mercy in order to be able to punish. It also follows that
mercy can be shown without an atonement. If all the
mercy that is shown was shown in providing the atone
ment, then it was the cause of that atonement, not its
effect ; it cannot be both cause and effect, cannot precede
and follow. But if it was cause, it preceded the aton&-
ment ; if it went before, it was without it ; and therefore
every word that has been written to the effect that God
cannot show mercy without an atonement, is here recanted

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 31
and obliterated. The only forgiveness possible, according
to this, is without an atonement, previous to it, and the
ground of its existence.
3. The third objection to the theory in question is,
that it logically leads either to a limited atonement or
to Universalism.
" According to the common notion," says Smalley,
" of a literal satisfaction, this argument of the Univer
salists would be exceedingly plausible ; to me it appears
it would be absolutely unanswerable. Thus : God is
obliged in justice to save men as far as the merit of
Christ extends; but the merit of Christ is sufficient for
the salvation of all men ; therefore God is obliged in
justice to save all." To this it is clear the only answer
possible is, that the atonement was not made for all,
but for the elect only.
" It follows inevitably," says Dr. Fiske, " that, if Christ
literally  satisfied distributive justice for all men,
all men will be saved." The only escape is, he satisfied
justice only for the elect.
Accordingly, Professor Park observes : "It is an in
structive fact, that Drs. West, Edwards, and Smalley pub
lished their views of the atonement within one and the
same twelvemonth, 1785 — 6. That was the period when
the irruption of Universalism into New England had as
sumed a peculiarly alarming aspect. The advocates of
Universalism derived some of their most plausible argu
ments in favor of it from the old Calvinistic theory of the
atonement, as a literal infliction of the legal penalty, and
a literal satisfaction of vindictive justice. There was no
way of refuting these arguments without resorting to
the unamiable and unscriptural notion, that the atone
ment was designed for the elect only ; or else resorting
to a more Biblical theory than had prevailed respecting
the very nature of the atonement itself."

32 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
We have now completed our survey of the chief objec
tions urged by the New England divines against the scho
lastic theory. That theory is, however, like the ancient,
liable to another objection. It has been remarked, that
the ancient theory was marred by the element of decep
tion involved. The Deity was represented as actually
deceiving Satan, and thus vanquishing him with his own
weapons. Now, though the modern theory has nothing
of deception in this gross form, it is infected with a more
latent contagion.
Thus it is affirmed, in the strongest language, that
Christ suffered the wrath of God. If so, God must
have been really displeased with him. The penalty of
the law consists not merely in the outward stroke, but
in that living indignation of God which that stroke
reveals. But it is conceded that God was not really
angry with him. Hence it amounts to this : God in
flicted all the marks and tokens of a displeasure which
he did not feel. Thus God is represented as making
believe punish, as pretending to be angry, as acting a
part contrary to his real feelings.
Again, the penalty of sin, it is said, is infinite ; there
fore only an infinite Redeemer could make atonement.
Christ's satisfaction contains the element of infinitude,
" which is the element of value in the case." Yet, in
the same breath almost, it is affirmed that the Divine
nature cannot suffer. It was alone the human nature
which suffered. How, then, does the satisfaction contain
the element of infinitude ?
The insincerity involved in such a mode of speaking
as this, its want of genuineness, must strike every one
who will reflect candidly upon it. Add to this, that the
theory in question obliges us to look at Christ's trial
and execution as just, and yet unjust at the same time.
The sufferings and death of Christ were a just punish-

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 33
ment. It was an eminent exercise of God's immaculate
justice. But yet the Gospel narrative is particular to
show that his trial was an outrage, — the testimony that
of false witnesses, discrepant, irrelevant, the sentence ille
gal, the whole proceeding a mock-trial, destitute even
of a fair show of justice. How can the same process
be at once the most unjust and cruel mockery that
ever happened, and yet the most eminent exhibition
of Divine justice ? Is God in league with Satan against
the sacred sufferer ? Does Divine justice conspire with
the brutal injustice of the Sanhedrim ? How can immac
ulate and heavenly justice be satisfied by a proceeding
flagrant in every part with falsehood and cruel wrong ?
The idea is too shocking to be dwelt upon. And it is
deeply to be deplored, that in these ways the scholastic
theory, even more painfully than the ancient, should in
vest the atonement with characteristics deceptive and
unreal. On the whole, therefore, after surveying the whole
ground, it must be conceded that the attack made upon
the scholastic theory is logical and unanswerable. Nor
can we hesitate to say, with Albert Barnes : " It cannot
be ! Men cannot be required to believe it. Its defenders
have either no clear idea of what they profess to believe,
or use language without any defimte signification."
It may be remarked here, that it is frequently charged
upon the New England divinity, that, in rejecting the old
theory of atonement, it is on the high road to Socinianism.
What gives color to this charge is, that two of the main
objections were furnished by Socinus, and are still urged
by his followers. Thus, Dr. Channing remarks : " How
plain is it that, according to this doctrine, God never
forgives ; for it seems absurd to speak of men as for
given, when their whole punishment, or an equivalent
to it, is borne by a substitute."
2* o

34 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Now, when the defenders of the old theory find them
selves assailed with the same objections by the New Eng
land divines and the Socinians, the temptation is strong to
confound the two.
Yielding to this impulse, the Princeton Review asserts
that the New England divinity, on this particular point,
" has done more to corrupt religion, promote Socinianism,
than any other of the vaunted improvements of American
theology." But it would be just as logical to call Calvin, and all the
Reformers, Socinians, because they and Socinus used the
same arguments against some other Catholic doctrines,
which they rejected in common. The difference be
tween Socinus and the New England divines is this, —
the former demolished the old theory, but put nothing
in its place ; while the latter, finding the old theory un
tenable, abandoned it, and constructed a better, which
• should be, they thought, impregnable. They were like
soldiers in an advanced and exposed post attacked by the
enemy's artillery. Finding their defences beaten down,
they retire to another fortification better situated and capa
ble of being strengthened till it is impregnable. Is that
surrender ? Because they admit that the enemy's guns
struck their breastwork at every shot, are they disloyal ?
Because they abandon the shattered outwork for a posi
tion impregnable, are they in league with the foe ? Now
Socinus was the foe. He cannonaded the old theory
till it was a ruin. It was a total logical demolition. The
New England divines, abandoning the wreck, betook them
selves to another which his guns could not batter down.
Therefore, when this church, in common with the churches
of New England, is denounced as unsound, — when Dr.
Beman, Dr. Cox, Albert Barnes, and the New England
ministry generally, are accused of tendencies to Socini
anism, I earnestly repel the charge. And it will be my

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 35
object, in another discourse, to show what that new theory
is that was substituted by the New England engineers in
place of that dilapidated work that sunk under the enemy's
fire. I have frequently insisted that a belief in the correct
theory of atonement could not be essential to salvation.
This position may have seemed strange to some. It is
with pleasure, therefore, that I find the same ground
taken by the Princeton divines. Even while expressing,
in terms stronger, perhaps, than good taste will allow,
their condemnation of the New England theory, they
confess that its defenders are good men.
" There is more saving truth," says Dr. Hodge, " in
the parings of our doctrine, than in their whole theory.
.... Their theory is the most jejune, restricted, mea
gre, and lifeless that has ever been propounded 
It vitiates the essential nature of the atonement, makes
it a mere governmental display, a symbolical method of
instruction. This is a doctrine which we see not how a
man can practically believe, and be a Christian. We do
not believe there is truth enough in this theory to sustain
the life of religion in any man's heart. We have no
idea that Dr. Beman, Dr. Cox, or any good man, really
lives by it. The truth, as it is practically embraced and
appropriated by the soul, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, is the truth as it is in the Bible, and not as pre
sented in abstract propositions. It is, therefore, very possi
ble for a man to adopt theoretically such an abstract state
ment of Scripture doctrme as really denies its nature and
destroys its power, and yet that man may receive the
truth for his own salvation as it is revealed in the Bible."
I give this statement, not as sympathizing in his extreme
censure of the New England theory of atonement, but for
the sake of the admirable statement with which it closes.
The distinguished author was in a measure forced to this

36 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
result. He must either say that all New England, since
Edwards's time, was eternally lost, or take the ground that
a belief in what he deems the correct theory is not abso
lutely essential to salvation. He chose the latter, and has
stated it with great force and perspicuity.
And if that principle had been always borne in mind,
and applied consistently, brotherly love would have es
caped many a wound and the visible Church many a
schism. Therefore, suffer me, at the risk of some repetition, to
say, it is not the philosophy of salvation which effects
salvation, it is not the theory of my Redeemer's work
that moves me, but my Redeemer ; not the machinery
put in motion by his love, but his love itself. Was his
love great enough to induce him to invade the gloomy
realm of Hades, and crush its adamantine barriers, I
love him for a love so great.
If his love impelled him to sustain Almighty wrath,
supposing that to be possible, in my stead, I should love
him for the greatness of that love. Or if his love led him
to suffer in unknown and mysterious ways, as I find partly
described and partly hinted at in the Gospel story, I love
him for all that I see and all I can conjecture of that
amazing love.
If my theory compels me to think his sufferings human
only and finite, still it was love that impelled him to en
dure what finite nature could. If I am at liberty to think
he suffered also Divinely, it is still love that prompts the
infinite sacrifice, and, in either case, " I love him because
he first loved me." It is not because the necessity was
of such or such a nature, but because it was necessity ;
not because his death removed the obstacle in this way or
that, but because it removed it; — because his love, sincere
and devoted, met the emergency with a self-sacrifice ab
solute and unconditional and effectual. This, when I

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 37
know the fact, makes me love him, if I am yet capable of
loving. This saves the soul, if it be capable of salvation,
by awaking it to sentiments of true, honorable, and fer
vent love, and ingenuous regret for the past.
For if those sorrows were necessary on account of my
sins, then my sins inflicted them. If that strange baptism
of agony was rendered indispensable by my alienation and
hardness of heart, then it was I who platted that crown
of thorns, my hand drove the nail, my guilty arm thrust the
spear. I did whatever my necessities did ; and if a true,
unselfish, honorable sorrow for sin be possible to my soul,
it is when I see this, and grieve that I cost him so dear,
when I look on him whom I pierced, and mourn for him/ ,
The story of Calvary is so told as to produce the right
impression, and, when accompanied by Divine grace, no
heart not reprobate can resist. It softened Africaner's
breast, — a man who had spent his life in blood and
ferocity, a man incapable of theory, a man unprepared
for speculation ; — the sight of Calvary, the story of Christ
crucified for him, melted his heart. Far be it from me to
say a word unkindly of those to whom the theory of strict
satisfaction is dear. I can love them with most ardent
fraternal affection, knowing how true and tender is their
love to Jesus. But they love him not more truly than
did the Fathers, with a theory widely different, than do the
New England churches, with still another, or Africaner,
with no theory at all.
O the love of Jesus ! that wonderful thing ! I have
seen it conquer even theological enmity, and utterly sub
due its proverbial rancor ! What a sweet, delightful, glo
rious reality ! I can breathe it, as a genuine air of Heaven,
when I mix with brethren whose philosophy I disavow,
whose theories appear to me the height of paradox. Su- •
preme over all, distinct from everything else, I can feel
the love of a common Lord melting our hearts, and fusing

38 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
them in one ! Such society is inexpressibly dear. We
sacrifice not a principle ; we surrender not a doctrine.
The lines of system are drawn distinct and clear, and
contended for with earnestness. But Jesus stills each
heart, and softens every eye, and hushes every tongue.
A chastened, subdued air is diffused around,' — an air of
love. All evil is quelled and overmastered. We have
seen Jesus ! Love, like an infinite deep, absorbs us.
O with such it is sweet to commune ! We can agree or
disagree without pain, because we can pray and sing and
adore with full accord.
If, indeed, we could with angels look into these things,
love might be mightier. Far be it from me to undervalue a
true and profound and comprehensive theory. It is the
wisdom of God as well as the power of God. If we could
go on to perfection, searching the deep things of God,
love would grow mature, manly, robust. We should
take fire. We should burn and glow like the seraphs.
Therefore is it that I approach the study of the theory
in its higher aspects. I would fain endeavor to lead you,
brethren, who already love, nearer into the focal fire. I
would, Divine grace assisting, bring you as far as possible
on your way to the unveiled sight of God.
But I cannot forget the babes in Christ, nor the lambs
of the flock, just coming toward the fold, nor the timorous
and trembling ones, of whom it may be said, " Thou art
not far from the kingdom of Heaven." I cannot say to
such : I am going up to the Mount of Transfiguration ; —
ascend, or perish ! I am about to explore the arcana of the
universe, to solve the mystery midway of two eternities ;
— achieve the full solution of the theme, or die forever !
God forbid ! To such I say : Behold the Lamb of God.
' Look at yonder Man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
He is your friend. Look at him on that cross. He dies
from love to you. Look at him crowned now at the right

ATTACK ON THE SCHOLASTIC THEORY. 39
hand. He is crowned for you, and carries the same heart
towards you he carried in Gethsemane. Are you sick
and suffering? He bore that, and bears it still. Are
you sensible of the stain sin has sunk deep into you ? He
bore that sin on the tree, and bears it in his sympathizing
heart to-day. Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and
forever. Do you feel sad, depressed, guilty, undone ?
Listen ! That infinite heart of love that went down to
Calvary is touched with the feeling of your infirmity.
He bears you, O believe it ! on his heart, because he loves
you. Get but a sight of that fact. Know that he loves
you. Be convinced that that ineffable tenderness is rest
ing on you, and you cannot despair. Hope, gratitude,
love, must kindle all your soul. And, believing in him,
you shall then proceed, just as fast as you are able, to
explore the higher truths of that redeeming grace. Love
first. Believe and live. And then pray, with all saintSj
to comprehend the breadth and length and depth and
height, and to know the love of God that passeth knowl
edge.

CHAPTER IV.
NEW ENGLAND THEORY.
" To DECLABE his righteousness." — Rom. iii. 25, 26.
IN this passage we have the best enunciation of the
fundamental principle of the New England theory of
atonement. The object of setting forth Christ a pro
pitiatory sacrifice is here distinctly stated, — " To declare
God's righteousness for the remission of sins ; that God
might be just, and yet justify him that believeth."
The cross was set up to convince the intelligent uni
verse of the spotless righteousness of God in the final
issues of punishment and of pardon. Hence, contrasting the
two, — the Scholastic and the New England views, — we
may say concisely, In the one the cross was a punishment,
in the other it is an argument. It is an argument ad
dressed by the Creator to the mind of all finite creatures
throughout the universe, good and bad, in all ages.
In developing this theory, I shall, as in case of the pre
ceding, employ the language of its authors and defenders.
Edwards the younger thus states the matter : " That is
done by the death of Christ which supports the authority
of the law, and renders it consistent with the glory of God
and the good ofthe whole system to pardon the sinner."
Here observe, that, whenever these writers speak of
supporting the authority of the law, they point to an effect
on the mind of those subject to law. It is only in the
minds of the subjects of law that its honor and authority
can be said to be weakened or supported. If subjects
lose all fear and reverence, then the law is said ' to be

NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 41
weakened ; if they are obedient and conscientious, the law
is honored and supported. None of these writers would
for a moment intimate that the law itself is arbitrary, de
pendent on the will of God, or capable of being repealed.
On the contrary, they regard it as coeternal with God,
and as unalterable as the Divine nature itself. Hence,
when they speak of weakening or strengthening it, they
can only mean weakening or strengthening the creature's
respect for it. To honor it, or dishonor it, can only imply
to excite respect or disrespect in the creature mind. And
all terms of this description are to be thus interpreted.
" The atonement, then," continues Edwards, " was ne
cessary to support the authority of the Divine law, and tie
honor, vigor, and even existence of the Divine moral gov
ernment, while sinners are pardoned." " On every hy
pothesis concerning the mode or condition of pardon, it
must be allowed that God dispenses pardon from regard
to some circumstance, or juncture of circumstances, which
renders the pardon both consistent with the general good
and subservient to it."
The language of Smalley is very similar to that of Ed
wards. The object of the atonement, he says, is, " that
the honor of the Divine law and government be main
tained, though sinners be pardoned " ; and that the for
giveness of sin " may not bring the eternal law of right
eousness and eternal Lawgiver of the universe into
disregard and contempt."
" God's own glory and the good of the moral creation
required that there should be such a law, and that the
dignity of it should be supported. A lawless, licentious
universe were infinitely worse than none." Forgiveness
may be granted to the penitent only "provided it may
be done consistently with justice, and without doing hurt,
upon the whole."
" But the letter of a law may possibly be deviated from,

42 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
and yet the spirit of it be supported and the design of it
fully obtained. We are told of a certain ancient King
Zaleuchus, who .... enacted a law that the adulterer
should be punished with the loss of both his eyes. His
own son was convicted of the crime. The royal father,
.... who could not bear to have one so dear to him de
prived forever of the light of day, devised an expedient to
soften, in that one instance, the rigor of his law, and yet
not abate its force in future. The king, in a most public
manner, before all the people, had one of his own eyes
plucked out, so that one of his son's might be saved 
By this means the king's inflexible determination to main
tain government and punish transgression was even more
strikingly evinced than if he had suffered the law to have
its natural course." So " we are to conceive of the re
demption of Christ as an astonishing expedient of infinite
wisdom and goodness, that we might be saved, and yet
God be just, and his righteous law suffer no dishonor."
" Atonement," says Maxcy, " implies the necessity of
sufferings, merely as a medium through which God's real
disposition toward sin should be seen in such a way that
an exercise of pardon should not interfere with the dignity
of government and the authority of law."
" Christ's sufferings rendered it right and . fit, with
respect to God's character and the good of the universe,
to forgive sin ; it presented the law, the nature of sin, and
the displeasure of God against it, in such a light, that no
injury would accrue to the moral system, no imputation
lie against the righteousness of the great Lawgiver, though
he should forgive  The death of Christ, therefore, is
to be considered a great, important, and public transaction
respecting God and the whole system of rational beings.'"
Says Dr. Emmons : " His dying  answered the same
purpose that God would have answered by executing the
penalty of the law  It displayed the same feelings

NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 43
towards sinners that God would have displayed by pun
ishing the whole human race according to their desert 
God made it manifest that he feels the same hatred of
sin and disposition to punish it when he forgives as when
he punishes sinners."
" The truth is, his obedience only prepared him to make
atonement ; his blood made it, and atonement did neither
satisfy nor merit. It only rendered it consistent for God
to show mercy, to be just, and the justifier of all who
beHeve." Dr. Griffin says : " The only end is the support of law,
by showing God's determination to execute its penalty on
transgressors. This was its precise and only end. This
answered, it became an expression of amazing wisdom,
benevolence, and mercy." It gave " the Father an op
portunity to prove to the universe that he would execute
his law on future transgressors."
" The whole use, then, of the atonement .... was to
show that God was determined to support his holy law by
punishing sin." It was "to furnish practical proof" of
this. " When that proof was given, .... the Protector
of law was satisfied." Again, the atonement was " that
which answered the end of punishment, by showing the
universe that God would support his law." Its end was
" to support law, by convincing the universe that God
would punish transgression." The atonement was plainly
" an expedient of a moral governor to support the moral
law." God had no desire or demand " but for an op
eration upon public law for the benefit of the universe.
Nothing could have the least influence to satisfy him but
that operation upon public law."
Mr. Burge observes : " God cannot grant pardon to sin
ners, unless it can be done under such circumstances, and
in such a way, as render it consistent with the highest in
terests ofthe great community."

44 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
If God had pardoned without an atonement, he asks,
"would not his character have appeared questionable in
view of intelligent beings ? Would he not have given
rational creatures reason to conclude, or at least suspect,
that he .... was destitute of a disposition to support and
vindicate a good law ? .... In this way, then, how could
he declare his righteousness ? How could he appear just ?
If, then, penalty should be remitted, something else must
be done, which would manifest for the law as much re
spect as the complete execution of penalty."
" Whatever evil God has submitted to on account of
his law, must manifest his respect for it. If, then, the
sufferings of Christ were really an evil in the sight of God,
and he submitted to them on account of his law, then it is
evident that they are sufficient to show his respect for
his law."
" This theory," says Dr. Fiske, " places the necessity
of atonement in the exigencies of God's moral govern
ment  The atonement was necessary in order to vin
dicate and sustain the Divine law, and thus enable God, as
a wise and benevolent ruler, to remit the penalty due to sin."
Mr. Barnes, also, observes : " The sufferings endured by
the Redeemer, in the place of the sinner, are fitted to make
a deeper impression on the universe at large than would
be produced by the punishment of the sinner himself."
This, briefly sketched, is the view of the New England
churches. As it is expressed in the articles of belief of
this church, the atonement has simply " opened a way by
which pardon and salvation may be consistently offered
to our guilty race." The characteristic principle of the
theory resides in that word " consistently." Consistently
with the Divine perfections and the general good. Indeed,
the view is sometimes called the Consistent Theory, in
allusion to this constantly recurring word.
I have said, that, according to this theory, the atone-

NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 45
ment is an argument, a sublime and irresistible demon
stration. Hence, in the writers quoted, such expressions
are habitually employed, as declaring, proving, establish
ing, manifesting, exhibiting, and the like. By it God
vindicates, shows, causes to appear. By it, says Dr.
Griffin, he " proved to the universe " ; he effected " an
operation on public law." And Albert Barnes says
that by it God intended to " make a deep impression on
the universe at large." Phraseology of this import, of
every variety, is used abundantly throughout the dis
cussion. God says to his creatures, finite though they be, " Come,
let us reason together." He stoops to solicit their verdict
of approval upon his administration. He constitutes them
his judges, and pleads before their bar in defence of his
righteousness, long impugned. So tender is he of the con
science of his creatures ! Such respect does he show to
the laws of that finite reason he has made in likeness of
his own eternal reason ! So mindful of their integrity !
He will not compel them slavishly to acquit him, to offer
fulsome adulation, heartless flattery : their incense must
be frankincense most precious, the fire in their censers
not strange fire. They must not yield him the attribute
of righteousness, unless they can see and feel it to be his ;
and that they may so see and feel, 0 how he lifts them
up, ennobles, dignifies them I O how he abases himself,
humbles himself, even unto death !
In such a view as this there is something that appeals
strongly to our better nature.
From the cross, God appeals to our thoughtful, conscien
tious, and affectionate consideration, and really achieves
the infinite task, to make the creature know his Creator,
the finite appreciate the infinite, the sinful justify the im
maculate !
How infinite the disclosure of the Divine meekness and

46 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
sweet humility ! How astonishing the conception of the
worth and grandeur of the soul ; of the value to the Father
of his children made in his likeness, and thought of con
sequence sufficient to be thus treated by him I
This theory differs equally from the Scholastic doctrine
of forgiveness, on the one hand, and the Socinian, on the
other. The Scholastic position is, that forgiveness is wrong,
and needs to be made right, — if, indeed, such a thing as
forgiveness exists when penalty is never remitted. Hence
it would seem to follow, that, if God is disposed to forgive
ness, he is disposed to do wrong, if, indeed, forgiveness be
wrong. But this theory teaches that forgiveness is in
itself comely and glorious, needing not to be made right.
We contemplate forgiveness as the highest and most ador
able perfection of the Divine character. And to eternity,
the redeemed will wonder that they have never known
what the Almighty had cause to think and feel respect
ing their behavior. The blazing sword of that terrible
disclosure remains sheathed in eternal repose. That
is wonderful and beauteous to a soul that feels in. some
degree what God might say and do. Not, indeed, that
repentance merits such forbearance, but that it makes
it possible "to the Divine discretion. It is not a wound to
the Divine justice not to punish a penitent, as it would be
not to punish an impenitent rebel. The pardon of a peni
tent, in itself considered, hurts not one fibre or filament
of immaculate justice.
Yet such pardon may be abused and perverted by the
careless, the presumptuous, and especially the already
revolted. Hence it must be guarded and made consistent
and safe. Here we draw the line against the Socinian.
When the Socinian says that forgiveness is right, and
needs not to be made right, New England divines are
not afraid to agree with him. Truth must be acknowl
edged, by whomsoever spoken. But when the Socinian

NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 47
says that forgiveness was also safe and consistent, so that
no incarnation and death of the Eternal Word was neces
sary, then we draw the line, and stand in irreconcilable
opposition. There was a necessity lying in the conditions
and liabilities of the creature universe that rendered such
a measure absolutely necessary. With it, redemption was
possible ; without it, not. The incarnation and sacrifice
of the God-man, therefore, constitute the central measure
of the Divine administration. Thus this view is just as
distinct from Socinianism on the one side as it is from the
Scholastic doctrine on the other.
A single observation, and I close. Even at this stage of
the discussion there are elements of appeal to the believ
ing mind of peculiar delicacy and power. To discover
one's self to have been highly valued by one so incon
ceivably great as God is itself a joyful surprise. We are
prone to the philosophy that thinks the Almighty too vast
to notice or care for such insects as we. But when the
disclosure is made to us of his real thoughts on the cross,
we find that he has valued us more highly than even his
own dignity or immunity from inconvenience and suffer
ing. Again, the consciousness of being appreciated is
grateful in the extreme ; the sense of being treated with
consideration and delicacy, with profound deference to
the principles of our intelligence, yea, with infinite re
spect to our intellectual freedom, our purity, our sincer
ity, so that God would not ask nor accept a praise that
was not intelligent, sincere, and free, this is calculated to
impart unspeakable delight. It diffuses an atmosphere of
goodness and love about the soul as genial and exquisite
as the gales of the tropics.
As the amazing sweetness, generosity, and self-abnega
tion of the Eternal open upon us, we seem to be entering
into the cloud, and wonder and transport contend for the
mastery. And when it occurs to us that such qualities

48 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
have been lavished upon us during our long period of
ungrateful alienation, our hearts are broken, and the foun
tain of our tears opened. May the Eternal Spirit assist
us to entertain these conceptions, and rise to their full
and habitual reception. 0 may he cleanse us, that we
may come near unto God ! And if there be those hearts
here that have never known the softness of penitence,
the sweet bitterness of sincere regret, may those hearts
be touched by the finger of Divine grace ! O wander
ing ones, 0 guilty exiles, lost and wretched, listen to the
voice of infinite compassion ! Hear the calls of a tender
ness infinite, a Saviour's love, which many waters cannot
quench nor floods drown ! Come to Calvary, and adore
and love ! Come weep before the cross. There may
be mystery there, even as there was darkness over all
the land unto the ninth hour. But it is a mystery of
love. Kneel in the darkness, and let eternal day dawn
in your soul. Let the drops of that blood, priceless
above all worlds, fall like balm on your guilty conscience,
and seal you the Lord's in the bonds of an eternal
covenant. " See, from his head, his hands, his feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down I
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown ? "

CHAPTER V.
ATTACK ON THE NEW ENGLAND THEORY.
" Nat but, 0 man, who art thou that bkpliest against God 1 " —
Rom. ix. 20.
THE conception of the Divine Being most natural to
minds educated under an absolute government is that
of an absolute monarch. Accustomed from the dawn of be
ing to associate ideas of irresponsible authority with royal
ty, they unconsciously transfer a similar despotic character
to God. To such minds, the idea of a Deity brought under
any obligations to the creature is new, strange, and gener
ally distasteful. But with minds reared under the more
genial influences of free government, the instinctive ten^
dencies of thought are different. Naturally the mind
delights to conceive of God as a constitutional sovereign,
bound by the same laws and principles of right with his
subjects. Such a mind rejoices to think, with Edwards,
that " in God are the essential qualities of a moral agent,
.... such as understanding to perceive the difference
between moral good and evil, .... and a capability of
choosing accordingly." And with Bellamy : " He sees
what is right, and infinitely loves it because it is right ;
he sees what is wrong, and infinitely hates it, because it is
wrong." And to such a mind the absolutist conception
of God is repellent.
Thus there are two grand opposing systems of thought
concerning God, the one. of which teaches that things are
right, because God wills them ; the other, that God wills
them, because they are right.
3 D

50 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
From these opposite conceptions all other doctrmes
receive shape and coloring. The central subject of the
atonement especially will be vitally influenced. For, on
the absolutist principle, why should God seek to declare
his righteousness, if a thing is right simply because he
does it ? Its very existence declares it, and what can be
the need of an infinite sacrifice for that end ? It is not
strange, then, that a conception of the atonement based
on the idea of declaring God's righteousness should be
unwelcome to those whose philosophy is, . that whatever
God does is right, because he does it; not that he does
it because it is right. It is natural that such should feel
the strongest objections to such a view of the atonement.
Some of those objections against the New England theory
I have already obviated, as, for example, its alleged So
cinian tendencies. Others remain for present considera
tion. And
1. It is said that this theory " denies that sin, for its
own sake, deserves punishment, and everywhere repre
sents the prevention of crime as the great end to be an
swered by punishment."
Some may have erred in this way, but not all. It is
not necessary to the theory. " God," observes Dr. Fiske,
" must hate sin with a double hatred, — hate it on account
of its intrinsic hatefulness, and on account of its evil
tendencies." The real point made by the theory is,
that God is not obliged to express his hatred of sin
in the form of punishment. It is not true, then, that
the view in question bases punishment on expediency
alone. It simply affirms that, although sin intrinsically
deserves punishment, yet the forgiveness of the penitent
is not in itself wrong.
2. But it is objected, again, that " this theory is desti
tute of any semblance of support from« Scripture."
But in Romans iii. 25, 26, there seems to be contained

ATTACK ON THE NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 51
a most explicit enunciation of it. " Him hath God set
forth .... to declare his righteousness." The object
of Christ's death was to declare the righteousness of God, —
to declare it to the universe. God was righteous, and will
be, in punishment and in pardon. But his righteousness
might be hid ; it might be doubted, disputed, absolutely
denied. By the cross he displayed it clearly, removed
doubts, obviated disputes, and silenced denial ; in a word,
he so declared it as to carry the convictions of the moral
universe with him forever.
Parallel with this is the remarkable assertion, (Hebrews
,ix. 23,) that it was necessary that the heavens themselves
be purified by the blood of Christ ; that is, that all celes
tial intelligences should see God's righteousness fully de
clared to them, — their minds be purged from ignorance or
doubt. So, indirectly, Ephesians iii. 10, where the object
of/ the mediatorial creation is distinctly said to be, "To
make known to principalities and powers the manifold
wisdom of God " ; — righteousness being virtually included
in that manifold wisdom, because nothing unrighteous can
be really wise.
It will be easy hereafter to show that there is more than
a semblance of support for this view, and that, on the
contrary, it expands and deepens, and becomes the central,
main channel of Scripture representation.
But, continues the objector, this theory " hardly pur
ports to be anything more than a hypothesis on which to
reconcile what the Bible teaches with our ideas of a moral
government ; it is a device to make the atonement ra
tional, to explain away the mystery which hangs over it,
and make the whole august transaction perfectly intelligi
ble." But to this we reply, that if we are to have any
theory at all, it must be either rational or irrational.
Some theory we must have. By the very definition of
the term it is impossible to have a theory which is neither

52 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
rational nor irrational. It must either embrace all the
facts, and philosophically account for them, or the reverse.
In the one case, it is rational ; in the other, it is irrational.
Does the reviewer mean to imply that his own theory is
" a device to make the atonement" irrational?
Now we frankly concede that the New England mind
asks for a theory of atonement which, if not absolutely
divested of mystery, shall at least be, on the whole,
rational and reconcilable with the principles of moral gov
ernment. By the cross God seeks to declare his right
eousness to us, and we very properly seek to understand
that declaration. He makes it the central measure of his
administration, the highest disclosure of the principles of
his moral government to rational creatures. We accept
it as such, and cannot permit an irrational theory to usurp
its place, nor one diametrically opposed to the principles
of moral government.
3. There is another objection, the most important of
any yet urged. It is this. If this be allowed to be the
object of the atonement, to declare God's righteousness,
still the New England theory fails to explain how the
death of Christ shows or declares anything of the kind.
Says Dr. Hodge : " The atonement is an exhibition of
God's purpose to maintain law and inflict penalty, and
thus operate as a motive and restraint upon all intelligent
beings, because it involves the execution of that penalty. It
is this that gives it all its power. It would be no exhibi
tion of justice, if it were not an exercise of justice. It
would not teach that the penalty of law must be inflicted,
unless it was inflicted."
Here the reviewer skilfully assails the advocates of the
new theory with their own weapons. They have argued
against the old theory, that punishment by proxy is impos
sible, that sufferings inflicted upon an innocent substi
tute are not the penalty which the law threatened; in

ATTACK ON THE NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 53
short, that they do not constitute an exercise of justice at
all. To be an exercise of justice, they must be inflicted
upon the identical offender, and not upon his substitute.
This same inexorable logic the reviewer now retorts
upon his assailants. If vicarious sufferings are not an
exercise of justice, how are they an exhibition of it ? If
they are not punishment, how do they indicate God will
punish ? If they are not an execution of law's penalty,
how do they prove God will execute law ? Does the
not doing what the law threatens, and doing the exact
opposite, show respect for the law ? How does it show
it? or, rather, how does it not show the contrary? To
these questions it is difficult for the advocates of the New
England theory, at least at the present stage of develop
ment of that theory, to offer any conclusive answer. This
objection was urged by Dr. Hodge, in a review of a little
treatise on the atonement by Dr. Beman, twenty or twen
ty-five years ago ; but in vain have I searched the writings
of the other side for a reply. Hence it behooves us to
weigh the matter well. As candid men, we must allow
to every argument all its real weight. Let us, then, ask,
Does the infliction of suffering on Christ, which is yet not
punishment, not the penalty of the law, show God's deter
mination to punish? Does it show respect for the law,
or does it, as Dr. Baird affirms,1 " constitute a signal
proclamation of the dethroning of the law, and the pros
tration of its honor in the dust " ?
Mr. Burge says : " Whatever evil God has submitted
to on account of his law must manifest his respect for the
law. If, then, the sufferings of Christ were really an evil
in the sight of God, and he submitted to them on account
of his law, then it is evident that they are sufficient to
show his respect for the law."
But to this it may be answered, that God did not
1 Elohim Revealed, p. 264.

54 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
really submit to any evil, because this writer, and all the
others on the same side, with one voice declare that God
cannot suffer. He is infinitely impassible. To speak,
then, of his submitting to an evil seems like a species of
verbal dishonesty, a rhetorical trick ; there is no genuine
reality in it. Therefore, such an argument ought to be
laid aside by these writers. Nor, even if God could,
and actually did, submit to evil, would it show respect
for law, unless that evil was necessary by law; How can
the enduring of unnecessary evil show respect to law ?
We all see that, when the heathen cut and burn and
torture their bodies in their religious rites, that suf
fering shows no respect to God. Why? Because God
does not require it. If God required of the papist fastings
and sackcloth and scourgings and penances of every kind,
they would show respect to God ; but as it is, they show
nothing of the kind. So if the law really demanded the
suffering of Christ, as a part of its penalty, then the penal
infliction would show respect for the law ; but not other
wise. I am aware that it might be said, that, though not neces
sary as a penalty, they might be necessary to support the
law. There is more than one kind of necessity, it might
be said. The sufferings of Christ might be indirectly
necessary to maintain law, though not directly called for
by the law as penalty. The fault with this reasoning,
however, is, that it is reasoning in a circle. Thus, why
do the sufferings of Christ support the law? Because, it
is said, they were absolutely necessary. But why were
they absolutely necessary ? Answer, In order to support
the law. In a word, the sufferings of Christ were neces
sary, because they support the law ; and they support
the law, because they were necessary. This is plainly
absurd. If, then, we examine the usual illustrations employed

ATTACK ON THE NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 55
in support of this idea, we shall find something preca
rious about them. Take the favorite instance of Za-
leuchus. The law threatened the criminal with the
loss of both his eyes. The lawgiver spared one of the
criminal's eyes, and put out one of his own. Thus, it is
said, he showed respect for the law, even more than if he
had literally executed it. But is that true ? Would any
but abject Oriental slaves reason so ? There is a test in
fallible. There is one way of showing respect for law that
never fails, and that is by its execution, — by not swerv
ing through parental feeling or partiality of any kind.
It is related that, in the reign of Louis XV. of France,
a prince of the blood royal committed robbery and murder
in the streets of Paris. When on trial before Parliament,
the court sent a deputation to his father to secure a pardon
for him.
" My Lords and Councillors," said Louis, " return to
your chamber of justice, and promulgate your decree."
" Consider, Sire," replied the President of the Parlia
ment, " that the unhappy prince has your Majesty's blood
in his veins."
" Yes," said the king, " but that blood has become
impure. Justice demands it be shed. Nor will I spare
my son for a crime I should condemn in the meanest of
my subjects."
The prince was accordingly executed on the scaffold,
August 12, 1729. Is there any doubt in any mind that
this did really show respect for law, and strengthen the
majesty of justice ? And is it not evident that if a second
son had happened to offend, and had been punished, the
law would be strengthened still more ? And would not
every repetition of the sublime act of justice add to the
strength of the statute ?
Every one sees that it would. But how would repe
tition operate in the case of Zaleuchus ? Suppose, the

56 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
second time a son offended, the queen had consented to
lose one eye for his sake ; the third time, an uncle or some
noble, and so on. Is it not plain that each time the law
was thus dealt with it would be weakened, and that finally
it would be nullified entirely? Does any one suppose
that Zaleuchus showed respect for law as much as Louis
XV. did ? Is there not a radical difference of tendency
in the two cases ?
But how can a thing that really strengthens law weaken
it by repetition ? It is not so with actual execution of
penalty. How can it be so in the other case ? Is it not
plain that there is no real respect shown for law ? that
there is nothing genuine in it? that the father preferred
the pain of losing an eye to the greater pain of losing a
son, and chose the less of two pains ? And did he not
thus barter the law for a diminution of his own pain ? and
was it not personal and selfish ?
Let us think what a subject of the two monarchs might
say. " See," exclaims the Parisian, " we are safe : if the
king would not pardon his own son, he Would not pardon
anybody ; therefore let all robbers and murderers beware."
The whole of Paris, the whole of France, would feel
firmer and stronger after the king's noble act.
" But," exclaims one of Zaleuchus's subjects, after wit
nessing the tragedy. " See, neighbors, the advantage of
being made of finer clay, and having royal blood in one's
veins. If one of us had committed ,that crime, think you
his Majesty would have given an eye for us ? No, no, it
is only because it is his own flesh and blood ; it hurts him
less to do this than to do just what the law said, and there
fore he does it. His Majesty is willing to pay an eye
for the privilege of breaking the law ! "
Does any one say that, nevertheless, it would deter
from crime, because the Locrians would argue, that, though
he spared his son, he would not them ? I reply, so might

ATTACK ON THE NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 57
the Parisians have argued, if Louis XV. had pardoned
his son. They might have said, he pardons his own flesh
and blood, but it does not follow that he will pardon us.
But how vastly different, how much lower down, is this
than what they actually had to say.
The king by punishing his son has made it absolutely
certain and clear as day that he will pardon no less crimi
nals. But this the Locrians could not say ; therefore there
was a letting down of justice, and a weakening of it, and
that was why the experiment would not bear to be re
peated. But, it may be asked, was there not some conservative
tendency in Zaleuchus's act ? I reply, not as a question of
justice, but only as a matter of feeling. If he could suc
ceed in exciting his subjects' sympathy for him in his
parental distress, they might forgive him for once in such
a letting down of justice. But that is all.
Therefore the instance is unsound, the illustration breaks
down, and the objection of the old divinity remains.
Suffering inflicted on an innocent person, which the law
does not demand, does not show respect for law, nor sup
port it.
But, it may be said, are we to abandon the New England
theory as well as the old Scholastic ? If this objection is
conceded valid, is it not fatal to the theory ? Does it not
overthrow it from the foundation ?
To this I reply in the negative. There are two parts
or propositions included in the theory ; this objection lies
against one, not both. These two propositions are, — 1.
The atonement is a declaration or demonstration of God's
righteousness. 2. It demonstrates that righteousness, by
showing his determination to punish, and thus supporting
the law. It is only the latter proposition against which the
objection lies. It still remains true that the atonement
is a declaration or demonstration of God's righteousness,
3*

58 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
though it be false that it is in the particular way of show
ing his disposition to punish. It is in some other way than
this. And just here the theory is immature and incom
plete. Just here it needs to be further worked out. The
fundamental principle of the system, however, still stands
without damage from objections.
God set forth Jesus a propitiation to declare his right
eousness. How did it declare that righteousness ? Not
in feie particular way specified, but in some other. Can
that other be pointed out, and if so, what was it ? We
answer, that it can, and to point it out will be the main
object of our subsequent investigations.
Meanwhile, it may perhaps occur to some as an objection,
that the course of the discussion is extensive, and the mas
tery of the subject tasking to the mind.
This would be an objection, if this doctrine as a scien
tific theory were necessary to salvation. If its place were
among the first or elementary truths, — the milk for
babes, — if, in short, without a correct theory of atone
ment the soul must perish, — in that case it would be a
grave objection to find a discussion so wide, so profound,
and so high-soaring. But it is otherwise when we reflect
that this is one of the higher truths of the system ; a part
of the strong meat of the Word ; and that Christians of
full age should feed on that strong meat and go on unto
perfection. Howbeit, says the Apostle, in malice be ye
children, but in understanding be men.
The Christian must not shrink from themes requiring
patient, long-continued, and tasking thought. The higher
truths of Christ's kingdom must be high indeed. They
must demand not only intellect and patience and discipline,
but earnest prayer and the aid of God's Spirit. If a theory
of atonement did not require these things, it would be an
objection fatal against it. It is the central problem of
God's administration. It is the wisdom of God and the

ATTACK ON THE NEW ENGLAND THEORY. 59
power of God. Its scope is from before the foundation of
the world, till after the heaven and earth have passed away.
It concerns not man only, but the whole created universe ;
and not the created universe only, but the Creator. It
declares his righteousness in that mighty rebellion that
has for ages divided his empire. " And now," says
Dr. Griffin, "if any are unwilling to harness themselves
for a conflict with indolence, and to bring their minds up
to patient and elevated thought, let them close the book
here. But if they have entered into the feelings of
Heaven, and caught a desire to search into a subject
which a thousand ages of study will not exhaust, let them
offer a humble prayer and then begin."
Let us breathe together the prayer of one who burned
and glowed in these sublime investigations : " That God
would grant us according to the riches of his glory to be
strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man ;
that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith, that we, being
rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend
with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth
and height, and to .know the love of Christ that passeth
knowledge ; that we may be filled with all the fulness of
God."

CHAPTER VI.
THE CROSS TO DESTROY SATAN.
''.He also himself likewise took part op the same; that through
death he might destroy him that had the power op death, that
is, the Devil." — Heb. ii. 14.
AFTER exhibiting, in the language of their defenders,
the two theories of atonement that divide the mod
ern world, — after hearing the old pronounce the new " the
most jejune, meagre, and barren ever proposed," and the
new retort that the old is " impossible, and that man can
not be required to believe it," — we are reminded of the
existence of an ancient theory ignored by both, and the
thought suggests itself, — perhaps it is by receding so far
from the ancient Church that the modern has fallen into
this condition of helpless discord and paralysis. The ele
ment of truth in the ancient theory, we have already
remarked, lay in the prominence it assigned to those
passages of the Bible connecting the death of Christ with
the destruction of Satan, as its end. I propose to show
how prominent this conception really is in the Bible.
It is not surprising the ancient Church should have
taken such a passage as that at the head of this chap
ter for their starting-point. The matter of astonishment
is, that the modern Church should coolly develop a theory
as much without this passage as though it had been ex
punged from the Bible. Look, for a moment, at the
verse ; see how plain, how direct, how to the point. Why
was the Word made flesh ? In order to die. Why was it
necessary for Him to die ? In order that through death

THE CROSS TO DESTROY SATAN. 61
he might destroy the Devil. And why aim to destroy
the Devil ? In order to liberate those subject to bondage.
Now it matters not how imperfect our knowledge may
be how the Devil had the power of death, and how the
death of Christ could destroy him : it is impossible for lan
guage to state the fact itself more plainly than it is here
stated. Equally explicit is the statement, Rev. xii. 11, " And
they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb." That
is, Satan, as mentioned in the verse preceding. He ac
cused them before the throne of God, and " they over
came him by the blood of the Lamb." That is, overcame
him in that trial before the throne of God, overcame him
in the matter of that criminal accusation. It was the
death of Christ that defeated Satan, and so delivered
them. A third testimony is contained in 1 John iii. 8 : " For
this cause was the Son of God manifested, that he might
destroy the works ofthe Devil." This is by the same au
thor with the preceding. Its meaning is the same. To
destroy the Devil, and to destroy the works of the Devil,
are substantially the same. The Son of God was mani
fested to do this. This was the object of his incarnation.
Of course his death is implied, as in the other passages.
It was the comprehensive object, not only of his death,
but of his whole humiliation.
Another great testimony is in Genesis iii. 15 : "I
will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be
tween thy seed and her seed. He shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel."
The bruising of the heel was when, through the influ
ence of Satan, Christ was betrayed and crucified. The
bruising of the head of the serpent is still future, when
the object of the mediatorial system is fully accomplished.
It does not expressly say that the bruising of the head

62 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
shall be a consequence of the bruising of the heel, but
it implies it by suggestion. The next thing presented
to the mind, after the idea of a biting of the heel by a ser
pent, is the deadly crushing of that serpent's head by the
heel he has wounded.
An implication of this kind in symbols so full of mean
ing is a prophecy of the strongest kind. Hence, the
Church has always regarded this passage as the germ of all
prophecy and all promise.
The hostile action and reaction of Christ and Satan is
here indicated to form the subject of the grand epic of
human history. Satan shall inflict excruciating agony
upon Christ, but only in proportion as the bruising of a
heel to the whole body ; Christ, however, shall inflict
upon Satan a destruction so complete, as to be properly
denoted by nothing less than the crushing of the head.
At the same time, to show that this was the means of
human deliverance, Adam and Eve are clothed with coats
of skins, denoting justification through Christ. Thus, over
the threshold of human history God seems to say, in vivid
emblems set up before the eyes of all generations, " The
object for which this world is fitted up and human history
begun is to bruise the serpent's head by the very heel
that head has wounded, and so provide a spotless robe of
righteousness for naked and guilty man."
Let us, then, examine the personal career of Christ,
and see what his estimate was of his relations to the
great Apostate.
The first thing after his baptism and recognition as
Son of God, he is driven of the spirit into the wilderness
to be tempted of the Devil. Here, at last, we see the
seed of the woman placed within reach of the serpent ;
and that this was no superficial ordeal we may judge
from the forty days' fast, and from the nature of the
temptations.

THE CROSS TO DESTROY SATAN. 63
In the second year of his ministry, he is accused by the
rulers of performing miracles by Satanic agency ; to which
he replies, that his object is first to bind the strong man,
and then to spoil his goods ; showing his clear conscious
ness that the defeat of Satan was the foremost object to be
accomplished. Further on (1 John viii. 44), he retorts the
charge upon his assailants, declaring that they are of their
father, the Devil, and giving a vivid portrait of his real
character. " He was a murderer from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth ; when he speaketh a lie, he speak-
eth of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it." In
him and his personal history lies the true origin of evil, so
much disputed. Lies are of his own, born of his mind.
Thus Jesus develops a profound knowledge of the being,
history, and character of him he had to overcome.
In the parable of the sower, he attributes to him the
catching away out of men's minds the seeds of truth, lest
they should be saved. In the parable of the tares, he
says, The field is the world ; the good seed, the children
of the kingdom ; he that sowed them, the Son of Man.
The tares, the children of the Wicked One ; the enemy
that sowed them, the Devil. Thus Christ reduces all
history to a simple theory of counter agency between
himself and his enemy. The field is the world, and the
sowing is through all ages from the beginning.
In our Lord's prayer, he inserts a petition literally ren
dered, " Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
the Evil One." When the disciples rejoiced because
demons were subject to them, he said, " I saw Satan as
lightning falling from heaven." An evident allusion to
Isaiah's words, " How art thou fallen, &c, O Lucifer,
Son of the Morning ! " In saying I saw him falling, he
means the same as I foresaw, — saw in the future, — a
common way of speaking with the prophets. As if he
said, This is to be the end of my conflict. Satan will
certainly fall like lightning from heaven.

64 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
In John xvi. 11 he says, the Holy Spirit shall convince
the world of judgment, because the prince of this world is
judged. As much as to say, that, when Satan is judged,
the world will be judged. That agency of the Holy Spirit
purchased by Christ's death, which judges him, will be
the judgment of the world. Could anything more signifi
cant be conceived ?
When Christ was betrayed, it says of Judas, " Satan put
it into his heart," and again, " Satan entered into him."
Hence, when the band led by Judas came to seize him,
he says to Peter, " Thinkest thou that I cannot now
pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more
than twelve legions of angels ? But how, then, shall the
Scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be ? " In the
agony in the garden and on the cross, this, as the ancient
Church imperfectly conceived, was one source of his
sufferings, namely, the power of darkness. The twenty-
second Psalm is unquestionably prophetic and descriptive
of his dreadful mental agonies.
Such is the bruising of the heel. The whole humili
ation of Christ, including that signified by the words of the
Creed, " He descended into Hades," is a fulfilment of
Genesis iii. 15 : " Thou shalt bruise his heel." The
retaliatory bruising of the serpent's head is exhibited in
the Apocalypse. The serpent, after various scenes, is
finally cast into the lake of fire, and " He that sat upon
the throne saith, Behold, I make all things new."
Thus we see that this is the plot of the whole Bible.
We begin in Eden, with a certain enmity between two
seeds foretold and initiated ; we conclude in the New Jeru
salem, with that enmity satiated, in the utter destruction
of the one by the other, and the regeneration of the uni
verse in consequence.

CHAPTER VII.
AZAZEL.
" One lot for Jehovah, and one lot for Azazel." — Lev. xvi. 8.
IN the sacrifices of the great day of atonement all the
scattered rays of typical light are collected and concen
trated in a focus of singular intensity of illumination.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the lens is so adjusted as
to cast that burning focus upon Christ. The tabernacle,
itself, we are told, " was a type for the time then present " ;
all its fixtures, " copies of things in the heavens," its
priests " served unto the example and shadow of heavenly
things " ; the holy of holies was a type of heaven itself,
the annual entrance into it of the high-priest, with blood
of victims, prefigured the entrance of Christ into heaven,
" to appear in the presence of God for us."
As the high-priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical
robes, and officiated in the white bnen dress of a common
priest, so Christ emptied himself, and took the form of a
servant, and offered sacrifice, himself the priest, himself
the victim. As the high-priest, after going into the holy
of holies with blood, finally came forth to the waiting
congregation in full pontifical robes, so "unto them that
look for him, Christ shall appear a second time," in all
the splendors of his eternal kingdom and glory.
Thus far we follow closely in the track of inspired inter
pretation of emblems. There are, however, emblems in
the ceremonial of the great day of atonement which the
Epistle to the Hebrews does not interpret.
We refer, in particular, to the two goats on which lots
E

66 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
were cast, — one for JehoVah, the other for Azazel, — the
former being slain, and its blood sprinkled in the holy of
holies, the latter being let go alive in the wilderness.
We are left to determine the meaning of these symbols as
we best can, according to the laws of analogy.
It is generally admitted, that the goat let loose and the
goat which was slain are one and the same symbol, — a
double symbol of the same person, Christ.
Two goats were to be presented before the Lord by the
high-priest. They must be exactly alike in value, size,
age, color, — they must be counterparts. Placing these
goats before him, the high-priest put both hands into an
urn containing two golden Jots, and drew them out, one
in each hand. On the one was engraved La-Yehovah
(for Jehovah), on the other, La- Azazel (for Azazel).
The goat on which the lot La-Yehovah fell was slain.
After its blood had been sprinkled in the holy of holies,
the high-priest laid his hands on the head of the second
goat, confessed the sins of the congregation, and gave him
to a fit man to lead away and let go in the wilderness ;
the man thus employed being obliged to wash his clothes
and person before returning to the congregation.
That Christ is represented by both goats is the common
opinion. As Matthew Henry says : " Christ was prefig
ured by the two goats, which both made one offering."
The point on which opinions differ is in regard to the
meaning of the word Azazel, and the sending away of the
second goat. Three opinions have been maintained.
The first opinion regards Azazel as the name of a moun
tain or precipice from which the goat was to be thrown.
This opinion, however, has few supporters, since no such
mountain existed, and it seems clear, from the record,
that the goat must be let go alive.
A second opinion is, that Azazel is the name of the goat
itself, meaning escape-goat. Our English translators give

AZAZEL. 67
this in the text, but place the word Azazel in the margin,
as was their custom in cases where they were in some
uncertainty. Agamst this opinion the following objections
may be urged : —
Azazel is an uncommon word, found nowhere else in the
Bible. There was a familiar expression for scape-goat,
namely, Sheir Meshullah; and it is improbable Moses
would have left a term familiar for one entirely strange.
This meaning, also, is embarrassed by grammatical diffi
culties. The root from which the word goat must be
taken in composing scape-goat happens to be feminine,
making it the escape-she-goat. Again, the use of the
prepositions is such that, if rendered literally, they would
make the goat to be sent away to itself. Thus, " The goat
on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be .... to let him go
to Azazel." Hence many of the best Hebrew scholars,
such as Witsius, Gesenius, Robinson, Spencer, Stowe,
Faber, Hengstenberg, have rejected this meaning.
The third opinion is, that Azazel is a proper name
of Satan. In support of this, the following points are
urged : —
The use of the preposition implies it. The same prepo-,
sition is used on both lots, La-Yehovah, La-Azazel, and
if the one indicates a person, it seems natural the other
should. Especially, considering the act of casting lots.
If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some
other person or being ; not one for Jehovah, and the other
for the goat itself.
What goes to confirm this is, that the most ancient
paraphrases and translations treat Azazel as a proper
name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of
Onkelos and Jonathan would certainly have translated it
if it was not a proper name, but they do not. The Septu
agint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by airoirog,iralo<;,
a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, some
times appeased by sacrifices.

68 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Another confirmation is found in the Book of Enoch,
where the name Azalzel, evidently a corruption of Azazel,
is given to one of the fallen angels, thus plainly showing
what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that
day. Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where
Azazel is employed as the name of the Evil Spirit.
In addition to these, we have the evidence of the Jew
ish work Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical
writers. They tell us that the following proverb was
current among the Jews : " On the day of atonement,
a gift to Sammael." Hence Moses Gerundinensis feels
called to say that it is not a sacrifice, but only done
because commanded by God.
Another step in the evidence is when we find this same
opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian
Church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers,
and on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew
word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen : " He who
is called in the Septuagint aTroirofnra2o<;, and in the He
brew Azazel, is no other than the Devil."
Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the Emperor
Julian, the apostate, that confirms the argument. He
brought, as an objection against the Bible, that Moses
commanded a sacrifice to the Evil Spirit. An objection
he never could have thought of, had not Azazel been
generally regarded as a proper name.
In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other
meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this,
Hengstenberg affirms, with great confidence, that Azazel
cannot be anything else but another name for Satan.
If it should be objected that God would not sanction a
sacrifice to Satan, even in appearance, and that therefore
this view cannot be true, we reply, that it is not neces
sary to regard the goat as a sacrifice to Azazel ; and that

AZAZEL. 69
there is not even an appearance of it, but a studied
prohibition. A sacrifice, as has been well shown by the English au
thor Outram, implies the taking of life. His words are :
" Offerings which were put to death, divided, consumed,
were sacrifices in the vocabulary of the Jews  This
would exclude certain things sometimes called sacrifices;
for example, the bird used in cleansing the leper, the
scape-goat, &c."
Hence, not only was there no sacrifice, but there was
a studied negation of the idea. It is known that the
Egyptians offered such sacrifices to the Evil One, under
the name of Typhon, and that the practice was almost
universal. Now, by sacrificing the first goat to Jehovah,
and letting the second go alive, and both by casting lots,
i. e. an appeal to God, there was a direct contradiction
of the Gentile practice. It said, virtually, this sacrifice is
to God alone, and not at all to Satan. There is a relation
to Satan, but not a sacrifical one. Hence, in the next
chapter, it says, "And they shall no more offer their
sacrifices unto demons."
To this rite, then, we may attribute the disappearance
of all sacrifices to evil deities, as such, forever after in
Israel. They, indeed, worshipped idols, but always under
the theory of their representing the good, not the evil
power. It remains, then, to ask, what is the meaning symbol
ized, if this be the true view ? It is generally agreed that
the second goat represented Christ, bearing the sins of the
world. But what was denoted by sending him into the
wilderness ?
Matthew Henry says : " The slain goat was a type of
Christ dying for our sins, the scape-goat, a type of Christ
rising again for our resurrection." But he forgets that
the goat was so unclean that its touch rendered the man

70 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
by whom it was sent unclean, and necessitated a thorough
washing. Was Christ unclean in his resurrection? It
is said, 1 Timothy iii. 16, that he was "justified in the
Spirit"; and Romans iv. 25, "He was delivered for our
offences, but raised for our justification." Purity is the
grand idea associated with Christ's resurrection, and there
fore such a view of the type is manifestly impossible.
Others attempt an explanation by saying the scape-goat
" signifies the cleansing influence of faith in the sacrifice
of Christ"; that is, represents Christ as carrying be
lievers' sins away from them, out of sight forever.
But the difficulty with this is, that it represents Christ
himself as hidden from sight forever, just as much as their
sins; one is inseparable from the other. And it would
resolve itself into this, that the only method in which
believers can part with their sins, is by at the same time
parting with Christ forever.
Thus, the theory which makes Azazel a name of the
scape-goat labors here, and is reduced to extremities.
Compare, then, the other, and the interpretation it enables
us to give. What is meant by Azazel, considered as a
name of Satan, and what is the typical import of send
ing the goat to him ?
The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper name,
was stated, in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be
Powerful Apostate, or Mighty Receder. The import
of the transaction is thus stated by Faber, following
Witsius : —
" At the very commencement of the Bible it was fore
told that, although the promised seed of the woman shall
finally bruise the head of the serpent, yet the serpent
should first bruise his heel, or mortal part. If, then, the
serpent was to bruise his mortal part, that mortal part
must needs be delivered over to the power of the serpent ;
for of himself he could possess no superiority, even during

AZAZEL. 71
a single moment. Hence it will follow that Satan, bent
only on satiating his own malice, and unconscious that he
was actually subserving the Divine purposes of mercy,
was -the agent who, through his earthly tools, effected
the death of Messiah.
" Such being the Scriptural character of our Lord, it is
evident that no single type can perfectly exhibit it in both
its parts. The various bloody sacrifices of the law pre
figured it in one part, namely, that which respected the
atonement made with God for the sins of men ; but they
spoke nothing concerning its other part, namely, that
which related to the delivering up Messiah to the Ser
pent, with the permissive power of bruising his mortal
frame. " On this same part they were silent, and if it were at
all to be shadowed out under the ceremonial law, such
a purpose could only be effected by the introduction of
a new type, connected, indeed, with the usual sacrificial
type, but kept, nevertheless, studiously distinct from it.
A double type, in short, must be employed, if the char
acter of Christ, under its twofold aspect, was to be com
pletely prefigured.
" Now, the two goats, which are jointly denominated
a sin-offering, constitute a type of this identical descrip
tion. The two together present us with a perfect
symbolical delineation of our Lord's official character,
while he was accomplishing the great work of our re
demption. The goat which fell to the lot of Jehovah
was devoted as a sin-offering, after the manner of any
other sin-offering, by being piacularly slain  But the
goat which fell to the lot of Azazel was first imputatively
loaded with the sins of the whole people, and was then
symbolically given up to the rage of the Evil Spirit, by
being turned loose into the wilderness, which was deemed
his favorite terrestrial haunt.

72 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" This second type represented the Messiah, burdened
with the transgressions of all mankind, deserted for a
season by his Heavenly Father, and delivered unto the
hand of the Prince of Darkness, with a full permission
granted of mortally bruising his heel, or human nature."
We have omitted to mention the peculiar theory of
Professor Bush, who, regarding Azazel as a proper name
of Satan, considers the second goat as symbolizing the
Jewish nation, the unbelieving Israel, abandoned to the
power of the Devil.
To us, however, it is plain that the two goats are
one ; that they represent one and the same person in
different parts of his career; that the first exhibits the
relation of his humiliation to God; that the second ex
hibits the relation of his humiliation to Satan.
That his humiliation had relations to both, Scripture
emphatically teaches. It pleased the Lord to bruise him ;
and yet to the Serpent it was said, " Thou shalt bruise
his heel"; and, in Hebrews ii. :14, the object of his
incarnation is stated to be, " that through death he might
destroy him that had the power of death."
And here, we observe, there is a meaning in the em
blems that Faber failed to perceive. If the whole humili
ation of Christ was to be typified, that part of it must
be typified which lay between death and the resurrection.
" Christ's humiliation after death," we are taught, " con
sisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state
of the dead, and under the power of death, till the third
day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words,
' He descended into Hades.' " 1
But one goat could only bring the representation of
Christ's humiliation down to his death. The slain goat
could not reach that part of the humiliation which lay
beyond. For that the second goat was necessary, and
1 Larger Catechism, Q. 50.

AZAZEL. 73
by going out laden with sin in the wilderness, into a land
cut off, or, as the margin reads, a land " of separation,"
to Azazel, typifies, exactly, Christ entering Hades, the
separate state, and coming under " the power of death."
The only other instance in which this curious double
type appears is in the cleansing of a leper, and a house
contaminated with leprous contagion ; the leprosy being
the most striking image of sin. Two birds were taken ;
one was killed in an earthen vessel over running water,
the other dipped in the blood of the slain bird, and let go.
Thus the bird that flew away was identified with the bird
that was slain, and made to perform the part of one dead ;
thus typifying Christ after death. The bird flew away
into the desert outside the camp, where the goat was
let go.
A more striking image of the departed spirit of one
slain can scarcely be conceived than that flitting bird,
sprinkled with the blood of its fellow.
Do any object at finding the idea of Satan so prominent
in the focal centre of all sacrificial analogies ?
Why should it not be prominent, if to destroy him was
the very object of Christ's death ? " He was God's
chosen champion ; ordained to avenge the cause of God,
on man's behalf, against the enemy of God and the se
ducer of man. This latter conception of the office and
work of Christ is comprehensive of both the others, and
in it, accordingly, he was announced in the original threat
ening against the serpent  The fulfilment of this
primeval promise comprehends the entire work of the Son
of God." "
Would it not be strange, if in all the symbols of the
sacrificial system there were not a single intimation of
the serpent's existence? and where should we expect
to see his baleful shadow, if not here, on the great
i Elohim Revealed, p. 628.

74 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
day of atonement, when the subjection of the seed of
the woman to -the serpent's power of death was to be
most vividly, and minutely portrayed ?
Is there not a grand rebellion in the universe? Is
there not a great leader of that rebellion ? Is he not the
hfe and soul of that rebellion, which he instigated? Is
he not apostate from God? Is he not a receder, or
seceder, the prime Secessionist of the skies, and father
of all generations of vipers to the end of time ?
Where, if not in the tableau of the great day of
atonement, should the government and the arch-rebel
stand face to face, while lots are cast on Christ between
them? Unite the separate indications in due order, and
we have the following lesson taught by the emblems of
the great day of atonement : —
A rebellion exists. Lucifer revolts frorn his allegiance,
and makes war on the Divine government. Christ is
appointed to put down the rebellion. He makes this
world the battle-field. He assumes the form of a servant ;
enters the strong man's castle ; resists all his temptations ;
suffers death, and descends to Hades ; ascends to Heaven
" with his own blood " ; employs the facts respectmg his
own sufferings and death to produce effects upon the
mind of the universe ; and returns again in glory to those
who love his appearing.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE ANOINTED CHERUB.
" Thou aet the Anointed Cherub." — Ezek. xxviii. 14.
IN this address to the king of Tyre are several expres
sions too high for a merely mortal sovereign. Hence
the impression has extensively prevailed that the Holy
Spirit regarded the king of Tyre as a kind of image
of Satan, and in addressing him uttered things passing
beyond the emblem, and applying directly to the reality.
Such was the view of Augustine, Jerome, TertuUian,
Ambrose, and other early Fathers. Indeed, Fairbairn
remarks, "Most of the earlier commentators have sup
posed that verses 12 — 14 were not properly used of the
king of Tyre, but mystically of Satan."
At the same time, Fairbairn characterizes this as an
arbitrary mode of interpretation. Arbitrary or not,
however, it is a mode that has commended itself to the
mind of the Church for ages, as wellnigh self-evident.
As an illustration, let it be remembered that the title
Lucifer, now universally current as a proper appellative
of Satan, owes its application to him wholly to this method
applied to Isaiah xiv. 12, " How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! "
Why, then, is this method arbitrary ? If we are^ to
admit types at all, why not here ? If David was a type
of Christ, why not the king of Tyre a type of Satan ?
Are not the principles and spirit of the God of this world
embodied in the great Gentile monarchies, Egypt, Baby
lon, Tyre, Persia, Greece, Rome, as really as the spirit

76 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
and principles of Christ in Israel? If the deliverance
of Israel, at the exodus, is a type of the redemption
of the Church, is not the destruction of Pharaoh and his
hosts also a type of the final overthrow of Satan and his
kingdom ? How can one part of that sublime panorama
be symbolic, and not the other?
That the king of Babylon must be a type of Satan,
one would think almost self-evident, if we glance at the
Apocalypse, and the contrasted use of Babylon and Je
rusalem. If Jerusalem be a type of the true Church,
and Babylon of the false, and if David be the type of
Christ, then how can the king of Babylon but be the type
of Satan ? And if David says things apparently of him
self, which we are told he spake of Christ, why should
it be deemed arbitrary to say that he addresses to the
king of Babylon, or of Tyre, words piercmg through the
veil of flesh to the invisible reality behind ?
So far from being arbitrary, especially in a chapter like
this, replete with imagery too lofty for any being of mere
mortal mould, it appears natural, in the highest degree,
to admit such reference. Let us endeavor, then, to set
forth the substance of Scripture teaching in respect to
the original angelic empire, and of that exalted being
here addressed as the Anointed Cherub.
The creation of the angels was ancient. "Who laid
the corner-stone thereof [the earth], when the morning
stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for
j°y'" (Job xxxviii. 7.) The sons of God and morning
stars here mentioned are the angels already in being,
and witnesses of the sublime creative work. Vast as the
periods of time science indicates to have rolled away since
the primary strata of the globe were formed, they are
but a part of the age of those immortal hosts, ever young,
who blazed and flashed around God's throne before this
world began.

THE ANOINTED CHERUB. 77
The angels are also numerous. The heavenly empire
is vast. The universe is an ocean of many waters, com
pared to which earth's myriads are as drops of the buck
et. "Ye are come," says the Apostle, "unto .... an
innumerable company of angels." When in the garden
Peter offered to defend his Master, " Thinkest thou,"
said Jesus, " I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall
presently give me more than twelve legions of angels ? "
If twelve legions be thus easily spoken of, as a mere
escort, or body-guard, what must be the grand army of
the skies ? It must be even as John, in the Revelation,
says, " Ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands
of thousands."
The angels are beautiful. They are called "glories,"
"gods," "sons of God," "morning stars." And when
ever their appearance is described, it is in terms of
surpassing loveliness and overpowering splendor. An
angel descends, and the whole earth is lightened with
his glory ; another darts from the sky like a falling star.
" Since we are told," says a recent English writer,
" that there is a spiritual body, the Scripture, in calling
angels spirits, does not assert that the angelic nature is
incorporeal. The contrary seems expressly implied by
the words in which our Lord declares, that after the
resurrection men shall be like the angels, because, as
is elsewhere said, their bodies, as well as their spirits, shall
have been made entirely like his. It may be noticed,
also, that the glorious appearance ascribed to angels in
Scripture is the same as that which shone out in our
Lord's transfiguration, and, moreover, that whenever
angels have been manifest to man, it has always been
in human form. The very fact that the titles ' sons
of God,' 'gods,' applied to them, are also given to men,
points, in the same way, to a difference only of degree,
and an identity of kind, between the human and the
angelic nature."

78 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
This was the constant belief of the ancient Christian
Church for a thousand years, as it had been of the Jewish
Church from the beginning. " We ought to believe,"
says Augustine, that the angels have bodies most ethe
real and luminous, such as ours will be hereafter." John
of Thessalonica says : " The Church universal considers
angels as not totally incorporeal and invisible, but as of
subtle forms, aerial and igneous." " And who will pre
sume," says Robert Hall, "to set limits to the creative
power in the organization of matter, or affirm that it is
not, in the hand of its Author, susceptible of a refinement
which shall completely exclude it from the notice of our
senses." Accordingly, Milton represents Raphael as
saying : — " What surmounts the reach
Of human sense, I shall delineate so,
By likening spiritual to corporeal forms,
As may express them best ; though what if earth
Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein,
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought."
How striking, then, the expression of the Prophet, con
sidered as applied to one of the angelic world : " Thou
sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty !
Every precious stone was thy covering, sardius, topaz,
diamond, sapphire, emerald, carbuncle, and gold ; . . . .
thou art the Anointed Cherub that covereth, and I have
set thee so, thou wast upon the holy mountain of God,
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones
of fire."
In these words indistinct images of splendor, and ex
quisite beauty and glory, are presented to the mind, pow
erfully appealing to the imagination. How inconceivably
bright and beautiful must an innumerable . company of
such creatures be, ten thousand times ten thousand, and
thousands of thousands !

THE ANOINTED CHERUB. 79
The angels are powerful. We find such expressions
as "mighty angels," "angels that excel in strength,"
"angels greater in power and might." One angel, in
the Apocalypse, has power over fire, another over the
winds. Angel after angel, by the blast of a trumpet, or
the pourmg a phial, modifies all the world's affairs. An
angel, of old, slew 180,000 Assyrians in a night. God
gives Satan permission to afflict Job, and presently we
see Sabeans, Chaldeans, lightning, whirlwind, disease, and
death hurled, with amazing rapidity, one after another,
by an unseen hand. As to power of a higher kind, the
power of mind, scientific control, organization, moral in
fluence, it is, like the other, vast.
Dr. South speaks of angels as the top of creation, lively
and bright resemblances of Deity, and says, " It would
nonplus the tongue of angels themselves to express the
greatness of their obligation " to God for giving them
" a knowledge that dives into the recesses of nature, and
spies out all the secret workings of second causes by
a certain and immediate view." Now, if we consider
the native capacity of angels, and remember that they
never tire, but day without night, age after age, inces
santly flash forward in the path of intense activity, what
must be now their amazing intellectual strength ?
Although the modern mind has almost lost the thought,
angels exist in highly organized forms of society ; with
different orders and grades. Daniel calls Michael one
of the chief princes, from whence the Greek term arch
angel. St. Paul recognizes the title, by saying that the
trump of the archangel shall sound to wake the dead.
He also frequently alludes to differences of rank, though
without specific information respecting them. Thus,
Romans viii. 38, "angels, principalities, and powers";
1 Cor. xv. 24, " rule, authority, and power " ; Eph. i.
21, " principality, and power, and might, and dominion " ;

80 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
iii. 10, " principalities and powers " ; vi. 12, " principalities
and powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world " •
Col. i. 16, " thrones, dominions, principalities, and pow
ers"; ii. 15, " principalities and powers"; 1 Peter iii.
21, "angels, authorities, and powers."
These terms, Dr. Dwight remarks, " denote that they
sit on thrones, exercise dominion, hold authority, preside
in government, and are invested with power."
In every government, he argues, there must be public
officers, numerous in proportion to the greatness of that
government. In a town few, in a province more, in an
empire like Rome, an immense number, in a world, a
still more immense, and in the universe of God, a number
and variety inconceivable.
Indeed, the Scripture speaks of the heavenly hosts as
an immense army, and of God as the Lord of Sabaoth.
And Milton, in the closest keeping with all Scripture
intimations, thus describes the convocation of the celes
tial myriads: — " Th' empyreal host
Of angels, by imperial summons called
Innumerable before the Almighty's throne,
Forthwith from all the ends of heaven appeared
Under their hierarchs, in orders bright
Ten thousand thousand ensigns, high advanced,
Stream in the air, and for distinction serve
Of hierarchies, orders, and degrees,

Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers."
But, to complete the view, this sublime and complex
organization seems to have been united under one chief
spirit, of superior dignity and station, as the creature
head, and visible representative of the invisible deity.
This was the best way conceivable in which the universe
could be organized and arranged ; and to this all the in-

THE ANOINTED CHERUB. 81
dications of Scripture point. "Thou art the Anointed
Cherub that covereth, and I have set thee so ; thou wast
upon the holy mount of God." This is the proper lan
guage to denote a coronation. It is strikingly similar
to that in Ps. ii., uttered in respect to Messiah, "Yet
have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." The
Anointed Cherub is similarly addressed, as having been
originally set upon the holy mount of God. He was set,
or seated upon a throne, and anointed, as the creature
head and regent of the angelic universe.
The cherub is the most exalted of all kno-wn emblems,
nearest the throne of Jehovah, most vitally connected
with his majesty, and identified with his administration.
'That such was the exalted station originally held by
Lucifer may be considered the established belief. Mil
ton, a careful student of the theology of his own and '
preceding ages, speaks of Lucifer, as
"Of the first,
If not the first arcliangel, great in power,
In favor, and pre-eminence."
President Edwards observes, " Lucifer, before his fall,
was the morning star, the covering cherub, the highest
and brightest of all creatures."
Dr. Hopkins speaks of him as one " who was at the
head of all the angels, and the most noble creature God
had made." And Dr. Dwight calls him " an angel of
pre-eminent distinction in heaven."
It is scarcely necessary to add, that the angels were
all originally holy. " Thou wast perfect in thy ways,
from the day thou wast created, till iniquity was found
in thee." On which Augustine remarks, that the Devil
" must have performed many excellent things in that state
of existence he had before he sinned."
It is possible for God to create minds in such a state
4* F

82 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
that they will freely and spontaneously begin by loving
him supremely and each other impartially. There is no
conceivable reason why, if God create minds at all, he
could not create them so that goodness would be natural
and instinctive. On the contrary, this is the very way
in which we should think infinite Wisdom could, and
infinite Love would, create all his creatures.
The angels were, in fact, so created that they did
begin by loving one another impartially and God su
premely. They were lovely and loving one another.
They were tenderly attached to God, and prompt to do
his pleasure.
Such was the holy, happy universe, in its first estate,
ere the foundations of the world were laid, or time began.
Far back in the mysterious ages of eternity, far beyond
our computation, though not beyond that of God, that
glorious empire stood, and for ages was the scene of spot
less purity and happiness. God over all, and in all, his
creatures countless as the sand on the sea-shore, or the
stars of heaven, arranged in ascending orders and grades,
and culminating in one superb and immaculate creature,
himself, headed up in God ! If such was the original
condition of the universe, the question arises, how sin
could possibly enter. Some minds have felt the difficulty
so strongly upon this point, that they have rejected the
Bible account of the matter, and denied the existence
of any such sinless state of the universe. But the answer
to the question is simple. Sin is, in its own nature,
anomalous, and therefore mysterious; it is, in its own
nature, an unaccountable thing. For the moment we
admit that it .is properly accounted for, i. e. the moment
we have assigned a good and sufficient cause for it, that
moment it ceases to be sin. A good and sufficient cause
is a good and sufficient excuse, and that which has a good
and sufficient excuse is not sin. To account for sin,

THE ANOINTED CHERUB. 83
therefore, is to defend it, and to defend it is to certify
that it is not sin.
Therefore the objection, that it is inconceivable and
unaccountable that sin should enter in such a perfect
universe, amounts to nothing but saying, that sin is ex
ceeding sinful, inexcusable, and destitute of the least de
fence or justification. Sin is a violation of all law, a
departure from all original nature, a thing essentially
lawless, anomalous, and mysterious. We can identify
the fact of its existence. We can describe the manner,
we can discover the occasion, but the cause, the good
and sufficient cause, God himself, and the judgment-seat,
will demonstrate cannot be shown, for it does not exist.
It will be the final and eternal condemnation of the
Devil and his angels, and all identified with them, that,
when the Judge demands, Why have ye done thus ? what
reason can you assign ? what cause can you specify ?
every mouth will be stopped, and the whole world of re
bellion stand speechless before God. The place, how
ever, where sin entered we are enabled to point out.
" Thou wast perfect in thy ways, till iniquity was found
in thee." Sin entered by the defection of one individual.
That individual was at the head, not at the foot. Sin
is of patrician rank, not plebeian. Sin is of celestial
growth, not terrestrial. Sin is of spiritual nature, not
material. It is neither the product of a material organi
zation like ours, nor the blundering mistake of a low
grade of undeveloped intelligences. Above all things, sin
was not a nature, nor the development of a nature, but
the exact contrary ; it was the utter revefsal and. repeal
and abuse of a nature. It supervened in spite of the
highest and purest nature ever created.
We are informed, however, of the occasion and man
ner of the change. " Thine heart was lifted up by rea
son of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by
reason of thy brightness."

84 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
God surely was not chargeable with being the cause
of sin, by making the covering cherub as good and
noble and beautiful and like himself as he could. The
creature was alone in fault for the change. If we think
that God should have made minds so that beauty and
power and glory could not afford occasion for vanity
and pride, the answer is, that such minds would be
oysters, not angels. Would we have God reign over
snails and muscles and zoophytes ?
But the prophet goes still further. " By the multi
tude of thy merchandise they haye filled the midst of
thee with violence, and thou hast sinned  Thou
hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine
iniquities .... the iniquities of thy traffic." Here traffic
is the emblem of corrupt spiritual administration. The
corruptions of the visible Church, or spiritual Babylon,
are described in Revelation xviii., in language borrowed
from the chapter before this, describing the commerce
of Tyre. - It denotes the use of spiritual offices and
functions for selfish purposes, instead of for the good
of others and the glory of God.
Now it is in this way that all earthly empires and
churches have been and are corrupted. It is by these
principles Lucifer deceives and corrupts the whole world
from the beginning, and in so doing he only continues
what he originally begun. He has not introduced a
new kind of sin into this world, he has not set up a
new kind of empire of darkness ; it is the same sort of
sin, and the- same realm of darkness, energized in and
ruled by the same laws and principles. Instead of pre
siding over that extensive celestial realm with generous
self-sacrifice and unselfish care for the good of others,
he began, by degrees, to consult his own honor and priv
ilege and aggrandizement. He used his subjects for him
self, instead of giving himself for his subjects.

THE ANOINTED CHERUB. 85
This corrupted his administration. It corrupted him,
and corrupted his associates, and corrupted his inferiors.
It corrupted them on the same philosophical principles
that churches and states are corrupted continually in
this world before our eyes. We see and know by sad
experience the carrying out and continuation of that he
then and there begun.
It is of great importance to obtain a full knowledge of
the original heavenly empire. If Christ died to destroy
the works of the Devil, it is desirable to know what his
works are, and what the nature of his power that de
manded such an infinite sacrifice. The bearing of this
subject upon the theory of atonement is evident. Jen-
kyn lays it down as the first object of the atonement to
" vindicate the Divine decrees from having been accessory
to the intrusion of sji  The revolters against the
Divine government are loath to ascribe their disaffection
entirely to themselves  But the atonement shows
that God was in no wise accessory, either by secret decree,
by arbitrary withdrawment of influences, nor by any de
ficiency of government."
But if the atonement is to show this, it presupposes that
we understand the facts and principles on which sin actu
ally did enter. But to understand these, it is necessary
to understand what preceded sin, — how the angels were
created, how organized and subordinated, how privileged
and blessed, how under the headship of one sublime crea
ture, and how, therefore, sin came in the most causeless
place conceivable, — the place where God can be seen to
be at an infinite remove from being its author.
Suspending here for a moment the onward movement
of investigation, let us remark how vividly this subject
exhibits the glory of Christ.
It is a great thing to make a mind, to create a creature,
especially such a lofty creature as an angel. If a single

86 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
soul is of more value than a world, a single angel is also ;
and if so, to make one is greater than to make a world.
It was a good thing, too, to give being to one capable
of such high functions and enjoyments forever. And it
was good and great, still more, to create myriads of them,
— whole galaxies, boundless constellations. O what a
sublime grandeur does it show to be the author of such
a heavenly family !
The Lord Jesus Christ is that author. He created
every angel that ever flamed and sparkled on the holy
mountain of God. Moreover, he could not have made
them better. There is nothing better than best. There
is no way of constructing a mind better than in the Divine
image, where every faculty was a faculty of the Divine
mind, and where the proportion of those faculties is the
same proportion as in the Divine original. Infinite Good
ness can do no better than to produce finite counterparts,
fae-similes of itself. Nor could he place them better than
in heaven, nor arrange them better than iri ascending
series, — thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, —
the covering cherub over all, bearing on viewless wing
the throne of Jehovah.
He who impeaches the goodness of that first creation
must contend that to make them worse were better ; that
less degrees of wisdom were wiser, fainter copies of Deity
more divine, which is absurd.
If now the Lord Jesus Christ made all the glorious
angels, how glorious must he be himself ! If, as God, he
formed and fashioned their loveliness, and if in his hu
manity he is now exalted far above all principality and
power, how ineffable must the glory of the God-man be !
Uniting in himself the qualities of infinite and finite, pre
senting in the same person all excellences, derived and
underived, how unspeakable must be his glory !
Imagine the purity of a single angel, the most obscure

THE ANOINTED CHERUB. 87
of the upper empyrean, — the least exalted, least intellec
tual, least intensely holy, — and let him enter this dark
world, how should we fall prostrate, unable to sustain
the vision !
But go up, then, far above him, rank after rank, throne
after throne, through all the heavens, to where Jesus
sits, principalities and powers being made subject to him,
and what can imagination conceive of him ? But great
as he is, he died for us. His blood was our ransom, his
death our life ; in him we rise, his glory we share, and
on his throne we sit for ever and ever !
May God strengthen us in the inner man, to be able
with all saints to comprehend the breadth and length and
depth and height, and to know the love of Christ that
passeth knowledge, and be filled with all the fulness of
God.

CHAPTER IX.

SON OF GOD.

" But unto the Son he saith, ' Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and
ever.'" — Heb. i. 8.
THE angels are repeatedly called sons of God. Christ
is, however, Son of God in a higher sense, applica
ble to him alone. This is his highest title ; and is ap
plied to him in the New Testament more than a hundred
times, in such ways that the most casual reader must see
that it is a title of sublime import. It is proposed to
show, —
1. That this title implies Deity in the person.
2. That it was possessed antecedent to the incarnation.
That the Son of God is a Divine title is shown by more
passages than could be easily adduced in a brief chapter.
John prefaces his Gospel with a statement concerning
the Word. The Word was with God, and was God, and
the Word was made flesh, and we saw his glory, as of
the only begotten of the Father. Now this term, "the
Word," was brought into use among the Jews by the
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures wliich became ne
cessary after their return from Babylon. That translation,
called the Chaldee paraphrase, occupied nearly the same
place our English version does to us ; and in that para
phrase, in numerous instances, the name Jehovah was
translated Word of Jehovah, of which a single instance
may suffice. Gen. iii. 8, "And they heard the voice of
the Lord God walking in the garden." Chaldee para
phrase : " And they heard the voice of the Word of the
Lord walking in the garden."

SON OF GOD. 89
Now John takes this name of Jehovah in the popular
version of the Scriptures, and says, the Word made flesh
is the only begotten of the Father. Can we be blamed
for thinking that Son of God is a Divine title ? And is not
this the reason why, when Peter confessed it, Jesus said,
" Blessed art thou, Simon ; flesh and blood hath not re
vealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven " ?
When the Jews accused Christ of breaking the Sab
bath, by healing the impotent man, he replied, " My
Father worketh hitherto, and I work." And his hear
ers understood him to mean that God was his own
father, his as no person's else. They instantly accused
him of blasphemy, because, being a man, he made him
self equal with God. What could more clearly show
that, in their use of language, Son of God was a Divine
title, and that to claim it was to claim Divine honors?
It has been said that Jesus, in his reply, disclaimed any
such idea. On the contrary, he pointedly reaffirmed
it. If the Scripture called men gods who are not Di
vine, is it blasphemy to call me God who am Divine ?
is the logic of the passage ; and the fact that they again
attempted to stone him confirms it. Hence, in John ix.
35, we find worship paid to that title. Christ had healed
a blind man. Afterwards, meeting him, he said, " Dost
thou believe on the Son of God?" He asked, "Who is
he, Lord ? " Christ replied that it was himself, and the
man said, "Lord, I believe," and worshipped him. He
understood the title to be Divine ; and Christ, by not re
buking his worship, sanctioned that idea. This is shown
clearly, also, by the point on which Christ's trial and sen
tence turned. Said the high-priest, "I adjure thee by
God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the
Son of the living God."
"I am," was the direct reply. At which the council
unanimously voted him worthy of death for blasphemy.

90 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
And at a subsequent stage of the proceeding they said,
" We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because
he said, I am the Son of God."
Does, then, the law of Moses say a man claiming that
title shall die? It does not. But there is a statute that
whoever draws away the people to worship any other
God than Jehovah shall be put to death. And to this
they referred. In saying " I am the Son of God," they
understood him as claiming Divine honors, and as they did
not concede that claim, they passed sentence of death.
Now Jesus knew how they understood it; and if they had
been mistaken in thinking he claimed Divine honors, he
would have told them. But he did not. Either, there
fore, he was Divine, or how can we blame them for what
they did? Accordingly, we find that his resurrection
to the right hand is viewed in Scripture as a justification
of his claim to that title, as now understood. 1 Tim. iii.
16 : " God was manifest in the flesh, .... justified in the
spirit." God justified ! And how, except that the Son
of God, in his spiritual, glorious existence after the resur
rection, was justified in his claims in that respect ? Hence
St. Paul (Romans i. 4) says he was declared " to be the
Son of God with power," by his resurrection.
Therefore it is that the earliest confession of faith con
tained the one all-comprehending article : " I believe that
Jesus is the Son of God." And therefore it is not strange
it should be written, " He that believeth not on the Son
shall not see life " ; and again, " Whosoever shall confess
that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and
he in God " ; and again, " that all men should honor the
Son even as they honor the Father." These and similar
sayings, inexplicable on any other hypothesis, are plain
and powerful when we know assuredly that the Son of
God is Divine.
It is objected, that many things are said of the Son

SON OF GOD. 91
of God that imply limitation ; and we cheerfully concede
that Jesus was truly man, as especially denoted by his
other great title, Son of Man. All such intimations are
to be accounted for by the fact of a union of two natures,
Divine and human, in one person, to which at present we
can only refer, and pass on to show that the title Son of
God belonged to Christ before his incarnation.
And here the fact of the ancient belief of the doctrine
of eternal generation is entitled to some weight. It seems
impossible that the Church, for so many ages, should
have believed in a sonship antedating this world, and
that they should have dwelt upon it so much, and felt
such a vivid interest in it, and made it of so much im
portance, and yet there be no element of truth contained
in it. It does seem at least probable that the title Son of
God belonged to Christ before, and independently of his
being made flesh. Then consider such expressions as
1 John iv. 9, 10: "In this was manifested the love of
God, because that God sent his only begotten Son into
the world." John iii. 16 : " God so loved the world that
be gave his only begotten Son." " Do not these words,"
asks Dr. Hopkins, " seem to express the idea that there
existed a son, an only begotten son, antecedent to his
being sent, or given? Must he not have had a son to
give, to send?"
Compare, too, 1 Tim. iii. 16, " God was manifested in
the flesh," with 1 John iii. 8, "The Son of God was
manifested"; and as the former obviously implies that
God existed before his manifestation, so must not the latter
imply that the Son of God existed previous to his mani
festation ? And when, in Psalm ii., Messiah is represented
as saying, "I will declare the decree the Lord hath said
unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,"
is it not the most natural idea, that the son was then exist
ing, and did declare the decree by the mouth of David?

92 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
And that previously to such declaration the Lord had said
unto him, " Thou art my Son " ?
Add to this, that the title Christ and the title Son are
evidently inseparable. Thus Peter : " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God." So the high-priest : " If thou
be the Christ, the Son of the living God." The titles are
plainly contemporaneous in origin. But the title Christ,
beyond dispute, did not originate in this world. Neither
as priest nor as king did Jesus, in the days of his flesh,
receive anointing. Yet he was the Christ. He was
anointed and appointed before this world ; and therefore
he was Son of God as anciently as that. If it be objected,
that the angel at the annunciation, after predicting his
miraculous conception, said, " Therefore, also, that holy
thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
of God," the reply is, that those words may be appropri
ately understood to mean that he shall be proved to be
the Son of God by such miraculous birth. Such portent
should be the proof of his previous sonship and anointing,
not its cause.
And if it be objected again, that, in Acts xiii. 33, St.
Paul refers his sonship to his resurrection, — " God hath
fulfilled the promise, in that he hath raised up Jesus, as
it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee," — the answer is the same. Paul
cites his primogeniture in the resurrection as proof that he
was that Son, anointed before in heaven, who spake, in
Psalm ii., by the mouth of David. He sufficiently ex
plains his meaning in Romans i. 4 : " Declared to be the
Son of God with power by the resurrection." That is,
established and actually enthroned in full power as heir
of all things to the Father.
Before his humiliation, he was heir apparent, anointed
and appointed, but riot yet crowned ; after his humiliation,
he is heir in possession, both anointed and crowned, God

SON OF GOD. 93
over all blessed forevermore. His title anointed Son
of God, the fact that God had appointed him heir of
all things, though not officially declared, was widely un
derstood through all the realms of spiritual existence, be
fore ever he trod this world, a man of sorrows. Therefore
time after time we see demons at his approach begin to
tremble, and say, " Yes, I know thee who thou art, Jesus,
thou Son of God most high " ; and to plead with him
not to torment them before the time. Therefore, too,
the temptation in the wilderness strikes on that key, "if
thou be the Son of God." Everything, from first to last,
coincides to show that that title Son of God was a title
brought from higher worlds, a title of tremendous import
in those mighty realms, on which some great issues were
suspended. And here let us pause awhile and reflect upon the im
portance of this sublime theme. To us to-day comes the
impressive question of Jesus, "Dost thou believe on the
Son of God?" This inquiry, in its deep spiritual import,
is of the last importance. It is not whether we admit it
speculatively, but whether we believe with all the heart.
A man may accept this as an article of faith, very much
as he would gather a flower and press it in a book, and
keep it pale, faded, lifeless. But to believe on the Son
of God, so as to have God dwell in the soul, and the soul
in God, is a higher thing than that. The man whom
Christ had healed said, " Lord, I believe," and worshipped
him. Can we worship the Son of God? Or are there
some speculative doubts, some unbeliefs, or some chilly
philosophizings, that disable worship ? It is not alone in
ancient times that temptation strikes at the Son of God
with an if. It is the chief point of attack in all modern
scepticism and unsettlement of mind. Happy are they
who with unwavering faith can kneel with Nathanael and
say, " Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of
Israel " ; and with Thomas, " My Lord and my God."

94 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
And sad and sorrowful the sight of those who hesitate,
who falter, who deny, who cannot bow the knee, nor
honor the Son as they honor the Father ! Sad and sor
rowful indeed to see men thus virtually siding with his
judges, and saying, "He hath spoken blasphemy, he is
worthy of death." O Spirit of God, open their eyes !
As at the prophet's prayer thou didst unseal the eyes of
Gehazi to see angels around, unseal their eyes to see Him
whom angels adore, that they may say, Of a truth, this is
the Son of God 1

CHAPTER X.
ONLY BEGOTTEN.
" This day have I begotten thee." — Psalms ii. 7,
IT is an opmion entertained by some that God was in
visible to angelic eyes, and that to become visible he
must provide himself with created organs of manifesta
tion. "None can see the Father immediately," observes
President Edwards. " Christ is the image of the invisible
God, by which he is seen by all elect creatures. None
has ever immediately seen the Father but the Son, and
none else sees the Father any other way than by the Son's
revealing him."
The question arises, then, as to the nature of the Son
before his incarnation, whether it was simple or com
plex, — Divine only or Divine-human. By what organ
or organs did the Son reveal God to celestial beings ?
Why was the Son less invisible to celestial eyes than the
Father? Our answer is, that the person of the Son was al
ready complex before the incarnation. We mean, that
the union of the Divine and human natures had already
taken place before the Word was made flesh. The
second person of the Trinity assumed a creature into
personal union with himself, as his organ of manifestation.
That creature was not an angel (Heb. ii. 16), but a glo
rious humanity, spiritual, incorruptible, such as ours will
be in the resurrection. It is also conceived, that to unite
eternally in one conscious personality two natures, infinite
and finite, required an exertion of Omnipotence, by the

96 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
first person of the Trinity upon the second person, in con
sequence of which the complex person resulting might
figuratively be termed Son, and be said to be begotten on
the day when that union was consummated.
That such was in fact the complex character of the Son
before incarnation, and such the figurative nature of his
generation, we now proceed to prove.
It has been shown that the title " Son of God " was
possessed by Christ before his incarnation. We now re
mark, that he was not begotten from eternity, or by what
is called an eternal generation ; but at a definite point in
past duration, when it was said, " This day have I begot-*
ten thee."
It has been said that " this day " means from eternity,
because to God there is no succession, but all eternity is
one eternal now. But this is impossible. The judgment-
day is not to God already present. Nor with him, any
more than with us, has one single event of to-morrow actu
ally come to pass. He is as certain of them as if they
were present, but they are not present. Neither is God
now creating the world. Nor to his mind is Noah now in
the ark, and the flood covering the earth. Therefore,
when the Son, in David's time, said, " The Lord hath said
unto me, ' This day have I begotten thee,' " he referred
to a particular day in time then past.
It is urged that, in Prov. viii. 22, 23, Christ, under the
name of Wisdom, says, " I was set up from everlasting."
But the mountains are often called everlasting. And the
connection shows that the Son was set up from everlasting
in the same sense, that is, before the creation of this world,
which science shows was a kind of eternity.
Moreover, if the Son, as God, be derived or begotten,
he is neither self-existent nor independent. But can the
human mind conceive a being to be truly God who is
neither self-existent nor independent ? If the Son have

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 97
not these attributes, he is a secondary and subordinate God,
and nothing more. " I will not aver," says Professor
Stuart, " that those are Arians, and deny the divinity of
Christ, who believe this, but I must say that I could make
no serious objection to the system of Arius if I believed
this. The whole dispute between Arius and the Church
turned on the difference between being begotten and
being made." With Professor Stuart the majority of
New England minds sympathize. Nor can the defenders
of an eternal generation offer any reply. They either
strip the words of all meanmg, or boldly command us to
believe a contradiction.
A specimen of the former is given by Dr. Hopkins :
" Eternal generation is infinitely above anything that re
lates to natural generation, and does not include any
beginning, change, dependence, or inferiority." It is " an
incomprehensible mystery, infinitely beyond our compre
hension." But this in plain English amounts to saying
that it is no generation at all. It is a generation in no
intelligible or conceivable sense of that word. And if so,
it might be called marriage, or divorce, or anything else,
just as well as generation.
A specimen of intrepid belief of contradiction is given
by Dr. Baird in his " Elohim Revealed," as follows : " The
one infinite nature is communicated from the Father to
the Son, in a generation not voluntary, but of the very
nature of the Divine essence : a generation which is not
occasional, but continual, which does not originate, but is
from everlasting to everlasting, and in which each of
those blessed persons possesses the whole infinite fulness
of the Divine essence, — not jointly, but in common and
undivided." To us this is as much a contradiction as to say that God
is and is not at the same time ; that he had no beginning,
and yet created himself; that his existence was necessary,
5 G

98 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
and yet purely voluntary ; that his attributes are eternal,
and yet that he created himself according to a preconceived
plan. We protest against abusing language thus. Language
was made to express thought, not to utter contradictions.
The doctrine of an eternal generation being thus inca
pable of rational statement and defence, and it having
been proved that the title Son of God was possessed by
Christ before incarnation, it follows that he was begotten
at a particular point in past duration, which other scrip
tures fix before the foundation of this world.
Then, on " that day " the Christ, the Son of God, the
God-man, came into existence. Then as a complex person
he was born. Before that there had been God, and there
had been man ; but now, first and only, there was a God-
man, — first begotten and only begotten of the Father.
In support of this, we appeal further to 1 Cor. xv. 47 :
" The first man is of the earth, earthy, the second man is
from heaven." On this Alford remarks, following De
Wette : " From heaven, in his whole personality, as the
God-man." Olshausen says it denotes the place of origin
of the spiritual and glorious body. As Adam's natural
body was from the earth, so Christ's spiritual body was
from heaven.
This is the most obvious and natural sense, which is
to be preferred, unless strong reasons exist for allowing a
secondary meaning. That it cannot be referred to the
Divine nature of Christ is plain. For that would represent
the contrast drawn by the Apostle as follows : " The first
man was of the earth, earthy, the second man, so far as he
was man, was of the earth also, and only so far as he was
not man, from heaven."
The next passage is John iii. 13 : " And no man hath
ascended up into heaven but He that came down from
heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." This
verse was not spoken by Jesus to Nicodemus, but by the

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 99
Holy Spirit through John. This is plain from its men
tioning the ascension as already past. At the time of the
conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus had not ascended up
to heaven, for he said to Mary even after his resurrection,
" I am not yet ascended." But at the time John wrote
his Gospel, it was proper to speak of the Son of Man as
having ascended to heaven, and being in heaven. But
observe, that same Son of Man which had ascended
up to heaven in John's sight the Holy Spirit here de
clares came down from heaven.
Moreover, it is an established principle that the title
Son of Man relates to the humanity of Christ. Thus Dr.
Emmons : " By this phrase he always meant his human
ity." So Dr. Hopkins: The term Son of Man is "used
with respect to the human nature as united to the Divine."
Dr. Knapp says, " The more proper meaning of the
phrase Son of Man is the son of Adam, and in whatever
way it is used, it clearly denotes the humanity of Christ."
But there is a third passage quite as pointed. In John
vi. 62 Christ says, " What and if ye shall see the Son
of Man ascend up where he was before ? " Before this,
in verse 33, he had said, " The bread of God is He that
cometh down from heaven " ; and in verse 38, "I came
down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will
of Him that sent me " ; thus indicating a subordination
of will before coming from heaven, — a subordination that
included the act of coming itself, as one sent. Verse 41 :
" I am the bread of life that came down from heaven."
Verse 50 : " This is the bread that cometh down from
heaven." Verse 51 : "I am the living bread that cometh
down from heaven, .... and the bread that I will give
is my flesh." Christ here declares repeatedly that his
humanity came from heaven, closing with the significant
question, " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man as
cend up where he was before? "

100 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
But there is one more passage equally direct, namely,
Eph. iv. 9, 10 : " Now that he ascended, what is it but
that he also descended first into the lower parts of the
earth. He that descended is the same also that ascended
«p far above all heavens." Now it is certainly the plainest
and most obvious sense to say, that the God-man who de
scended was the same God-man who ascended. More?
over, the evangelical mind has in fact debarred itself from
making the only answer that it would be likely to make,
namely, that these passages were to be interpreted, not of
the human, but of the Divine nature. It has taught that
the Divine nature did not descend nor ascend, nor expe
rience any change whatever, — in fact, that such a thing
was impossible.
Thus Dr. Hopkins says, " The incarnation does not
imply any change in him, for as God he is unchange
able." The incarnation, he says, was " no part of bis
humiliation." So Dr. Knapp declares, as the universally
recognized principle of theology, that " it is not proper to
say that the eternal Son of God left heaven, surrendered
or renounced his glory, and condescended to suffering.
The idea is inconsistent with the Divine glory." Accord
ing to this, it is a principle absolutely certain, that in these
four passages it is the human nature only which is said to
come down from heaven. It is not proper, according to
Dr. Knapp, to say that it was anything else.
Nearly if not quite as direct are the words of Christ in
the sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of John. " And
now I go my way unto Him that sent me  The Father
himself loveth you because ye have loved me, and have
believed that I came out from God  I came forth
jfrom the Father, and am come into the world ; again, I
leave the world and go to the Father  And now, O
.Father, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was  For thou lovedst me

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 101
before the foundation of the world." Now it cannot be
said that only the Divine nature speaks. The Divine
nature, according to the principle above stated, cannot
experience any diminution of glory, or change of any kind.
It must be, therefore, on orthodox grounds, the human
spirit that speaks of a glory and a love of the Father
before the foundation of the world.
We next refer to Hebrews i. 3, compared with 2 Co
rinthians iv. 4 and Colossians i. 15.
In the former, Christ before his incarnation is spoken
of as " being the brightness of the Father's glory, and ex
press image of his person," — terms implying infinite and!
finite natures conjoined, since without a created nature?
there could be no image or reflection, and without an infi
nite nature the image and reflection could not be adequate.
In the parallel passages Christ, before his incarnation, is
called " the image of the invisible God," an expression
concerning which the same remarks may be made. The
God-man, before being made flesh, was the image of the
Invisible. And of him it might be said, without derogar
tion from his Deity on the one hand or his essential hu
manity on the other, that he was appointed heir of all
things, and that by him God made the worlds. In virtue
of his celestial humanity, he could be appointed heir. In
virtue of his Deity he could create worlds.
The argument is completed by a reference to the the-
ophanies of the Old Testament. A glorious being, in
repeated instances, appeared to the patriarchs, -who was
called Jehovah, and at the same time was called man.
For instance, Genesis xviii., it says, " Jehovah appeared
unto Abraham, .... and he lifted up his eyes and looked,
and lo, three men' stood at the door of his tent." And lest
it should be objected that they were mere appearances,
and not real men, the Holy Spirit goes on to relate the
washing of their feet, and their eating and drinking.

102 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Now it is interesting to notice that the being who here
appeared, gave to Abraham the same evidence ofhis per
sonal identity as a man that he gave his disciples after
his resurrection. " Handle me," he said, " and see, for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." And
he said, " Have ye here any meat ? . . . . And he did eat
before them." Now, if these signs proved that it was no
mere phantom, or optical illusion, after the resurrection,
they proved the same before. Abraham handled Christ
in washing his feet, and Christ ate before him.
Here let us call to mind what Jesus once said of the
patriarch : " Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he
saw it and was glad." Abraham saw his day by seeing
a specimen of it. He saw the God-man on earth, and
saw him eat and drink, just as the disciples did, and talked
with him as they did. That was, in a sense, "seeing his
day." And glad was Abraham to see it.
It is also to be noticed that, when the angels came to
Sodom in the evening, Lot received them as men, and
baked unleavened bread, and they ate. And afterward,
when Lot went out to the mob, and his life was in danger,
it says, " The men put forth their hand and pulled Lot into .
the house." Now one of these is the same that Abraham
had recognized. Lot recognizes him also, and begs that
Zoar may be spared; and the reply is, "Haste thee, es
cape thither, for I cannot do anything till thou be come
thither." Thus, throughout this wonderful transaction, a being
appears who is identified as God and as man, by the very
signs Christ afterwards gave to his disciples. The body
he had was a celestial body, capable of assuming all the
properties and performing all the functions of flesh and
blood at will, yet without coming under the bondage of
corruption. That bondage to corruption was to be con
sequent on the humibation, the real imprisonment in flesh
and blood.

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 103
Another instance of his appearing as a man is recorded
Genesis xxxii. 24 : " And Jacob was left alone, and there
wrestled a man with him till the break of day." That
this was no dream is proved from the fact that his thigh
was put out of joint, so that he " halted on his thigh."
Yet that man was God, and Jacob named the place Peni
El, Face of God, because, said he, " I have seen God face
to face." Yet Jacob had felt the grasp of a man, not a
shadow; and we do but follow the bteral sense of the
narrative, when we say that that mysterious personage
was the God-man.
This same person it is who, when requested by Moses
to show him his glory, told him he could not see his face
and live, but, hiding him in a cleft of the rock, and cover
ing him with his hand, he would pass by and take away
his hand, and he should see his back parts. Yet, when
he thus passed .by and proclaimed his glory, it was "the
Lord, the Lord God." On this President Edwards re
marks: "What he saw was doubtless the back parts of a
glorious human form in which Christ appeared to him, in
all likelihood the form of his glorified human nature in
which he should afterwards appear; for it is not to be
supposed that any man could subsist under a sight of
the glory of Christ's human nature as it now appears."
Compare with this last remark the effect upon Paul when
that same glorified form shone out upon him " with a light
above the brightness of the sun," causing him to fall pros
trate upon the earth.
Another case is mentioned in Joshua v. One day, short
ly before the taking of Jericho, as Joshua was reconnoi
tring, he saw a man with a drawn sword in his hand. And
so thoroughly real was the man, that Joshua challenged
him, and asked on which side he belonged. The man
replied, "Nay, but as Captain of the Lord's host am I
now come." Immediately Joshua fell prostrate. And

104 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the Captain of the Lord's host told him to loose his sboe
off his foot, for the place was holy, and immediately it
adds, "And Jehovah said unto Joshua." Thus this person
is called man, and Jehovah, and the Captain of Jehovah's
host; the latter expression equivalent to that of Daniel,
" Michael, the first of the chief princes." This, then, is
the God-man, the Captain of our salvation.
Isaiah says, " I saw Jehovah sitting upon a throne high
and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." Yet John
declares that " these things spake Isaiah of Christ, when
he saw his glory and wrote of him."
Ezekiel also describes on the cherubic throne the form
of a man, of intense effulgence ; and immediately after,
says this " was the appearance of the glory of Jehovah."
Daniel also gives a description of Michael, " the first of
the chief princes," wliich description is almost identical
with that of Christ in the opening of the Apocalypse.
The Reformers generally regarded Michael as one of the
names of Christ. Fairbairn argues conclusively in support
of that idea. And yet St. Jude calls Michael " the arch
angel," and says he durst not bring a railing accusation
against the Devil. How could that be said of absolute
Deity ? Evidently it is the God-man who, in virtue of his
creature form and standing, could be bound by the eti
quette of the celestial court ; so that it might be said, he
dared not violate its proprieties.
A single incident more and we have done. Let us
ascend awhile the mount of transfiguration. There we
behold one moment the Son of Mary, a man of sorrows
in the ordinary garb of flesh and blood. The next mo
ment the fashion of his countenance is altered ; his face
shines like the sun ; his raiment is white and glistering,
like the snow. And what is this metamorphosis but the
disguise for a moment laid off, and the inner glory shining
out ? The same glorious person before whom the prophets

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 105
fell as dead, whom Moses could not see and live, has been
present all the while, but under disguise. Now the pent-
up glories rush out in a flood of splendor. This is the
man from heaven, the God-man, this is the very same
that descended and shall ascend. But lo, while we gaze
those fires are quenched, those intense and burning glories
are absorbed, the disguise is assumed again, and the body
of humiliation alone meets our eye. Yet we know that
under that disguise that same immortal beauty still exists,
only veiled and hidden, capable at any moment of again
bursting forth with ineffable brightness.
It is proper, before leaving the subject, to look at some
objections. We take them as best presented by Dr.
Hopkins. This idea of the person of the God-man having been
constituted before incarnation, he says " is inconsistent
with the true and real manhood of Jesus Christ  If
the creature who took a body by incarnation were the
first and greatest creature that was ever created, he was
no more a man than the angels."
We reply, this objection might have some force against
the view as held by Dr. Watts, in his work entitled " Tho
Glory of Christ," but not against the view now presented.
Dr. Watts supposed, and gave great prominence to the
idea, that the creature in question was first and highest.
Such, however, is not the view defended here. The crea
ture element in the person of the God-man, on the present
supposition, is neither first-created in the order of time,
nor of angelic race, but created in heaven, and created
human, like other glorified human spirits. Against this
view the objection loses its force. The objector cannot
deny that God could, if he pleased, create a true and
proper reasonable human soul in that way as well as in
any other, and give it a celestial body, such as the saints
are to have in heaven.
5*

106 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Dr. Hopkins objects, in the second place, " if the body
only of Jesus Christ came into existence, or was formed
in the womb of the Virgin Mary, he could not be really
her son. She who conceives and brings forth a son is
as really and as much the mother of his soul as of ,his
body." We reply, the objection rests upon a pure assumption,
without proof, either of what is called traduction or of con
creation of souls. Neither is self-evident. Neither is re
vealed. Neither is a doctrine in which the Church is
agreed. A large and influential class of minds, repre
sented by Professor Shedd and Dr. Baird, reject the
theory of concreation, and assert that the majority of the
Church in all ages have rejected it.
On the other hand, all new-school men, and that class
of old-school men represented by Princeton, make war
upon the theory of traduction as improbable, absurd, inca
pable of proof. The Princeton Review even goes so far
as to say the theory of pre-existence is " clear sunshine "
in comparison.
Doddridge says : " The weakness of the former (traduc
tion) hypothesis is the principal strength of this (concrea
tion)  On the whole, it seems that the latter is rather
the most probable, but it does not become us to be confi
dent in so dark and dubious a matter."
Evidently the objection is of no force. The objector
must first prove the truth of traduction, or of concreation,
before he can base an objection upon them. To reason
from an unsettled, disputed general law against a specific
teaching of Scripture, is " to make the word of God of
none effect by human tradition."
The third objection of Dr. Hopkins is, " that it is the way
and manner of the Governor of the world, first to put his
creatures upon trial before admitting them to glory ; but
to make a creature and set him above every other crea-

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 107
ture, without previous trial, would be contrary to God's
way of dealing."
We admit the premise, but deny the conclusion. The
principle is important, and against the view defended by
Dr. Watts, which Hopkins was opposing, would have
force. But the view now maintained is that Christ,
though appointed and anointed to the headship of the
universe, was not invested with it until after his resur
rection. His humiliation was his trial, an ordeal the
most severe ever known in the universe. Then, when
perfected through sufferings, he was " declared the Son
of God with power."
But it is objected, " Such a view is useless and unrea
sonable." To this we reply, that no truth is useless that sheds
light upon the object of Christ's death, that shows us the
nature of that power of death he must destroy, and ex
plains the principles on which he enabled God to be just
in the punishment of Satan, without a morbid reaction of
pubfic sympathy in his favor. Any truth that clears up
that whole subject is neither unreasonable nor useless,
but a part of the "wisdom of God and power of God
unto salvation."
But it is objected, finally, that it is dangerous as tending
to Unitarianism. But, did time permit, it could be fully
shown that the fact is the reverse of this. That it is for
the lack of a clear perception of the two natures in one
person of the Word before incarnation that Unitarianism
has again and again developed itself in the very focus of
evangelical light.
Arius developed his system in the bosom of the primi
tive Church. Socinus was a product of the Reformation,
as really as Luther or Calvin. English Unitarianism is
of Presbyterian lineage ; and the latest, most luxuriant
growth of that system was in New England with Boston

108 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
for its centre, the heart of Puritanism where Evangelical
ideas had at first undisputed possession.
The germs of Unitarianism are in the Evangelical system
itself, as it has been developed in all ages. Says Pro
fessor Stuart : " The ancient Fathers taught, almost with
one voice, that Christ was derived from the Father, ....
they did really and truly regard the Word as an emana
tion from the Father. Most of the earlier ones, an ema
nation which took place just before time began."
But if they had understood that the Word had two
natures before being made flesh, they would have escaped
this mistake. They would have ascribed to Him all crea
ture attributes in virtue of the one and all Divine attri
butes in virtue of the other. But once they allowed only
a single nature in the pre-incarnate Word, and predicated
derivation or emanation of that, Arianism was the natural
result. The only difference was the difference between
"¦begotten" and '¦'¦made." They said "begotten," Arius
said " made." In constructing a defence against Arius, the
Church developed the doctrine of two natures in one per
son after the incarnation, at the same time throwing the
generation back to eternity. But while by this device
the Church made head against Arianism, at the same time
the premises of the Socinian system were laid. It was
expressly denied that the Divine nature suffered or could
suffer any diminution of glory or of exaltation by the in
carnation. And thus, in reality, it was denied that the
Divine nature did descend from heaven. With equal pos-
itiveness it was denied that the human nature descended.
All that was necessary for Socinus to do was to draw the ,
logical conclusion that, since the Deity could not,. and the
humanity did not, descend from heaven, nothing descend
ed, and Jesus was only a man like other men, commen
cing his existence in the womb of Mary.
If the Church had allowed either nature really and

ONLY BEGOTTEN. 109
truly to have descended and undergone a true humiliation,
Socinianism would not have existed. The Church taught
Socinianism for centuries before Socinus was born. Mod
ern Unitarianism has done nothing but vibrate uneasily
between Arius and Socinus, making Christ either a super-
angelic creature or a mere man, and in both cases justify
ing themselves on the Catholic principle that the Divine
nature is incapable of change.
" Do you mean," says Dr. Channing, " that the great
God who never changes, whose happiness is the same yes
terday, to-day, and forever, that this eternal Being really
suffered and died? Every pious man, when pressed by
the question, answers no."
Unfortunately, every pious man had been taught to say
no by the whole Church for ages. As Dr. Knapp ob
serves, "it is not proper to say that the eternal Son of God
left heaven, or surrendered his glory." But so long as
every pious man answered no, Unitarianism was logically
established. For the • Church said that the eternal God
did not really leave heaven and lay aside glory, or suffer
change, and Unitarianism itself could say no more.
The roots of Arian and Unitarian development have
laid in this denial, and in the fact that the Scriptures as
undeniably predicate creature qualities of Christ beforo
his incarnation as after.
But the view now maintained logically cuts off those
roots, and if it were generally accepted and incorporated
in Evangelical belief, although Unitarianism might still
exist on the outside, it could never again spring to life, as
it always has done before, in the very heart of the Evan
gelical system.
At the same time, as the discussion goes on, it will be
found that Christ is invested with new charms and attrac
tions, not only in the future and in the present, nor in
his earthly life merely, but in that vast period of time

110 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
preceding, in which to most minds he is but a vague and
shadowy being.
Whatever distinctness of conception we have of Jesus,
the God-man on earth, — whatever vividness 'of vision our
spirits have attained of his glorified and exalted state, and
of his person, as faintly described to us in the transfigura
tion scene, — that same distinctness we may carry back
with us into the previous ages, thus realizing afresh the
truth, " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for
ever." In the yesterday of his pre-incarnate being, in the to-day
of his fleshly humiliation, and in the glorious to-morrow
of his sacerdotal and kingly exaltation, he is indeed the
same person, — God and man united, infinite and finite,
invisible and ineffable spirit in and through a glorious,
incorruptible, and powerful corporeity.
The form which Jesus now wears, though indeed the
same he had when, " being in the form of God, he thought
it no robbery to be equal with God," yet bears, as even
celestial bodies can, the marks and traces of an earthly
experience. In that immortal and incorruptible hand
there is the scar of a nail. In that side will forever be
the mark of the spear. And to all eternity, even on that
brow of inexpressible glory, outshining the sun, and worthy
of many crowns, will yet be visible to the redeemed eye
the print of the crown of thorns.
May it be ours, with immortal vision, to behold those
vestiges of his dying love, and cast our crowns at his
feet !

CHAPTER XI.
THE FIRST-BORN.
" The first-born of every creature." — Col. i. 15.
IN this passage the birthright of the universe is assigned
to Christ, as both God and man in one person. As
God he created all things, and is the rightful Lord of all ;
as man he obtained the heirship of all things by his suffer
ings, as implied in the phrase elsewhere used, " First-born
from the dead." For both these reasons, the one Christ,
in virtue of his two distinct natures, is figuratively' called
first-born, as being heir of universal dominion.
Figuratively, I say, not literally. Literally the Divine
nature could not inherit, for that implies inferiority. Lit
erally his human nature could not, for it was not first
created. On the contrary, the covering cherub, or Luci
fer, was the natural and literal heir. It is figuratively,
then, and by substitution, that the person in either nature
is called first-born. And the meaning is, that the person
so named was in his human nature exalted to the head
of the universe as king, and invested with all the rights of
primogeniture, as if he had been the natural first-born of
the Father.
' In other words, the primogeniture here and in other
parts of the New Testament assigned to Christ, considered
as God-man and mediator, is substitutionary, and conse
quent upon the forfeiture of the natural heir.
The birthright was anciently of great importance. Its
advantages were three. The first-born, under the patri
archal system, became the priest of the family, or tribe,

112 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
received a double portion of the property, and succeeded
to the official station of the father. The antiquity of this
custom is so great, that, like the institution of sacrifice, it
seems to have come from the Creator. " It was expressly
recognized by the Mosaic Law as already existing. To
guard that sacredness, in cases where a man had two
wives unequally loved, and the oldest son by the least
favored, Moses says, " He may not make the son of the
beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is
indeed first-born."
The value among ancient nations of this institution we,
with our habits, can little appreciate. In this country
primogeniture has been abolished, and our minds have lost
all associations connected therewith. We must enter into
Oriental habits of thought, take up their associations, and
see and feel with their sensibilities. Yet, with all the
sacredness of the birthright, we find in the line of promise
a series of twelve or thirteen substitutions of the younger
for the elder, in such a marked and prominent manner
as seems evidently the result of studied design, especially
as in repeated instances the substituted person is an ac
knowledged type of Messiah.
Let us look, then, at the case of Cain and Abel. The
impression we have gained from studying all that is said
in Scripture of this case, is that it was an instance of trial
by sacrifice to settle some question that had arisen. We
conceive it to have been an appeal to God by sacrifice, to
obtain his judgment. It was somewhat like that in after
days on Carmel, between Elijah and the prophets of the
groves, when God answered by fire. We can think of no
objection to this idea, and derive much benefit from its
admission. As to the question to be decided between the two
brothers, various indications point to the question of the
birthright. From the promise of a seed made to Adam

THE FIRST-BORN 113
and Eve, from Eve's words on Cain's birth, " I have
begotten the man Jehovah," and from her words on the
birth of Seth, " God hath appointed me another seed in
stead of Abel, whom Cain slew," the most probable idea
is, that it was a question which of the two was the line of
the promised seed, in which lay the birthright, which, as
Paul says of Abraham, should be heir of the world.
The question of birthright to the world, somehow came
up. To settle it a trial by sacrifice was appointed, and
God decided in favor of the younger. Then came jeal
ousy, rage, and murder ; and Cain, " who was of that
wicked one," is driven from the presence of the Lord.
And whose is the birthright ? It is given to Seth,
" another seed instead of Abel."
Now the word Cain means begotten, as if to say first
born, and the word Seth means appointed ; and the whole
drama is this : The natural first-born is rejected as unfit,
and the appointed heir takes the birthright.
Hence the blood of Abel typifies the blood of Christ,
because the whole scene was a designed picture of the
facts out of which Christ's death sprung. Lucifer was
first heir of empire ; he proved unfit ; God substituted
Christ ; Satan through jealousy slew hirru Thus the
blood of Abel and the blood of Christ are type and anti
type. And you will notice here that Cain was rejected
for cause assigned, not arbitrarily. Cain did not become
evil because he was rejected, but he was rejected because
he was evil, and on that rejection his evil character blazed
out. This appears from what God said to him : " If thou
doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest
not well, sin lieth at the door."
If you had done well, you would have been accepted ;
if you have forfeited your birthright, it is your own fault.
So the Apostle John says : " And wherefore slew he him?
because his own works were evil and his brother's right-

114 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
eous." That is his past conduct, his habits. It was
because he conducted himself improperly that he was re
jected, and another substituted in the birthright.
Thus studied, this whole scene close by Eden's gates
will be found full of meaning. Nor can any man say why
such a thing should have happened, in such a conspicuous
place, and in such a significant way, unless by a studied
design on the part of God.
Let us come down, then, to Abraham, where the same
great question of the promised seed is so prominent. More
is said about Isaac as type of Christ almost than of any
other person, except David. And as if to make the type
as vivid as possible, God sends Abraham to Mount Mo-
riah, as yet an uninhabited wilderness, and makes him
build an altar and offer up Isaac, and the interruption of
the sacrifice Paul calls a figure of the resurrection.
Here then, again, the question of the birthright meets
us in the very focus of ancient types. Abraham, " the
heir of the world " ; Ishmael his eldest son, the son of a
bondwoman, an Egyptian who insults her mistress, the
boy himself mocking, then cast out, becoming a wild man,
dwelling in the desert, his hand against every man and
every man's hand against him ; while Isaac, the type of
Christ, assumes the birthright. Can this be accidental?
Is it not a manifest contrivance of the Divine Providence ?
The rejection of Ishmael was evidently planned by God
from the first, before either of the lads were born ; and
it is only in a dim and shadowy way that unfitness is
indicated in Ishmael, not real unfitness, but a kind of in
direct and shadowy unfitness, by his Egyptian blood, his
mother's insolence, and his mockery; things not so very
criminal as they are suggestive and emblematic. That
this whole transaction was of the nature of symbol, or
analogic resemblance, Paul expressly declares, Galatians
iv. 24 : " Which things are an allegory."

THE FIRST-BORN. 115
The next case is almost equally prominent in Scrip
ture, that of Esau and Jacob; and on it from first to last
are stamped marks of design. The children struggle in
the womb ; God tells the mother that two nations are in
her womb ; that the elder shall serve the younger. And
on this Paul remarks, that "the children being not yet
born, nor having yet done good or evil, that the purpose
of God might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,
it was said unto her, 'The elder shall serve the younger,' "
That is, this was said beforehand, in order that the pur
pose of God, that is, his design in the typical transaction,
" might stand," that is, be seen to stand, " not of works,"
that is, not as conditioned on the works of the parties,
" but of Him that calleth," that is, of his own conscious
design before the works occurred. God not only designed"
beforehand that there should be such a substitution of the
birthright, but also providentially ordered the circum
stances and the dispositions out of which by their own>
free agency that transfer actually came. In short, he pur
posely fitted up the stage, and put two admirable actors on^
it, to act out a higher reality.
Paul does not say that the purpose of God was that the
transfer should be without reference to works ; for if that
were the Divine purpose, it was frustrated, as Paul himself
shows when he calls Esau a profane person who sold his
birthright, and says, " He found no place of repentance,
though he sought it diligently with tears." Evidently the
Holy Spirit meant to indicate that Esau's sale of his birth
right was not only a fault and a profanation, but an irrep
arable one. All that is meant, then, by the purpose of
God not standing in works is this, that the purpose pre
ceded the works and occasioned their typical character,
and did not follow them as an afterthought.
Look, then, at the tableau purposely appointed before
hand by Divine contrivance. See how by the circum-

116 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
stances before and at birth the suggestion is made of a
conflict begun in former worlds and brought for settlement
to this. Then notice the different costumes of the actors,
as they are born and grow up. The one red, or dark-
complexioned, hairy as a goat, wild and savage in his
tastes; the other blonde, smooth, of civilized tastes and
habits. God has made them up for their parts ; he has dressed
them in character ; and now the play begins. Esau, for a
morsel of meat sells his birthright. Jacob, disguised in
skins, and putting on Esau's clothes, obtains the blessing
of the first-born. Esau cries with an exceeding loud and
bitter cry, and lifts up his voice and weeps. Jacob flies
from his jealous revenge, and, for ages after, the descend
ants of Esau are bitter foes of Israel. And the prince
of Idumsea, like the princes of Tyre and Babylon, is ad
dressed by the Holy Spirit with words which pass beyond
the mortal, and fasten upon the unseen reality.
Jacob's typical act is sinful, but done for the sake of his
mother, who says, " On me be thy sin, my son " ; Christ
bore an imputed guilt, not real, for his bride, the Church,
to whom the real sin actually belonged. Jacob gained a
temporal birthright by seeming to be Esau ; Christ gained
an eternal birthright by being made sin for us. " He hath
Beelzebub," they said, " he deceiveth the people ; he hath
spoken blasphemy."
The same substitution is briefly hinted at a fourth time
in the birth of Pharez, one of the ancestors of Messiah, as
recorded Genesis xxxviii. 27 - 30 : " And it came to pass
in the time of her travail [Tamar], that, behold, twins
were in her womb. And it came to pass, when she trav
ailed, that the one put out his hand ; and the midwife took
and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This
came out first. And it came to pass, as he drew back his
hand, that, behold, his brother came out ; and she said,

THE FIRST-BORN. 117
How hast thou broken forth ? this breach be upon thee :
therefore his name was called Pharez [breach]. And
afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread
upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah."
We come then to the case of Joseph. All remember
his dreams, — how his brothers' sheaves bowed to his sheaf,
and the sun, moon, and stars made obeisance to him. All
remember how his brethren interpreted these of the birth
right, — " Shalt thou indeed have dominion over us ? " —
and how they envied him and hated him ; how they cast
him into a pit, and sold him to Egypt, and made Jacob
think him torn of wild beasts. All remember how in
Egypt Joseph was tempted, imprisoned, exalted, — in all
things a most eminent type of Christ.
Now listen to the dying Israel, Gen. xlix. 3, 4 : " Reu
ben,, thou art my first-bom, my might, and the beginning
of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excel
lency of power. Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel ;
because thou wentest up to thy father's bed ; then de-
filedst thou it." At the same time, on Joseph, verses
22 — 26, he pronounces the blessing proper to the first
born, as we read 1 Chronicles v. 1 : " Reuben was the
first-born, but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed,
his birthright was given to Joseph."
But, as if not content with this fifth illustration, and as
if the Divine purpose would seize every available opportu
nity to indicate this great idea, it is a sixth time repeated
in the case of Joseph's two sons.
When they came to receive their grandfather's blessing,
it says: "Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right
hand towards Israel's left, and Manasseh in his left hand
towards Israel's right; and Israel stretched out his right
hand and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the
younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guid
ing his hands wittingly, for Manasseh was the first-born."

118 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
That is, he crossed his hands wittingly, intentionally.
Hence when Joseph cried, " Not so, my father, this is
the first-born " ; "I know it, my son, I know it," said the
dying Israel, "he shall be great, but truly his younger
brother shall be greater than he ; and he set Ephraim
before Manasseh."
The seventh case is the substitution of Israel, nationally
.considered, in place of Egypt, as first-born among nations.
Egypt was a splendid monarchy when Jacob was a
wandering shepherd. In arts, arms, and learning Egypt
•enjoyed a kind of precedence, so that she is said to have
been the first among the kingdoms. But now Egypt is
^rejected, and smitten with plague after plague, while God
says, "Israel is my son, even my first-born."
Connected with this, and forming the eighth of the se
ries, is the passing over the first-born of Israel on account
of the blood sprinkled on the door-post and lintel, on the
might when the Lord smote all the first-born of the land
-of Egypt-
Here the substitution through sacrifice of the first-born
of a younger nation for the first-born of an older nation is
•most marked, and its typical design manifest. The blood
denotes the blood of Christ. The first-born of Israel typ
ify " the Church of the First-born " (TrpaiTOTOKiov*). Of
what, then, are the first-born of Egypt a type, but of those
angelic principalities and powers whose defection, as Au
gustine says, the Church is to replace and make good?
Can one half the transaction be made typical, and not the
other ? Can one extreme of the contrast sustain a sym
bolic character, and not the other ? And yet this, as all
Christians of all ages allow, is the very central type of
redemption. The ninth instance follows soon after the exodus, in the
case of Nadab and Abihu. In Numbers iii. 2, we read
that Nadab was Aaron's first-born, and, verse 4, *' Nadab

THE FIRST-BORN. 119
and Abihu died before the Lord, when they had strange
fire ; and they had no children ; and Eleazar and Ithamar
ministered in the priest's office." Now, considering that
the Levitical tribe had just been taken for the Passover
first-born, this repetition is worthy of notice ; as if the Holy
Spirit would keep up the idea, by constant reiteration, in
every form and circumstance. Here it is a kind of sacer
dotal birthright that is forfeited by the elder and bestowed
on the younger; and in this case, as a marked effect of
malversation in office.
The tenth case is the rejection of Saul and his family,
and the anointing of a successor from the family of Jesse.
Dr. Fairbairn says : " No one who admits the existence
of types at all in the Old Testament will doubt .... that
God ordered the events connected with the establishment
of monarchy in Israel in such a manner as to render
them exactly typical of Messiah's history." The same
writer affirms that it was just because the events of Da
vid's life were typical that the words he uttered could
furnish the form of Messianic prophecy.
But how can David's history be typical, and Saul's his
tory not in some degree partake of the typical character ?
How can David's sufferings be, as it were, the sufferings of
Christ, and Saul, who inflicted those sufferings on David,
not be a shadow of him who was to bruise the heel of the
promised seed?
Look at Saul, and see if you can resist the impression
of design on the part of God. A head and shoulders
above the people, of comely appearance, energetic, brave,
moderate at first, reigning well for two years. See him
then raising a standing army, developing an ambitious
spirit, growing insubordinate, grasping at the sacerdotal
function, consolidating power in himself. Hear him sol
emnly warned of God of removal in case of persistence in
misconduct. Instead of submission, see him disobey again

120 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
in the matter of Amalek, to propitiate the favor of his
soldiery. Behold him immediately set aside ; sentence
of forfeiture pronounced. And, though still acting sov
ereign, though still treated with reverence as the Lord's
anointed, see Samuel sent to Bethlehem to anoint a suc
cessor. Saul had a son. God might have taken him.
No. There must be a change of family.
But there is another exemplification in the house of
Jesse. For it seems as though the Holy Spirit could
hardly repeat the indication too often. Eliab was Jesse's
first-born, David his youngest. And when they went to
the anointing festival, David was left out keeping sheep.
But, to the amazement of all, the Lord rejected one after
another of seven sons, and made them send for the shep
herd-boy, and as soon as he appeared, ruddy and rosy,
" Up," said the spirit, " anoint him, for this is he."
Follow, then, the drama to its denouement. Observe
the jealousy of Saul, his growing hostility, his deadly jav
elin thrusts, his persecutions of David, his defeat, despair,
and desperate end.
If God had designed to give us a type of Lucifer's career,
could he have offered one more darkly eloquent, more
awfully instructive ? Notice how David's typical suffer
ings, burial in Engedi, resurrection, and Messianic psalms
grew out df this pressure of Saul's inflamed jealousy and
revenge. If now the sufferings of Christ are typified by the suf
ferings of David, how can it not be true that the jealous
revenge and malice of Satan, that caused those sufferings,
were typified by the jealous revenge of Saul ? How can
David's anguish at Saul's unjust persecution be a type, and
not the unjust persecution itself be a type ?
The mind of President Edwards was not averse to such
a style of reasoning from types. Coincidences and analo
gies of this nature did not seem to his calm and philosophic
mind unworthy of attention.

THE FIRST-BORN 121
" It is observable that God anointed David after Saul,
to reign in his room. He took away the crown from him
and his family, who was higher in stature than any of his
people, and was in their eyes fittest to bear rule, to give it
to David, who was of low stature, and in comparison of
despicable appearance. So God was pleased to show how
Christ, who appeared despicable, without form or come
liness, and was despised and rejected of men, should take
the kingdom from the great ones of the earth.
" And also it is observable that David was the youngest
of Jesse's sons, as Jacob the younger brother supplanted
Esau, and got the birthright and blessing from him ; and
as Pharez, another of Christ's ancestors, supplanted Zarah
in the birth ; and as Isaac, another of the ancestors of
Christ, cast out his elder brother Ishmael, thus was that
frequent saying of Christ fulfilled, ' The last shall be first,
and the first last.' " 1
And here a twelfth instance meets us. It is remarked
by Dr. Fairbairn, that, to complete the typical outline of
Christ's career, the reign of Solomon must come in.
David represents more prominently the suffering Messiah,
Solomon, Messiah victorious and exalted.
The Holy Spirit seizes the opportunity to throw in
another tableau of substitution. Adonijah is David's first
born. But the crown, by special appointment, is given to
Solomon. Instantly Adonijah begins to plot with Joab
and the high-priest a revolution. The queen-dowager is
sent to demand the hand of Abishag the Shunamite for
Adonijah in marriage. The keen eye of Solomon pen
etrated the design, and crushed it in a moment. "Ask
for him the kingdom also, for he is my elder brother."
Filially, this principle of substitution is again worked out
on a large scale in the rejection of the Jews and calling
of the Gentiles. As compared with Egypt, Israel was an
1 Works, Vol. I. p. 349.

122 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
adopted or substituted first-born ; but as compared with
the Christian Church, Israel stands as the disinherited elder
brother. To them pertained, says Paul, the adoption, —
that is, the birthright of nations, — but God has given it to
the Gentiles, as Moses said, " I will move them to jealousy
by them that -are no people, and by a foolish nation will
I anger them." How angry and how jealous were the
Jews when Christ hinted at their rejection ! And when
the natural branches were broken off, and the wild grafted
in, what fierce, persecuting rage did Judaism show !
And in doing this, Paul teaches, in Galatians iv., that
the nation was a type of the same kind and meaning as
Ishmael of old. Which things, he says, are an allegory.
Jerusalem that now is, and her children, answereth to, that
is, is a type of the same meaning with, Hagar, and Ishmael
the son of the bondwoman. Thus in thirteen successive
instances is the principle . of a substituted birthright or
an adoptive primogeniture illustrated ; and in all but two
of them we have Scripture warrant, plain and clear, for
regarding them as purposely typical of the substitution of
Christ. What else can they be ? Is it possible to conceive of
such things happening thirteen times, in the very focus
of typical light, by chance ? We might as well say the
world was made by chance, or that the Bible was written
by chance. To deny such marks of design as lie in these
cases, especially when positively asserted and argued by
Paul, would be fatal to all reasoning from design to a
designer, and would overturn the foundations of revelation.
Therefore, the result is as sure as revelation is sure, and
what overturns one, logically and consistently applied, must
overturn the other. Hence, in fact, the Bible has had the
effect on the human mind to instil this belief to some
extent. With a single exception, namely, that the anoint
ing of Christ has been looked at as the cause of Satan's

THE FIRST-BORN. 123
apostasy, instead of as being occasioned by it, this may
almost be affirmed to be the universal belief.
Dr. Ellicott, in his Sermons on the Destiny of the Crea
ture, says : " The scattered hints and speculations of the
earlier writers, afterwards more fully developed by some of
the deeper thinkers of the seventh century, that regard
the early history of the world and the fall of angels in some
sort of connection, are certainly not unworthy of our con
sideration." Augustine speaks of the " partem hominum
reparatum," the saved of the human race, as " designed
to supply the place of the lapsed angels."
From these ancient sources it is probable that Mahomet
borrowed the idea, as he did many other things,, only put
ting Adam instead of Christ, the first Adam for the second.
Thus the Koran says : " When the Lord said unto the
angels, I am going to place a substitute on earth, worship
Adam, they all worshipped him except Eblis, who, know
ing that God had destined man as his superior, took a
secret resolution never to acknowledge him as such."
Milton describes the summoning of the angelic hosts
and the public anointing of Christ as Head over all, and
adds : — " So spake the Omnipotent, and with his words
All seemed well pleased, but were not all.
Satan — so call him now, his former name
Is heard no more in heaven — He of the first, "
If not the first archangel, great in power,
In favor, and pre-eminence, yet fraught
With envy against the Son of God, that day-
Honored by his great Father, and proclaimed
Messiah, King anointed, could not bear
Through pride that sight, but thought nimself impaired."*
Here Milton represents the anointing of Christ above
Lucifer, and the jealousy resulting, as the cause of the
rebellion far back in the ages, when

124 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" As yet this world was not, and chaos wild
Reigned where these heavens now roll, where earth now rests,
Upon her centre poised."
The same view is adopted by Dr. Hopkins. "It ap
pears," he says, " that man is more an ultimate end than
angels, that angels were made to answer ends for man,
.... The angels were made in some way to know that
God had peculiar and grand designs to answer by man,
.... that One of that race, .... even a man, should be
the Head of a most glorious kingdom, and be the Lord
to whom they must yield obedience."
" This was, most probably, the occasion of the rebellion
of those who sinned  Lucifer, who was at the head
of all the angels, the highest and noblest creature that God
had made, was displeased with such a plan  He refused
to stoop so low as to become a servant, .... and serve one
in the human family as his Lord and King."
Dr. Emmons says about the same : " It is likely that the
holy angels consented to bow to the sceptre of Christ,
while Satan and his followers disdained such low and ser
vile employment."
My honored father thus expresses the same idea in one
oi" his unpublished sermons : " The development of the
personality of the Divine nature in the Son, and putting
angels in subjection to him, may have been the temptation
to pride,, to envy, to unbelief, and to doubt in respect to
his real divinity, and finally to open insurrection against
him. The supposition gains probability if we consider that
the first work in which angels were called to act as minis
tering spirits was the creation of a new world and race of
beings but a little below them, one of whom, in alliance
with the Divine nature, was destined to sit upon the throne,
principalities and powers being subject to him. There
was a time when the Son was proclaimed in heaven the
Supreme Regent, and all the angels were required to wor-

THE FIRST-BOM. 125
ship him. And if the annunciation of the exaltation of
our inferior nature to supreme dominion in the person of
the Son preceded the revolt, it may have been the occa
sion of it."
The extracts given are claimed to represent the com
mon, if not the catholic opinion. The only error in the
theory is in regarding the annunciation of man's exaltation
as the occasion of Lucifer's revolt, instead of regarding his
revolt as the occasion of that annunciation.
It will be noticed with what caution the theory speaks :
"if the annunciation preceded the revolt." It is not
proved to have preceded. It is purely conjectural ; it is
in the highest degree improbable. It is improbable that
the creature head of the mighty universe would be re
moved from office without fault. It is unlikely that a
change of dynasty in a vast empire would be resolved on
unnecessarily, while the first incumbents were discharging
their functions acceptably. It is improbable God would
give Lucifer so plausible an excuse for revolt, an excuse
which explains the entrance of sin too well. It assigns an
occasion for it too nearly approaching to the definition of a
temptation. If " it was calculated to try the allegiance of
all the heavenly host, and would afford more occasion for
jealousy, envy, and unbelief than anything that could hap
pen in the direct, undivided government of God," then
surely it was a temptation of tremendous power. But
God tempteth no man. God never gave Lucifer reason
to say, " I was dethroned for nothing ; I was removed for
no fault."
This is precisely the version of the matter the Deceiver
would be likely to give. It is a mistake, small in appear
ance, which he would be ingenious enough to slip in un-
perceived. But it colors and changes the system through
out. Correct this mistake, and the theory is perfected ;
the Scriptural evidence in its favor cumulative and abun-

125 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
dant; the objections against it susceptible of easy an-
swert We will only add, that this view possesses a peculiar in
terest to believers. It is the doctrine of their own as well
as their Redeemer's birthright. Our adoption is our par
ticipation with him in the primogeniture. As he is heir,
we are joint heirs. As he is heir by appointment, so are
we joint heirs by appointment. He was anointed by sub
stitution to the headship, and carries us with him'. His
adoption, in its humiliation and in its exaltation, is ours.
If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him. We
are all of one. We are his predestined counterparts, that
he may be irpa>raToico<i irpanoTOKcov, " First-born of many
first-born." Only the spirit of God can initiate us into these exalted
mysteries. Only the spirit of adoption can reveal to us
what eye hath not seen, ear heard, nor carnal heart con
ceived-, of our adoptive rank and its far more exceeding
and eternal weight of glory. But God hath revealed it
unto us by his spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things,
even the deep things of God.

CHAPTER XII.

DETHRONEMENT OF LUCIFER.

" We wrestle  against spiritual wickedness rs Heaven." —
Eph. vi. 12.
THAT Lucifer was once in heaven, sinned there, drew
away many angels into rebellion, and was at some
time cast down, is the almost universal conception of
Christendom. The question we raise is simply as to the date of his
expulsion. The general impression has been, that he was
expelled immediately after his fall. Milton, indeed, allows
him time enough to organize an army, invent gunpow
der, establish founderies, cast heavy artillery, and hold his
ground against all created power, yielding at last only to
Almighty thunderbolts.
The popular conception, however, is, that as soon as
Lucifer rebelled God cast him down to hell, and this, it
is commonly supposed, was before the creation of man.
This idea has arisen from a careless interpretation, of
Jude 6, and 2 Peter ii. 4, which speak of the angels that
left their principality, being cast down to Tartarus. But it
is denied that these passages refer to the original revolt of
Lucifer, for the following reasons : —
1. The fault described is desertion of one's official rank
and station for a lower one, whereas Lucifer clung to his
Station and aimed to increase and fortify his power.
2. The punishment inflicted is expressly described to
be close confinement. The parties of whom Jude speaks
" He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness."

128 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Peter says, " He delivered them into chains of darkness,
to be reserved unto judgment." If the Holy Spirit does
not mean to indicate close imprisonment until the judg
ment-day in these words, we see not by what words he
could express it.
But is Satan thus confined? By no means, for this
same apostle says, 1 Peter v. 8: "Your adversary, the
Devil, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he
may devour." Peter, then, certainly did not include him
among those he describes as chained in Tartarus. " It is
certain," says Albert Barnes, " that Satan and his angels
were not chained down in hell in our Saviour's time."
(Notes, Eph. ii. 2.) It is equally certain, we add, that
they are not the parties mentioned by Peter and Jude who
were so chained.
3. There is reason to think that Jude and Peter both
refer to Gen. vi. 2 : " The sons of God saw the daughters
of men that they were fair ; and they took them wives
of all which they chose."
Peter is illustrating the truth that " the Lord knoweth
how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve
the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished." Now
if Gen. vi. 2 is referred to, it is a case in point ; since it
was the Titanic offspring of those marriages that were
swept off by the deluge, while Noah was delivered. But
if he refers to the original fall of Lucifer, how is it in
point ? By what principle of association can its introduc
tion be accounted for ? On the other hand, it would be
natural for him to refer to Gen. vi. 2, for both he and all
whom he addressed were educated in the belief that the
giants were the offspring of angelic marriages, and were
thus confined in Tartarus. The allusion is in perfect keep
ing with the whole scope. of ancient belief on the subject,
just such an allusion as would be readily made, and readily
understood.

DETHRONEMENT OF LUCIFER. 129
In Jude this is still more evident ; for, having spoken of
the angels, he passes to the case of Sodom, and their going
after strange flesh as top o^oiov tovtois Tpoirov in like
manner to these, namely, the angels above mentioned ; on
which Alford remarks, " The manner was similar, because
the angels committed fornication with another race than
themselves." In his prolegomena to this epistle Alford refers to a
tract on this subject by Dr. Kurtz of Germany, in which
" he has gone far to decide against any reference of Gen.
vi. 2 to the Sethites, or of Jude 6, 7 to the fall of the
Devil and his angels. The exegesis of Hengstenberg, and
those who think with him, depends on the spiritual accep
tation in this case of the word eiaTopvevcraaai, 'giving
themselves over to fornication,' which Kurtz completely
disproves. The facts of the history of the catastrophe of
the cities of the plain render it quite out of the question."
Here again, as in Peter, all is in perfect keeping with
the universal ancient belief. It is just such an allusion to
Gen. vi. 2 as would be naturally made and understood,
while a reference to an event before the creation of man
is foreign to the Apostle's purpose, and extremely forced
and unnatural.
The belief that Peter and Jude refer to Gen. vi. 2 is
not, however, confined to 'those who suppose that " the
sons of God " there mentioned were angels. Faber con
siders them to have been Sethites, and yet argues, as Dr.
Bushnell affirms conclusively, that Peter and Jude had
them in mind.
Thus, on critical grounds alone, we dispose of a theory
which compels us to conceive of the government of the
universe as carrying on war with its own state-prison for
ages, and making an infinite sacrifice to destroy an incar
cerated felon, thunder-scarred, and chained in everlasting
fires. Thus we open the way to a true interpretation of
6* i

130 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Eph. vi. 12, by setting it in the focus of all Scripture rays
concerning the dethronement of Lucifer.
Let us, then, glance once more at the germ of all proph
ecy, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's
head. Of course his head was not already bruised ; it was
the retaliatory stroke of the wounded heel which must ac
complish the prediction.
Next we turn our attention to the Book of Job, prob
ably the oldest in the Bible. Now this book opens with
a scene in heaven, where Satan presents himself with
other angels before the Lord, with no sign of being a
state prisoner escaped from his chains, but every sign of
being of prominent rank and station.
" There was a day when the sons of God came to pre
sent themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also
among them " ; or in the second chapter, " And Satan
came also among them to present himself before the
Lord," — the customary phrase denoting homage.
Now it is the universal etiquette of courts, that the
notice of the throne is not wont to be first extended to
officers in disgrace, or to those who are for any reason for
bidden the royal presence. Yet here the Lord addresses
Satan first, and him only. " The inquiry addressed to
him," says Mr. Barnes, " does not appear to have been
¦made as if it were improper that Satan should have ap
peared there, for no blame seems to have attached to him
for this."
But suppose an escaped state prisoner should come
before Queen Victoria, would no blame attach to him?
Suppose Mr. Mason should contrive to appear at a Cabinet
meeting in Washington, would President Lincoln ask his
opinion on the loyalty of Charles Sumner or of Secretary
Seward, without the least intimation that he was out of
place ? Would he give him full liberty to confiscate the
goods and afflict the persons of those highest in loyalty ?

DETHRONEMENT OF LUCIFER. 131
Manifestly, then, at that date when Moses put this book in
the canon Satan was not a state prisoner, but a high officer
of the government, not yet displaced.
So viewed, Satan's assault upon Job and its result, fore
shadowing as they do his attack upon Christ and its issue,
are most instructive and appropriate. And the book itself
is seen to contain a Divine disclosure of the principles at
issue in the grand drama of redemption.
Another case in point is found in 1 Kings xxii. 9, where
Ahab inquires of the prophet Micaiah whether he shall go
up to Ramoth Gilead and fight, as all his prophets urged
him to do. Micaiah, the prophet of the Lord, answers :
" I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of
heaven standing by him, on his right hand and on his left.
And the Lord said, ' Who shall persuade Ahab that he may
go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead ? ' and one said on this
manner, and another on that manner. And there came
forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and said, ' I will
persuade him.' And the Lord said, * Wherewith ? ' and
he said, ' I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth
of all his prophets.' And He said, ' Thou shalt per
suade him and prevail.' " Accordingly Micaiah tells Ahab
that the Lord hath put an evil spirit in the mouth of his
prophets. Now this certainly represents the heavenly hosts as not
yet in Ahab's time purged of the presence of deceitful
spirits. On the contrary, heaven is seen to contain a
mixed population, some good and some evil, and the dis
crimination is yet future.
Another striking instance is presented in Zach. iii. 1, 2,
compared with Jude ix. : —
" And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing
before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at hi3
right hand to resist him. And Jehovah said unto Satan :
* The Lord rebuke thee, Satan, even the Lord that hath

132 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee ; is not this a brand plucked
from the fire ? ' " The passage in Jude is, " Yet Michael
the archangel, when contending with the Devil he disputed
about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a
railing accusation (literally, sentence of blasphemy), but
said, the Lord rebuke thee."
The dispute which Jude mentions is the same that
Zachariah actually sees in vision. The angel of the Lord
of the one is Michael, the archangel of the other. The
reply in both cases is the same : " The Lord rebuke thee,
Satan." It is a dispute where Satan accuses, and God jus
tifies Israel, or that body of which Moses was head, and
Satan's accusation is denoted by the filthy rags of the high-
priest, and God's justification by the change of raiment.
Here, as in Job, Satan appears in heaven before the
Lord ; and Jude employs this remarkable statement, that
Michael the archangel durst not bring against him a sen
tence of blasphemy. And the meaning is, as Alford re
marks, blasphemy against the adversary.
Now blasphemy always implies some disrespect to God.
But how could disrespect to Satan imply disrespect to
God, unless Satan still stood in that primacy of office
which God had established ? If that were the case, then,
however unworthy the incumbent might be, still, in virtue
of his office, a blasphemy of him might savor of blasphemy
against God who anointed him.
Thus, in this remarkable passage, the Holy Spirit sup
plies evidence, none the less pointed for being incidental
and indirect, that Satan in Zechariah's time still stood
among the " glories " of heaven, even Michael the arch
angel fearing to speak a word of disrespect.
The next passage of evidence is found in the time of
Christ, and is composed of the testimony of the party
in question himself, and the admission of Christ. In
the temptation, Luke iv. 6, Satan said to Jesus : " All

DETHRONEMENT OF LUCIFER. 133
this power will I give thee, and the glory of them ; for
that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I
give it."
Now unless this were true, unless Jesus believed it to
be true, how would it be a temptation ? There is no
temptation in a large reward which is known not to be
in the power of him that offers it. Therefore, although
Satan's testimony would not be valid when it was for
his interest to lie, yet when it was for his interest not
to lie, as here, his testimony might be entertained.
Now that Jesus really believed that Satan possessed
such delegated power appears from the fact that in three
places he calls him " the prince of this world," and each
time in such a way as to imply the reality of that office.
John xii. 31 : " Now is the judgment of this world ; now
shall the prince of this world be cast out," — now that is
about to take place which will lead to his expulsion. Cer
tainly, therefore, he was not cast out till then. John xiv.
30 : " The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing
in me." That is, he seeks to tempt me, but finds nothing
in me to answer to his solicitations. John xvi. 11 : " The
Holy Spirit shall convince the world of judgment, because
the prince of this world is judged." That is to say, the
office of the Holy Spirit is to bring on the judgment-day,
in which the world will be judged because its prince is
judged. Now Satan, in the temptation, claims no more for him
self as to rank and office than Jesus here fully concedes.
There is nothing said about usurpation. On the contrary,
the language is just such as it would be if Satan was still
in possession of his original office, which was about to be
taken away from him. And this renders the fact of the
temptation of Christ intelligible. But if Satan was already
deprived, and a state prisoner, such a transaction becomes
incomprehensible.

134 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
We come, then, to the Epistle to the Ephesians. In the
second chapter, Paul speaks of the course of this world as
"according to the prince of the power of the air," or as
Conybeare and Howson render it, "ruler of the powers
of. the air."
On this Albert Barnes says, speaking of the fallen an
gels : " They must have some locality, some part of the
universe where they dwell ; that they were not confined
down to hell in the time of the Redeemer is clear from the
New Testament  Why is there any improbability in
the belief that their residence should have been in the

air

?'

Olshausen says, " We are fully justified in considering
the air not to mean the atmosphere, but the higher regions
generally, which we are wont to call heaven." Ellicott
remarks, " There is no reason for limiting the term to the
physical atmosphere." Bloomfield says the word power
denotes all the celestial forces arranged in troops, and
under regular subordination. Alford says, " The word
power is used here to represent the aggregate of those in
power, as we say the government."
This would be completely unintelligible if Satan had
been once condemned and chained in hell, but if it is only
his original office not yet wrested from his grasp, but about
to be, all is plain.
We come then to Eph. vi. 12 : " For 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."
The expression "in high places" is literally "in heav
en " ; thus Conybeare and Howson render it, " the com
pany of the evil spirits in the heavens." Albert Barnes
renders it " in celestial or heavenly places," and says it is
the same in the original rendered, Phil. ii. 10, things in
heaven, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should

DETHRONEMENT OF LUCIFER. 135
bow, of things in heaven," &c. Also in our Lord's pray
er, " Our Father which art in heaven." He also remarks,
" It is probable that the allusion here is to the ranks and
orders sustained before their fall, something like which-
they may still retain."
Bengel says, " In supra ccelestibus," " In the highest
heavens " ; and then adds, " Etium hostes sed captivi,"
" Enemies indeed, but captives." But Paul was not
thinking of fighting with captives already led in chains.
There would be no bravery in that.
Alford says, " That residence of evil spirits which in
Eph. ii. 2 was said to be in the air, is now said to be in
the heavens above us." Ellicott translates it, "In the
supernal regions." Olshausen says, " It can only denote
the place of residence of the principalities and powers re
ferred to. The conflict with flesh and blood on earth ia
contrasted with the conflict with spirits in heaven."
" This view," says Professor Eadie, " is maintained by
no less names than Jerome, who adds, ' Hase autem om
nium doctorum opinio est ' ; by Ambrosiaster, Luther,
Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Bucer, Estius, Grotius, Bengel,.
Hyperius, Koppe, Hammond, Meier, Holshausen, Mey
er, Olshausen, Harless, Von Gerlach, DeWette, Whitby,,
Barnes, Bloomfield, and MacKnight."
Professor Eadie himself, however, is of opinion that
the Apostle means " the celestial spots occupied by the
Church," which he thinks " those evil spirits have invaded."
Let us pass on then to Rev. xii., where we see that
conflict brought to its climax : —
" And there was war in heaven. Michael and his an
gels fought against the Dragon, and the Dragon fought
and his angels, and prevailed not ; neither was there place
found any more in heaven. And the great Dragon was
cast out, that old serpent called the Devil, and Satan ; he
was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out

136 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
with him." " And I heard a voice saying, iri 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 God
night and day."
Now that this represents something subsequent to the
crucifixion commentators generally adVnit. That it repre
sents some great result of the ascension of Christ some
interpreters have clearly seen. Thus Alford says : " The
man-child is the Lord Jesus Christ and none other, and
this result forms one of those landmarks by which the
legitimacy of various interpretations may be tested, and
of which we may say that every interpretation which over
steps this measure is thereby convicted of error  After
a conflict with the prince of this world, the Son of the
woman was taken up to heaven, and sat on the right hand
of God ; words can hardly be plainer than these. The
casting down of Satan from the office of accuser of the
brethren in heaven was evidently connected with the
great justifying work of redemption. His voice is heard
before God no more, and his angels are cast down with
him into the earth, where now the conflict is waging
during the short time which shall elapse between the as
cension and the second advent, when he shall be bound."
The history of Satan outlined in the Scriptures " con
sists," says Auberlen, " of an ever deeper downfall, in
four gradations or periods. The first extends to the first
coming of Christ." In this period the Devil not only rules
on earth, but is also still in heaven ; his power is not
yet broken ; .... the second period is from Christ to the
commencement of the millennium. Satan is cast out of
heaven to earth, where he exercises yet free power 
The third period embraces the millennium. The enemy is
bound, and as he was cast out of heaven to earth, so he
is now cast into the bottomless pit and rendered harmless.

DETHRONEMENT OF LUCIFER. 137
After having been let loose awhile, he is, fourthly, judged,
and cast forever into the lake of fire. Thus the whole
history which the Apocalypse gives of Satan is a continued
succession of his being cast out and hurled down."
The evidence, then, is abundant that Satan was first
dethroned by the ascension of Christ, and not before. It
is revealed in as plain language, and in as many forms,
with as much repetition as any other doctrine of Scripture.
What can be plainer than to see Satan actually present
ing himself before the Lord in Job and Zechariah ? What
more explicit than for Paul to say : The real conflict is
not with flesh and blood but with the company of wicked
spirits in heaven ? What more convincing than to see the
Seed of the woman caught up to the Right Hand, a war
ensue, Satan cast out, and to hear a shout of triumph be
cause the accuser is cast down by the blood of the Lamb ?
Is any doctrine of the Bible sustained by proof more posi
tive, evidence more point-blank than this?
But if this be true, the common view on this subject is
not only false, but exceedingly pernicious, and calculated
to darken the whole Bible, and obscure the plan of re
demption. According to the prevailing hypothesis, we are
obliged to conceive of Lucifer's apostasy as sudden and
total, like an express-train at full speed suddenly reversing
itSjdirection, whereas all observation, the practice of courts,
and the philosophy of the mind, confirm the ancient say
ings of Juvenal : —
" Nemo repente fuit turpissimus."
Moreover, this theory represents God as not long-suffer
ing in the very place where long-suffering was most appro
priate, namely, towards his first-born creatures, who had to
begin without the advantage of past history and recorded
experience. Thus it makes God severer even than Sinai,
where he proclaimed himself, " The Lord, the Lord God,
merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and of great mercy " ;

138 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
for it represents him as quick to anger, and of no mercy
at all to his angelic family.
Besides this, it represents the original controversy be
tween God and Satan as settled by force, not by truth.
We wonder Milton did not blush to give his Satan so
plausible a right to say: —
" Farthest from Him is best,
Whom reason hath equalled, force hath made supreme.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than He
Whom thunder hath made greater ? "
But besides this, it represents God as carrying on a war
of ages against a defeated and captive prisoner, loaded with
chains and hurled into penal fire. To destroy a being
already destroyed, the Son of God must die. The universe
must be convulsed for ages with a conflict between the
Divine government and its state prisoners.
Thus this conception entirely misrepresents the charac
ter of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake
in the controversy. It renders it impossible to have any
sensible ideas of the controversy. It involves the whole
subject in unspeakable absurdity.
The view which we defend, while fully and pointedly
revealed in the Bible, is in perfect accordance with the
principles of mental philosophy and of moral government,
as we proceed to evince in another chapter.

CHAPTER XIII.
PURIFICATION OF HEAVEN.
" It was necessary that .... the heavenly things themselves
should be purified." — Heb. ix. 23.
TO purify is to remove impurity of some kind, physical
or moral. The impurity contemplated in the Leviti
cal sacrifices was ceremonial and typical. That of wliich
it was the shadow was real and moral.
The impurity of the earthly holy of hobes could be
purged away by the blood of beasts ; but that of heaven
itself, only by the blood of Christ. That impurity consisted
in the presence and power of Lucifer, and of his principles.
Our text, therefore, is parallel in meaning with Heb.
ii. 14 : " Through death to destroy him that had the power
of death." Destroying him was purging heaven. It is
parallel also with Romans iii. 25, " To declare God's
righteousness, that God might be just." God's being just
was, in part, his destroying Satan, or purging heaven.
Lucifer still retained his original official position, though
unworthy ; nor was it possible for God, consistently with
the best interests of the universe, to execute destroying
justice and purge heaven, except by the blood of Christ.
It was impossible, first, on account of the infinite love of
God to his first-born, and his infinite long-suffering, which
must be completely exhausted and all ties sundered, before
the Father could execute his strange work of judgment
without remedy.
It was impossible the Father should give him up with
out exhausting all possible means to avert his fate, and

140 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
those who assert so boldly that for the least deviation from
perfect rectitude God cast him down to hell, say what God
has never told them, and what is in the highest degree
contrary to every lineament of his revealed character.
It was impossible, also, from the love of the universe to
him. 'This was his birthright. Love to the head was the
organic bond of strength to the empire. In the love of
this nation for Washington, of France for Napoleon, of
Israel for David, we have a faint illustration of the prin
ciple. Now that love could not be rudely bereaved. God
had caused him, like a cedar in Lebanon, to strike his roots
deep and wide in the soil of affection. He could not tear
him up, and lacerate the bleeding heart of myriads.
But it was impossible, also, on account of the nature of
the controversy. The principles and arguments of the
rebellion were subtle, specious, and difficult to refute. In
refusing to deny himself for the good of others Lucifer
affirmed that he was imitating God. The Holy Spirit
represents him as saying, " I will ascend, I will be as
God." God is almighty, he reasoned, and nothing can
happen but by his permission, and therefore self-denial is
with him impossible. There is no self-denial in having
one's own will and way perfectly and forever.
But if God is incapable of self-denial, why should it be
required of his first-born, his image ? If self-denial would
be an imperfection in the Deity, it would be an imperfec
tion in the representative of Deity. The representative
would not correspond to the Deity, but be opposite to him
and contrary.
To this reasoning it was not enough to oppose a simple
assertion on the part of God that he was infinitely self-
denying. It would have sufficed for faith, but not for
unbelief. And if from assertion God proceeded to argument ; if he
reasoned that the very act of creation must involve self-

PURIFICATION OF HEAVEN. 141
limitation, since it draws a line between the Divine MB
and the not me, and since the Creator binds hhnself to
observe the laws of created mind, it would be easy for
unbelief to evade and parry conviction, and recur afresh
to the Divine power to prevent evil or unpleasant events.
It was easy to say, the idea of self-denial in always hav
ing one's own way is absurd. In declining self-denial I
am only like God. It is not undutiful in me, but the
closest copying after infinite perfection. By this Lucifer
could deceive not only his own sympathizers, but also the
loyal portion of heaven.
It was as easy for him to deceive holy angels in this
way before the cross, as to deceive the very elect in this
way after the cross. And yet it has been almost univer
sally believed by good men that self-sacrifice is impossible
to God, and it has been recently asserted that it is no part
of the doctrine of the atonement that the Divine nature
participated in the humiliation of Christ, and that if the
Bible asserted such a thing it could not be believed.1
Now it must be conceded a higher exhibition of Luci
fer's guile thus to deceive the very elect, in full view of
the infinite ransom, than to deceive angels, who had never
seen as yet that amazing tragedy.
And on the same principle that it would be impossible
for God adequately to manifest his abhorrence for such a
sentiment now, while held by his own Church, it was im
possible to manifest it on high, when that opinion was held
even by the loyal angels.
God saw that the loyal public sentiment of the empire
was so far affected by this philosophy, which seemed ex
ceeding plausible, that without correcting it he could riot
safely be just in destroying Satan. The public sentiment
would not sustain him. His loyal subjects would be alien
ated and thrown into the arms of rebellion.
l Barnes on the Atonement.

142 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
But this impossibility was increased by Satan's power
of accusation against the government. The defence of
rebels is the accusation of the government. Lucifer could
not defend himself without accusing God.
If self-denial was impossible to God, so that without it
a creature at the head of empire would most perfectly
resemble him, why demand it ? It is unreasonable. It is
arbitrary. It is derogatory to innocence, and humiliating
to the feelings. So children always defend their own dis
obedience by complaining of their parents' or teacher's
severity. These murmurs and complaints excited sympathy, and
resulted in a serious alienation of confidence. There was
no local drawing off. There was that kind of distance, that
cessation of intercourse and communion, which can take
place between neighbors and friends and brethren.
But how break the force of those accusations? How
declare his own righteousness ; so as to be just in dealing
with the rebellion ? Mere words were not enough. With
out something more conclusive than words the government
could not vindicate itself.
Again, it was impossible to proceed on account of Luci
fer's accusing power over the creature. When the evils
of his administration begun to become apparent Lucifer
would naturally throw the blame upon the creatures below
him. This would make him strict, severe, inexorable.
As chief executive, he would set up a theory of justice
inconsistent with mercy.
Forgiveness, he would say, is impossible under law.
Repentance makes no difference. Penalty never is and
never can be remitted. In this, too, he claims to be as God.
This is justice pure and simple, the justice of the immac
ulate God. Thus he builds himself up, the self-styled jus
tice of the universe. He is immaculate, and his censure
is infallible ; so he brings the universe under bondage to a
merciless justice, a counterfeit "lotW. which God abhors.

PURIFICATION OF HEAVEN. 143
But how do creatures know that Lucifer is not really
just. He seems so. They cannot see all that God sees,
nor know all that God knows. To punish him suddenly
would seem like punishing justice. It is necessary first to
unmask him, and satisfy the public mind of heaven that his
justice is not real justice, and that he himself is exposed to
the stroke of God's righteous indignation. Then God can
be just and carry the moral sense of the loyal universe
with him.
Once more, it was not possible to purge him out of
heaven, on account of his deceiving power. God being
right and he wrong in the controversy, the point inevitably
came when Lucifer would be almost convinced. He must
either vield to or evade God's aro-ument. He came where
the road forked between submission on the one hand, and,
lying on the other, and he chose the latter, and took refuge/
in fallacy, sophistry, and fraud.
Now, although this is a fatal policy in the long run, it
gave him the advantage at first. God was limited to one
set of weapons, Lucifer could use two. God cannot lie ;
Lucifer can. God could move in right lines only, Lucifer
could move in straight or crooked.
The corrupting and ruinous consequences of lying, at
that early stage of being, could be known to God only.
He could warn Lucifer, but unbelief could set aside the
warning. For the time being Lucifer revelled in a fancied
superiority. He enveloped his administration in the mazy
methods of Machiavelian diplomacy and fraud, concealing
himself from creature detection with impenetrable disguise.
To tear off that disguise, to let the universe find him
out, to turn his crooked and tortuous policy inside out, was
at first impossible. He must be allowed to go on until
he should cross his own track and convict himself. The
wicked must be snared in the work of his hands. He must
. fall into the pit himself had digged. He must have time

144 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
therefore to set his snares and dig his pit, before he could
himself be snared and fall.
Thus we see what was the nature of that power of
death he is spoken of as holding. It was a power of a
moral nature, resulting from these six impossibilities of his
overthrow, namely, the infinite affection of God to his
first-born ; his deep root in the affection of the universe ;
the extreme plausibility of his assertion that self-denial was
impossible to God, and therefore not essential in a crea
ture ; his complaints of God ; his accusing power over his
inferiors ; and his unscrupulous diplomacy.
These elements of his position were such, that, though
he was exerting a depraving and corrupting influence of
immense and increasing force, it was yet impossible to
remove him. His power was increasingly great and in
creasingly deadly ; it was a power of death to the universe.
Of this deadly corrupting power heaven was purged by
the blood of Christ alone.
By shedding the blood of Christ Lucifer, in the first
place, completely uprooted himself from the affections and
tender mercies of God.
When, in the person of Christ, the fulness of the God
head placed itself bodily in the power of that unfilial hand,
and received the parricidal blow at which the sun grew
dark, it sufficed to sever all bonds forever. Then the
child forever weaned himself from that Father's love, and
set himself apart to the stroke of unmingled justice.
By. the same act, also, Lucifer uprooted himself from
the affections of the universe. When the full mystery of
Christ's person was disclosed on high after his resurrec
tion ; when they recognized, not only a creature of celestial
loveliness, but the Creator revealed in and by that crea
ture, their love was augmented infinitely, and their hearts
weaned from the murderer.
The sight of such guilt, even on earth, has power to

PURIFICATION OF HEAVEN. 145
petrify love and strike affection dead. The blood of an
innocent creature alone would have had this effect to some
extent. But only the blood of the Son of God, Divine as
well as human, could in a moment sever the heart-strings
of the whole heavenly world from him whose hand had
shed that blood.
By shedding the blood of Christ, Lucifer annihilated his
own argument, that God cannot experience self-denial, and
ought not to require it of his first-born.
Christ was God, for this express purpose made flesh,
and becoming obedient unto death that he might undergo
an infinite self-sacrifice. Clmst was also man, God's first
born by adoption, and had voluntarily undergone whatever
of self-sacrifice was possible to a created being. Thus
Christ had exhibited a perfect act of self-sacrifice in both;
natures, in spite of Lucifer's utmost attempts to seduce '
or terrify him from it.
From the desert to the cross temptation beat against
him like a storm. But the fiercer the temptation the
more entire his self-sacrifice, and when even Lucifer could
do nothing more, in the bitterness of death he said, " It is
finished," and died. And now he rises, he ascends on
high, 'lie shows his blood, and tells the universe what he
has borne, and how Lucifer in vain sought to prevent it,
and the argument of rebellion is answered.
It had been said that God could not be self-denying;
but here is an act of infinite self-sacrifice. It had been
alleged that any other creature in Lucifer's place would
do as he had done ; but here is an act of perfect and
entire creature self-sacrifice. Thus Lucifer was defeated,
not by " Thunder
Winged with red lightning and impetuous rage/'
but by matter of fact.
God gave Lucifer entire hberty, unlimited freedom of
7 j

146 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
debate. He was not unwilling to hear and to have heard
all that Lucifer chose to offer. But what could he say ?
Could he say that it was only a creature, and not God ?
Or that it was only God, and not a creature ? It was both.
Christ had not humbled himself by halves. Therefore
Lucifer was absolutely speechless. Least of all did he
vaunt himself " All but less than Ho
Whom thunder hath made greater."
Instead of this, his mouth was shut, for there was no an
swer to be made. He saw it, and all heaven saw it. And
now the way was open for God with safety to express his
righteous abhorrence of the principles of the rebellion.
He could do so, and carry the public sentiment of the loyal
universe with him.
By the blood of Christ, moreover, the accusations
against God were answered. As self-denial had been
shown to be proper to God, it was plain that it might
be properly required of the creature, who would thereby
directly resemble his Maker. Hence, in insisting upon it
God had been simply benevolent, and not arbitrary nor
severe. Therefore, all the murmurs and complaints and
exaggerated charges of the rebel leaders fell to the ground.
The Divine administration was vindicated and justified.
God not only was righteous, but was now declared and
seen to be so in the matter in dispute, and thus the loyal
public sentiment was prepared to sustain the executive in
dealing with traitors.
By the blood of Christ once more Lucifer's power as
accuser of the brethren was broken. That is, the power
ofhis idea of justice, and his supposed immaculate embodi
ment thereof. He who accused others, and before whom
all trembled, must of course be spotless himself.
Now Christ ascended with his blood, and showed that
he, — so strict, so severe, whose great doctrine was, that

PURIFICATION OF HEAVEN. 147
penalty cannot be remitted, — that he himself had perpe
trated the most unjust deed that could be conceived. It
was the cruel murder, not only of an innocent man, but
of an incarnate God. It was a murder effected by means
of a sham trial, on a false accusation, after a life of radiant
excellence. It was a murder contrived, threatened, and
perpetrated at last, for no other reason than to drive
Christ from self-denial and satiate a deadly revenge.
This disclosure was like a flash of lightning. Lucifer
fell at once and forever from his ascendency over the
conscience of the universe, and the heavenly world was

Finally, the blood of Christ destroyed Lucifer's power
as a deceiver. Christ had spoken truth, and done right,
¦ and moved in straight lines. In his mouth there was no
guile. If Lucifer was deceived, it was only as vice is
ever deceived by virtue. Lucifer deceived himself by
disbelieving in Christ's truth and disinterestedness and
fortitude. At the same time, to meet all Lucifer's methods of
guile and resist them was no easy task. It demanded
the highest intellectual qualities, of depth and velocity
and subtlety. As Jesus himself said to his disciples, "Be
ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
Now when it was made apparent that pure truth was
a match for falsehood, and honest dealing for intrigue, in
any one who was willing to sacrifice all, even life itself,
for truth's sake, then the moral tone of the universe rose ;
the prestige of d'plomac}' was turned to disgrace, its tem
porary advantage to disastrous defeat, and the hold of
that lying tongue on the confidence of heaven was broken
forever. Thus the blood of Christ sufficed to purge heaven. It
severed the last tie between Lucifer and a Father's love,
uprooted him from the affections of the universe, refuted

148 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the fundamental principles of rebellion, broke the power
of his accusations against God, and against creatures infe
rior to him, and thoroughly unmasked and convicted him.
Therefore, when the holy indignation of God expressed
itself, the holy public sentiment of heaven responded to it.
When God went forth in judicial sentence, all heaven re
joiced, and rang with hallelujahs. Heaven was purged.
And into that holy place never more to all eternity should
enter anything that defileth, neither' whatsoever loveth or
inaketh a lie.
In this result we are enabled to unite the main ele
ments of truth in the ancient and modern theories of
atonement. From the ancient theory of a thousand years we accept
the idea that the prominent object was to destroy Satan ;
rejecting, at the same time, all ideas of fraud or force or
magic in the transaction.
From the modern old-school theory we accept the idea
that the atonement involved a full execution of justice.
We simply change the object of that justice, and instead
of Christ, who did not deserve it, substitute Satan, who did.
From the modern new-school theory we accept the sub
lime and most important idea, that the atonement was of
the nature of an argument addressed to the reason of the
intelligent universe. As to the precise nature of that
argument, we differ from the theory in question. We do
not believe that God undertook to prove that he would
punish the guilty by undeserved suffering inflicted on the
innocent. The point God undertook to prove was, that Lucifer
merited impeachment and removal, and how that point
was proved we have now seen. Therefore this result em
bodies the important and valuable elements of all past
theories. Of course the discussion is not yet complete. We have

PURIFICATION OF HEAVEN. 149
considered one side only of the mighty problem. We
have considered what was first in order, the indispensable
condition of everything else, namely, the just removal of
Satan and the purification of the heavenly place. The
other side, the redeeming aspect of the glorious theme,
remains. Tims far all is clear. It is easy to see a wide landscape,
if the eye is only high enough and there is plenty of light.
A child can see great cities and empires. But we sit with
Christ in heavenly places. The light in which we see the
wide panorama is the light of God ; and though the theme
be wide and the subjects great, the simplest eye can see
them, because the point of observation is sublime and the
light intense.

CHAPTER XIV.
HEAVENLY FATHERLAND.
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but bv his own blood;
he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eter
NAL redemption for us." — Heb. ix. 12.
IN this passage we have the fact of eternal redemption
having been obtained for us, and the means by which
it was procured, — the blood of Christ.
We may consider either of these separately, or both to
gether. At present our attention will be confined to the
first, — What is eternal redemption?
It is generally conceded that redemption includes par
don of sin and admission to heaven hereafter. Eph. i. 7 :
" Redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins."
Rom. viii. 23 : " Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re
demption of the body."
All admit that whatever relates to the perfection of the
character and consummation of happiness in heaven is
included under the term redemption.
But it is apprehended that, to make the definition com
plete, an important element is yet to be added, namely,
that of a restoration to a lost holiness, and a return to an
interrupted bliss. Without this element we may have
growth, progress, development, but not redemption. Hence
it will be our object to show that redemption includes, in
its very nature, a return to holiness and heaven, and that
heaven, in the truest and most proper sense, is our native
land. We refer, in the first place, to the definition of the word.

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 151
The term used in the original is Xurpcoa-iv, from Xvrpoo),
which corresponds so entirely in sense with our English
word redeem, that we insert below the definition of the
latter given by Webster in full.1
It will be noticed that the primary and most of the sec
ondary definitions give prominence to the idea of some
kind of return, or restoration. Even the theological im-
plies an original liberty before the bondage to sin. But
the most important point is the legal sense, where the right
of re-entry is made conspicuous.
In fact, properly speaking, the word redeem is a law-
term, first found in the Mosaic legislation. It is proper to
say that in the Bible it is not so much a theological as a
legal term, and is to be interpreted accordingly.
In the law of Moses a regular system of redemption was
instituted. Neither real estate nor personal service could
be sold for a longer term than the remainder of forty-nine
years from a given date. The fiftieth was a jubilee, or
year of general redemption. Conditional redemption was
allowed before the jubilee, but in the jubilee itself redemp
tion was unconditional. When the trumpet of jubilee
1 "Redeem, 1. To purchase back ; to ransom; to liberate or rescue
from captivity or bondage, or from any liability to suffer or to be for
feited, by paying an equivalent ; as, to redeem prisoners or captured
goods, to redeem a pledge. 2. To repurchase what has been sold ; to re
gain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the
possessor. 3. To rescue ; to recover ; to deliver from. 4. To compensate ;
to make amends. 5. To free by making atonement. 6. To pay the pen
alty of. 7. To save. 8. To perform what has been promised ; to make
good by performance. 9. In law, to recall an estate, or to obtain the
right to re-enter upon a mortgaged estate, by paying to the mortgagee
his principal, interest, and expenses or costs. 10. In theology, to rescue
and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God's violated
law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner, or by doing
and suffering that which is accepted in lieu of the sinner's obedience.
11. In commerce, to purchase or pay the value of any promissory note,
bill, or other evidence of debt," &c.

152 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
sounded, the statute said, " Proclaim liberty throughout all
the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; and ye shall
return every man unto his possession, and every man
unto his family."
The law further directed that this jubilee-trumpet should
sound on the great day of atonement, on which the central
sacrifice of the system was offered. Thus, by law, .the
idea of return to family and possession was associated
with the sprinkling of the blood of atonement.
So great a revolution as this return of property and per
sons in a whole nation, after the silent changes of half a
century, could not fail to stamp ineffaceable associations on
the words redeem, redeemer, and redemption. It is manifest
that it was intended it should. The marks of design are
nowhere more conspicuous.
The practice of redemption was nationalized by statute
for fifteen centuries, and all that time the law was a school
master to bring them to Christ. The law taught them to
associate the idea of a return of persons and property with
the words redeem, redeemer, redemption, and so prepare
the words for application to Christ. In the mint of the
law those words were coined and struck which should be
and are current under the Gospel.
And if the coins have become worn through use, and
the inscriptions faint, it is for us to stamp them anew in
the same mint of the law from which they were first
issued. When the trumpet of the final jubilee is sounded,
and Christ's atoning blood has achieved its complete effect,
then the true Israel of God will return every man unto
his family and his possession, not in the temporal Canaan,
but in heaven, the true Canaan of rest. Hence we sing,
" Ye who have sold for naught
The heritage above,
Come,, take it back unbought,
The gift of Jesus' love.

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 153
The year of jubilee is come,
Return ye ransomed sinners home."
The same idea was enstamped on the word by a cove
nant, made before the law, but fulfilled at the exodus. To
Abraham, God says (Gen. xv. 13) : " Thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land that is not theirs ; . . . . but in the fourth
generation they shall come hither again." That is, vir
tually, Thy seed shall go from Canaan to Egypt, and return
from Egypt to Canaan. This was the substance of that
covenant. Accordingly, we see Israel go down into Egypt,
and at the exodus we see them return to Canaan. And God
calls this redeeming them. " I have established my cove
nant to give you the land of Canaan, .... and I will redeem
you with an outstretched arm." And this redemption, too,
was preceded by the sprinkling of blood on the door-post.
The design here is as apparent as in the previous case.
The nation was in a foreign land, in hard bondage ; there
was an ancient covenant to carry them back to Canaan,
and, in executing that covenant, God said, I redeem you.
Hence, on the shore of the Red Sea, Moses sang, " Thou,
in thy mercy, hast led forth the people which thou hast
redeemed." Thus the word redemption was designedly imbued with
associations of deliverance by blood from foreign bondage,
and restoration to Canaan. Hence, when the redeemed on
the sea of glass mingled with fire are represented singing
the song of Moses and the Lamb, it implies that they also
have been rescued from a foreign thraldom, and restored
to heaven, their native clime. That there was a typical
meaning in the whole transaction seems distinctly assert
ed, 1 Cor. x. 11 : " All these things happened unto them
for types, and are written for our instruction." Paul had
been speaking of the exodus and march to Canaan. In
deed, the language of religious experience the world over
has been built on this analogy. Man's natural state of
7*

154 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
bondage to sin is Egypt ; the Lord's Supper takes the place
of the Passover; the Christian life is called a journey
through the wilderness ; death is passing over Jordan ;
and heaven is Canaan.
The language formed in this way has become a universal
language, and Christians the world over sing,
" Sweet fields, beyond the swelling flood,
Stand dressed in living green,
So to the Jews old Canaan stood,
While Jordan rolled between."
The import of the word redeem received new vividness
at the return from Babylon. It is in prophesying this
return that the Lord calls himself Israel's Redeemer in
the most impressive manner. Probably nowhere else
in the Bible are the words redeemer and redeem so beau
tifully, so sublimely used as in reference to this event.
The history of the transaction, too, is managed in such a
manner as to create vivid impressions. We see the de
struction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away Israel
captive to a city whose brazen gates and Cyclopean walls
were the wonder of the world. We see the exiles hang
their harps on the willows and weep, as they remember
Zion. We see Cyrus raised up, Babylon taken, Israel
sent back, Jerusalem rebuilt, the Temple dedicated with
mingled weeping and shouting.
Why is the ' noise of rejoicing mingled with that of
weeping? What gives edge to the emotion of the hour,
whether of pain or of joy ? Is it not the peculiar and
exquisite sensation of a recovered home and country,
and national existence, blent with contrasted memories
of former splendor? It was the old men who remem
bered the glories of the former Temple, who wept. Now
it is remarkable that, in prophesying this, the Spirit con
tinually blends it with a higher, a still future deliverance.
The restoration of the natural Israel, and the final deliver-

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 155
ance of the spiritual Israel, are so blended and interlaced
together that it is almost impossible to extricate them.
" Fear not, thou worm Jacob," cried Isaiah ; " I will
help thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy One
of Israel." " Thus saith the Lord, .... I have blotted
out as a thick cloud thy transgressions ; . . . . return unto
me, for I have redeemed thee. Sing, O ye heavens, for
the Lord hath done it ! '
" The Lord will comfort Zion, he will comfort her waste
places, he will make her wilderness like Eden, like the
garden of the Lord."
" Behold I create new heavens and a new earth, and
the former shall pass away, and no more be called to
mind ; behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her
people a joy."
The later prophecies of Isaiah are full of utterances too
high for any mere temporal deliveranc'e, and yet they em
phatically mention a return. Thus, " The redeemed of
the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion ;
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads, they shall ob
tain joy and gladness, and sorrow and mourning shall flee
away." The natural Israel realized but a short-lived, imperfect
joy, and were afterwards dashed in pieces, and scattered
as we now behold therm
It is the spiritual Israel the prophetic eye here sees,
returning out of the Babylon of life into the heavenly
Jerusalem, which, because it is restored to primitive splen
dor, is called the New Jerusalem.
Instinctively the Church feels this in moments of devout
inspiration, and sings,
" Thus, though the universe shall bum,
And God his works destroy,
With songs thy ransom shall return,
And everlasting joy."

156 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
This, furthermore, was the confession of faith of the
Church of God from Abraham to Christ.
In Heb. xi. 9-15, the Apostle states that Abraham
sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange, that is,
foreign country, because he looked for a city already
founded, whose builder and maker is God. He knew that
Canaan below, in which Jerusalem was not yet founded,
was nothing but a foreign country. He knew that Canaan
above, in which Jerusalem already had foundations, was
really his native land. Hence both he and his posterity
confessed themselves strangers and pilgrims on the earth,
that is, foreigners, abroad from home. " Now they that
say such things," continues the Apostle, " declare plainly
that they seek fatherland." Any man who calls himself
a pilgrim and stranger, declares plainly that he is not at
home, but expects to return to his native land.
The word -rraTpiSa (patrida), used by the Apostle, and
in the common version tamely rendered " a country,"
properly means one's own country, or fatherland.
This is the word Homer constantly uses in describing
the emotions of Ulysses, for years an exile from Ithaca,
•¦ And inly pining for his native shore."
What the Apostle means to say is, that Abraham and
his faithful descendants, in calling themselves strangers
and pilgrims, even in Canaan, declared plainly they sought
their native land, or fatherland : and, lest it should be
thought Chaldaaa was meant, he says, if it had been that,
they might have had opportunity to have returned, " but
now they seek a better fatherland, even a heavenly; where
fore God is. not ashamed to be called their God, for he
hath prepared for them a city."
They confessed heaven to be their native country, and
God was well pleased with them on that aeeount. God
had prepared the place for them, and was preparing them

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 157
for it. God had excited a divine homesickness in their
breast, and now, as with dying accents they sighed,
" O mother dear, Jerusalem,
When shall I come to thee,
When shall my labors have an end,
Thy joys when shall I see 1 "
he was not ashamed of them for it. It may perhaps be
said that they called heaven fatherland in a loose figura
tive sense, as Christians now do when they sing,
" Rise, my soul, and stretch thy wings,
Thy better portion trace ;
Rise from transitory things,
Towards heaven, thy native place."
But the evidence to the contrary is quite conclusive.
Philo was a Jewish scholar of distinction, nearly contem
porary with Paul, and his testimony is decisive. " Moses
and other good men while on earth were living abroad
from home, in a kind of expatriation from heaven 
And while they dwelt in the body, they looked down on
things seen and temporal, and urged their way back again
whence they originally came, and call that heavenly re
gion in which is their citizenship, fatherland (patridd),
but this earthly in which they live, a foreign land." ,
Again, " Our soul, having lost its heavenly mansion, came '
down into this earthly body as into a foreign place."
Now no historian doubts what Philo's belief was. No
common reader can be at a loss. Yet the manner in
which he and Paul speak on this subject is strikingly
similar. Their use of such terms as "citizenship," "fa
therland," "abroad from home," "foreign land," indeed,
their whole style and phraseology, is so alike that it seems
impossible not to believe they thought alike.
How momentous, then, the inference ! We have noth
ing less than the Holy Spirit's declaration, that this was
the confession of faith of the whole Abrahamic Church,

158 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
with which God was well pleased. So that it is but an
echo of the ancient belief still lingering among us, when
we sing, " Though in a foreign land,
We are not far from home,
And nearer to our house above
We every moment come."
This ancient confession, we now observe, was fully sanc
tioned by Christ. Let it be remembered, that we' have
proved the pre-existence of Christ as man. By general
consent, we showed the title " Son of Man " relates to
him in his human nature. By general consent, it is denied
that his Divine nature did descend. Either, therefore,
Christ as man descended from heaven, or nothing de
scended. The pre-existence of Christ is the one idea of the Gos
pels. It is this that gives tone to our Saviour's whole life.
The feeling of having " come from above," and come
" to give his flesh for the life of the world," imbues all
his words and actions with a peculiarly sweet and tender
mystery, making him, though full of joy in communion
with the Father, yet a man of .sorrows and acquainted
witli grief.
Now it is a principle of science that a trait being fairly
proved inherent in, and essentially characteristic of, an in
dividual, is proved of the species. Thus the resurrection
without subsequent death being established in a single in
stance, is held established for the race. It is universally
admitted that one well-authenticated instance is enough to
establish the immortality of the entire race.
On the same principle, Jesus, by indorsing the ancient
belief in respect to himself, virtually indorsed it for the
race. If the Son of Man came from heaven, a fortiori, man
came from heaven. If he came for the express purpose

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 159
of being their Redeemer, in the sense prepared in the
law, prefigured at the exodus, and intensified in the re
turn from Babylon, then, a fortiori, those he came to
redeem were already exiles from their native land.
In Luke xv. he gives three parables, all turning on the
same point.
A man loses one out of a hundred sheep, goes after it,
brings it back, and calls his neighbors to rejoice. So Christ,
the Son of Man, the good Shepherd, had his hundred
sheep in the heavenly fold ; one of them was lost ; he came
after it, to seek and save, to give his life for the sheep, and
bring them back, that there might be one fold and one
shepherd. And the point of the illustration is, that the
angels will feel more joy over the return of man to heaven
than over all the unfallen orders that never went away.
So the woman has ten pieces, loses one, finds it, and
rejoices. The woman is ^'Jerusalem above, mother of us
all." (Gal. iv. 26.) And the point of the illustration is,
the more joy there will be over those restored to citizen
ship than over those that never lost it.
So the father has two sons. One goes away, the other
stays at home. After alife of dissipation and bondage the
prodigal comes back, and is not only welcomed, but treated
as if he were the first-born, and had the birthright. And
the point is, that it is meet to rejoice more over one who
conies back than over one who went not away. It is in
heaven that there is " more joy." It is in the Father's
house on high that there is festive mirth. It is man — once
in heaven, but long lost, long a prodigal and a slave — that
comes back at last, and receives the primogeniture of the
skies. The angels will not murmur at seeing man exalted
above them. But if they should, God would quickly
soothe each jealous feeling, by saying, " It is meet that we
shoulu rejoice, for this my son and thy brother was dead,

160 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
but is alive again, was lost, but is found." There is some
thing in a return home after long absence, a return to life
and purity and peace and power, peculiarly adapted to
excite joy in every benevolent mind, especially in the mind
of infinite benevolence, the mind of God.
In these parables, and in many other places, Christ nat
urally and unaffectedly spoke on the basis of the ancient
faith, that heaven is our native land. That was the exist
ing faith. He simply recognized it as such, and, standing
upon it, developed the precious thought of his redeeming
errand. We are here as exiles, not to be punished, but
saved. He is here, not to inflict judgment, but to redeem
and carry us back to our native clime and inheritance.
Life is not penal, but remedial. This world is not a prison,
but a world of redeeming grace, built by the Mediator,
and for him. He placed us here, and in the fulness of
time came hither after us, bore our sins in his own body
on the tree, and in the morning of the resurrection will
present us to himself, a glorious Church, not having a
spot or wrinkle or any such thing. O for hearts of love
to sing, " Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God,
He, to rescue mc from danger,
Interposed his precious blood."
This idea of redemption as a return to heaven, accom-
pfishgd by an atoning Redeemer, may be called the plot of
the august drama of the Word of God. It is this that gives
unity to the Bible, and makes it, out of many books, com
posed by many authors, through a period of fifteen centu
ries, more truly one than any other book in existence. The
Bible opens with this theme proposed in Genesis, and closes
with it resolved in the Revelation, and Calvary stands mid
way between. In Genesis we see an emblematic paradise
and its wedded pah- ; in the Revelation, an emblematic par-

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 161
•adise, and a wedded pair. In Genesis, the wedded pair are
driven out ; in the Revelation, they are brought back.
In the one case the right to the tree of life is taken
away ; in the other, it is restored. In the one case they
are naked ; in the other, clothed in white raiment, the
righteousness of saints. In the beginnmg, there is a ser
pent victorious ; at the end, the serpent has been cast into
the lake of fire. That the Book of Revelation is highly
symbolic, and that paradise there is emblematic of heaven,
all perceive. But if paradise be a symbol of heaven in
Revelation, of what is it a symbol in Genesis ? If entering
it, at last, means going to heaven, what does being " driven
out " of it, at first, mean ? If gaining a right unto the tree
of life denotes access to God, what does the taking away
that right denote ? If the symbols of the Apocalypse teach
that heaven is to be our home, why do not those of Gen
esis teach that it has been our home ?
Hence, in the final picture of redemption are united all
the main outlines of all former pictures. From the year
of jubilee is taken the sounding of the seventh trumpet;
From the exodus is taken the song of Moses and the Lamb.
From the seventy years' captivity is taken the spiritual
Babylon, and the escape of God's people into the New
Jerusalem. All former emblems of redemption are here
wrought up in one surpassingly gorgeous panorama, — at
once paradise regained, Canaan revisited, Jerusalem rebuilt,
the jubilee of ages brought in.
This is redemption. On this all that is peculiar in Gospel
doctrine, as distinguished from naturalism, is based. On
this all the technical terms of the system are formed. Man
has forgotten God, he must remember him. He is out of
his senses, he must come to himself. Alienated from his
Heavenly Father, he must be reconciled. Rebellious, he
must submit. Asleep, he must awake, and, dead in sin,
he must be raised. Having formed habits of sin, he must

162 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED. •
be born again, and be brought into those states of feeling
and obedience he had, when as a child he played about
his father's knee in the heavenly home. He is, indeed,
bankrupt, but his kinsman-Redeemer has purchased his
property, and holds it for him until the redemption, or jubi
lee, when every man shall return unto his own family and
his own inheritance. He is a captive, a prisoner, a slave ;
but his Redeemer has conquered his oppressor, has ran
somed him with his own life, and the time draws nigh when
the edict of final emancipation shall be carried into full
effect, and the last scar and vestige of chains be eternally
effaced from the free limbs of the emancipated and glorified
sons of God.
Tliere is no technical term of the Evangelical system
which does not really imply a return to former holiness and
bliss, and. which does not receive new fulness and force of
meaning by the distinct perception of that sublime fact.
After the age of the Apostles, the ancient belief on this
subject still continued to be held in the Christian Church for
three centuries. Origen, in the fourth century, speaks of it
as the catholic, or universal belief, and it is found in the
writings of Justin Martyr, Clement .of Alexandria, Arno-
bius, Pierius, Pamphilus, Eusebius, Methodius, Nemesius,
Synesius, Hilary, and Prudentius.
But the philosophic bearings of this truth were early
hid, and the belief itself degraded by the mistaken principle
that this world is a world of punishment.
As the Papacy rose, the ancient belief, being corrupted
by the mistake referred to, and by other causes, was gradu
ally displaced from practical effect upon theological systems,
and at length, about the middle of the sixth century, when
the Papacy came to a head, this doctrine was first publicly
condemned. The Council of Constantinople decreed, in
substance, that if any man believed that souls originally
existed in heaven, and cooled down from the love of God,

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 163
and were sent into this world, he should be accursed. Thus
the man of sin trod this torch of salvation in the dust, and
since that time it has never been rekindled.
The Church has held, and still holds, speculatively, an
opposite theory. But, as we have seen, in her hymns, the'
heart of the Church still clings to an idea she repudiates
with her head. Metaphysically the Church is deceived ;
but her devotional instincts are loyal to the ancient faith.
Those hymns that contain this thought are always popular,
and always effective, just in proportion to the intensity of
spiritual life. There is a chord in every pious heart that
thrills and vibrates as the breath of such hymns passes over
it, with fitful, mysterious ^Eolian harmonies. The saint
experiences a penetrating, poignant pleasure, he knows not
why, in chanting: " Shall aught beguile us on the road,
When we are walking back to God t
For strangers into life we come,
And dying is but going home."
Such hymns are peculiarly dear in seasons of revival.
There are hymns constructed on the opposite hypothesis,
but they are destitute of poetic fire, and are never sung>
Nor is it the poetry only of the Church that is loyal to the
ancient faith. Her impassioned prose is also tinged with it.
One is struck with astonishment, sometimes, at meeting in
the writings of eminent divines passages like the following,
by Dr. Spring : —
" It would seem as though the soul of man had not lost
all impressions of what it once was ; that there still clings
to it the instinctive and indestructible thought of its hio-h
origin and its ultimate destination. And there is still to be
found in it a confused, and, in some sort, irrepressible seek
ing after God. It is a wanderer, an exile ; yet in seeking to
find its way back to its native skies, it only plunges deeper
into the dark wilderness."

164 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
So Augustine, the father, as it were, of the opposite
theory on this subject, says, addressing Jerusalem above :
" Let my wayfaring sigh after thee ! I have gone astray
like a lost sheep, yet upon the shoulders of my Shepherd I
hope to be brought back unto thee, .... Jerusalem, my
country, my mother ; nor will I be turned away till thou
gather all that I am from this dispersed, this disordered
state, into the peace of that our dear mother, where are the
first-fruits of my spirit already."
Such passages occur frequently in animated revival
preaching, or in moments of elevated composition, when
the trammels of metaphysical training fall off, and the soul,
yielding to impulses deep, mysterious, inscrutable, mounts
up with wings as eagles, reminding us of the sentiment, —
" Rivers to the ocean run,
Nor stay in all their course,
Fires, ascending, seek the sun,
Both speed them to their source.
So a soul that 's born of God,
Pants to view his glorious face,
Upward tends to his abode,
To rest in his embrace."
Do not such utterances indicate that the real power of
the Gospel, that which has, in fact, converted souls and
sanctified them, may be discovered to have lain very much
in this idea of Redemption as a return to God and heaven,
theoretically denied, but practically impressed by the Holy
Ghost on every bebeving soul ? We are persuaded of it.
And we sigh for the day when that glorious truth, so pow
erful even under protest, shall be recognized by the judg
ment, and exert, by the blessing of God, its omnipotent
power to purify and save.
Before leaving the subject, we will glance at a few
common objections.
If this be a truth of such great importance, why was it
not more clearly revealed in the Bible ?

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 165
We submit that we have shown that is as clearly re
vealed in the Bible as redemption is ; moreover, we may
answer one question by asking another : If this doctrine be
false, and yet the whole ancient Church believed it true,
why was it not more plainly contradicted in the Bible ?
With all due deference we submit that this question is first
in order. When the objector shall have answered this,
there will be little need to reply to the other inquiry.
But why, if this be true, have we no memory of that
celestial career ? We might, perhaps, ask, Is there not
something about the whole process of education, something
in the intuitions of the mind, something especially in the
phenomena of precocious genius, something in the unde
fined ideas of magnificence that haunt the soul of man,
and make the poet the king of men, which speaks of a
noble past, of divine abilities dormant, but not dead, with
in ? Is there nothing in the spectacle of second childhood
suggestive in regard to the first childhood? Here is a
man who once swayed senates and controlled mighty au
diences, now,
" In second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
There is nothing but the animal left. Where is all that
knowledge ? What has become of that wit ? What has
become of that large learning, that brilliant rhetoric, that
spiritual purity and fire ? Are not all those varied powers
still in him, though dormant ? Why, then, may they not
have been in him, though dormant, in that previous child
hood, out of which education waked them ?
But, putting this aside and coming to the objection
afresh, we may say that the object of man's existence in
this world was the final suppression of Lucifer's rebellion,
and the redemption of the Church. Both objects demand
ed the exclusion of Satan from direct access to the hurnan
mind. That exclusion was effected by the body.. But

160 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
it necessarily involved a temporary loss of memory, and
interruption of the train of associations. It is enough that
without such temporary oblivion man could not be re
deemed nor the Devil destroyed.
It is sometimes said this is wild, visionary, improbable.
It is uncongenial to the human mind and unnatural.
But if it was the confession of faith of the whole Church
before Christ, it cannot be uncongenial to the sanctified
human mind, whatever it may be to the unsanctified.
And as to probability, is it any more improbable than
that such sinners as we should not only reach heaven,
but reign " heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ " ?
Nothing can be more improbable in itself than this. If
we can believe this on the Divine testimony, we can be
lieve the other far more easily, and must, from the very
nature of the case, for by the definition of redemption, the
testimony for the one is the testimony for the other.
v A full belief of the doctrine of redemption, as now pre
sented, would be of beneficial tendency to all. To the
public it is needed as a counterbalance against natural
ism. Tliere is a wide-spread tendency to let our ideas of
redemption run down into notions of mere growth, devel
opment, progress. This always reduces sin to a negative
value, extenuated of all ill-desert. Sin is ignorance, mistake,
immaturity, undeveloped faculty. The result is the absence
of conviction of sin, and the growth of spiritual pride.
The essence of redemption being gone, the name soon
follows, and from one end of the year to the other, such
words as redeem, redeemer, redemption, are never heard.
An Arctic winter, so far as Evangelical piety is concerned,
is the inevitable result. To this captivating, but chilly
and pernicious scheme, the true view of redemption now
unfolded, as it is the logical antipode, so it is the infallible
antidote. The Church needs a new reformation on this
point. As in Luther's time she rescued the doctrine of

HEAVENLY FATHERLAND. 167
justification by faith from Papal oblivion, so she ought
now to lift and light again this torch of redemption, by the
man of sin so vilely trod in the dust. And when the
Church begins to sing, with the heart and also with tho
understanding, " O Salem, our once happy seat,
When I of thee forgetful prove,
Let then my trembling hand forget
The tuneful strings with art to move," —
then Babylon's walls will tremble, for the hour of God's
judgment has come.
To the private Christian this belief is eminently bene
ficial. It gives him deep, thorough, intelligible views of
sin, and exalted views of Divine goodness. It tends
directly to create heavenly-mindedness. Heaven becomes
home in the strictest sense. The idea of having come from
there has a marvellous quickening power to make one
want to go there. The treasure is all there, and the heart
cannot help being there, too. The Christian rejoices not
in earthly power, not even though demons are subject to
him, but that his name is written in heaven, in the .old
census-roll of empire, the book of lives, where it was record
ed when he was born, and before he ever left home, and
went into exile. Christ's promise, " Him that overcometh,
I will not blot out his name from the book of life," is
sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. O that every
weary, wayworn traveller Zionward would believe, and
learn from experience how nourishing, consoling, invigo
rating is this truth ! One experiment would be an argu
ment so convincing in its power that he would never
doubt again, but go on singing:
" We are on our journey home,
Where Christ our Lord is gone,
We shall meet around his throne,
When he makes his people one
In the New Jerusalem.

168 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" We can see that distant home,
Though clouds rise dark between,
Faith views the radiant dome,
And a lustre flashes keen
From the New Jerusalem.
" O glory shining far
From the never-setting sun,
0 trembling morning star,
Our journey 's almost done
To the New Jerusalem.
" 0 holy, heavenly home,
0 rest eternal there,
When shall the exiles come,
Where they cease from earthly care,
In the New Jerusalem ! "

CHAPTER XV.
THE NATURAL MAN.
" Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural, and afterward that which is spiritual."  1 cor. xv. 46.
IT is commonly supposed that Adam was created holy
in the garden of Eden, and that he fell from his origi
nal uprightness, and all his race with him. But we have
just showed that heaven is our native country, or father-
lard, and that redemption involves a return by a Re
deemer's blood to primeval place, purity, and happiness.
How if mankind fell in Adam, heaven is not their native
lane1, nor is redemption a return. A man cannot return
to a place he never was in, nor to a character he never
possessed. On the contrary, if mankind are a celestial
race, now in exile, but destined to return to their native
skiesi then the idea of a fall in Adam cannot be true..
And yet for some twelve or thirteen centuries the idea
of heiven being our native home has lain under ban and
anathema, and Christendom has been taught to believe
that a fall in Adam was plainly and distinctly taught in
the Biile.
Yet it has never been proved that the Bible represents
Adam and Eve as created holy in Eden. This has been
for the most part assumed, with little attempt at proof.-
But thisj is too important a matter to take for granted.
For if Adam is not plainly taught to have been created
holy in Eden, he is not taught to have fallen there. A
man cannot fall from a holiness he does not possess. He
cannot be represented as falling from a hobness he is not
8

170 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
represented as possessing. If the Scripture reveals the
fact of a fall, it must reveal the fact of a holiness to fall
from ; it is impossible to indicate the one without indi
cating the other. Yet it has never been proved that the
Bible in any manner hints that Adam, when first formed
out of dust, was any holier than any of his posterity natu
rally are as they rise into life.
It is generally conceded that men are prone to sin ; that
they are born with some kind of bias to evil which renders
it certain they will yield to temptation on the first opportu
nity. It has never been seriously attempted, so far as we
know, to show that Scripture does not ascribe exactly the
same character to Adam, placing him in the category of
natural or carnal, and not in the category of spiritual.
We take issue, then, with the Church of Rome, and all
churches that drink of her cup, in reference to the alleged
teachings of the Bible in the premises. The Scriptures do
notlntimate in the slightest degree that Adam and Eve, in
Eden/ were at first holy or spiritual, but, on the contrary,
set them forth as the representative specimens of a fallen
and sinful race.
We will consider, in the first place, such slight attempts
as have been made to prove that Adam was holy it the
time of the formation of his body.
" God said, Let us create man. Rut the soul is the man.
Now God does not create sinful souls."
The proper reply is, that create is used here of construc
tion out of existing materials, as the mechanic creates a
house, the artist creates a picture. The materials existed
before, the combination did not exist. So of God it is-*
said, He can create, and he destroy. As destroying only
separates soul and body, so creating only combines them.
The dust existed. The soul existed. Hence it is generally
conceded that by the expression, " God breathe! into him
the breath of life, and man became a hving soul," no more

THE NATURAL MAN. 171
is meant than that God caused him to breathe, and he be
came a living animal. " Living soul " is applied to him in
common with birds, beasts, and reptiles, in the same chapter.
" God created man in his own image and after his likeness;
and by this a moral image and likeness is meant."
Many of the ablest minds have believed, however, that
a moral resemblance is not implied, but one of constitu
tional faculties and dominion, — a likeness purely analogi
cal, as indicated in the words, " Let us make man in our
image, and let him have dominion." Man, as a rational
moral agent, endowed with supremacy over nature and her
tribes, stands, analogically, in the place of God. His rela
tion to the natural world is similar to that of God in the
moral universe. Hence, after the flood, that image and
likeness is spoken of as still subsisting. " Whoso shed-
deth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in
the image of God made he him." St. James also speaks
of it as perpetual. " Therewith [the tongue] curse we men,
which are made after the simibtude of Gpd." St. Paul
implies that there was a sense in which the man was more, in
the image of God than the woman (1 Cor. xi. 7): "The'
man ought not to cover his head, for that he is the image
and glory of God, but the woman is the glory ofthe man."
The relation of the man, as husband and father, is in a
special sense analogous to the relation of God to the Church
and moral universe. It is plain, therefore, that the image
and likeness was not by inspired apostles regarded as moral.
" God saufall that he had made, and pronounced it very
good." So God says of Israel (Jer. ii. 21), " I planted thee
wholly a right seed " ; and (Num. xxiii. 21), " He hath not
beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness
in Israel." Such statements are relative. "Very good"
means fit, appropriate, well adapted to the end in view, not
morally good. Were sheep and oxen, serpents and bzards,

172- REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
sharks and monsters of the deep, morally righteous ? Nay,
was tbe serpent himself holy ? They were, indeed, very
good in their place, as parts of a complex world designed to
be a moral battle-field and pedestal of the Cross, but not
otherwise. " There was an intimate communion between man and his
Maker, implying holiness."
Indeed ! — and where is the record of such intimate com
munion ? There is no trace of it in the Bible. Adam does
not speak to God directly, so far as the record shows, until
after disobeying him, and then it is to throw the blame of
his fault on his wife, — an act selfish and ungenerous, in
dicating anything but a character previously perfect. The
idea of holy communion, so far as Genesis is concerned, is
a pure fiction. But what authority has any man, or any
church, to add to or take away from the Word of God ?
Yet these, so far as known to us, are all the attempts at
proof of the original holiness and fall of Adam in Eden.
Is this evidence sufficient for so grave a doctrine as that
of the fall of a whole race in one man ? Is this worthy
of being called proof? We often hear "it said that pre
existence would solve difficulties, if it could be proved, and
demands the most exorbitant are made on us for evidence.
Is the fall in Adam, then, to be believed without evidence,
because, instead of solving difficulties, it creates them ?
"But what!" it may be exclaimed, "must we never
take anythmg for granted? Must we be radical and im
practicable in always demanding good and sufficient evi
dence ? The bravest soldiers sometimes have to beg for
quarter ; why should not valiant theologians sometimes beg
the question ? Shall men, to preserve bfe and limb, implore
mercy, and shall not divines, to preserve their system and
their sermons, set up a single petitio principii?"
. We answer, in tbe words of Scripture, " Prove all things,
hold fast that which is good." If, indeed, assumptions

THE NATURAL MAN. 173
were ever to be tolerated, it would be in favor of some
amiable, cheerful view, congenial to good sense and honor
able feeling ; then to believe too easily were a pardonable
faibng; but when a doctrine is proposed gloomier than
Cocytus, — a doctrine that eclipses the glory of God, and
robes the earth in mourning, — then credubty becomes a
sin, and superstition a crime agamst God and against the
intelligent universe.
We proceed to show, that not only is the fall of Adam'
not taught in Scripture, but that the Bible plainly teaches
the exact contrary of this doctrine. Adam, at the time of
the formation of his body, is set forth by the Holy Spirit
as a natural man, in the technical sense of that term.
We premise here, that the point is, not that Adam was
naturally any worse than other men, but that he was no
better. A man may be a good man, humanly speaking, as
Paul was when abve without the law, — strict, legal, tena
cious of merit, unconvicted of sin. Take the best man in
the world of this kind, and he has yet to learn that before
God he is a sinner, to be saved by redeeming grace. This
is what we are to prove Adam was, — a merely natural
man, standing on the natural plane, wholly unconscious of
his being a sinner, in need of pardoning mercy. This is
the character all his descendants possess until renewed by
the Holy Ghost. We are to show by the Word of God
that it was his.
The Word of God ascribes to Adam and Eve a state
of blindness before they transgressed. On eating the fruit
(Gen. iii. 7), " The eyes of them both were opened."
This was the effect of eating. Before, they were naked
and not ashamed ; now they knew that they were naked.
The serpent had said, " God doth know that in the day ye
eat of it your eyes shall be opened." They ate. Their
eyes were opened. Of course the representation is, that
their eyes were shut before. It would be absurd to say

174 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" their eyes were opened," if they had been open all tho
while. The representation is that they were blind. It
is no invention, but what every one must see lies on the
surface of the narrative.
But what sort of blindness? Was it bodily or mental ?
There are such blind men as he to whom Christ said,
" Go wash in the pool of Siloam," and there are others to
whom Christ says, " I counsel thee to buy of me eye-salve
to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see." This blind
ness was not bodily. " The woman saw the tree, that
it was pleasant to the eyes." There was nothing the
matter with her visual organs. But if not external, it
must have been internal. It was a blindness of the mind,
such as Christ speaks of in the Jews: "They see with
their eyes, but do not perceive ; their eyes have they
closed." It is such an inward, spiritual blindness as is described
1 Cor. iii. 14 : " For the natural man understandeth not
the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spirit
ually discerned." Adam and Eve were an incarnation
of this text. By them God presented bodily to the mind
the same idea he has expressed in these words. Their
blindness was just such as appertains to every human
being till enlightened by the Spirit of God. They were
from the first fair samples, average specimens of the race.
They were naked, and not ashamed. They ought to
have felt shame, but did not. They would have felt shame
but for that mental blindness, and as soon as that blindness
passed away they did feel it, and began to attempt to cover
themselves. Failing in this, they were clothed with skins
by the Divine hand. It does not seem as though much
argument ought to be necessary to show that in this naked
ness there was a moral import. The act of clothing that
nakedness has been instinctively regarded as emblematic.

THE NATURAL MAN. 175
Their attempts to sew fig-leaves together and make aprons
has become a standing illustration of the attempt of a
convicted sinner to work out a righteousness of his own.
Their being clothed by God has been universally regard
ed as an emblem of justification through Christ. Thus
Milton : — " Nor he their outward only with the skins
Of beasts, but inward nakedness much more
Opprobrious, with his robe of righteousness
Arraying, coyered from his Father's sight."
So, likewise, President Edwards remarks : " It is likely
that these skins Adam and Eve were clothed with were
the skins of their sacrifices. God's clothing them with these
was a lively figure of their being clothed with the right
eousness of Christ. This clothing was no clothing of their
own obtaining, but it was God that gave it to them. It is
said, ' God made them coats of skins, and covered them,'
as the righteousness our naked souls are clothed with is
not our righteousness, but the righteousness which is of
God. It is only he who clothes the naked soul. Our first
parents, who were naked, were clothed at the expense
of life. Beasts were slain, and resigned up their lives a
sacrifice to God to afford clothing to their nakedness. So
doth Christ afford clothing to our naked souls."
These words of President Edwards are plain and pointed.
But they overthrow the doctrine of the fall in Adam from
the foundation. They cut it up by the roots. This naked
ness, so expressive, existed before their disobedience. It
was not produced by it. This is not the way to represent
them as previously holy. If they had been clothed in
white before the act, and been stripped naked after it,
it would have represented an original righteousness and
a fall. As it is, however, it represents no such thing.
If it represents anything at all, it represents a state of
latent guilt, which their blindness alone prevents them

176 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
from being ashamed of. If their attempt to cover them
selves denoted vain efforts at self-justification, and if God's
clothing them denotes a real justification, then their pre
vious nakedness denotes an unjustified state. They are
exposed to God's displeasure, they are destitute of justifi
cation, and they know it not, because they are blind.
Throughout the Bible nakedness is never used figura
tively for innocence. Neither do we believe it is ever
so used by poets, rhetoricians, or in common parlance.
We doubt if an instance can be found in the whole range
of human literature, where nakedness, being used figura
tively, is used to denote innocence, much less holiness.
True, Milton speaks of " that first naked glory," and says
of Eve, " No veil
She needed, virtue proof," —
and describes them as
" Godlike, erect, with native honor clad
In naked majesty."
But why "clad"? Why not with native honor bare?
And why does he, after their transgression, say,
" Innocence, that as a veil
Had shadowed them from knowing ill, was gone ;
Why represent innocence as a covering instead of a na
kedness ? Why describe them as
" Naked left
To guilty shame,"
and as " Destitute
And bare of all their virtue " ?
Why, in short, does he picture them as clothed before
transgression and naked after, but from the force of a law
of analogy he could not resist, compelling him to write as
if nakedness was the emblem of guilt, in spite of a theory
that commanded him to consider it an emblem of inno-

THE NATURAL MAN. 177
cence ? But if in Paradise Lost nakedness is not used
figuratively to denote innocence, it certainly is not in any
other uninspired work, while in the Bible it is habitually,
constantly, and scientifically used in the other way. Take
as an instance the vision in Zech. iii. The filthy garments
on Joshua denote guilt, real or imputed ; the taking thein
off and putting on a change of raiment denote justifica
tion. To the Laodicean Church Christ says (Rev. iii. 17,
18) : " Thou knowest not that thou art blind and naked ;
I counsel of thee, to buy of me white raiment, that thou
mayest be covered, that the shame of thy nakedness do,
not appear."
Observe, moreover, the opening and closing represen
tations of the Bible. It is because man is naked, and
incapable of self-justification, that we see him driven out
into the earth for the purpose, as the coats, of skin seem to
show, of having a justification provided. When the time
arrives, and that object is achieved, we see the Church
return to Paradise, and it is said : " To. her was granted
to be clothed with fine bnen, clean and white, which is
the righteousness of saints."
With scientific certainty, then, the representation in '
Genesis marks Adam and Eve out as the representatives
of an unjustified race, and they are made to act out a
pantomime of redemption. We first see them naked and
not ashamed, denoting a sinner unawakened, and uncon
scious that he has no defence against the wrath of God.
The commandment then comes, sin revives, they die. By
the operation of law, latent sin becomes overt transgres
sion, and remorse and fear follow. Thirdly, they attempt
to cover themselves with fig-leaf aprons ; a vivid picture
of a convicted sinner trying to justify himself by deeds
of law. We see them, lastly, clothed by God with fleecy
garments ; thus representing justification through a cruci
fied Redeemer. 8* L

178 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Taken together, this series of tableaux says, the race
now to be introduced into this world is a race accused,
and destitute of justification, but not aware of their real
condition. They are fairly represented by this first speci
men pair. In these two, substantially, you see the race.
The object is to provide an atoning sacrifice, and through
him furnish them a perfect justification.
We refer, once more, in confirmation of this view, to
the silence of Scripture already alluded to, as to any act
of worship on the part of Adam and Eve. This does not
of course prove they did not worship. But if the object
of the Spirit were to represent holiness, acts of worship
would certainly be described. This is certain' from the
fact that uninspired writers, who believe in such holiness,
do describe such acts as performed by them. Milton gives
us charming pictures of their daily devotions, as
" At their shady lodge arrived, both stood,
Both turned, and under open sky adored
The God that made both sky, air, earth, and heaven."
If the Holy Spirit had intended to convey such an impres
sion of their holiness, he would have represented them in
acts of worship.
He has so represented the Church on earth, patriarchal
and Jewish ; the record of their praises occupies a large
part of the Bible, though the holiness of the Church is
only partial. He so represents the holiness of Jesus, who
spends whole nights in prayer, and who, after instituting
the Lord's Supper, joins his disciples in singing a hymn.
"Behold, he prayeth ! " is the inspired designation of a
Saint. But it is toward the last, when we draw nigh
to the better land, and a door is opened into heaven,
that the full burst of praise rushes out upon us like the
voice of many waters and the noise of mighty tbunder-
ings. We behold white-robed myriads, with harps and

THE NATURAL MAN. 179
palms and crowns of gold ; they wave their palms, they
strike their harps, they cast their crowns at the Re
deemer's feet, they fall prostrate, they sing, they shout.
This is the instinct, the very nature, of a loyal, loving,
adoring soul. It sings, it prays, it kneels, it casts itself
prostrate, it seeks by every sound and motion to express
the deep ecstasy of holy joy and worship. Now there is
nothing of this in Eden, The Holy Spirit might have rep
resented Adam and Eve as singing one hymn at least, —
" These are thy works, Parent of Good," —
but heroes not. He might have pictured them clothed
in white, and bowing down before God, but he does not.
He might have exhibited some solemn act of prayer, but
he does not. There is not a word, not a whisper of
thanks, praise, or adoration in the record.
We refer, moreover, to the silence of subsequent Scrip
ture as to any good in Adam in Eden. If Adam was an
exception to his race, — the only man that ever began right
except Christ, the man whose fall was the cause of the
wrong beginning of all the rest, — we should expect this
would be mentioned in such a book as the Bible. The
Bible has to do with redemption ; this act of Adam was
what caused redemption to be necessary ; in so large a
book, there could not fail to be frequent allusions to the
matter. But the fact is, after the first few chapters, Adam is
mentioned again but twice in the whole Old Testament.
Once, in Deut. xxxii. 8, the nations are called " sons of
Adam," and once, in Job xxxi. 33, he is mentioned as
" covering his transgressions." Aside from these casual
references, in all the history, prophecy, types, shadows,
doctrines, psalms, and varied teachings of the world's Bible
for four thousand years, his name or Eve's is not men
tioned. This, if they were the cause of human ruin, is

180 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
so incredible, as to amount to an impossibility. It cannot
be believed.
Other men, whose holiness never was imagined to be
perfect, are called perfect. Noah was a "just man and
perfect in his generations." Abraham is " the friend
of God." Job was "perfect and upright." Moses was
"faithful in all God's house." To Jeremiah God says,
" Before thou earnest out of the womb I sanctified thee."
David is " the man after God's own heart." Daniel, the
" man greatly beloved." Zechariah and Elizabeth walked
"in all the commandments of the Lord blameless."
But Adam receives no compliments of this kind. Could
a writer, entertaining the common opinion concerning
Adam, write a theological work as large as the Old Testa
ment, and yet never put in such expressions as just Adam,
upright Adam, Adam in innocence, Adam before he fell,
the unfallen, sinless human pair, &c. ? Would it not re
quire a miracle to prevent him? Add to this the state
ment of Paul (Heb. xi. 13, 16), that the whole ancient
Church confessed heaven their fatherland, and earth for
eign, and is it not certain, to a demonstration, that such
a doctrine as the fall in Adam was unknown to the writers
of the Old Testament?
In the New Testament, Adam is several times contrasted
with Christ, but not in the way he would be if made holy
in Eden, and subsequently fallen. On that supposition,
the difference between hihi and Christ would be, that,
while both began in holiness, one fell, and the other stood.
Adam yielded to a small temptation ; Christ resisted
powerful temptations. Hence, Paul would have said:
" Adam was more favorably situated than Christ ; holi
ness entered into the world when he entered; he was
free, and might have stood, and his temptation was slight,
while Christ's temptation was extremely severe ; yet Adam
fell, and ruined us all, while Christ stood, and saved us all.
How guilty Adam ! how glorious Christ ! "

THE NATURAL MAN. 181
This, however, is not the contrast the Apostle does
draw. (Romans v. 12, 19.) Instead of saying, " By one
man righteousness entered into the world and was forfeited
and lost," he says, " By one man sin entered into the
world," that is, when he entered, sin entered, as appears
from his being blind and naked from the threshold. He
does not speak of his loss of innocence, his fall, or use any
word implying a change of character, but " his transgres
sion," "his offence," "his disobedience," "his sinning,"
— all terms applicable to any sinner who acts out an
existing sinful disposition.
The only expression that could be thought to favor the
common view is, " By one man's disobedience many were
made sinners." But how made ? Not by the fall of a
righteous man, but by a test applied to an unrighteous
man taken as an average sample. Out of a thousand
bushels of wheat, one bushel being taken as a fair sample
or specimen, and found to be damaged, makes the whole
damaged. Adam being taken bbnd and naked, an average
sample of a race blind and naked from birth, and submitted
to a simple test of law, and found disobedient, makes the
whole race, of which he was a specimen, sinners.
Hence, Dr. Hodge of Princeton, although himself hold
ing the common view of a fall, frankly says :, " Although
the sentiment, therefore, is correct and Scriptural, that we
derive a corrupt nature from Adam, as it is true also that
Christ is the author of holiness, yet these are not the truths
which Paul is here immediately desirous of presenting."
Yet if the doctrine of a fall in Adam, and depravation
of nature of the whole race in him, be true, this, as we
have said before, is the contrast Paul would have drawn.
Adam, with a holy nature, fell, and depraved himself and
all his descendants ; Christ, with a holy nature, stood, and
not only maintained his own nature pure, but restored the
nature of the race. This passage, therefore, which has

182 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
been supposed to teach the common view, not only does
not teach it, but is utterly irreconcilable with it. If the
doctrine of a fall in Adam had been true, such a passage
as Romans v. 12 — 19 never could have been written.1
Another passage, in which Adam is contrasted with
Christ, is that from which our text is taken (1 Cor. xv.
42-49). In discoursing of the resurrection, the Apostle
is led to draw a contrast between Adam and Christ which
relates to the body. Yet, though primarily a contrast in
respect to the body, it is so managed as to imply a con
trast in respect to character.
There are two kinds of body, says the Apostle. There
is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. He then
gives a specimen of each. For the former kind he takes
Adam's body, when first made. " As it is written, the first
man Adam was made a living soul," or living animal. For
the latter kind he takes Christ, at the point of his resurrec
tion, "the second Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Adam, when first made, had a natural body; Christ, when
raised, a spiritual body. We now have natural bodies, as
Adam had when made ; we shall hereafter have spiritual
bodies, when raised like Christ.
Now all admit that by spiritual, applied to body, is not
toeant subtile, tenuous, unreal, but rather, adapted to the
uses of the spirit. So, also, natural (psychical), applied
to body, means adapted to the principle of animal life
(psyche). But if so, how can we escape the idea of an
implied contrast of moral character, all the more forcible
•for being only implied ?
1 For a full exegesis of this celebrated passage, we beg leave to refer to " The
Conflict ty Ages," pp. 363 - 447. It is now about ten years since that ex
egesis was laid before the public, and up to the present time, so far as known,
no serious attempt has been made to give it a thorough philological refuta
tion. The obvious inference is, that no answer can be made. And while
that exegesis remains unremted and unchallenged, it must be regarded as
a tacit confession of the truth of our position.

THE NATURAL MAN. 183
The spiritual body of Christ, taken as a sample, was
adapted to the uses not only of a spirit, but of a perfectly
sinless and sanctifying spirit. Our spiritual bodies will be
adapted to the uses of spirits restored to purity by perfect
sanctification. By contrast, then, our natural bodies now, in which we
bear the image of the earthy, as he was at first, are bodies
adapted to the uses of beings not yet perfectly sanctified,
— beings neither justified nor sanctified in themselves, but
placed here to be justified and sanctified.
A natural body is simply a vehicle adapted to a sinful
being, to be the instrument of his justification and sanctifi
cation by atoning blood. A spiritual body is one given
after the process is completed. Thus viewed, a natural
body implies that the soul inside of it is sinful, just as a
hospital implies that its inmates are sick. The hospital
does not make them sick, — the body does not make the
soul unclean. On the contrary, the hospital heals the
patient ; the body is used by the great physician to purify,
heal, and redeem the soul. Of course it impbes that soul
to be sinful.
And since Adam's body was a natural body when made,
it impbes that the being inside of it was a sinner, as also
intimated by the fact of his being blind and naked. He -
is the specimen of natural or carnal humanity, therefore,
as the risen Christ is the exalted specimen of humanity
redeemed and made spiritual. Hence, of humanity in its
carnal head, Paul says : " It is sown in weakness, it is
sown in dishonor; it is sown in corruption, it is sown a
natural body." Of humanity, as raised and glorified in
Christ, he says : " It is raised in power, it is raised in
glory, it is raised in incorruption, it is raised a spiritual
body." Taking Adam, as first formed from the dust, and
Christ, as raised from the dead, he draws a contrast the
widest conceivable in point of strength, honor, durabibty,
and adaptedness to sanctified uses.

184 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
And this contrast is not the one be would have drawn
if Adam when first made was holy. If Adam was then
spiritual in the sense of holiness, his body, being perfectly
adapted to his wants, must have been a spiritual body. In
that case it would have been impossible for Paul to draw
the contrast he does.
The argument on this passage may be reduced to the
following syllogism : —
Major. All beings of whom spiritual is denied, and
natural affirmed, cannot fall, but are already fallen.
Minor. Adam, at the moment of animation, is a being
of whom spiritual is denied and natural affirmed.
Conclusion. Therefore Adam, at the moment of anima
tion, could not fall, but was already fallen.
To avoid the conclusion, either the major or the minor
must be invalidated. If the major, we adduce the testimony
of Alford, who says : " The spiritual (jrvevfiariicos) is
necessarily a man dwelt in by the Spirit of God, the natu
ral (yjrv%i,ico<;) is the animal man, led by the animal soul
(¦uVi/^77), and, as Jude says, not having the spirit." Also
of Olshausen, who affirms that, when used by Paul,
"natural (¦x|ru^;t«:o?) indicates, not the sinless creature
proceeding from the hand of his Creator, but the fallen
being under the power of corruption."
If the minor be assailed, we urge in its support that
Paul quotes Genesis ii. 7, in describing the animation
of Adam from dust, in such a way as to show that he
meant to deny spiritual and assert natural of him at
that point, and not at a subsequent period. Will any one
say, that by " that which was first " the Holy Spirit means
Adam after a certain point, and by " afterwards " Adam
before that point? Will the scholarship of this age com
mit itself to the following paraphrase of the passage:
" Howbeit that which was first, namely, Adam, after he
ate the fruit, was not spiritual, but natural, and after-

THE natural man. 185
wards, namely, before eating the fruit, that which was
spiritual." By that which was first, does the Holy Spirit
mean that which was last, and by afterwards that which
was before ? But unless one or the other of these prem
ises can be invalidated, the conclusion stands.
We come, then, to consider the contrast implied in Eph.
iv. 22 - 24, Col. iii. 9, 10 : " That ye put off, concerning
the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt
according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the
spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness." By the old man here Paul evidently means man, as
Adam was at first, blind and naked. By the new man,
be evidently means man as he becomes through Christ, as
shadowed forth in Adam, when God clothed him in coats
of skins.
Now Paul could never have written this if the common
theory had been in his mind. He would have said, Put
off the new man, such as Adam became by his fall, and
put on the old man, such as Adam was before his fall.
Put off the new and fallen Adam, — put on the old, un
fallen Adam.
And as the old or unfallen Adam was blind and naked,
so Paul would have insisted, as theologians now do, on
blindness as a necessary element of Christian character.
He would have said, as Dr. Hodge of Princeton now says,
The Gospel is not a matter of common sense, it is to be
accepted with blind faith. He would have told his Gentile
hearers that Christ sent him to shut their eyes and turn
them from light to darkness, the marvellous darkness of
the Gospel.
In this febcitous conception of the subject, as all defend
ers of the modern theory fraternally agree, so Paul must
have agreed with them, had that theory been bis. Be

186 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
blind, he must have said, as Adam was before he fell.
Blindness is the great characteristic of unfallen humanity.
Put it on. Shut your eyes. Surrender your reason.
Dare not to presume to question. Strangle common sense.
Smother your intuitions of honor and right. Believe what
you are told, or be damned.
But Paul was singularly at variance with all modern
theologians on this interesting point. " If our Gospel be
hid," he remarks (2 Cor. iv. 3-8), "it is hid to them
that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded
the eyes of them that believe not, lest the light of the
glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them 
For God hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of
the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ." Paul regarded it a special grace, that he was
sent " to make all men see." (Eph. iii. 9.) He tells his
converts : " Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye
light in the Lord ; walk as children of the light." Paul
does not say, put on the old, blind Adam, but put him off.
The common theory, therefore, and Paul are antipodes.
The common theory puts darkness for light and light for
darkness. It comes into direct antagonism with Paul in
the very life of his mission. It turns his mission inside
out, wrong-end foremost, and bottom-side up. Either the
text of the New Testament must be rewritten, or the
common theory of the fall in Adam will have to be
given up.
We submit the case to the candid consideration of all.
Consider the magnitude of the issue. Reflect that the
idea of the race being ruined in Adam is not a valuable
idea. It has never done any good. It has always excited
scepticism. The Church has never known what to do
.with it. It is a harsh and trying idea. It has been a
heavy load to piety, an incubus to faith. If this doctrine
were really taught plainly and beyond dispute in the Bible,

THE NATURAL MAN. 187
it would not be so strange that people should continue to
hold it.
But what can possibly be the use of putting it into the
Bible when it is not there ? If so repellant a doctrine is
to be accepted as Biblical, surely it ought to be only on
the fullest, most unquestionable evidence. But can any
candid mind go from the perusal of this argument and say
that such evidence exists? Has it not been shown that
the doctrine is not only not taught, but plainly contradicted
by the Bible ? And if so, is it not best to give it up ?
Does not the Church confess that she cannot reconcile
the doctrine with her moral sense ? Are not confessions
to that effect, from all denominations, on record, as made
during the last ten years ? Do not all sects and schools
of theology confess explicitly, that it is impossible logically
to defend the doctrine against the charge of immorality ?
For that which is inconsistent with honor and right is
surely immoral.
Nor can it be said that we have no right to apply those
principles to the Divine conduct. " It may be categori
cally affirmed, that God is inexorably obligated to do
justly." It is as true in Eden as in Gethsemane, that
" whatever else God may be, or may not be, he must be
just." If to forgive without atonement would be an " ar
bitrary and unprincipled procedure " hi God, how much
more to punish without actual sin? If the exercise of
compassion, without legal satisfaction, would be " arbitrary
will and might striding forward to reach its own private
ends, and trampling down justice by sheer force," how
much more the eternal torment of countless millions for
a fault committed ages before their existence, and, falsely
charged to them !
It is amazing what liberties men dare take with the
Almighty, when the object is to handcuff mercy, and
how abjectly reverential they become when the object is

188 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
to authorize infinite injustice. And yet it is not amazing,
considering that it is but the logical necessity of the sys
tem supposed to be revealed in the Bible.
Why, then, persist in thrusting such a doctrine upon a
reluctant Bible ? Why foist it in against the indignant
protest of the Supreme Judge of controversy, the Holy
Spirit speaking in Scripture ? Such is not the conduct to
be expected of Protestants. Have the descendants of
Edwards and Hopkins, Emmons, Bellamy, and Dwight, —
nave the sons of Puritan sires abjured the principles on
which New England was founded, that nothing is to be
believed which is irreconcilable with the Word of God?
Some sparks of the ancient fire must surely linger upon .
our altars, although buried in ashes, waiting for the breath
of God to fan them to a flame. It cannot be that the
whole Church visible will go on to make the Word of God
of none effect, by a mere human tradition. The doctrine
of the fall in Adam, unlovely in itself, evil in its influence,
and only evil continually ; being tried by the Word and
proved a superstition; charged on all hands with immo
rality, and all defence being abandoned ; must surely be
looked upon as one ingredient in the cup of abominations
in the hand of the Scarlet Enchantress of the Seven Hills.
It is time to dash that cup from our lips. It is time for
God's people to come out of her, "that they be not par
takers of her sins, and that they receive not of her
plagues."

CHAPTER XVI.
MELCHISEDEC.
" Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE." — Heb. Vii. 3.
THESE words seem to imply self-existence. The idea
that Melchisedec is Christ flows most naturally from
them. That idea, however, is very generally rejected,
and the view embraced instead, that Melchisedec was a
Canaanite prince.
It is proposed to offer some reasons against this latter,
and in favor of the former view.
The latter theory fails, in the first place, to explain the
statement of the text, that Melchisedec was without
father, without mother, &c. The usual explanation is,
without recorded father or mother or pedigree, i. e. because
no mention of these things is made in the Bible, there is a
shadowy bkeness to Christ, who had no human father, no
Divine mother, no priestly genealogy.
But according to ancient usage, if he was a Canaanite,
it is clear that Canaan was his father. The omission of a
few intermediate links makes no difference. In Ezra vii.
1 — 5, Meraioth is given as the father of Azariah, though
there were six generations intervening. Such cases were
common. The principle on which genealogical registers
were constructed was, where links were lost or omitted
for any other reason, to take the next preceding link, and
use the term father. Hence, if Melchisedec was a Ca
naanite, it cannot be said that his genealogy is not recorded
in the Bible. On the contrary, it is recorded as follows :

190 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" Which was the son of Canaan, of Noah, of Lamech, of
Methuselah, of Enoch, of Jared, of Malaleel, of Cainan,
of Enos, of Seth, of Adam."
To say that a mortal man existed in Abraham's day,
without a recorded pedigree through one of the three sons
of Noah, Shem, Ham, or Japhet, is to say that a man ex
isted who did not descend from Adam. Besides, if he had
no recorded pedigree, that would not make him like Christ.
This Canaanite had parents, but they are not recorded.
Christ had parents. God was his father, the Virgin Mary
his mother, and these are recorded.
That Canaanite had a pedigree, which is not recorded ;
Jesus had a pedigree, which is carefully traced through
David and Abraham to Adam.
Or if the comparison be made with Christ, in his divine
nature, that Canaanite priest had parents, though the fact
is not recorded. Christ, as divine, had none, and the fact
is clearly recorded.
If the comparison be made with Christ, viewed in his
priestly office, that Canaanite priest had a priestly lineage,
though it is not recorded. Christ had no priestly lineage,
and the fact is carefully stated.
There is no bkeness, then, but the reverse. If Mel
chisedec had no recorded pedigree, he was neither a child
of Adam nor like Christ in any degree whatever.
Another objection is the curse pronounced on Canaan,
Gen. ix. 25 : " Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants
shall he be to his brethren. Blessed of the Lord God be
Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and
Canaan shall be his servant."
On this Dr. Owen remarks: "Whereas they were
herein, by the spirit of prophecy, cast out of the Church
and devoted to destruction, God would not raise up among
them of their accursed seed the most glorious typical min-

MELCHISEDEC. 191
istry that ever was in the world, .... and I wonder that
no expositors have taken notice of this." Add to this, that
immediately after the meeting with Melchisedec,. Gen.
xiv. 18, God says to Abraham, Gen. xv. 16, " The iniquity
of tbe Amorites is not yet full " ; evidently implying that
it was then nearly full. How absurd, then, to suppose, only
a few days before, a priest of that accursed and guilty race
superior to Abraham, and in communion with God !
A third impossibility is the fact that Jerusalem was not
then built, and that when founded it was idolatrous. It is
generally conceded that, if Salem were an earthly city at
all, it must be Jerusalem, as the name Adonizedek, king
of Jerusalem in Joshua's time, evidently proves. But the
evidence is decisive, that the city was not yet founded in
Abraham's day.
Forty years after the meeting with Melchisedec Abra
ham was sent to offer up Isaac on Mount Moriah, the site
of the future temple. Now when God interposed, and
Abraham unbound Isaac, he found a ram caught in a thick
et by his horns. Hence there was no city there. It was
an untrodden wild, a jungle, and the very first stroke of
human builders had not been struck.
Moreover, when the city was built, it was unclean and
idolatrous from the foundation, as God declares to Ezekiel
(xvi. 2 - 5) : " Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem,
Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan ; thy
father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite ; and
as for thy nativity, in the day that thou wast born ....
thou wast not washed in water to supple thee, thou wast
not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee
to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon
thee ; but thou wast cast out into the open field, to the
loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born."
These words cannot refer to the nation. The Jews
were not of Amorite and Hittite blood. It refers to the

192 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
city which was built by the Jebusites, a cross between
Amorites and Hittites. It was not even called Jerusalem
till Solomon's day. Wherever that name appears in earlier
Scriptures, it has been inserted by later transcribers instead
of the obsolete name Jebus.
Now nothmg can convey a more vivid impression of the
guilt, helplessness, and shame of that city, as first founded,
than the imagery employed by the Prophet.
A final objection to the Canaanite hypothesis is, that it is
fatal to the argument and inspiration of the Apostle. The
point he is endeavoring to prove is, the superiority of
Christ's priesthood over the Aaronic, — a pomt most fun
damental and vital.
To prove this he quotes Psalm ex. 4, where Messiah is
called " a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."
From this he argues that Christ must be superior to Aaron.
But how does this follow, if Melchisedec was a Canaanite ?
How was Christ a priest forever after a Canaanitish order ?
And how, if he was, would that argue superiority ?
All depends on making out this Canaanite priest superior
to Abraham, this priesthood of an uncircumcised and ac
cursed race superior to that of the covenant people, whose
are the promises !
Mr. Barnes remarks that " such an argument would
strike a Jew with much more force than any other person."
He is of opinion that " we ought to place ourselves in their
condition, to see the pertinency of the argument."
To us, however, it seems that the last person on earth
likely to be convinced by such logic would be a devout
Hebrew. If we place ourselves in their position, we shall
certainly feel this.
What ! an accursed Canaanite superior to Abraham !
Can anything be conceived more offensive to a Hebrew ?
As a matter of fact, the Jews believed Melchisedec to be
Shem. To have made them think, him of Canaan would

MELCHISEDEC. 193
have required a miracle. If the Apostle reasoned in this
way, therefore, he reasoned in the way least likely to con
vince Jews.
And what would Christians have said ? If Levi was in
Abraham's loins, Jesus was also. If Jesus be not Abra
ham's seed, he is not Messiah, but an impostor. If he be
Abraham's seed, he was as much in Abraham's loins as
Levi was, and paid tithes as much as Levi did. If that
makes Levi inferior to this Canaanite, it makes Jesus just as
much. How does that prove him to be superior to Levi ?
To this there could be no answer. The theory in ques
tion, therefore, destroys the Apostle's argument, either for
Jew or Christian.
The defenders of the theory confess themselves embar
rassed. " There is," says Mr. Barnes, " much difficulty
about the force and pertinency of the reasoning." Not
that he acknowledges it to be unsound. " It is not quibble
nor quirk, but sound reasoning." He thinks " it may not
be improbable that the Apostle was reasoning from some
mterpretation of Gen. xiv. and Ps. ex. which was then
prevalent, and would then be conceded on all hands to be
correct. If this was the conceded interpretation, and if
there is no equivocation or mere trick in tbe reasoning, as
there cannot be shown to be, why should we not allow the
Jew a peculiarity of reasoning, as we do all other people ?
The ancient philosophers had methods of reasoning which
now seem weak to us. The lawyer often argues in a way
wliich appears to be a mere quirk or quibble ; and so the
lecturer on science sometimes reasons. The cause of all
this may not be that there is a real quibble or quirk, but
that the reasoner has in his view certain points which he
regards as undisputed, but which do not appear so to us."
Thus does this theory push its ablest and best defenders
to the very verge of infidelity. Such disclaimers of trick
and quibble suggest the very thing they seem to deny. No

194 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
person can read this passage without the painful idea of the
Apostle's havmg used a weak and unsound argument being
forced upon his mind. Indeed, it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that Mr. Barnes himself really felt, that it is at
least possible that the Apostle was reasoning on a mistaken
interpretation of Gen. xiv. and Ps. ex. For, if that possi
ble interpretation was correct, then, inasmuch as it is lost,
the correct interpretation is lost, and the modern interpre
tation on which this theory rests is incorrect, and the theory
falls. But if the modern interpretation is correct, then that
on which the Apostle was possibly reasoning was mistaken.
In short, Mr. Barnes seems driven to admit " that it may
not be impossible " that the Apostle's main argument for
the high-priesthood of Christ is founded on mistake.
Under the combined pressure of these objections, we see
not how the theory can survive. And we now proceed to
offer some arguments in favor of the other, namely, Mel
chisedec is Christ. Let us, in the first place, turn to the
narrative in Gen. xiv. 18-20: "And Melchisedec, king
of Salem, brought forth bread and wine : and he was the
priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and
said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of
heaven and earth : and blessed be the most high God,
wliich hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And
he gave hiin tithes of all."
It has been objected that this narrative presents Melchis
edec as a mere man, and would not lead us to suppose him
a supernatural personage. This might be decisive if we
had no other evidence, but is not so of itself. There are
several cases of theophany which we can easily imagine
might have been told with such extreme brevity as not to
be recognized as supernatural.
Such, for instance, is the case of the three men that stood
at Abraham's tent door, and ate with him, Gen. xviii. He
did not at first recognize them as anything but ordinary

MELCHISEDEC. 195
travellers. So the man that wrestled with Jacob all night
(Gen. xxxii.) was not at first known to be more than a man.
The same is true of the angel that appeared to Manoah's
wife (Judges xiii.), and of the appearance of Christ to the
disciples on the road to Emmaus.
Suppose either of these to have been told in three brief
verses, and the mention of supernatural characteristics put
in later Scriptures, and we have an illustration of what is
believed to be the truth in this case. The mere omission is
not decisive, provided we succeed in adducing sufficient evi
dence from independent sources.
We observe, however, that there is some evidence even
here. We claim that, though the passage, taken by itself, -
might not suggest a supernatural appearance, that idea
being suggested is not without confirmation in the narrar
tive, brief though it be.
And first, the titles are appropriate to Christ. King of
Righteousness is virtually the same as the Messiah, the
Christ. The term Anointed carries not only the idea of
royalty, but righteous royalty. Hence as titles Melchisedec
might be substituted for the Christ throughout Scripture,
without any change of meaning.
So with the title King of Salem. This, if translated, is
literally King of Peace, or Prince of Peace, and corresponds
to the ancient title Shiloh, the peaceful. If Salem, how
ever, be regarded as a proper name, it is most naturally
referred to " Jerusalem above, the mother of us all.'*
Jerasalem below, we have shown, was not at this time
founded. It is useless to go in search of an earthly Salem
elsewhere, even, with Dr. Wordsworth, to Galilee ! The
mention of Adonizedek in Joshua's time proves that, if
Salem was an earthly city, it must have been identical with
the future Jerasalem. But that was not then built. It
must, therefore, have been the heavenly.
And this is confirmed by Heb. xi. 10 : " For he [Abra-

196 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
ham] looked for rfjv tou? 0efte\tov? e^ovaav ttoXiv," not
merely " a city which hath," but " the city which then
bad foundations." Jerusalem below, the Apostle was well
aware, then had not foundations. Jerusalem above bad.
We add, that the blessing pronounced by this personage
on Abraham acquires a higher meaning, if considered as
spoken by Christ. Already Abraham had been blessed by
God in person (xii. 1 — 3), and was so afterwards on the
offering of Isaac (xxii. 15 — 18). Between two such august
utterances of Jehovah in person, that of a Canaanite priest
dwindles into insignificance, while, if it was Christ who
spoke it, it forms a trinity of Divine benedictions upon the
patriarch's head.
Again, the bread and wine receive new meaning on this
supposition. There is no evidence that they were for
refreshment. Abraham distinctly mentions (verse 24) the
young men having already eaten of the spoils. Nor is it
implied that the bread and wine were for food merely.
Now Abraham was a Gospel believer. It is under the
^Abrahamic covenant that believers and their seed are bap
tized ; hence they are called Abraham's seed. How appro
priate that the emblems of that covenant should be pre
sented to him by Christ ! As, when the ceremonial system
•was about passing away, Christ presented those emblems to
the disciples, so, before the Law was added, when the Gos
pel was preached to Abraham, something of the same kind
took place.
The payment of tithes, also, is more intelligible on this
supposition. This was a solemn act of worship. Before
the Law the patriarchs were priests, and such offerings
were made through them. Tliere was no earthly priest
between them and God.
Abraham was perfectly competent, as patriarch and priest
of bis race, to offer up dedicated spoils ; and there was no
room for any priest between him and God, unless it be a

MELCHISEDEC. 197
heavenly one, through whom alone he or his bebeving seed
could offer acceptable sacrifices. The idea of the intrusion
of any mortal priest, especially one of an accursed race, is
singularly improbable and repugnant. The simple concep
tion that Abraham, as patriarchal priest, was officiating
through Christ as high-priest, makes the whole transaction
plain and luminous.
At the same time it accounts easily for the subsequent
existence of an idolatrous city and order. The idolatrous
Amorites built a city, in commemoration of the event, and
their prince, who was also priest, claimed Melchisedec as
founder of the place and its worship, in token of which he
assumed the title Adonizedek.
This is in perfect keeping with the habits and customs
of the age, and the known practices of idolatrous commu
nities, and with all the facts as recorded in the Bible.
Nor can any other account be given of the origin of the,
city and its worship, that will bear examination.
We pass, then, to the consideration of Ps. ex. 4: " The
Lord hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art a priest
forever after the order of Melchisedec." It is here that
the expression " priest forever after the order of Melchis
edec " first meets us, — a sentence so full of meaning that
the Apostle quotes it seven times, and makes it the basis
of the whole doctrine of atonement.
What meaning did the Apostle find here, in this phrase,
and actually employ in so fundamental an argument? To
ascertain this, let us consider the circumstances under
which the Psalm was composed.
The crown forfeited by Saul had just been placed on
David's brow, and he anointed king over all Israel. The
city of the Jebusites had just been conquered, and made
the national capital. The idolatrous order of Adonizedek
had just been abolished, and the order of Aaron, in reno
vated splendor, set up in its stead.

198 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
And now, while the mind of David was teeming with
the associations of the reorganized kingdom and reorgan
ized priesthood, Messiah is suddenly introduced into his
thoughts as his own seed, to become at once a nucleus of
all these analogies. Around him instantly those ideas, held
in solution as it were in the Psalmist's mind, crystallize,
and issue forth in two diamond psalms, the second and
the one hundred and tenth. In the former, Messiah shines
the antitypical royalty of which David was the shadow;
in the latter he is revealed, as also the true high-priest of
which Aaron was the emblem.
Under these circumstances, it is plain that in David's
mind the phrase " order of Melchisedec " can have no
reference to that Canaanitish order of Adonizedek, notori
ously of pagan origin, wliich he had just utterly destroyed.
On the contrary, it is plain that in his mind the order
of Aaron just reorganized is type, and the order of Mel
chisedec antitype. By the expression " Thou art priest
forever after the order of Melchisedec," the Holy Spirit,
through David, meant to declare Messiah the antitypical
reality of which the Aaronic high-priest was type, and
the. interpretation of the phrase is decided by the law of
analogy with the rigid certainty of a mathematical demon
stration. What the order of Aaron was to time the order of
Melchisedec is to eternity. As Aaron to his order, so
Melchisedec to his. As Aaron was first high-priest of an
ferder related to him by blood and bearing his name, so
Melchisedec was first and only high-priest of an order
related to him by faith, and from him named order of
Melchisedec. Christ and Melchisedec, therefore, in Da
vid's view, are one.
We come, then, to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Of
Melchisedec we read, " Without father, without mother,
without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end

MELCHISEDEC. 199
of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest
continually." Here we are met by an objection that has turned many
minds away from this view, who otherwise would have
accepted it, namely, that Melchisedec is said to be made
like unto the Son of God, and that it is absurd to speak of
a person as made like unto himself.
Says M. Henry : " What is said in our text does not
seem to agree with any mere man, but then it seems
strange to make Christ a type of himself." So Mr.
Barnes asks, "How could he be made like himself?"
Professor Stuart says, " It forces us to adopt the interpre
tation that Christ is like unto himself, Cujus mentio est
refutatio, — To mention which is to refute it."
Let us then see whether this objection be really unan
swerable. We submit that there are cases in which the phrase
"made like" is used to express identity, and not mere
comparison. When, for instance, it says (Heb. ii. 17), "It behooved
Christ in all things to be made like unto his brethren," it
means an actual incarnation in a real body of flesh and
blood, not a mere imitation, or unreal resemblance.
So, when it says (Phil. ii. 7), "and was made in (he-
likeness of men," it means real, actual flesh and blood, like
that of mortals generally, not a shadowy resemblance.
So, Daniel iii. 25, when King Nebuchadnezzar said of
the four persons in the fiery furnace, " the form of the
fourth is like unto the Son of God," he evidently meant
to say that it was the Son of God.
And when Ezekiel (i. 26) saw on a throne " the likeness
of the form of a man," he means that he saw the form of
a man. And (ii. 1) by " the appearance of the likeness of
the glory of the Lord," he means the appearance of the
glory of the Lord.

200 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
In all these cases the words made like, like, likeness,
being radically the same as " made like " in our text,
show plainly enough that the objection is by no means
conclusive. To say Melchisedec was made like unto the
Son of God may, according to usage, be tantamount to the
assertion that he was the Son of God. And, from the
nature of the subject, there was a peculiar appropriateness
in this form over every other for making that assertion.
• It has been shown in a former chapter that the term
son is figurative when applied to Christ, and not literal.
There was something in the union of the two natures like
a begetting; and the complex person was figuratively a
son, — in some respects like a son.
As second person of the Trinity, self-existent, underived,
unbegotten, he was not a son, nor in the least degree like
one. But when united to a creature in one person, there
was in that complex person something like a son.
' And this we take to be precisely what the Apostle meant
to say. He who in his divine nature was without father,
without mother, without descent, and who had neither be
ginning of days nor end of life, was already, in the days of
Abraham, by the union of two natures, made like unto the
Son of God, that is, made figuratively the Son of God; and
at the same time appointed priest forever.
Thus, that which is urged as an unanswerable objection
becomes rather a strong corroboration. We have a most
impressive affirmation of the Apostle, in the most appro
priate form of language, that Melchisedec was the Son of
God.
This is further confirmed by the fact, that the Apos
tle regards Melchisedec as antitype, not type. We have
already seen that David so understood the matter. We
now proceed to show that the Apostle did the same.
The attempt to make Melchisedec a type results in noth
ing but confusion. Exposition here, from this circum-

MELCHISEDEC. 201
stance alone, is a mere chaos. It is impossible to state the
analogy between Melchisedec and Christ, as type and anti
type, in terms of the formula a : b : : c : d, for the plain reason
that no relations sustained by Melchisedec can be specified
which are like those sustamed by Christ, and yet not identi
cal with them. In the attempt to do this expositors have
labored in vain. Hie labor, hoc opus est.
The Apostle has already one type, Aaron, as all confess,
and one of sovereign significance and beauty. What but
confusion worse confounded could be expected to result
from the attempt to give him another of accursed bneage,
and yet superior to the first ?
Hence we find lucid intervals, in which expositors confess
that Melchisedec is not a type. Says Auberlen, " It is
clear that the Apostle follows no rigid, typical idea of that
priest, wonderful as he is."
And what authority, then, we ask, is there for calling
him a type ? To say that the Apostle " follows no rigid
typical idea," is to say that the Apostle does not regard him
as a type.
Accordingly Mr. Barnes declares, " There is no evidence
that Melchisedec was designed to be a type of Messiah,
or that Abraham so understood it. Nothing of the kind is
affirmed; and how shall we affirm it, when the sacred
oracles are silent ? "
But if Melchisedec was not type to the Apostle's mind,
he was antitype. He must be one or the other. And here
is the key to the whole passage. The moment we allow
Melchisedec to fall into his place in the antitypical system
of the Apostle, all becomes simple, clear, luminous.
What, then, is the antitypical system of the Apostle ?
We reply, in Heb. iv. he shows with great clearness that
heaven is the antitypical Canaan. In xi. 10, xii. 22, he
assigns to this Canaan a Jerusalem, a city with foundations,
whose builder and maker is God. The same which, Gal.
9*

202 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
iv. 6, he calls " mother of us all." In this heavenly Jeru
salem he next locates (Heb. viii. 2) a temple, " the trae
tabernacle which God pitched, and not man," from which,
verse 5, Moses was to copy. To this upper sanctuary he
assigns a priesthood, viii. 1 : " We have such an high-priest,
a minister of the true tabernacle." Unto this bigh-priest
he finally assigns a true offering. Christ is entered into
heaven itself, not with the blood of bulls and goats, but
with his own blood.
This is the antitypical system. These are not shadows,
but realities. These are the unchangeable verities, not the
unreal semblances. They are indeed described in terms
taken from the shadows, and hence they sometimes are
mistaken by us for shadows, but they are not. These are
permanent realities, of which those were the shadows.
There was a temporal Canaan, a Jerusalem therein, a
temple, a priesthood, and the sprinkling of blood. So there
is a true and real celestial Canaan, and iri that land a city,
and in that city a temple, and in that temple a high-priest,
and in the hand of that high-priest a sacrifice, one, perfect,
eternal, and that sacrifice is his own blood.
In this antitypical system Melchisedec universally be
longs, just as Aaron in the typical. The relations are alike,
without being identical. The typical analogy falls naturally
into its formula, a : b : : c : d. Thus, as Aaron to all born
of blood from him, so Melchisedec to all born of faith,
his spiritual family. As Aaron gives his name and his
carnal nature to his order, so Melchisedec gives his name
and his spiritual nature to his order, for they are kings
and priests unto God forever. '
In every conceivable respect, what Aaron was officially
to his natural order and the nation, that Melchisedec is to
his spiritual order and the universe.
We next observe, that the logic of the passage demands
this view. The argument of the Apostle is based upon it.

MELCHISEDEC. 203
His course of thought is as follows: In the opening of
chapter v. he shows that Christ had a call to the priestly
office as really as Aaron, and typified by his, because it. was
before the world when it was said, " This day have I begot
ten thee." Such a call implies an antitypical reality. He
then shows that Christ had an appointed course of prepara
tion for his office, of which Aaron's was a mere shadow.
Aaron's consisted of certain ceremonial washings and sacri-
fices, but Christ's involved strong crying and tears. He
learned obedience by the things that he suffered, and was
officially qualified by a terrible ordeal.
At this point he interrupts the argument, on account of
their having forgotten the first principles of the system, and
being thus unable to comprehend the lofty truths respecting
Melchisedec he has to unfold. Warning them solemnly of
the guilt and danger of such a state, he prepares, at verse
13 of chapter vi., to resume the thread of argument, by
holding up Jesus, the now perfected Melchisedec, high-
priest, as the real hope of Abraham, and anchor of the soul
to all believers.
He then enters, chapter vii., on a more direct identifica
tion of Melchisedec as the antitypical .reality, of which
Aaron was shadow.
Tliere was a priest who met Abraham, who was the king
of righteousness, and king of that Salem then having foun-
dations, the Jerusalem above. This Melchisedec, self-
existent, underived, immortal, only begotten Son of God,
abideth a priest continually. He was already priest of the
Most High God when he met Abraham, and that priesthood
was perpetual. Through him as high-priest Abraham, him
self a priest, paid tithes, and of course virtually Levi, whose
priesthood was no higher in grade than the patriarchal.
As high-priest Melchisedec pronounced a blessing on
Abraham, just as Aaron as high-priest pronounced a bless
ing on the priests of his order as well as on the people.

204 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
If the Levitical order had been anything but a shadow,
there would have been no need of a subsequent reality in
the order of Melchisedec. Christ would have been born of
Levi, not Judah. Therefore the order of Aaron was shadow,
and that of Melchisedec substance.
Now, since the typical order was made after the law of
a carnal commandment, and was weak, unprofitable, per
fecting nothing, of course it must pass away, that the true
Melchisedec order, made after the power of an endless
bfe, and by which we draw nigh as priests unto God, might
take its place.
Moreover, the Aaronic order never had one unchanging
high-priest. Aaron died. All his successors in office died.
But the order of Melchisedec has one and the same high-
priest before the world began, now, and through all eternity.
Finally, Aaron and his successors were sinful men,
obliged yearly to offer sacrifices for their own sins as well
as the sins of the people. But the only sins the Melchis
edec high-priest ever had were those he took from us.
Sinless himself, a lamb without spot, he took the sins of his
whole order on himself, and offered up one sacrifice for
them, perfecting forever them that are sanctified.
Such we believe to be a faithful outline of the course of
thought. Reduced to the form of syllogism, the argument
is as follows : —
Major. All antitypes are superior to their types.
Minor. The priesthood of the order of Melchisedec is
antitype, and that of the order of Aaron type.
Conclusion. Therefore the priesthood of the order of
Melchisedec is superior to that of the order of Aaron.
Technically, the Apostle constructs a syllogism of the
first figure in Darii. The major is not expressed, thus con
stituting what is called an enthymeme.
Now, that this argument is logical, is plain. Grant the
premises, and no sane mind can deny the conclusion.

MELCHISEDEC. 205
Hence, however adapted to the wants of Jews, the argu
ment is none the less cogent as regards Greeks, nor could
Aristotle himself detect in it a flaw.
Its special adaptation to the Hebrew mind lay in the
matter of the premises, not in the form of the argument.
The fact stated in the minor at once lifted the whole subject
up mfinitely above the low plane of national prejudice and
antipathy. The conception of a true, real, celestial priest
hood was so grand, so sublime, that hostility was disarmed.
Without pain the Jew could confess the priesthood of Aaron
and of Abraham inferior to that of the Son of God. Nor,
however fascinating to the Hebrew imagination the gor
geous temple service might be, could it compare at all with
this far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. ' Seen
from this point of view, the atonement shines with meffable
splendor, and the Bible, bke the bush which Moses saw, is
all ablaze with the glory, but is not consumed. Jesus Mel
chisedec, called to the high-priesthood before the world
began, seen as such by Abraham, sung by David, born of
the Virgin Mary, and born again from the dead, consecrated
by his own blood, interceding as our Head, reigning as our
King, is the anchor of our souls, sure and steadfast, enter
ing into that which is within the veil. May the Holy
Spirit lay this truth in our minds, and lead us on unto per
fection. May He sanctify us wholly, and do for us exceed-
big abundantly above all we ask or even thuik.

CHAPTER XVII.
THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC.
" After the order of Melchisedec" — Heb. v. 10.
THE order of Melchisedec is a real order, as real as
is the high-priesthood of Christ, which is named after
it. Moreover, the order is before the priest. " Thou art
a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec." When
these words were spoken, the order was already instituted.
Christ was called to the priesthood of an existing order.
But an order that is sinless needs no sacrifice for sin,
and no priest to offer sacrifice ; this order, therefore, was
sinful. When the priest was appointed, it was already a
fallen order, needing atonement, at the date of its high-
priest's call.
But the date of that call is distinctly given by the Holy
Spirit. In Christ's case, both priest and victim are one :
he offers up himself; but 1 Peter i. 20 we read, " Who
was foreordained a lamb without spot before the founda
tion of the world." That, then, is when he was called to
the priesthood.* To be foreordained a lamb, is in his case
the same as to be appointed priest. Hence, at that early
date, before the foundation of the world, the order was
already a fallen order, in need of an atoning sacrifice.
To understand the necessity of that atonement is in
part to understand its nature. The one leads to the
other. But to understand that necessity, we are led to
inquire what was the condition of that order ? what was
its guilt? how incurred? by what influences occasioned?
The order of Melchisedec was originally instituted in,

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 207
and composed of, the unfallen celestial race of man. And,
received in its future character as a redeemed order, it is
the same with the Church of God.
In proof of this we offer, first, the analogy of the Aaronic
order. As Aaron was the natural head of his order, re
lated to him by blood, so Christ is the spiritual head of his
order, related to him by faith. Hence all vitally united
to Christ by faith, the whole Church invisible, is the same
as the order of Melchisedec. Christ is the head of that
order, and he isthe head of the Church, which is his body.
The members of that order stand in his name, King of
Righteousness. The members of the Churchy stand in his
name, being accepted in Christ.
The Aaronic order, moreover, being taken instead of
the first-born, passed over on the night of the exodus, was
a kind of Church of first-born, on the typical plane.
Hence the Church is called Church of the First-born, on
the antitypical plane. And since the order of Aaron is
thus type of the Church and type of the order of Melchis
edec, it follows that the Church and the order are the
same. Hence Paul, arguing that the order of Aaron was
shadowy, and that of Melchisedec real, says, " The law
made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did, by which we draw nigh unto God." Now "draw
nigh to God " is the technical term for officiating as
priests. " We," then, Christians, we of the Gospel hope,
are the real order of Melchisedec, who draw nigh to God
through our great Head and High-Priest.
Hence, Hebrews iii. 1, Christ is called " High-Priest of
our profession," a word nearly synonymous with order.
And iv. 15, " we have an high-priest," that is, we priests ;
we, a priestly order, have a high-priest. So x. 21,
" Having an high-priest over the house of God, let us
draw nigh." " Draw nigh," as before, is a sacerdotal tech-

208 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
nic. " Having an high-priest over the spiritual family of
God, let us offer up spiritual sacrifices." . So also 1 Peter
ii. 5, " Ye as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an
holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." Again,
verse 9, " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest
hood." Finally, in the visions of the Revelation, when we hear
the song of the redeemed Church, it is, " Thou hast re
deemed us to God by thy blood, and made us unto our God
kings and priests."
From these and other intimations of Scripture, it is
plain that the order of Melchisedec and the Church are
the same thing. Hence, when the order was first insti
tuted, unfallen before the foundation of the world, it was
instituted in, and composed of, the celestial human family.
We have already proved that the race is celestial ; that
' heaven is our native land ; and that the doctrine of a fall
in Adam is a superstition of the Church of Rome. The
way is clear, therefore, to entertain this lofty and Scrip
tural conception, concerning our original greatness and
dignity, as the order of the King of Righteousness*.
We proceed, then, to observe that the name of an order
is often made to contain its history or primary idea. The
order of the Sons of Temperance is, by its very name, an
order founded to promote temperance. So much of its
history is self-evident. So with the venerable order of
Freemasons. Its name reveals the fact that, though not
now a practical building fraternity, it was anciently, being
sprung from the societies of architects and masons under
the old Roman empire, and older empires of the Oriental
world. Precisely in the same manner does the title " Order of
tbe King of Righteousness " conta'n the real history of its
own origin. The Bible reveals the fact that Lucifer and
his angelic associates ceased to reign righteously, and be-

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 209
came corrupt ; and that it became necessaiy to anoint a
new administration in their place, just as David was
anointed in the room of Saul.
That fact being known, the very title of this order
identifies it as being that new administration appointed to
succeed to the primogeniture of the universe. The angelic
fraternity was become an order of the king of unrighteous
ness. The fraternity of man was appointed to be an order
of the King of Righteousness.
It is an order anointed, but not crowned ; elect, not inau
gurated ; heirs, but not yet in full possession. It is the
royal family of the universe. Its members, princes of the
blood royal. It is a heavenly kingdom, or kingly race, so
constantly referred to as the kingdom of God, the king
dom of Heaven, ever coming, but not yet come.
The order of the King of Righteousness and the king
dom of Heaven are but slightly different titles for one and
the same sublime reality, concerning which Daniel foresaw
the time came when the saints took the kingdom ; con
cerning which the Psalmist declares, " Let the high praises
of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their
hand, to execute vengeance upon the heathen and punish
ments on the people, to bind their kings with chains and
their nobles with fetters of iron, to execute upon them the
judgment written, This honor have all saints," concern
ing which Paul exclaimed, " Know ye not that the saints
shall judge angels ? "
This order, when instituted before the foundation of
the world, was, both personally and politically, pure. It
was composed of individuals " created after God in right
eousness and true holiness," just as Adam was not in
Eden. At their head was a creature who was the righteous
king ; and none but righteous members could be admitted
to constitute the order of the righteous king. Their right-

210 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED,
eousness was the ground of their appointment or adoption.
To have appointed them on any other ground would be to
make Satan cast out Satan. Every heart in that order was
loyal, and every mind true. Would you see a picture of
what they were, you have but to look at the picture of
what they shall be. " And around about the throne were
fonr-and-twenty thrones, and upon the thrones four-and-
twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment, and they
had on their head crowns of gold  And the four-and-
twenty elders fell down before Him that sat on the throne,
and worship Him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast
their crowns before the throne, saying, ' Thou art worthy,
O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power, for thou
hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and
were created.' "
Carry this sublime picture back into the gallery of the
past, and it is the order of the King of Righteousness you
see, unfallen, loyal, adoring.
But not only was the order composed of adoring hearts,
it was also organized on a platform of righteous principles.
There is a high sense in which the term political may be
applied to it. It was a Divine proceeding to reorganize
the administration of the universal empire or kingdom, to
thrust a corrupt administration out, to bring a new admin
istration in to power. Those principles of righteous rule
which God had inculcated, but which Lucifer and his
order had rejected, were now embodied in the new order.
The order stood on those principles as their platform.
And the substance of those principles is embodied in the
spiritual laws of the Church of Christ. They may be
briefly stated as follows : All government is to be moral,
not by force ; by truth, not compulsion ; for the glory of
God and the good of the governed, not for the aggrandize
ment of the governing class. Office, therefore, is intrin
sically self-denying. He who holds office is in that

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 211
measure and degree in the place of God, and must be
like God, the infinitely self-sacrificing being.
These are the only principles on which good govern
ment can possibly exist. They are the principles actually
rejected by all corrupt governments, and contended for by
all that are good. They are the real principles round
about which the conflict has been waged six thousand
years, and will be till the battle of the great day of God
Almighty. These principles, simple in the extreme, and of self-
evidencing light, were cordially adopted by the new order
as the platform of their august campaign. If they went
into power, they would go in on those principles, and by
them. They would either go in by means of argument,
discussion, truth, moral influence, without appeal to force,
or they would not go in at all.
The idea of God's dethroning Lucifer by thunder is
the idea of an unphilosophical, semi-barbarous age. It is
fit for Druids and Goths and brutalized Romans, not for
refined and educated Christians.
To have put Lucifer down by force would not have been
to put down his principles, but to perpetuate them, and
awaken sympathy for him. He would have been canon
ized as a martyr to his principles, and his apostasy would
have been watered with his blood.
To displace him and reorganize the universe there must
be time for development. He must have time to act out
his principles. The new order must have time to act out
theirs ; the universe must have time to observe, compare,
reflect, and then the Divine mind can apply logic to the
facts, and carry the judgment and moral sense of the whole
moral universe.
God has given us an illustration of the real nature of
the problem in our own land, where, in its main features,
it is acted over every four years. He has thus educated

212 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
us by his providence above the stand-point of barbarism,
and qualified us to take a truly sensible and philosophical
view of the exigencies of his moral government which
brought on the atonement.
Hence, fourthly, we perceive that the new order was
exposed to trial. It was subjected to an ordeal of the
severest kind.
Not because God wanted to have it tempted so severely,
but because the thing to be done inevitably demanded it.
It was not desirable to shield them from temptation,
since the very object was to provide an order which could
stand all the liabilities of public life and not grow corrupt.
An army, to be brave, must be exposed to the enemy's
fire. But even if it bad been desirable to shield them, it was
manifestly impossible. Abel could not be preferred to
Cain, without Cain's being angry. David could not be
anointed in Saul's stead, without experiencing Saul's jeal
ousy. The Gentiles could not be grafted in when the
Jews were broken off, without exciting Judaism to perse
cuting rage. A new administration cannot go into power
in this country, without feeling the effects of the political
hostility of the opposite party. The very act of nomi
nating a man to the presidential chair is the act of
thrusting him into a fiery furnace, in which every act of
his past life will be consumingly scrutinized, and even
the falsest charges hurled blazing against him.
It was impossible, then, that the new order of the King
of Righteousness could enter upon the campaign indicated,
without experiencing the utmost efforts of Lucifer and his
order to break them down and destroy them.
Their temptation then, their trial, would be great and
severe just in proportion to the greatness of the minds
opposed to them, their extent of resources, and unscrupu
lous use of them, and the immense interests at stake
between them.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 2l3
As a matter of fact the order fell. Lucifer gained a
decisive advantage over them, even a power of death,
which it cost the death of the Son of God to destroy.
How did he acquire that power ?
It is plain that it was by tempting them to sin. The
order being sinless, he could find nothing in their past
record of which to accuse them. Neither would it be safe
to invent false accusations. A false charge may be risked
against known sinners, for it is supposable that known
sinners should have committed any particular kind of sin,
but against just persons, known to be such, a false charge
could not be brought with any probability of success.
The only way was to lead them into sin, and yet dp it
so cautiously as not to be detected, and thus be able to
take the benefit of their fault, and build charges against
them. This being granted, it will also be admitted what form
the temptation must necessarily assume. It must assume
the form of deception. He must deceive, in order to
kill. Hence our Saviour says, " He was a liar and mur
derer from the beginning," — liar, that he might be
manslayer. The order knew God's estimate of his character. They
knew why they were appointed to take his place ; any
direct attempt on their virtue was impossible ; " in vain
the net is spread in the sight of any bird." He must con
trive in some way to lull their suspicions. This is the first
principle of temptation in all ages and all worlds. It re
veals itself in the ordinary idioms of vulgar speech, " to
throw dust in one's eyes," "to hoodwink," "to blind."
It is simply self-evident that Lucifer must in some way
contrive to bbnd them, to shut their eyes, or he cannot
take the first step towards tempting them to sin. His
method then began as it always begins, by deceit.
But it is equally evident how he must deceive. He

214 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
could not operate on their eyes ; he must operate on what
their eyes looked at. The way to blind people's eyes is
to put on a mask, to assume a disguise. It has the same
effect as if the eye itself were blinded. Hence we read,
" Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." It
is his way. It is the very law of his deceptive methods in
ail ages and all worlds. The libertine assimilates himself
to the purity of that very virtue he would seduce. The
black betrayer of his country assumes the guise of patriot
ism, and is even fierce for the Union. When Saul would
lay a snare for David's life, when he would lure him to
certain death, he gave him his daughter Michal to wife ;
that paternal goodness might be the prelude to bloody
assassination. Lucifer, therefore, assimilated himself to the character
of the new order. As rapidly as could be done without
exciting attention he reformed his administration, ceased
from his controversy with God, assumed the air of humility
and the practice of self-denial. He came over, in short,
was converted, and, so far as was practicable, identified
himself in principles and practice with his contemplated
victims. He succeeded in deceiving them. Although
they were warned, although sleepless vigilance was the
price of virtue, they, in fact, accepted his conversion for
genuine. So great was his power of dissimulation, so con
summate his skill in acting, no eye save the Omniscient
did, in fact, completely fathom his purposes.
The Bible, therefore, speaks of the mystery of iniquity
as though there were something in all ages truly mys
terious in the power of fraud and guile possessed by the
Devil. We see it in the rise of the papacy. How such
a perfect masterpiece of diabolism ever could spring up
out of primitive Christianity, and call itself the bride of
God and mother Church, is indeed a mysterious exhibi
tion of deceptive power.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 215
So, too, in our own land ; how such a system as slavery, ..
one so perfectly infernal in its whole character, could take
root and grow in a republic, just fighting the battles of
liberty, how it could become the governing power of
Church and State in that republic for three quarters of
a century, is a most wonderful thing. It is a mystery
of fraud and guile.
All such things are instructive specimens and instances
of that mystery of deceit by which Lucifer succeeded in
blinding the eyes of the new order, and thus being able
to strip that order naked.
How this was effected is also plain, with nearly equal
certainty. He sought to impair confidence in God. Any
thing which altered their view of God, and divided them
from him, removed them from righteousness. The right
eousness of an unfallen soul is conditioned on its life in
God. God only is independently good. Creatures are
righteous no longer than they are in vital relation to him.
Just as a plant is green no longer than it is in vital rela
tions with the soil, the air, and light and moisture. Any
false philosophical notion therefore, whatever, concerning
God, introduced into the mind of the order, would separate
them from God and righteousiiess, that is, it would strip
them naked.
Now, the methods of the Devil are radically the same in
all ages and all worlds. If we know his methods now, we
know them from the beginning. If we can discover by
what philosophy, falsely so caUed, he detached the nominal
Church from God, and stripped her naked, and holds her
so to this day, we know by what philosophy he first broke
their faith in God before the foundation of the world.
But it is a remarkable fact, that the theology of the nomi
nal Church, from the rise of the papacy until now, has given
to the natural attributes of God an undue prominence over
his moral attributes. The Divine omnipotence, omnis-

216 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
cience, and immutability have been practically placed in
the foreground, and his parental character, and sense of
honor and right, thrust into tbe background.
The character popularly exhibited of the Supreme Being
is a character of force and will and arbitrariness, more than
of thought and sympathy and moral influence.
Hence Christendom has for twelve hundred and sixty
years or more conceived of the character of God in such
a light as to excite hard feelings and alienation. The
Church, in all its branches, publicly professes that the Di
vine dealings with the human race are incapable of any
rational explanation and defence.
That humiliating profession is on record in every denom
ination under heaven. And although the Church clings to
a belief in a Divine rectitude which she cannot see, being
blinded, the world will not, but declares distinctly and con
stantly and universally that such a God as the Church con
ceives of is unjust and tyrannical.
This is the simple working, by the law of moral cause
and effect, of the disproportionate exhibition of truth. God
is omnipotent, omniscient, and immutable. But facts show
that it is perfectly easy to state those truths in such an un
balanced way as to produce the worst effects of falsehood.
This method — which the Devil now follows, and has,
for the last twelve hundred and sixty years, in a most signal
manner — is the method he has pursued in all ages in this
world, and the method by which he first brought the
Church under his deadly power before the world began.
Having ingratiated himself with the new order, and se
cured their confidence, he dwelt continually on the abso
lute omnipotence of God, and his infallible foreknowledge
of all events, and his immutability, — truths all of great
importance, but needing to be complemented by the moral
attributes or qualities of tbe heart of God. These Lucifer
left out, or mentioned, if at all, in a cursory, formal
manner.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 217
The consequence was, that certain trains of thought
started themselves in their minds as their own instinctive
reasonmgs. God is infinite ; he foreknows all things ; his power is
absolute ; and if anything be foreseen disagreeable to him,
he can prevent it. Whatever comes to pass, therefore,
must be agreeable to him. He has his own way perfectly
in all things and forever. Of course there is no such thing
as self-denial to him. There can be no self-sacrifice ; but
everything, from greatest to least, is exactly as he wished,
and because he wished.
Now, the truth is, God is infinitely self-denying. And
when he saw that to create the universe on the best possi
ble principles would in fact, as it has done, involve the oc
currence of sin and suffering, he determined to create,
although he saw that; because it was right, and because
he was willing himself to be the chief sufferer, as Calvary
testifies he has been and is.
To reach the conclusion, then, that God was not and
could not be self-denying, was to bebeve a lie, and accept
the exact opposite of the Divme character for the truth.
Yet the order reached this conclusion themselves ; Lucifer
did not say it for them. They reached it by starting from
premises every one of them true in themselves, but so put
as to be only a part of the truth needed as premises to a
just conclusion.
They reached a conclusion, too, having a decisive bear
ing on their own character and end as an order. They
were to reign. They were to stand in the place of God,
representatives of the Divine Majesty. In affirming that
he was not self-denying, they logically overturned their
own platform.
For if God was not, why need they be ? Why practise
self-denial when thereby they would exhibit a direct con
trast to the God they represented ? This was the prime
10

218 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
mistake Lucifer made. He led them by the same path he
trod himself; he effectually drove in this philosophical
wedge, and split them off from God, and in so doing
stripped them naked.
They knew it not : they were deceived. They reabzed
not that it was a false God they thought of, and that God
himself, the true God, was hid.
In this state and stage of being, they are shadowed out
in the Eden tableau. The curtain rises at this stage of
development. They are already blind, already naked.
The Serpent is already there, most subtle of all crea
tures ; and, from the readiness with which Eve enters into
conversation with him, it is irresistibly suggested that it is
not the first time. They have talked before.
Those subtle processes by which the celestial race were
blinded and made naked, are of a nature< so occult as not
to admit of dramatic representation. Therefore Adam is
brought on to the stage already in a blind and naked state,
not made so in the garden, but made so outside of the gar
den, and then put inside in order to act his part in the tab
leau. The overt act, by which the order, already deceived and
already void of righteousness, incurred sentence of expul
sion from heaven, can be exhibited and is. Exalted and
blessed as their state was, it mvolved the necessity of pro
tracted self-denial. It demands self-denial to submit to
temptation. It demands constant patience and self-com
mand to be the object of constant, relentless, unscrupulous
attack. Moreover, self-denial was involved in the deferring of
their coronation. It was a great trial of David's patience
to be anointed, and wait so many years, fiercely persecuted
by Saul, before being crowned even over Judah ; and so
many years more, in the midst of the divided tribes, before
receiving the crown of all Israel.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 219
So it was a test of the patience and self-denial of the
order anointed to supplant Lucifer and his angels to be
obliged to wait long. That dignity was great. Their
place and power were high. They were to be as gods.
They were to know good and evil, — that is to say, they
were to administer justice.
The knowing of good and evil is a Scriptural attribute
of royalty. It is not mere knowing or experiencing for
one's self, but it is discerning or deciding between them for
others. Thus the wise woman of Tekoah says to David, "As an
angel of God is our lord the king to discern between
good and bad." So Solomon prays, " Give, therefore, thy
servant an understanding heart, that I may judge thy peo
ple, that I may discern between good and bad." Here the
knowing good and evil is evidently the same as judging the
people, deciding for them between right and wrong.
This was the very office to which the order of the King
of Righteousness was appointed. They were to be by and
by, in the fulness of time, as gods, knowing good and evil,
or judging the universe ; and this is still the Church's des
tiny. " Know ye not that the saints shall judge the
world?" In the mean time, however, they must not grasp at em
pire. It is said of Christ, that, though in form of God, he
thought it not a thing to be seized upon, as a robber seizes
his prey, to be equal with God. He was not impatient,
eager ; the order must not be. They must not snatch at
power ; they must not seize it as robbers seize plunder.
The public mind must be prepared, and all things ripened
to the change, so that the universe be not distracted, but
truly gathered and united under one Head.
Any premature attempt on their part would be fatal to
them, fatal to their enterprise, every way fatal. They
were warned ; they were straitly enjoined by no means to
attempt such a thing.

220 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
But now Lucifer, assuming tbe garb of meekness and
bumibty, begins to dwell on their future destiny.
He is aware they are destined to succeed him. He
knows such is the Divine pleasure. He rejoices that it is
so. He is weary of the cares of state, and would gladly
relinquish them to younger, more competent hands. He
has tried to do his best, but is sensible of his incapacity,
and is rejoiced that so fit and every way suitable a selec
tion should be made to succeed him. He wonders they
are not already in their proper place. Why is it ? Has
God indeed forbidden it, as he has heard reported ? If
so, no doubt he has wise reasons into which we ought
not to inquire.
He does not see what hurt it would do. He cannot
imagine why God should say it would surely be fatal
to them. God knows they are competent, and that as
soon as they had once made the experiment, and become
a little experienced, they would manage perfectly well.
It cannot be that reason.
It is most likely as a needed trial, a test of their
self-denying spirit. And so he dwells on the immense
importance of self-denial to all creatures. I must be
self-denying ; thou must be self-denying ; we must be
self-denying ; ye or you must be self-denying ; they must
be self-denying.
And the thought springs up in their minds, And why
not he must? Why roll all the self-denial on us, and
take none himself? tWhy keep us in suspense, in this
tantalizing, humiliating position ? Why this wearisome,
vexatious delay ? Does he think us incompetent ? Or is
he arbitrary and exacting, and disposed to keep us down
and show his power ? We will not submit to this. We
will assert our rights, and show that we are perfectly com
petent to our high duties.
And so, opportunity being skilfully afforded by Lucifer,

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 221
the door being left open, they enter, seize upon sceptre
and crown, and public deeds of judicial sway ; and in the
very act are arrested on charge of high treason against
the state. They instantly discover, then, their lost con
dition. They are destitute of justification, exposed to the
displeasure of God, and completely helpless under the
charges of Lucifer, who holds over them the power of
death. And this brings us to consider, more directly, the condi
tion into which the order was brought by its fall. The
first most obvious feature of their case was their coming
under the accusing power of Lucifer. They were imme
diately in the position of accused parties, and Lucifer in
the position of accuser. Hence, he now became the
accuser of the brethren, as he is named Rev. xii. 10, and
commenced those accusations which ceased not day nor
night before the throne of God, till they were silenced
by the blood of the risen Redeemer.
This accusing power was in all respects deadly to them,
most fatal in its spirit, its matter, and its effects ; it is that
power of death which, Romans ii. 14, we read it was the
express object of the death of Christ to destroy.
Lucifer had so conducted his temptations as to be him
self uncommitted, unimplicated as the contriver of their
fall. He even, in turning against them, affected regret
for their fate, and pretended that only a stern sense of
duty, as official head of the universe, compelled him to
arrest and impeach them.
The second fact of the condition of the order is its
forfeiture. Viewed in relation to the end proposed in its
institution, it was, to all appearance, and for the time
being, a total failure. It was completely wrecked and
broken. It was gone. It was no longer the order of the
King of Righteousness, but the reverse. The contem
plated substitution was defeated.

222 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
" Is this the order," Lucifer could now demand, " that
is to supersede me in the government ? Even before they
committed this offence, did they not indorse the principles
of my administration ? Will God reward in them what
he punishes in me ? Have they not now flagrantly sinned,
revolted, as I never was even accused of doing ? Shall
that rebellion be rewarded and my loyalty dishonored and
punished ? That be far from thee, O Lord ! It is impossi
ble, consistently with the interests of good government,
to carry out the proposed change. In the name of the
moral universe, I demand sentence of forfeiture and out
lawry against them. I demand their disfranchisement
and expulsion from heaven, in returnless exile."
To these demands there could be no answer. There
was no justification, there was no defence ; sentence was
pronounced. The race was driven forth, and though
their names were still left written in the census-rolls of
the empire, no one noticed tbe fact. They disappeared
from view. They passed away from the sight of the world
of glory, into a realm unseen, the realm thence named
Hades, and the gates of that native land were defended
against them by the flash of the blazing cherubic sword.
Their holy and beautiful house was laid waste. Their
metropolis, Jerusalem above, mother of them all, was made
heaps ; and over the ruins of their greatness the haughty
foe strode insulting, saying, " Shall the prey be taken
from the Mighty One? Shall the lawful captives be
delivered ? "
So far from being displaced by them, he was strength
ened, and apparently fortified forever. What could ever
shake him ? Not their release, to all created minds past
thought even. Will God create another order ? Can any
order be organized that shall stand against him, when these
failed? No; it is beyond the power of God to shake him.
And thus, while on the fallen order he rolls down the

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 223
weight of infinite odium and crushing contempt, he himself
stands firmer, prouder, haughtier than before.
The third feature in their case was, the reality of their
guilt. Apart from all exaggeration by Lucifer, who from
party spirit would set everything in blackest colors, viewed
even from the Divine stand-point with a merciful eye, the
guilt of the order was real and great.
They were the espoused bride of Jehovah, they had gone
aside and committed whoredom. Such is the constant illus
tration the Holy Spirit employs throughout Scripture. They
were the adoptive first-born ; they had rebelled against
then* father. They had thus inflicted the deepest wound on
the Divine affections, and the darkest stain upon his honor.
At tbe same time, the interests of the universe staked
upon them were betrayed and lost. A false, deadly, mur
derous administration, instead of being dethroned by them,
was by their defection rendered apparently impregnable.
Thus then* guilt, both in its consequences to the universe
and in its affront to God, was great.
Will it be said, that the temptation was so subtle, in
genious, and irresistible, as to take off the edge of condem
nation ? Will it be said it excites pity instead of indigna
tion, — that they seem like victims more than culprits ?
It is admitted, to a certain extent, that this is an element
of a correct judgment of their case ; and we shall endeavor
to show the use made of it in their favor by their advocate
in his mediatorial argument on their behalf.
But at present we only observe, it was no justification. It
enhanced Lucifer's doom, but did not absolve them; for
there was a circumstance in their case not before noticed,
which it is time now to consider. It is this. Though we
have spoken of the order as a unit in its fall, there was one
exception. One creature there was, in the language of the
poet, " Faithful found among the faithless,
Faithful only he," —

224. REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
and that was the creature-head of the order, afterwards
united with the second person of the trinity as the Son of
God. This mdividual, not yet deified, a creature human bke
the rest, in no wise superior in nature or faculty to his
brethren, but of exactly the same make and pattern as
they, had stood fast.
Lucifer had not blinded his eyes in the least. His right
eousness had not been stripped off, and when the whole
order went with a rush into apostasy, he stemmed the tide.
Thus he alone resisted, not only all the power of Lucifer
and the angelic dynasty, but tbe more infectious contagion
of his own order.
But if he stood, they could have stood. If it was possi
ble for one, it was for another, for they were all alike,
naturally. Nay, it would have been vastly easier for all to
have resisted in concert, than it was for one to stand alone
against combined numbers. His innocence enhances their
guilt, therefore. Their guilt is seen by contrast to be real
and deep, and without any valid excuse or justification.
The fourth feature of the situation of the order was the
appointment of a priest and sacrifice. As a reward for his
obedience, that creature-head of the order was now taken
up into peculiar and eternal union with the second person
• of the trinity, thus constituting a complex person, both God
and man, to whom it was said by the Father, " Thou art my
son ; this day have I begotten thee " ; and at the same time,
" Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."
Visibly he was but a creature still. The change that had
passed upon him was not cognizable to celestial senses. To
see in him an infinite nature was possible only to the eye
of faith. Creatures could see only the glorious humanity
they had seen before. They could bebeve that that hu
manity had now become the form of God, brightness of the
Father's glory, and express image of his person. But this
was faith, not sight.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC. 225
From various intimations of Scripture, moreover, we are
led to the belief, that his anointing to the headship of the
universe was in a manner private. As David was anomted
privately, and unknown to Saul, so Christ was anointed pri
vately, unknown to Lucifer.
This anointing, especially in its sacerdotal and sacrificial
aspect, is the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the
world unto our glory, — which none of the princes of this
world knew ; for had they known it, they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. ii. 7, 8.)
But while Lucifer was excluded from the Divine councils,
and while the plan of redemption was " from the beginning
of the world hid in God " from principalities and powers
(Eph. ui. 9), nevertheless, in those astonishing words,
" Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchise
dec," the amazing fact was impbed, that, though the order
was fallen, gone, under power of death, it was not aban
doned. God had not let go his hold upon it. He would
not give it up. Lucifer thought he had. The universe
thought so. The order thought so themselves. But God's
thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways.
Then, when there was no eye to pity and no arm to save,
his eye pitied and his arm wrought salvation. Then he
laid help upon One that is mighty, saying, "Save them
. from going down to the pit, for I have found a ransom."
The Mediator joyfully accepted the charge. He became
surety for his order. He became responsible for them.
'He assumed their debts, took all their sins on his own head,
all their odium and disgrace on his own name, and pledged
his kingly word to satisfy all claims on their account.
He would do all that was necessary to atone for them,
and make it every way consistent to restore them to their
standing, and carry out that design of substituted birthright
which had been interrupted, and apparently defeated.
In a word, he engaged to begin, conduct, and finish a
10* o

226 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
grand mediatorial economy, or plan of redemption, which
should destroy Satan and bis angels, and unite the whole
universe under himself and his redeemed bride, the glorious
order of the King of Righteousness.
Such was the condition into which tbe order came, sub
ject to the deadly accusing power of Lucifer, but provided
with a mediatorial advocate to manage their defence. Under
total forfeiture in their own name, yet holding title in the
name of another, their head. Guilty, and utterly destitute
of justification, yet provided with an infinite atoning high-
priest and sacrifice. The end of their institution frustrated,
and the order a wreck, yet a plan devised by which the. lost
order should be saved, and the frustrated end accomplished
with additional glory and exaltation.
Such was the state of the fallen order out of which the
preparation of this world and introduction of man arose,
and all the dispensations of time. Such is its state now,
though the vast process is wellnigh accomplished.
The day of exile is nearly ended. The hour draws nigh,
when that same mighty Power that raised Christ to the
right hand will raise his body, his bride, the Church, and
glorify her with him far above principalities and powers,
and every name that is named, not only in this world, but
in the world that is to come.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE ORDEAL.

" Who, foe the joy that was set before him, endured the cross,
despising the shame." — Heb. xii. 2.
IT is obvious that, in undertaking the redemption of his
order, Christ undertook a difficult, a dangerous, a ne
cessarily painful work.
To undertake the rescue of the order was to become the
object of the concentrated jealousy and revenge of the
reigning angelic dynasty of the universe, with Lucifer at its
head. To appoint him to that undertaking was to appoint
him to be braised, as it is written, " Thou shalt braise his
heel," and "it pleased the Lord to bruise him." If it
pleased the Lord to anoint hmi priest of the ruined order,
it pleased him to put him where he would inevitably be
bruised by the serpent's deadly fangs.
All this Christ must have clearly foreseen, so that antici
pation becomes an important element to be considered in
musing upon his ordeal.
It often happens that anticipated evil inflicts more sorrow
than the reabty. Indeed, anticipation is rarely proportion
ate to after experience. We apprehend too little or forbode
too much. The vividness of our presentiments, therefore,
is no sure criterion of impending tribulation. Not so, how
ever, in the case before us. Anticipation here was infallible,
and a sure gauge of the magnitude of the ordeal.
Hence, if we consider a moment that anticipation in the
mind of Christ, we may judge somewhat of the crisis fore
seen and prepared for.

228 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
It was an anticipation dating far back in eternity. It
was no hasty scheme, no ill-considered project. As far
back in the past as before the foundation of the world
Scripture assures us the anticipation of the cross was
present in the mind of the Redeemer. And the more vast
science makes all geologic cycles, the more remote the epoch
of that anticipation.
Before the first foundation, the lowest rudimentary strata,
or gaseous evolution, " as a lamb without blemish and with
out spot, he was foreordained" to die. If, then, those pe
riods of ages which geology reveals are vast, so must the
anticipation be which bridged their mighty duration.
And if we ascend the heights of bygone ages, and out
of the fastnesses of eternity look forward, with Christ in
anticipation, some impression of the august reality may
grow upon us.
Let us stand in thought among those bright armies styled
" the sons of God," who
" Saw, of old, on chaos rise,
The beauteous pillars of the skies."
Let us suppose ourselves acquainted with what they could
not guess, — that the anticipation of a cross was already
mature in the Divine breast.
With that conception, we behold him come fortb to create
a material system to be the theatre of that wonderful pur
pose. We see summoned into existence a universe strangely
contrived to mirror forth spiritual analogies, and be a pic
ture world, where, day unto day shall utter speech, and
night unto night show forth knowledge.
Angels at the sight burst into an irrepressible shout of
praise. They know not that it is to suffer there he called
it into being. We know it. Borne on wings of inspiration,
searching the deep things of God, we venture where angels
feared to tread.

THE ORDEAL. 229
To them it was a mystery why the newly formed earth
should bear the impress of decay ; why Nature's seasons
should be one grand resurrection pageant; life forever
evolving out of the loathsome arms of Death. To us it is
plain that, if the Lamb was determined to die and rise
again, it is precisely such a world he would erect as conge
nial to his purpose, — a world where he might be, together
with the order he would redeem, sown in weakness, dis
honor, corruption, and animal organization, to rise agam
spiritual, incorruptible, powerful, and glorious.
Meanwhile, there must have been a kind of prebbation
of the approaching humiliation. For though the full scope
of the mediatorial anointing was hid from principalities and
from powers, it could not be so entirely veiled as not to
excite their watchful jealousy. As Saul eyed David with
intuitive suspicion and dislike, even before he knew of his
having been anointed, so Lucifer looked askance upon Christ.
He hated him for his order's sake. He hated him on account
of the attempt at dethronement. He hated him because he
manifested pity for his brethren, and refused to join in the
torrent of obloquy and abuse the angebc powers caused to
roll across their memory. He evidently took then- reproach
to heart. He mourned their fate.
The Covering Cherub hated him for it, and energized to
cast their odium upon him.
Long, long before he stooped to earth, we see him stand
ing before the Lord, clothed in filthy garments, interceding
for Israel, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist
him. With instructed eye we pass onward toward the fulness
pf time, and as we see the Anointed One begin to empty
himself of infinite plenitude, disrobe himself of immortal
splendors, and disappear from those realms of ineffable
o-lory, — as we see the mysterious veiling of that infinite
nature under a fleshly form, we begin to tremble. O won-

230 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
derful seed, we exclaim, thus sown in corruption, weakness,
dishonor, and decay !
How near has holiness forced itself down to the level of
sin ! How close the contact infinite purity suffers with vile
ness and uncleanness ! Herein is shame ! Brought into
the midst of sin, encompassed and environed round there
with, sin's vile weeds and filthy rags upon him, sinners for
his only earthly friends, a sinner guilty and lost in herself
for a mother, sinners for relatives, sinners for acquaintance,
countrymen, subjects, and a world full of sin and shame and
death for an abode. He who for ages had known other
society in the bosom of the Infinite Blessed, other com
munion and service in the songs and adorations of celestial
myriads, — O what a foreign shore ! what a sad, benighted
exile ! what a dreary banishment ! what a deep, degrading
change of position ! what shame, what humiliation, not for
himself, but with and for others!
But if we were to examine his earthly course, in the few
brief sketches given us of him, we should find that course
full of anticipations of impending fate, rendered now more
weighty and gloomy by that change of stature. Sown in
weakness, enfeebled by being made flesh, sown in corrup
tion and dishonor, he no longer looks upon that suffering
with the unmoved aspect of an infinite being, but now feels
the dread and the sensitive shrinkings and terrible recoil of
physical nature.
Early in infancy, we are informed, he grew in knowledge.
And those divine abilities, hid by the act of incarnation
within, and forced to develop like ours only by means of
physical organs, began to manifest themselves with aston
ishing force, at twelve years of age exciting the attention
and wonder of the learned.
Before that time the Spirit of God had informed him of
what memory alone could not have supplied. The grace
of God was on him, and he grew hi knowledge. And that

THE ORDEAL. 231
grace of God early led him, from the circumstances of his
own birth, and the intimations of Scripture and the testi
mony of his mother, to identify himself as the Messiah, and
to penetrate to the deep insight of things written of him.
Hence, he at twelve years said : " How is it that ye sought
me ? Wist ye not I must be about my Father's business ? "
Even at this early age, therefore, that child's mind had
gone through with deep and profound courses of thought.
And, reasoning his way under guidance of the Spirit up
ward from a starting-point in the finite, had been made to
believe the facts of his previous existence, as revealed in
Scripture, and from them to infer his present posture and
approaching suffering.
This knowledge thus acquired was to him human knowl
edge. Obtained by such processes in kind as human minds
in general obtain theirs, it was knowledge differing in this
from that he had had before. That was knowledge origi
nal. This was knowledge reproduced, reappearing under a
veil, — knowledge that could not remember itself to have
been in exercise before.
This knowledge, or this faith, — for he was like his breth
ren in this respect especially, that he walked by faith, not
by sight, — this faith characterized his whole career. The
anticipation of suffering was with him everywhere. He
knew he must suffer, and in repeated instances that con
sciousness betrayed itself.
It formed the key to his entire earthly, as it had to his
previous heavenly career. He came to seek and to save
that which was lost. He came to give his life a ransom for
many. He came down from heaven to give life to the
world. Except they ate his flesh and drank his blood,
there Avas no life in them.
And in moments of peculiar suffering, when the antici
pation of the cross and shame was most intense, he said,
" Now is my soul distracted ! What shall I say ? Shall I

232 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
say, Father, save me from this hour ? But for this cause
came I unto this hour."
And when before Pilate the bitterness of the crisis was
almost full, " For this cause was I born," he said, " and to
this end came I into the world, that I should testify unto
the truth."
Here, then, we are enabled to judge somewhat of the
reality of the thing suffered, by the anticipations of the suf
ferer, — anticipations preceding the world, occasioning its
existence, shaping its laws and progress, — anticipations ac
companying the person in his change of worlds, and giving
tone and character to his whole life up to the latest hour.
How great must that cross be, and that shame, which
was worthy to be the subject of forebodings so mighty and
so protracted as these !
If, then, we attempt to ask, what were the elements of
that suffering, it may be answered, that perhaps we are
not capable of analyzing it. It is quite likely — nay, it
seems, almost beforehand, as if it must be so — that in a
crisis so vast, for which he had prepared from such remote
antiquity, on which such amazing interests were at stake,
there shpuld be elements involved which should go beyond
our present capacity to analyze and appreciate.
Does it not seem unlikely that we, whose minds are so
darkened by sin, and enfeebled and limited by sense, should
be able to achieve the solution of a problem like this ? I
confess that, so far from wondering why we do not under
stand more respecting it, I feel disposed to wonder that we
know so much, or that we dare think of attempting to
know all. Still, some elements of that suffering we un
doubtedly do know, and can partly appreciate.
The first and lowest element, and one therefore we can
best understand, is physical anguish. This was undoubt
edly one element of the cross and of the shame that he
anticipated ; that he might condescend to know the pangs

THE ORDEAL. 233
and agonies of material torture, the throes of dissolving
nature. And it is on this account, physical as we are, and ex
posed to physical suffering, we can best understand it, that
so much prominence is given to this in the record, and
he is said to have suffered in the flesh, suffered in his own
body, to have been wounded, pierced, bruised, to have
suffered stripes, to have been broken, to taste death, and
the like. Not because these were his chief sufferings, but
because they are those we can chiefly appreciate ; at any
rate, mankind at large. We may be sure that these were
but a small part of the reality he anticipated, — the smallest
part. We may be sure that there were other elements
of suffering connected with what was physical, — suffering
of the heart, anguish of the spirit, that were far more
dreadful to him, although they may be less appreciable
by us.
But those physical sufferings, if they were but the
lowest element of what he endured, are worthy of our
deepest wonder. For it was an exalted being that con
sented thus to know in himself what physical anguish
might be. It was the Lord of glory that endured that
undeserved, that strange bodily torture. This renders it
amazing. For it was so strange an experience for him, —
so novel, so unnatural a lesson, for one of his character
and past station to learn so bitterly.
Another element of a grade higher than this was the
mortification and anguish of his social ignominy ; his being
rejected, set at naught by a whole community, — con
fessedly the only community that had the worship of the
true God, — a community to which he sustained peculiar
relations. It was the peculiarity of his experience to be cut off
from his previous existence and his Divine attributes, ex
cept as matters of faith. In the shape of knowledge, that

.234 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
former reality of his existence could not come in to render
him insensible to human vicissitudes, but only as he grasped
.it by faith, on testimony. In this particular, his faith of
glories had with the Father before the world was, was of
like kind with ours of glories to be enjoyed in a world that
is to come.
Ours is a faith that can support, sustain, enable to en
dure, but does not render insensible to earthly motives.
If our faith of the heavenly glory were more than faith, if
it were knowledge, absolute sight and open vision, we
should be at once incapable of being tried by earthly
motive. Trial, suffering, would be, in the absorbing vision,
annihilated forever. Therefore we see in a glass darkly.
Therefore he saw in a glass darkly that which had pre
ceded his earthly career.
Had he retained full, open knowledge, not faith, he
would have been incapacitated for being touched by stress
of earthly motives. He could not have felt sensitive to
the opinion of his age and country, nor felt the keen
edge of universal obloquy and detraction. But, as it was,.
heavenly things were present with him by faith as sustain
ing realities, yet so with him as to leave him liable to the
promptings of human feeling. He could be tempted in all
points as we are. He could desire to be believed, to
be respected, trusted, loved. He could desire the good
opinion of his country. He could feel hurt when his ideas
were received coldly, as new, as visionary, — when they
were scornfully rejected, and his whole intellectual labor
trampled in disgust.
He could feel as keenly as another man the invasion of
his personal rights to freedom of thought, speech, action,
and the gross outrage of those rights when he was insulted,
attacked, and by high and low, rich and poor, abused as a
blasphemous and abominable thing.
There were chords in the heart of Jesus that could

THE ORDEAL. 235
vibrate to the keenest anguish under all this social, this
national rejection and reproach. Nor can we at all appre
ciate how much anguish a man like him can be made to
drink in a few bitter hours, till we have thoroughly lived
bis life over again, and been imbued with the ideas and
feelings of his age and country ; and this is what none of
us can do, except partially.
It must have been bitter indeed for Jesus to stand and
hear heaven and earth ringing with shouts of a vast multi
tude of his own kindred, — shouts in which " Crucify him !
crucify him ! " rose high above everything else, while
" Barabbas ! Barabbas ! " was the degrading accompani
ment. It must, have been intensely humiliating to see a public
bravado and ruffian thus chosen by his nation, priests, and
people, while he was dragged to the gibbet ; and, what was
worse than all was, that he should see that heathen Pilate
become his intercessor, — yes, that Gentile, ignorant ofthe
true God, to see him stand forward and labor earnestly, and
labor long, — as long as he dared, — to effect his rescue.
Never was there an instance where the suffering from
such sources was at all comparable to those of this sufferer.
Aside from what faith told him of former worlds and high
er glories, it was on Zion's brow that condemnation met
him, — it was where David had lived, and under the very
shadow of his ancestral walls, and surrounded by the insig
nia of a royal line, emphatically his own, that he heard
these shouts. It was the same voices which one hour
cried, " Hosanna to the Son of David ! " which the next
shouted, " Crucify him ! " And it was from Zion's top
that he was brutally dragged to Calvary's mound.
Another element, still higher than this, was, a sight
and sense of the extreme vileness of objects dear to him.
These manifestations of sin that were about him, causing
him such acute anguish, were manifestations of the depth

236 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
to which beings dear to him had sunk ; and to a gen
erous, unselfish heart, this is ever one of the heaviest
of woes.
When an earthly father first finds out how deep his
profligate son has sunk in infamy and unprincipled villany,
the pang is greater almost than he can bear. The discov
ery of the trusting wife that her husband has become an
inebriate, and not only so, but that he is losing, or has lost,
every trace ofthe manliness and virtue she loved, — this
breaks her heart, this lays upon her soul in an hour the
weight of years, the blight of winters.
But what was it, then, for this man, whose heart was
truly disinterested, who was unselfish, who knew that he
came to redeem the wandering, and who knew that the
love he bore them surpassed the love of earth, — what
was it for him to find himself in their hands, in the
midst of their lawless violence, as in a heated caldron ?
Were these, alas ! — these wretched, morally deformed,
and maddened miscreants, — the sons of light he loved so
well, — these the beings created in a Divine image and
likeness, sunk to such deeps of awful undoing, thus lost
to all sense of honor, generosity, gentleness, and true
nobleness ? Was this the searing, scorching brand of sin
upon them, — shrivelling up, blackening, and blasting into
deformity all he loved to look upon ?
There was a woe which no earthly heart ever felt the
like of save his, nor ever can feel. It prompted that
amazing prayer: "Father, forgive them; they know not
what they do."
Nor was this a mere outside sight and sense of their
vileness. There is a principle by which one mind so iden
tifies itself with another by sympathy as to participate in
the shame of that other. This is universally recognized.
All persons naturally feel some degree of shame at the bad
behavior of their near relatives. They blush for them.
They are said figuratively to share their punishment.

THE ORDEAL. 237
Some of the highest efforts of poetry are given to por
tray this principle. Thus Leonato, on hearing the supposed
dishonor of his only daughter, Hero, exclaims, —
" Why ever wast thou lovely in my eyes ?
Why had I not, with charitable hand,
Took up a beggar's issue at my gates ;
Who, smirched thus, and mired with infamy,
I might have said, No part of it is mine !
This shame derives itself from unknown loins ?
But mine ! And mine I loved, and mine I praised,
And mine that I was proud on ; mine so much,
That I myself was to myself not mine,
Valuing of her ; why she — 0, she is fallen
Into a pit of ink, that the wide sea
Hath drops too few to wash her clean again ! "
In this most beautiful passage is vividly illustrated how
one mind by love and sympathy can bear sin for another.
This father feels the shame, the contamination of his sup
posed criminal child, to be his shame and his blackness.
And over whom, then, was it, or what, that our Redeemer
was called to mourn ? Had he,
" with charitable hand,
Took up a beggar's issue at his gates " ?
Nay, verily, " both he that sanctifieth and they that are
sanctified are all of one." He is " first-born among many
brethren." It is brother, sister, mother, bride, all names
of love in one, for whom he sorrows, and who
" is fallen
Into a pit of ink, that the wide sea
Hath drops too few to wash her clean again."
In this sense, and in this only, by the law of sympa
thetic love, he bore all our sins, and took our punishment,
and drank the wrath of God for us.
Another element of that cross and shame still higher is,
the peril of its temptation. For it was through these and
other elements of suffering that he was tempted and set
upon to be swerved from his uprightness.

238 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Nor could that temptation be real, such as is represented
in Scripture, unless there was a possibility of his falling.
Unless he was really and truly as a free-agent placed on
probation, with full hberty to choose wrong and suffer the
consequences ; unless this were the case, it could not be
said that he was tempted in all points as we are. Tempta
tions which are absolutely impossible to be yielded to, are
no temptations. It enters into the very essence of tempta
tion that the mind feels itself impelled strongly to do a
thing which it can do, and knows it can, but from which
it voluntarily refrains.
Hence the vividness, indeed, the awfulness of his suffer
ings. " Ye," says the Apostle, " have not yet resisted
unto blood, striving against sin." But, the implication is,
he did so resist in that hour when, in fear of death, in
fear of moral overthrow and contamination, be prayed to
God with strong crying and tears, and was beard in that be
feared. That was an hour when he resisted unto blood, striving
against sin ; and the sweat of that striving, that agony, was
as it were great drops of blood.
In those hours, and in the similar hours upon the cross,
he learned not alone how evil others had become, but how
mighty was that power that had ensnared them and held
them captive. He felt how dire and dark and appalling the
mastery of that murderous guile that wrestled to sink him
with them down to endless night.
Still another element, and, so far as we are at present
able to analyze the subject, the highest, was the absence of
the Father's comfort and solace.
There was an hour when it appears that it was necessary
to the completeness of his trial and his conquest that the
Father should withdraw, not in wrath, not in anger, nor in
vindictiveness ; for never could the Everlasting Father feel
more agonizingly his love for that sufferer than in the mo-

THE ORDEAL. 239;
ment of his highest sufferings, but that he might allow him
to be perfected the Captain of salvation without external aid.
Then first was there a kind of sundering between eternal
natures which eternity had never witnessed before, nor shall
eternity witness again. Of it we know little ; but we read
that the sun was darkened, and the rocks rent, and the
graves opened. The ordeal was finished, his heart was
broken, and in the mysterious and tremendous deep of
Hades the lowest point of descent was reached, and the
head of the order shared the exile and the humiliation of
the order be would redeem.
This, then, was the cross and shame which he endured,;
despising them. Not despising them absolutely, but rela
tively. " For the joy that was set before him he endured
the cross, despising the shame." Despising the shame not
intrinsically, but comparatively. In itself it was fearful.
It was worthy of being anticipated as it was for ages, and
prepared for, and met with strong crying and tears, and
conquered with heavenly shouts of victory.
It is not as if the shame were light, of no account abso
lutely, and all he endured a triflmg thing to be despised,-
that it is said he despised the shame. Far fi-om it. But it
is by reason of the vast preponderance of that joy that was
set before him. Compared with that he could despise what
was in itself far from despicable. That cross and shame
was great, but that joy was greater. That woe was mighty,
but the joy far more exceeding and eternal in its weight
of glory. And so great was the excess, the preponderance
of glory and of joy, that he was able to despise what was
too dreadful for us to conceive.
But what, then, was that joy ? What was its particular
description and character ? Was it to be the equal of the
Father ? That he was before, and counted it a thing easily
to be laid aside in comparison.
Was it majesty, exaltation, official station, and the recep-.

240 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
tion of ascriptions of homage from sinless myriads ? All
these he had and might retain, — needed not to gain by
sacrifice. What, then, was it ? Evidently something higher, nobler,
dearer to his heart than all these. Something without
which all these were to him not enough ; something, too,
which could not be obtained without sacrifice.
And what was that ? It was the life of the dead. That
was the joy. It was the ransom of the enslaved. That was
the joy. It was the redemption of the lawful captives.
It was the breaking of the bond of death's dominion over
souls created in the Divine image, but enthralled by sin.
That was the joy.
It was to wash them and make them white in his blood.
It was to array them in white as his bride. It was to re
store them to a seat by his side upon his throne as heirs of
God, and joint-heirs with himself in the headship of the
universe. That was the joy.
It was to hear the Father say in the morning of eternal
day, " This my Son was dead, but is alive again, was lost,
but is found." That was the joy that made him consent
to be their sacrifice before the world was ; that made him
consent to be foreordained for them before the world be
gan ; that made him create all things, conduct all things,
endure and overcome all things.
It was because he loved them before time began. It was
because his love was Divine, because it was of the quality
of God, because it was love's eternal self, unchangeable,
unalterable, refusing to part with its best beloved, and con
senting to suffer with and for them anything but sin, rather
than give them up.
That, mdeed, he would not suffer for them even. If to
redeem and restore them, it were necessary to sin, to do
wrong, to be in the least iota unjust, to violate the smallest
filament of fundamental law, then they must perish indeed,

THE ORDEAL. 241
and be could not save them. But anythmg less than that
he could and would endure, yea, count as nothing in pros
pect of their recovery unto himself.
He would count nothing the labor of creation, nothmg
the ages of waiting, nothing the shame and humibation of
contact with flesh, nothing the anguish, danger, and deep
sorrow of his cross, nothmg the descent to Hades, if only
by these they might be pardoned, purged, emancipated,
brought home, and placed eternally above the reach of a
second apostasy.
That was his joy. And be set it before him, and he did
endure. He did despise the shame, and he sits at the right
band in glory.
Therefore it is, my brethren, that you and I to-day are
in this house of God and gate of heaven, listening to the
calls of infinite love and mercy. Therefore it is we have
not long since been cut off, and lifted up our eyes in end
less despair. Therefore, because that was his joy which
be set before him, the heralds of the cross are sent to
you to say, "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from
the dead, and Christ shall give thee bght. He loved thee,
sinner, the Lord of glory loved thee. Thee he would
not give up. Thy life eternal was precious in his sight.
For thee be shed blood, precious blood. Unto thee he
says, " Live ; yea, live."
And thou, if thou wilt hear his voice, shalt five. He
will be thy Shepherd. He will lead thee to green pastures
and beside still waters. He will restore thy soul. He will
bring thee to cloudless climes of light, and mansions of
everlasting day, and a sceptre of universal power.
O bebeve the joyful tidings. Bebeve the Gospel, the
heavenly Gospel, and rejoice in bebeving. Ask not what
you shall do, but, mstead of asking, Believe.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the author and fin
isher of thy faith, and thou shalt five. In his name I call
11 p

242 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
you. In his name I invite you home. Believe. It is the
homeward, heavenward road. Believe. It is the path of
peace. This way salvation lies. This way hope is born.
This way peace, purity, and freedom. Bebeve, and thou
canst not come into condemnation, but art passed from
death unto life.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE ADVOCATE.
" NOW TO APPEAR IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD FOR US." — Heb. ix. 24.
WHEN Christ returned to heaven, he returned to ap
pear for us as advocate. " He was delivered for
our offences and raised for our justification," in securing
which he also secured his own, having been clothed in filthy
garments on our account, but being now "justified in
spirit " in the sight of angels.
Having by his sufferings laid the premises of an argu
ment, he returns to appear in the court of heaven and
construct that argument, to reason logically from premise
to conclusion. From the nature of the case, that plea must
have been the highest exhibition of the bind that ever was
or will be in tbe universe. What interest such arguments
before earthly tribunals can excite we know. What this
must have excited before tbe supreme tribunal of the uni
verse we can by analogy faintly imagine.
His claim is, that the banished order be restored to their
native skies, and crowned joint-heirs with himself over all
things, as had been contemplated before their fall. He de
mands, that the design of then- substitution in the birthright,
temporarily interrupted and frustrated by Lucifer's success
in deceiving them, be now taken up and carried into execu
tion in all respects as if they had not fallen. He asks a
justification so complete and entire as that it may issue in
a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.
And, in the first place, he claims that the forgiveness of
the truly penitent is intrinsically right and proper. It is

244 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
congenial to the instincts of the Divine nature, which is the
ultimate standard of comparison.
It is also accordmg to the instincts of all creatures made
in the Divine image, in proportion as they are made par
takers of the Divine nature, and elevated to a bvely sym
pathy and communion with God. The need of argument
in defence of a principle so intuitively certain, he affirms,
arises solely from the wide-spread mfluence of Lucifer's
false philosophy, even over loyal minds. That renders it
necessary to seem to prove a self-evident proposition, that
to forgive a penitent is essentially lovely and good.
Yet the Divine administration, he shows, has been avow
edly based upon this principle from the beginning. When
Lucifer sinned, God was patient and long-suffering, and
offered freely to forgive him if he would repent. Those
offers were repeated, and continued, and pressed upon him,
for a long, long period, while every effort was made to con
vince him of sin, and restore him to the path of rectitude.
There was no wish to dethrone and destroy him. There
was no desire on God's part to disturb the original order of
the created universe. Had he repented, and been humble
and self-denying, bis early aberrations and mistakes would
have been forgiven, and he would have been confirmed in
office as anointed Covering Cherub.
It was simply and only because be denied forgiveness to
be either necessary or right that his removal became inev
itable. To forgive this order, now penitent, was therefore simply
to carry out consistently the principle upon which the Su
preme Executive had administered the government from
the outset of the controversy with Lucifer. It was to vin
dicate that principle, and place it far above all future denial.
Indeed, he shows it to have been one leading aim of all
earthly dispensations to reveal in historic development this
principle of the kingdom of God. Even on Sinai, where

THE ADVOCATE. 245
law in all its majesty was made to appear, Jehovah pro
claimed himself (Ex. xxxiv. 6), "Merciful and gracious,
long-suffering and abundant in goodness, keeping mercy for
thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and
that wiU by no means clear the guilty." This was Jeho
vah's pubbc statement of bis character and principles as
a lawgiver and executive.
By his Spirit in the Psalms and prophets he had con
stantly reiterated the same idea (Psalm li. 16, 17) :
" Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it ; thou
debghtest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit ; a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou
wilt not despise." Isaiah lvii. 15 : " Thus saith the high
and lofty One whose name is Holy, ' I dwell in the high
and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and hum
ble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive
the heart ofthe contrite ones.' " Ez. xviii. 27, 28 : "When
the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, and do-
eth that which is right, he shall save bis soul alive, because
be considereth and turneth from all his transgressions."
Above all, the Mediator refers to his own recorded utter
ances in the days of his flesh, Matt. v. 45: "Love your
enemies ; bless them that curse you ; do good to them that
hate you; and pray for them that despitefully use you
and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your
Father which is in heaven ; for he maketh his sun to rise
on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust." Matt, xviii. 21 ; " Lord, how oft shall
my brother sin against me, and I forgive him,- till seven
times ? .... I say not unto thee, Until seven times, but
Until seventy times seven." Again, Luke vi. 36 : " Be ye
merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful."
Thus the Mediator traces through all his own earthly
teachings this beautiful idea, and the Father sanctions it as
his own ; and, as if to demonstrate it beyond denial as the

246 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
true, essential character of God, he points to the cross,
and to those words spoken in the midst of his dying ago
nies, " Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."
Here a forgiving spirit is manifested under the highest
climax of injury with reference to a merely possible re
pentance. And if the Divine nature then truly suffered
and spoke, the demonstration is infinite that forgiveness is
congenial to absolute perfection.
Indeed, what else than this can account for the existence
of the material universe ? The Mediator who built it de
clares that it was built, and all its dispensations conducted,
with a view to the ultimate exercise of mercy to the unde
serving. It was with a view to gratifying the Divine de
sire to forgive the penitent, that the heavens were spread
abroad and the earth founded.
Was, then, the Father everlasting the subject of an
irregular and lawless impulse ? Was that unlawful propen
sity so strong, that creation's frame must be contrived, and
time's ages roll, to enable the Maker to dispense with the
obligations of absolute right, and do evil with impunity ?
Such must be the fact, the Mediator urges, unless it be
granted that to forgive the penitent is in itself, apart from
all considerations of expediency, essentially and unchange
ably right.
On the other hand, what is the character of the being
who impugns this principle ? who refuses forgiveness as
not needed, denies God's disposition to bestow it, nay,
denies the right to exercise it altogether? Is he to be
accepted as the representative of absolute justice ? Is his
word to be taken ? Is he sincere, honest, truthful ?
In answer to this question, the Mediator presents his
blood. He is represented as sprinkling it before the
throne, as purifying the heavenly place with it ; by which
we understand, that he discloses for the first time the his
tory of his sufferings, and traces them home to Lucifer as
the real, responsible cause.

THE ADVOCATE. 247
From his own personal knowledge and recollection he
lays bare the arts by which his order fell ; arts, the fatal
power of which he learned by resisting, while seeing his
beloved swept away. In this disclosure he proves him bar
from the beginning, in order to be man-slayer. Then
he traces all his own subsequent humibation, before this
world, when loaded with ignominy on our account, — in
this world, when despised and rejected of men, and in
the deepest realm of Hades.
Particularly in his public ministry on earth, he discloses
the history of Lucifer's temptations, both those which were
direct, and those in which social engines were invisibly
wielded by him as God of this world. He reveals minutely
and infallibly bow, having beset him all the way with in
creasing snares, at last he procured his death by false
witness, and a mockery of justice under the forms of law.
He shows how, in every age, the Church has been hated
for his sake, and reveals how, out of spite to him, Lucifer
has wielded, is wielding, and shall wield the great civil and
ecclesiastical organizations of time, on purpose to intimidate
or corrupt, and in every way injure his people. And all
this while pretending on high to be the immaculate repre
sentative of justice !
Thus, by his blood, by his blood alone, he demonstrates
the accuser both murderer and liar, destitute of the slight
est respect for justice or right.
And can his denial of the principle in question then
have any weight ? Can the opinion of a thoroughly unjust
spirit concerning justice be entitled to the least respect ?
Can the decision of a soul immeasurably false and cruel,
that forgiveness of penitents is wrong, possess the slightest
conceivable title to regard ? Impossible. The reverse is
the case. The mere fact, that a spirit so utterly fraudulent
and deadly abhors forgiveness, is sufficient proof of its in
trinsic excellence. That Satan hates the very idea of
pardon is proof positive that it is mfinitely dear to God.

248 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Thus far, tbe cause is gained, the argument of our
Advocate triumphantly sustained. But this covers the
ground only in part. Forgiveness may be right, but it
does not follow that it is consistent or safe. And broken
down as Lucifer is, on the mere question of abstract right,
he may rally with desperate energy upon that of con
sistency. The espoused bride became a vile harlot, he says, it is
impossible to place reliance on her repentance as genuine.
It is impossible that purity once sullied can ever be
restored. She can never be fit to be placed at the head
of the whole family in heaven, and have the charge of
future races.
And if she were fit, it could not be permitted. To
elevate beings from a career of such degradation, above
the head of angels that never fell, must strike them with
surprise and disgust. It must relax the bonds of law and
order, and open the door to incalculable mischiefs.
However right in the abstract, therefore, the pardon of
the order is practically impossible, consistently with the
honor of the Divine administration and the best good of
the universe. This brings on the second position of the
argument of our risen Advocate, namely, that the full
pardon of this penitent order is consistent and safe.
It is safe and consistent, evidently, so far as the opera
tions of the Divine mind are concerned. A thing right
in itself can only be abused through mistake. But God is
infallible. He is incapable of abusing a principle intrinsi
cally right. Therefore, no evil consequences can originate
in the action of his mind.
It is safe and consistent, also, so far as the normal
action of loyal, unfallen orders is concerned. They, too,
can only be supposed capable of abusing or perverting a
principle right in itself, through mistake or by abnormal
action. So long as their action is normal, and in health-

THE ADVOCATE. 249
ful sympathy with that of God, no evil consequences can
arise in that quarter.
It is only through the indirect influence of Lucifer,
then, and minds identified with him, that the loyal orders
of unfallen beings might be bable to innocent mistake on
this subject, and so evil consequences be apprehended.
It is only by not rising fully to the Divine stand-point,
and not entering fully into healthful sympathy with the
Infinite mind.
But his sufferings, the Redeemer shows, have had the
effect to elevate the loyal mind to the Divine level, and
bring it into healthful sympathy with that of God. The
loyal see by his example that true greatness is self-sacri
ficing in its nature; that the object of all rule is the
good of those ruled, not the aggrandizement of the ruler.
They realize that qualification to do good is the only title
to office, and that those should rule whom God sees to be
best adapted on the whole.
If, then, God decides that this repentant order is best
adapted to promote the good of all, they will not be jealous.
Such a feeling tbe blood of Christ has made impossible.
On the contrary, they will rejoice. They see that there
is something in the return of a banished order to purity,
place, and power, peculiarly adapted to excite joy in every
well-regulated mind.
To bring in a race from outside, not natives of heaven,
might possibly seem strange. To give supreme sway to a
race totaby corrupt by its very creation, — a race that
never drew breath in heaven, nor knew primeval holi
ness, — might possibly give occasion for murmurs.
But this order is to the manor born. It is no foreign
importation. This order was once here. This order was
holy like the angels themselves. This order was appointed
to the adoptive birthright. The history of this order is
bke household words in heaven.
11*

250 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
And though in evil hour they fell, and their guilt was
great, and for a time the tide of odium set strong against
them, the loyal orders now see that they were less guilty
than their betrayer and accuser. They see that the
onset of temptation was tremendous, and, -while they
are indignant at the perfidious power that triumphed,
they feel sympathy and compassion for the fallen, the
defeated. And if they can be really purged of that stain, if they
can be qualified to go back and carry out that interrupted
career, there is not a loyal heart among the innumerable
angels of light that will not leap for joy. They will say,
" It is meet that we rejoice, for this our brother was dead,
but is alive again ; was lost, but is found."
Nor will such restoration logically tend to relax the
bonds of good government or diminish the respect for
law in the bosoms of the loyal. If law be intrinsically
forgiving in its very nature, as towards the penitent, then
to forgive the penitent cannot weaken respect for law.
Moreover, it was in this order that the principles of
righteous rule were embodied after they had been repu
diated by Lucifer. ¦ For the sake of those principles the
order was founded, and named Order of the King of
Righteousness. What now, if this order shall be restored,
will the universe have seen ?
They will have seen, as soon as those principles were
forsaken, the order banished and under forfeiture ; and
as soon as, at infinite expense, in spite of Lucifer's intensest
opposition, those principles were resumed by the order,
asserted against world majorities, suffered for and sealed
with blood, that order redeemed from forfeiture, and its
original career continued. What does that show ?
It shows that those principles are everything to God,
and all else in comparison nothing. Even the dearest
object, Christ's own brethren, his bride, without those

THE ADVOCATE. 251
principles must be treated like the vilest criminals, must
die eternally. And, on the other hand, even the guiltiest
and vilest order, sunk to the depths of Hades, once con
verted to those principles, and identified with them beyond
possibility of change, can be raised to highest glory.
Does not this show that principles are all, and persons
nothing? Does not this assert those principles as all in
all to God more than could be done in any other way ?
And, in the counter development of Satanic and of
Christ-like character, in the attack and defence of those
principles during the process of redeeming the order, has
not the nature, truth, and moral beauty of those principles
been made to shine with dazzling effulgence ?
So far, then, from relaxing the bom of law and right
eous rule, and letting the universe run down, the opposite
effect is produced. The pubbc mind is toned up, in
structed, invigorated, braced beyond tbe possibility of
future change-.
Moreover, the full pardon of the order is safe and con
sistent in so far as the order itself is concerned.
Is it said that their degradation has been so great, that
no confidence can be placed in their repentance?
The reply is, that the successive dynasties and dispensa
tions of earth have been so arranged as to test this matter
thoroughly. The Church in every age has been sub
jected to tremendous pressure. Lucifer has in fact had
every advantage to retain his hold; the whole pressure
of corrupt civil and ecclesiastical organization for ages
has been in favor of his principles and against those
of Christ. He has had every imaginable advantage to
fasten those principles on the Church, by force and by
fraud, he could possibly ask.
To renoun'ce them and adopt Christ's principles has
been to be stoned, sawn asunder, torn of wild beasts, and
made the scum and offscouring of all things. No person

252 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
could possibly be Christ's disciple in such a world, without
taking up his cross and following him to execution.
If under such circumstances his people look upon his
blood, and are heart-broken at the sight; if the mere
foresight of his sacrifice, through type and symbol, had
power for ages to melt to tears ; and if the retrospect of
the cross increased that power, amidst fierce flames of
persecution, — that would show to the loyal universe that
they could put confidence in their repentance.
If, after getting them completely under his power of
death, Lucifer could not keep them, if at the sight of
their slain Lord they broke out into weeping, if they
renounced their sins, if they welcomed reproach, and loved
not their lives unto the death, the universe might depend
on it, their repentance was radical.
If Satan could not keep his power, when he had it, on
earth with every advantage, how could he ever regain that
power after he had lost it, — in heaven where he had no
advantage at all, but was himself the object of intense
scorn, and abhorrence of all holy minds ?
It is her deadly enemy that says her repentance is not
genuine. It is a mind radically and eternally corrupt and
reprobate, that says the stain of her defilement will never
wash out. But it is her husband who says, it is that just
One in whom is no guile who has chiefest reason to be
offended with her, who has amplest opportunity to read
her heart, it is he, the Lord of life, who presents her a
glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such
thing, and avows that he reposes unlimited confidence in
her honor forever.
Nor is she disqualified by what has passed for the
station she was to have filled.
On the contrary, her qualifications are enhanced. Her
powers and faculties are restored to health and balance,
and are stronger for tbe exercise they have had. The

THE ADVOCATE. 253
whole tendency of earthly life has been to exercise and
strengthen them. In the family, the school, tbe state,
and the church, the order has been drilled in the main
problems of their future business. Eternity in miniature
has been condensed into time.
They have a profound knowledge of what misgovern-
ment is, for they have been for ages the victims of it in
every conceivable form. There is not an evil from the
abuse of power they have not smarted under.
By a terrible education, they know by contrast what
righteous rule is. They have learned what the principles
of the Divine character and administration are from living
in a world where they were systematically hid, carica
tured, denied, — a world where Satan put bis character,
in church and state, in place of the character of God,
and sat in the temple of God, showing himself that he
is God.
He who has lived in arctic winter knows how to enjoy
the milder seasons of a temperate clime. And they who
have lived for ages in a world of polar ice will know how
to appreciate the unchanging tropics of the skies.
But, above all, they are specially qualified to reign,
because they are humble. Other things being equal, he is
most fit to reign who most resembles God in meekness
and lowbness of heart. The experience of the penitent
order has developed these qualifications in a surpassing
degree. They were humble and self-denying before they fell;
they are unspeakably more so now. Other celestial orders
are meek and self-sacrificing, but incomparably less so
than this. Their deep experience of the evil of sin — its
power, its guilt, its woe, the difficulty of its cure, the infi
nite price by which that cure was effected — works in
them a lowliness and self-sacrifice no other beings in the
universe can equal.

254 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
They are forever one with the Father and with the
Son, in meekness and lowliness of heart, and therefore
quabfied to reign forever.
That forgiveness, then, which is right in the abstract, is
also consistent and safe, so far as the order itself, the loyal
universe, and the Divine mind are concerned.
There can be no objection, except on the part of the
disloyal. The full restoration of the order can dissatisfy
only those who have been her most implacable, most
treacherous foes, because they were the foes of her Head
and Husband, and the foes of God and all good gov
ernment. They have hated Christ's bride because they hated him.
They have exhausted the capabilities of deceit and mean
ness and cruelty, to crush her because she was his, and in
her his principles were embodied.
Her rescue from their deadly power will indeed be their
death, crushing the head of their serpent conspiracy for
ever ; but that remediless destruction is the debverance of
the universe.
If there were any reasonable scruples which a loyal
subject might entertain to the granting of the Mediator's
claim, those scruples might well be waived in considera
tion of his word pledged on her behalf. But there are no
scruples. The Advocate in his whole argument, and the
Father before whom he pleads, are one.
Every syllable of the Advocate's plea is but the echo of
tbe Judge's thought. The loyal universe are one with
both the Father and the Son.
That, therefore, which is both right and consistent, all
things considered, he asserts to be what is due to him and
to his cause. To refuse it would be to reward Satan and
punish him, which is impossible. He demands it as a
reward of merit, fairly earned by his sufferings and by
bis argument, — a reward against which no voice can be

THE ADVOCATE 255
lifted save that voice that ought to be bushed in the
silence of everlasting reprobation.
To the bebever this .subject is peculiarly precious. It
is calculated to draw tbe mind away from the discourage
ments of this world, and fix it on something most exhila
rating. We often think too much of ourselves, of our sin,
of our difficulties. Our minds grow morbid. We faint,
we disbelieve, we despair. Now the Bible says, " If any
man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father." The
practical remedy for our sins, our darkness, our despond
ency, is to think of our Advocate. He was raised for our
justification. If we desire to feel our justification, we
must think of him as our Advocate. It is a great theme.
It will bear and repay much meditation. His career as
Advocate was wonderful in its beginning, — it will be won
derful to the end ; for he ever liveth to make intercession.
He is able to save to the uttermost. Take his advocacy
where we will, it is a glorious, soul-reviving theme.
How subbme that moment when Almighty power raised
him from the deepest abyss of Hades, and set him at God's
own right hand ! How transcendent the contrast between
the preceding humiliation and the exaltation consequent
thereon, — an exaltation more than repaying the degrada
tion, as indicated by tbe unique word iirepv^'axre, " Him
hath God super-exalted." So buoyant was tbe illustrious
pageant of tbe returning conqueror, that it overshot its pri
meval measure with swift-rushing momentum of majesty.
Infinite, indeed, the condescension, but more than infinite
the exaltation.
The return of Jesus is the key-note of the everlasting
song, " Loose all your bars of massy light,
And wide unfold the ethereal scene ;
He claims these mansions as his right :
Receive the King of glory in 1 "

256 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Now the deep-hidden plan of the banished order's rein
statement is to be first publicly disclosed, filling all heaven
with amazement, and making known to principalities and
powers the manifold wisdom of God.
Something the angels had conjectured of peace on
earth, good-will to men ; but this transcends all their
thoughts. To the disloyal tbe conception is as a gathering
thunder-cloud, frowning and portentous. How they had
gloried over the exiled order, covered with ignominy ;
how they had maligned the Son of God, and pursued him
from one stage of humiliation to another, with vindictive
hate and short-lived exultation ; how they had triumphed
to see him reach the lowest stage of shame in Hades,
where the banished order lay beneath piled mountains of
disgrace !
Now suddenly there is a return. For the first time
since the order's expulsion, there is an arrival in the courts
of heaven from the invisible realm of exile. A sensation,
deep and undefinable, of some impending development filla
all heavenly places.
There stands the Crucified, the marks of Calvary fresh
on hand and foot and side. But before be will put on his
royal robes, before diadems many are allowed to replace
the thorns upon his brow, he must first determine rights
and titles for her he holds dearer than himself.
Her justification must be secured before he will accept
his own. " It is my will," he says, " that where I am
my bride shall be." He opens the mighty argument: —
" If I am to have any glory, if that glory is to possess
any charm to me, she must share it with me. Without
her I am resolved not to reign, not to enjoy blessedness.
None can honor me who cannot honor her, whom I honor
with impbcit trust.
" Whom I pardon, no friend of mine can wound by sign
of accusation. In a little wrath I hid my face from her

THE ADVOCATE. 257
for a moment, but with everlasting kindness have I had
mercy upon her. If she is to be discrowned, I abdicate.
If she is to lie under ban, her stigma must be mine.
To what station am I summoned by suffrages univer
sal, both finite and infinite ? To that station by those
same suffrages must she be summoned also. Her re
pudiation is my defeat ; in her justification only can I be
justified." And the answer to this appeal goes forth in the procla
mation, " Let all the angels of God worship him." That
is the justifying answer of the Father, echoed with loud
acclaim by innumerable companies of angels prostrate at
bis feet. In that sentence he is seen of angels justified
in and upon our justification, for which he is risen ; and so
accepting it, he goes up through all the heavens, through
rank after rank, past throne after throne, far, far above all
principality and might, — goes as our representative and
head, our forerunner to the throne. What is done to him
is done virtually to his order, his bride. " For whom he
did foreknow, them he also did predestinate to be con
formed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first
born among many brethren ; and whom he did predes
tinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them
he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also
glorified." War-worn Christian, how ravishing the contemplation !
Look away from the sin to the sacrifice ! Look away from
the fight to the victory I Drink new life, certainty, cour
age, and joy from the vision. Gaze till the spirit, faint from
excess of light, and the feeble frame, seem about to fall
as dead before the feet of Him that shows you such things.
Yet fall not, but pray to be strengthened with all might
in the inner man, that you may endure the glory. Pray
without ceasing that he would lay his hand upon you, and
say, Be strong ; that he would grant you to be filled with
4

258 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the spirit of revelation, that you may be able to compre
hend the breadth and length and depth and height, and
know the love of Christ that passeth knowledge, being
filled with all "the fulness of God.

CHAPTER XX.
DIVINE SORROW.
" My sour, is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." — Matt. xxvi. 88.
IT may be doubted whether an absolute happiness be
possible, and whether the nature of mind does not ren
der some contrasts of emotion inevitable.
If we are to have concord of musical sounds, we cannot
avoid the possibility of discord. So that the possibility of
the harshest dissonance is implied in the very existence of
harmony. Nay, more, it is found that discords introduced
according to certain laws, not only do not injure the effect,
but are indispensable to its highest perfection. And a
composer who should be compelled to construct his com
position wholly of perfect chords would abandon his profes
sion in despair.
So, in the execution of Nature's mighty landscape, we
find a similar principle of contrasts. In order to have
'lights there must be shadows. The whole picture cannot
be made with bright lights. The brighter you wish the
light to be on some points, the darker the shade must be
in others. If the sun makes the peak of the precipice and
its shattered pinnacles glow like fire, it makes the deep
gorge and glen below seem black as night. Nor are Na
ture's objects all painted of one bright color, nor even of
bright colors alone. There is an endless variety of colors ;
some bright and dazzbng, some dark and sombre, others
of a neutral tint, and that of every possible shade. And
any eye that will study Nature's pictures will find that she
loves sad and gloomy colors just as much as bright and
joyous ones.

260 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Moreover, the forms in nature show the same principle
pf contrast. If there is symmetry in nature, there is also
deformity. If there is the line of beauty, there are lines
of uncouthness. And there are in nature as liberal stores
of the grotesque, the deformed, and the repulsive, as of the
beautiful. Wherever we turn our attention, in whatever
department of matter or of mind, this principle of contrasts
meets us as a necessary law of all being.
Now happiness is that light in the mental landscape of •
which sorrow is the shadow. Bliss is that concord in the
moral symphony of which sadness is the discord. And
no sooner could landscapes have light without shade, music
concord without discord, than mind experience joy with
out possible regret.
In the highest enjoyment there seems to be an element
of pain as the condition of its being. Enjoyment is the
gratification of a desire, and its intensity is in proportion
to the fervor of the craving. If the desire be cloyed or
stupefied or dead, the gratification of it can afford no
pleasure. The full soul loatheth an honeycomb. The
very acme of delight is that moment when desire is most
intense and thrilling, and when, if it did not obtain its
object, it would writhe in disappointment and anguish.
Every desire is a wish. Every wish is a want. Every
want contains in itself an element of pain. It is tbe felt
absence of a good. If this pain be kept within certain
limits it enhances pleasure, like the discords in music, like
contrasts and shadows in painting. To the hungry soul
every bitter thing is sweet. Hunger is the best sauce ; real
fatigue the best soporific. In summer we take kindly to
icebergs ; in winter we are on good terms with volcanoes.
What we call happiness seems nothing but an exquisite
balance between pleasure and pain. The line must be
drawn very fine, or the equilibrium is lost. It is not well
to sit too near the fire, nor too far off. Comfortable

4 DIVINE SORROW. 261
warmth lies in the exact middle between freezing and
burning. The best cheer lies midway between satiety
and starvation. Neither extreme fatigue nor indolent
sluggishness is commendable. The true line of health
ful, contented industry runs about midway between idle
ness and bondage.
And if the sufferings of mankind could be analyzed
carefully, the greater part would be found to lie in the
disturbance of the equilibrium between want and supply,
desire and gratification. One class of mankind are miser
able because the line is drawn too far on the side of desire.
They want everything, their desires are intense and vivid,
but they have nothing. Another class of mankind are
miserable because the line is drawn too far on the side
of satiety. They have everything, in such profusion that
desire is cloyed, sated, jaded, and they really want nothing.
They are miserable because they cannot feel a real healthy
desire for what they have.
This principle of equilibrium between opposing prin
ciples seems to pervade nature. Two forces drive the
worlds in their orbits. One impels them to, the other
from, the sun. So long as these are exquisitely balanced,
the obsequious world wheels contentedly round and round
her annual path. Thus with minds, so *png as the force
of want, which is painful, is balanced by the force of
supply, which is pleasurable, so long the contented soul
revolves in its appointed orbit of existence.
Therefore, of the happiest mind it may be said, with
philosophic accuracy, it is happy because it can feel the
uneasiness of strong desire, and knows how to let pain lift
the latch to pleasure, and the very pangs of desire resolve .
into the thrills of ecstasy.
These principles would seem applicable to all mind as
mind. Difference of grade can hardly infer diversity of
principle. Or if an exception were to be sought, it would

262 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
hardly be in tbe ascending, but in the descending series.
The higher the grade of mind, the more perfect the sus
ceptibilities, the more, not less, these principles must hold,
good. Even — with reverence be it spoken — when we
contemplate the laws of the Divine mind, we can discover
no reason for a reversal of this principle.
If there were in His eternal bosom no element of want
or desire, no craving, — if He were an infinite, stagnant.
ocean, without tide or wave or ripple, — then where would
be the possibility of joy ? Joy would be impossible, simply
"because desire was impossible. The Divine blessedness,.
then, rests not on the impossibility of a Divine sorrow, but
on its possibility. It is because God is a being of true and
genuine emotions, of debcate susceptibilities to good and
evil, pleasure and pain, that he can be divinely blessed.
And if we reflect patiently on this subject, we shall see
that these principles not only apply to the Divine Being,
but that they apply in an ascending ratio, — in proportion,
to his exaltation.
Does tbe infinite perfection of his attributes exempt him
from the liability to suffering ? This is the same as to ask
whether the more delicate a mind becomes the less sensi
tive it grows, — whether the more perfect its faculties the
less impressible. Or whether, in proportion to the refine
ment, scope, elevation, and intensity of emotion of a mind
is its insensibility. What would be thought of the philos
opher who should affirm that the perfection of a thermom
eter consisted in sensitiveness to heat, but not to cold ? or
of a barometer, in sensitiveness to atmospheric dryness, and
not moisture ? What of a physiologist who should say that
. the perfection of a living body would be sensitiveness to all
pleasurable sensations and functions, but not to their oppo-
sites ? Yet such would not be more incongruous concep
tions than that the perfection of a mind should consist in
sensitiveness to good, but not to evil.

DIVINE SORROW. 263
On tbe other hand, observation shows us that as minds
ascend in the scale of possible enjoyment they ascend
equally in that of possible suffering. If you seek for
creatures least susceptible of pain, you do not go up among
the angels, but down among the oysters. It is the polypus
and the mollusk that are nearest to exemption from pain ;
but they have no eye, ear, smeU, sense, nor organs, unless
it be a mouth, and faint touch and taste.
Ascend from the zoophytes. Add organ after organ.
The eye adds as wide a field of susceptibility to suffering
as to good. The ear the same. The smell the same.
Delicate organs of touch and of locomotion the same. And
when you reach such races as the dog, the elephant, the
horse, you certainly reach those where the susceptibility to
suffering is as widely enhanced as that of enjoyment.
Add, then, the faculties peculiar to man, and does not tbe
same law hold good ? If the lowest and most degraded
human beings can enjoy more than the highest of the lower
species, can they not suffer more ?
Is not that very reason that is most divine in us, that
conscious selfhood, that conscious accountabibty to eternal
truth and right, that lofty yearning after ideal good which
is in man the very signature of his godlike origin, — are
they not the very attributes that enable us to suffer as no
species of a lower grade can ? Is there not a quality to
the sorrow of a human being in its various vicissitudes of
sorrow, — in the very fact that it can reflect on its sorrow,
remember, compare, judge, foresee, and exercise all the
functions of conscious reason, — that makes that sorrow
more poignant ?
And among men, does not the principle still further de
velop itself? Who is most acutely sensitive to false har
mony ? Evidently he who is most delicately sensitive to
tbe deligbt of true concord. Who feels most bitterly the
pain of bereavement? He who experiences the tenderest

264 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
delight in social relationships. Who writhe most ago
nizingly under the stings of conscience ? Those who are
most alive to the claims of virtue and holiness. Who are
most oppressed with the woes and wants of their fellow-
men ? Those who are most tenderly gratified with the
sight of common prosperity and happiness. Thus the
higher the tone and calibre of a mind, and the greater its
susceptibility' to intense enjoyment, the keener its liability
to the reverse.
Now if this be the general principle upward to man, and
through all the grades of human development, how must
it be when we ascend still higher? If we find angelic.
races with still more exalted susceptibilities and wider
scope of being, with capacities for enjoyment far beyond
ours, must there not be a corresponding increase in their
susceptibility to suffering ?
They will see more clearly what is beautiful and what is
ugly, what is good and what is evil, what is benevolent
and what is selfish. All contrasts of moral qualities will
affect them more vividly. Their attachments must be more
intense, and their disappointments, if they have any, more
deep. And the higher we ascend, the wider the scope of
powers, and the more exalted their refinement, the greater
will be the possibility of experiencing suffering.
At the last, then, at the highest stage of being, must the
entire argument be reversed ? When we reach the highest
grade of mind, the widest scope of faculties, the greatest
strength and depth and intensity of emotion, the most
subtle refinement of susceptibility, shall we suddenly dis
cover that there is an infinite increase of capacity for
pleasure and an infinite decrease or cessation of suscepti
bility to pain ?
Far otherwise I In the infinite capacities of the Divine
Being we find the highest possible scope for contrasts of
emotion. And if the Divine blessedness be a reality too

DIVINE SORROW. 265
august, too ecstatic for us to conceive, it is so for this
reason, namely, that the mind which feels it is susceptible
to every variation, every possible tone and hue of feeling
throughout the mighty diapason of emotion.
If now from nature we turn to revelation, what light
does that throw on the question ? Does it not confirm the
general train of thought? The main elements of the
Divine blessedness, as revealed in Scripture, are, — the
conscious enjoyment of such attributes as eternal and
independent being, omnipresence, infinite power and
knowledge, conscious moral strength and rectitude, the
communion of the Trinitv, and the filial affection of the
majority of His offspring, together with his foreknowledge
and anticipation of a redeemed and reorganized universe.
These constitute the Scriptural elements of the Divine
blessedness; and it is indeed a glorious theme.
But the question is, whether the Bible breathes the im
plication that this blessedness is absolute, — without con
trast or admixture of any elements of regret or pain or
suffering of any kind?
On this point we find that from all pain or suffering or"
regret inconsistent with his own attributes, as above con
sidered, God is free, and must be forever. He has no such
sorrow or suffering as results from weakness or ignorance
or mistake or moral obliquity or imperfection of any kind
in himself. No sorrow which would impeach his charac
ter, or essentially dim his glory, or abase that which is his
true majesty. But, aside from this, and with the subject
thus carefully guarded, we find that the Scriptures freely
use language implying some kind of painful emotion.
Thus in respect to sin, in all its forms, God is repre
sented as expressing the most decided feelings of opposi
tion and dislike. To a perfectly truthful nature, the mere
contact with fraud and guile must be repulsive. To
Infinite meekness, pride must seem loathsome. To infi-
12

266 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
nite love, selfishness must appear odious. Under a per
fectly wise, just, and kind moral government, an act of
insubordination must appear to God peculiarly unreason
able and wrong. Therefore he says, " Pride, arrogancy,
and a froward mouth do I hate." Therefore he is •said to
be offended. His wrath is revealed. His anger burns
like fire. And when sin extends, and rebellion organises
itself from age to age, he endures with much long-suffer
ing vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. And men,
therefore, are said to treasure up wrath against the day of
wrath. Are these feelings, then, of the Divine breast agreeable
feelings? Is God pleased with sin in itself? Is the sight
of it pleasant to him ? What do we mean by saying he is
displeased with it? — that it is unpleasant to him? Is
there not a contrast here ? God is pleased with holiness,
displeased with sin. Hobness is pleasant to hhn ; sin, un
pleasant. Are both states of mind the same, and equally
agreeable ? Into what abyss of contradictions does the de
nial of the Divine capability of suffering plunge us ! The-
Lord is as well pleased when be is displeased as when he
is not. To what irreverence does it logically impel us !
To the Infinite purity sin is as pleasing as holiness. How
can we maintain the hobness of God unless we admit a
contrast in point of agreeableness of feeling in witnessing
hobness and sin ? If he is indifferent, or feels just as agree
ably at sight of sin as of hobness, how can we conceive him
to be holy ? Is it not the essential nature of holiness to be
painfully affected by the very existence of sin ?
But there is another consideration that comes in here.
Not only is a pure mind painfully affected by that which is
impure in itself, but it is especially so when the impurity
is seen in a beloved object. To witness the gradual corrup
tion and final downfall of a dear child or relative or friend
is especially painful to an affectionate heart. Can parents

DIVINE SORROW. 267
see their children become intemperate or vicious without
peculiar sorrow ? If sin be in itself painful to a virtuous
mind, is it not additionally so when seen in a beloved
object ?
Does- not God speak as if it were so with him ? Does
he not seem to feel the rebellion of his children against
him ? And when, as a moral Governor> ne is cabed to
pass sentence of death on them, does he not speak as if it
occasioned painful emotions ? Have I any pleasure in the
death of the wicked ? As I five, saith the Lord, I have
no pleasure at all in tbe death of him that dieth !
What is the meaning of such language? Does it not
seem to express real sorrow, real grief, real pain ? Must
we deprive the language of all meaning ? Must we force
upon these words, contrary to their nature, the signification
of absolute joy ? Does not such a course repeal the laws of
language, confuse all distinctions of right and wrong, and
plunge the mind into inextricable confusion ?
But the fullest and most convincing argument on this
matter bes in the person of Christ. There are those who
take Christ as a mere man, divinely inspired, indeed, but
not an incarnation of Deity. Yet even on this ground,
low and imperfect as we deem it, there is room for a pow
erful appeal. For, even on this hypothesis, Christ was a
man whom God peculiarly sanctioned and set apart for the
special purpose of showing forth the Divine character. So
that in him we see God, at least by a true moral resem
blance. So that, at least, by a close spiritual likeness, in
him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and he is to
us the brightness of his glory and the express image of his
person. But if so, what an affecting idea does this present of that
God who selected this man of sorrows as his most expressive
representative ? Does Jesus, viewed as a mere man, filled
with pity, bearing all our sins and sorrows and diseases, and

268 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
heart-broken at the ingratitude of his subjects, — does he
convey the idea of a God that is incapable of a feeling of
disquiet ? — whose heart has never known, and never can
know, the most superficial ripple of regret for all the sins
and sorrows and distresses of his children ? On tbe con
trary, is not the idea of God which Jesus illustrates, taking
him as a mere man, just the opposite of this ; does he not
illustrate to us a Divine Father who can and does feel most
acutely both the ingratitude of his children and then' -deep
degradation ?
Even this view of Jesus, imperfect as it is, has enough in
it, one would think, to melt the heart and bring it in peni
tence to a Father's feet. How much more when we take
the higher, and, as I believe, the only Scriptural view, that
Jesus, though a perfect man, was God become man.
Was it indeed the Word that was with God and was God
that became flesh and dwelt among us, and experienced all
fleshly vicissitudes painful as well as others ? Was it the
Lord who spread the heavens and founded the earth, who
humbled himself to be born of a virgin, and was there in
that humiliation no reality, and in the being who under
went it no capacity for sorrow or suffering ? Was it indeed
the Lord who had glory with the Father before the world
began, who stood in servile form on earth, and toiled and
taught, hungered and thirsted, prayed and wept ? Was it
indeed Jehovah, Israel's only Redeemer and King, who
visited them as David's son only to be insulted, smitten,
spit up6n, and crucified? And was it Jehovah who,
through those pale and patient lips, could say, " My soul
is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." -If it was, then
methinks the question is settled for all eternity whether the
Divine Being can experience sorrow and suffering and pain,
or not.
As we stand in the shadow of that cross, amid rending
rocks and yawning graves, under the darkness of a sky

DIVINE SORROW. 269
of sackcloth ; as we see those trickling drops of blood
Divine ; as we hear that prayer, that last, loud, bitter cry ;
as we gaze upon the victim, dead at last, — methinks the
mighty lesson designed to be taught us, as with infinite
appeal, is the lesson of a sorrow not human merely, but
Divine, a grief not of any mere finite sufferer, but of an
infinite ; an anguish and a woe not of a mere created vic
tim, but of an uncreated Ransom, whose expiation, bke his
suffering, might be infinite.
The entire plan of redemption, from the laying the
foundation of the world to the last shout of redeemed
myriads about the Redeemer's throne, is a plan springing
out from, and illustrative of, the Divine sorrow.
Not, indeed, that the Divine blessedness was thereby
annihilated or obliterated. But it was a blessedness
mixed with endurance, a cup of felicity mingled with drops
of bitterness. It was a blessedness largely of anticipation,
and qualified by present sorrow. It was for the joy set
before him that he endured tbe cross despising the shame.
It was in the anticipation of a redeemed and regenerated
universe, that the Divine mind sustained itself in the pos
session of a conscious blessedness through an age-long
night of storm, and darkness, and self-denial, and suffer
ing- In taking leave of the discussion, we observe that it is a
point of great importance to know what God men are
worshipping. This was the great question anciently, —
Jehovah or Baal, — the living God or idols ? It is so now.
For though no outward shrine be raised, though there
be no image, though the name of God be retained, yet
it is as easy to fashion an idol out of ideas as ever it was
of wood or stone. It is easy to conceive of a false char
acter and false attributes, and dress up in the thoughts a
being that shall be no more like the reality of God than
Moloch. And therefore, even among professing Christians,

270 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the great question is, what God are you worshipping, —
the true God as he is, as be reveals himself in Christ, in
his word, in nature, and in the soul, or some monstrous
philosophical idol enthroned in his place ?
For if they call on us to worship any such deity, — a
being heartless and unsympathetic, a being as opposite to
Christ as arctic winter to tropical spring, — and if they
invoke all the tremendous sanctions of endless retribution
to enforce such worship, it is our duty to refuse the
blasphemous idolatry. We will not bow the knee. This
^God, we reply, — when any such portrait is drawn before
us, — is not our God. Ours is a God of infinite tender
ness and sympathy, and the best idea of his susceptibility
of heart is revealed in Jesus. Any other is a false God,
a philosophical idol, — we will not bow down to it nor
serve it.
This view of the character of God, once more, is
adapted to soften the heart and bring men to repentance.
As long as it is possible to persuade men that their father
is indifferent, unfeeling, and that all their evil conduct
does not trouble him, or diminish his happiness in the least,
so long men will grow colder and harder, and more des
perate in alienation. Nothing will so soon melt the heart
of man, as to see that God is and always has been patient,
much enduring, long suffering, and that in Christ the story
of his feelings is all told.
This, reader, is the God you have sinned against. When
I summon you to repent of sin, this is what I mean by sin,
namely, your treatment of such a Being as this. When I
speak to you of confession, of forgiveness, this is the Being
in whose ear you are to say, " Father, I have sinned," and
whose lips must answer, "Thy sins be forgiven thee."
You may refuse to repent and seek forgiveness, but all
eternity cannot make your conduct either right, honorable,
or blest. He is good, patient, and magnanimous. " His

DIVINE SORROW. 271
work is honorable." His complaint against you is not
imaginary nor trivial. You have truly wounded him. He
is both grieved and indignant. You must confess your sin.
You must ask forgiveness. If not, that feeling of displeas
ure will abide on you forever. But if you do, if you say,
" Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee,"
he will not only pardon, but call on angels to rejoice, say
ing, " It is meet that we should make merry, for this my
son was dead, but is abve again, was lost, but is found."

CHAPTER XXI.
ETERNAL JUDGMENT.
" Of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment." —
Heb. vi. 2.
THE principles of the doctrine of Christ are those
simple truths that lie at the foundation of religion, —
alphabet truths, elementary to higher knowledge, always
taken for granted both in the Divine treatment of man
kind and in the Bible.
Repentance is a first principle, since the whole treat
ment of the race by Providence is as if it were a revolted
race, and the Bible always so speaks of it. Faith is a
first principle, all God's conduct, as well as his language,
proclaiming him the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and
gracious, slow to anger and abundant in goodness, forgiving
iniquity, transgression, and sin. Baptism and the laying on
of hands are elementary to the social well-being of believ
ers, during Christ's absence in heaven. They need to be
associated, edified, taught, governed. The resurrection
and eternal judgment consistently close the list of ele
mentary truths. It is the obvious winding up of all, that
bebevers should be glorified and crowned in immortality,
while unbelievers should be judged according to their deeds.
All these elements are simple, plain, and vitally united
as parts of one bving body of truth. They must live or
die together. If repentance be denied, eternal judg
ment faUs as a matter of course ; and, vice versa, if the
resurrection and eternal judgment be undermined, repent
ance and faith wul not long survive. If repentance, faith,

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 273
resurrection, and eternal judgment are lost, baptism and
the laying on of hands are lost also, or if the latter are
rejected, the former will not long be retained with any life
and power.
Against one of these elementary truths, however, —
eternal judgment, — a wide-spread reaction exists, not
only among the immoral and profane, but among many
of moral lives and apparent piety. The denial of eternal
punishment, in one form or another, is doubtless the great
characteristic of the age, and the animating principle of
the assault upon the authenticity and inspiration of the
Bible. That onset, the most formidable ever known,
arises in great measure from the difficulty of detaching
the idea of everlasting punishment from Christianity.
Now, that the disloyal should be opposed to the execu
tion of the penalties of treason is not strange ; but that
the loyal should sympathize with them is remarkable, and
indicates the presence of error and misconception. If a
man does not sympathize with his government in the
execution of just penalty upon traitors, it evinces that he
himself is either disloyal or deceived. And as it is difficult
to argue against prejudice, caused by latent misconception,
it becomes necessary first to define the doctrine and clear
it of misrepresentations, and then to p^ove it. Concisely,
then, I observe, the doctrine of eternal judgment is not
1. That a part of mankind were created on purpose to
sin and suffer forever.
" Tbe chief end of man," we are taught, "is to glorify
God and enjoy him forever." And if that be the chief
«nd of man, it is the chief end of man's Creator in creat
ing him. The chief end of God in creating man, and
all his creatures, was, that they should glorify and enjoy
him forever. If any fail of the true purpose of their
being, it is a departure from the original end and aim of
God in their being. 12* e

274 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
It would be just as reasonable to say that tbe ship
wright created the ship that dashes upon the rocks and is
wrecked for that express purpose, as to say that God
created souls that rebel and are lost for that purpose.
What ! a government create creatures expressly to rebel ?
Is it, indeed, the highest conception we can form of a wise
moral government, that it should initiate, develop, and
ripen a rebellion against itself?
2. The doctrine is not that the sufferings of the lost are
in themselves an element of happiness to the righteous,
and necessary to enhance their bliss by contrast.
True, when great Babylon falls we hear a voice from on
high exclaiming, " Rejoice over her, thou heaven ; . . . . and
again they said Alleluba, and her smoke rose up forever."
But this only represents in a vivid manner the rejoicing of
benevolent minds over the downfall of a despotism of ages.
So, all patriots in this land would rejoice were Richmond
taken, Charleston swept off from the face of the earth, and
the smoke of an atrocious rebellion ascending forever to the
eye of back-looking generations of the Republic. Yet it
would not be in the personal sufferings of the defeated
conspirators we should rejoice, but in the deliverance of
the country and the world from a tyranny so thoroughly
diabolic. ,
All heaven and all holy beings will rejoice, not in the
personal sufferings of the Devil and his angels and lost
men, but that a gigantic rebellion has failed, and failed for
ever, the majesty of the Divine government been vindi
cated the interests of the loyal universe eternally secured.
3. The doctrine is not that there is a bteral place of
physical torment by material fire.
Such a conception belongs to a superstitious age and an
unreasonable religion. An irrational system needs a brutal
conception of punishment to intimidate reason and overawe
investigation.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 275
Those ages of the Church in which sensuous images have
been most prominent have not been the purest, but the
reverse. Nowhere do we find the bteral sense of the
emblems so insisted on, and the imagination of Christen
dom so saturated therewith, as in those ages when hobness
was most nearly extinct, and the corruptions of the Church
at their height. The insufficiency of gross material con
ceptions on this subject to purify or restrain is also demon
strated in various heathen systems, — such as Boodhism
and Brahminism, which even rival Rome in the vividness
of their descriptions of physical suffering hereafter.
Such exhibitions, no doubt, may have exerted some
restraint in a rude and barbarous age. But they un
doubtedly contributed to perpetuate the rudeness and the
barbarism to which they were naturally allied.
The trae law by which the vivid imagery of Scripture
on this subject is to be interpreted is, the law of analogy,
a law the opposite of fanciful, and as rigidly scientific as the
law of geometric proportion.
Pride, ambition, deceit, hatred, selfishness, are, in their
own nature, like fire to the soul inflamed by them ; and as
they have no tendency to self-recovery, so they are, if not
Divinely quenched, an eternal fire. Moreover, the sense
of blame, from exposure to the just displeasure of God and
holy beings, affects the mind like fire. Men shrink from
it as they do from flame ; they seek to cover themselves
from it by fig-leaf excuses, by self-justification, as instinc
tively as they cover the naked body from the scorching
tropical sun.
What the emblems of the Bible really mean, then, is,
that a time will come when the rebellion shaU be entirely
defeated, all its designs frustrated, and its real history,
principles, and character disclosed, and the righteous judg
ment of God in respect to it fully and finally revealed.
If the rebellion in this land, for example, chooses to

276 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
identify itself with pride, fraud, and cruelty, and if our
government, in any good degree, chooses to identify itself
with humibty, honesty, and universal benevolence, then
the failure of rebelbon, and total defeat of its desperate
machinations and exposure to the universal abhorrence of
mankind must be, to the desperate conspirators, like fire
unquenchable. And this we take to be one design of Divine providence
in this whole national convulsion. The providence of God
so overrules it as to give a striking ibustration on a temporal
stage of tbe principles of eternal judgment as they will be
appbed in the suppression of the revolt against God's throne.
And if we would understand the doctrine ; if we would
be in a right position to estimate the evidence bearing upon
it, and to resist tbe sweep of disloyal sympathies setting
through the community against it, we must be sure that our
minds are purged of those gross and sensuous conceptions,
by which as much as by any other one means the great re
belbon has manufactured a sympathetic public sentiment
against God, and in its own favor.
4. The doctrine is not that those who would gladly submit,
if they might, will be endlessly punished for a single sin, or
for the sins of a brief existence.
The Bible gives no authority for supposing a time will
ever come when, if aU in rebelbon against God should sub
mit, they would not be pardoned. It is true, a time will
come when all offers of mercy and all special efforts to per
suade them to submit will cease, but that is all. And that
is a very different thing from supposing a time wben, ff they
did submit, they would not be pardoned. The efforts cease
because they are useless ; because they have been carried
as far as they can be consistently. But it does not therefore
follow that, should submission take place, it would not be
accepted. Seventy years have elapsed since my honored father

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 277
i
taught that " the exile from heaven " of the wicked wiU be
" as voluntary as it is just," and that God " wiU send to
hell none who are not by voluntary sin and rebelbon unfitted i
for heaven." 1 Nor have these declarations ever been called
in question, nor are they bkely to be, if the foUowing passage
in a leading quarterly is abowed to pass without particular
animadversion : —
" Even in hell, if a sinner shall choose God instead of
himself, as his object of supreme affection, .... his choice
thenceforth will be satisfactory to God and to bis own moral
nature, and tbe sting of present sin will be extracted. And
it is even more certam that the benevolence of God would
find a way to pardon his past sin, than that any one will
ever in a future world thus form the choice which God's
law will there as here require."2
5. The doctrine is not that the capacities of the mind for
suffering will eternally increase and expand, and omnipo
tence expend aU its energies in filbng those capacities with
torture to the utmost.
Views of this kind have been resorted to, no doubt, with
a good motive, in order to rouse men to a sense of danger.
But the conception is so fearful that many Christians have
felt unable to bear it. And this feebng has contributed not
a bttle to a reaction against the doctrine itself.
Now, while we ought not to make the consequences of
sin any less fearful than they certainly wib be, there is no
need of trying to make them more so. We want, on a
subject so solemn, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but tbe truth.
On what authority, then, is it asserted that the capacities
of the wicked will eternally increase ? It is not self-evident.
It is not demonstrable by the light of nature. On the con
trary, from the observed tendencies of sin to dwarf and
1 The Government of God desirable. Works, Vol. II. p. 14.
2 Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1863, p. 184.

278 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
degrade the powers, we might infer, aside from revelation,
that the consciousness of the wicked would finally become
extinct. It is only from the word of God that we learn
the contrary. But in what part of God's word is it revealed
that the Wicked will increase in capacity forever ? Is not
this an unauthorized statement, an mvention of man ?
And as to the idea that omnipotence will expend itself
forever in filling that capacity with direct positive torture
to the utmost, on what authority is so much asserted ? Is
the doctrine of an absolute misery self-evident ? Can it be
proved by the light of nature ? Can the mind choose with
out motive ? Is not choice always as the greatest ap
parent good ? If exile from heaven is voluntary, is it not
an apparent good ? Is it not because, however miserable
without, the reprobate would be more miserable within?
Is is not because, while his character remains unchanged,
outer darkness appears less intolerable than the light unap
proachable of the Divine purity? And does not pride
refuse to yield because submission appears more painful
than all the torments of perdition ?
On what, then, rests the doctrine of a suffering meta
physically absolute ? Does the Bible unequivocally reveal
it ? Does it not rather invalidate it by such expressions as
" whatsoever loveth and maketh a be," and by sanctioning
the principle that sin will be voluntary forever ? And has
not the Church in all ages allowed this latitude of tbeologic
speculation without protest or censure ? 1
Milton, for instance, represents Lucifer as saying,
" Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."
And describes his infernal palace as built
1 It is a maxim of Catholic theology, derived from Augustine, " that the
will necessarily seeks good, and cannot seek evil ratione mali, but only
ratione boni, whence all sin that ever has been committed, up to the first lapse
from God of Satan, has been caused by the desire for apparent good." —
Broumson's Quarterly, July, 1863, p. 294.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 279
" with the sound
Of dulcet symphonies and voices sweet."
He also represents Satan, when gomg in quest of earth,
as exhorting his assembled angels to
" intend at home,
While here shall be our home, what best may ease
The present misery, and render hell
More tolerable."
Indeed, Milton is not afraid to ascribe some moral excel
lence to tbe fallen angels, —
" For neither do the spirits damned
Lose all their virtue."
He represents their various efforts during Lucifer's ab
sence to " entertain
The irksome hours "
by games, and feats of skill, and military evolutions, or by
music, poetry, philosophy, and even by theology, as
" Others apart sat on a hill retired
In thoughts more elevate, and reasoned high
Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate,
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
And found no end in wandering mazes lost."
Yet Christendom has neither censured nor defended this,
but simply acquiesced in it as the only view on which an
epic could be written so as not to offend the common sense
of mankind. Indeed, we are constrained to think it as im
practicable to compose a story on the theory of the strictly
absolute misery of the principal characters, as it would be
on the theory of their invariably choosing contrary to the
strongest motive or the greatest apparent good.
It is true, the emblems of the Bible with respect to
eternal judgment are fearfully impressive. The wine
of the wrath of God is poured out without mixture into
the cup of bis indignation. The dispensation of Divine

280 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
silence and restraint ends. The dispensation of the reve
lation of his righteous judgment begins.
But it has been well observed, " that the fearful de
scriptions which the Bible, presents of the condition of tbe
lost are such as a holy mind would give, and not such as
the sinner himself would draw. The picture which a
sober, virtuous, and true man would put upon the canvas,
of a drunken, profane, and polluted wretch, would scarce
ly be recognized by the vile man himself. He might
boast, even, of his bad eminence, glory in his shame, and
account his ruin a reward." *•
To us, indeed, the filthiness of a swine in its sty is dis
gusting ; to the swine it does not appear so. To an honest
man, the rage of speculation in the country's hour of
need seems bke a fire in the soul; to Shylock it may
appear otherwise, as he clutches his bags of gold. The
orgies of vice and debauchery are regarded with very
different eyes by the virtuous and by the vicious. To the
one they seem like a scene of torment, by the other
they may be termed paradise.
There are places on earth so infernal, that, in the cus
tomary language of society, they are called hells. Yet
gamblers do not appear to realize that they are places to
the eye of God full of unquenchable fire. It seems to
be the very nature of sin to blind the mind of the sinner
to his own unhappy state, and make him say,
"Evil, be thou my good."
Hence, however miserable the condition of the wicked
in eternity will appear to them, it is certain that to God it
must appear infinitely more so, and must be described in
terms expressive of his view of the case rather than
theirs. Nor does the suggestion impair the force of mo
tive, but the reverse ; for, in the language of the writer
1 Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1863, p. 188.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 281
quoted, " Although in a certain way it modifies the
impression in regard to the severity of God made by the
Bible descriptions of future and eternal punishment, it
does not in the least abate the solemn meaning of the
Scriptures ; for the picture which the holy mind of God,
by his prophets and apostles, draws of the condition of the
lost, is the true one. The sinner will not be unconscious
of suffering, any more than the drunkard who can give
the most graphic account of his miserable experiences is
unconscious of suffering ; and the fact, that the sinner will
be in a state to choose his sins, with the sufferings they
involve, only makes his doom the more fearful to contem
plate." 1
We should remember, also, that the style of the Bible on
this subject is highly figurative and emblematic, and that
hyperbole is one of the most familiar characteristics of
such a style. This is the case in the language of ordinary
life. The office of figures and emblems is to kindle the
torpid imagination, and carry the dull mind to a higher
pitch than it would otherwise attain. Hence the figure
must always flash above and beyond the reality. Like
cannon at long range, figures roust be pointed too high.
The language of every-day bfe is replete with hyper
bole. Descriptions of political revolutions are full of
images of earthquake, tornado, and volcanic eruption.
How often is some defeated aspirant described in terms
wliich, if literal, would imply excessive torment. No one
misunderstands this. All know that, though intensely
chagrined and mortified by the defeat of his ambitious
projects, he is bving quietly in retirement. True, he may
have no taste for tbe simple pleasures of home ; the en
joyment of existence is in a manner spoiled; but he is
still conscious of many sensations that are of a pleasurable
description. 1 Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1863, p. 188.

282 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Such being the law of figurative language in every-day
life, we turn to the Bible and find that all portions of
prophecy relating to Divine judgments in this world are
constructed on this principle, and are always so regarded
by interpreters.
What possible hyperbole stronger, for example, than
Isaiah employs to denote the destruction of Idumsea ?
" Their slain shall be cast out, and their stink shall come
up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be
melted with their blood." Or than is used 2 Kings xxi.
13, to foretell the captivity of Judah ? " And I will wipe
Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning
it upside down."
Let any one open a treatise on the Apocalypse, of any
school of interpretation, and see to what extent hyperbole
is universally recognized in all portions relating to temporal
things. How, then, can it be proved to be confined to
them ? How can it be shown that, in respect to eternal
thmgs, prophecy is constructed upon a wholly different
principle ? If not, if there is a probabibty that the principle
is uniform throughout aU prophecy, both in regard to things
temporal and things eternal, then the foundation of the
theory of a strictly absolute suffering would be removed.
Men never misunderstand hyperbole in every-day life.
They never misunderstand it in prophecies of temporal
judgment; but there is some reason to think they have
misunderstood it in prophecies of eternal judgment. Men
have infused into God's language a tinge of malignity that
does not properly belong to him. They have, as it were,
bit and stung God's words till they are red and angry.
They have judged God by themselves, or rather made him
worse than themselves, for they have infused a venom into
his language they never think of injecting into their own.
God is a moral Governor, and his government the ideal
of good government. All that is essentially right in earthly

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 283
governments is but a faint reflex or copy of the Divine, and
nothing that is plainly a vice or defect in earthly govern
ments can claim the sanction of a Divine example.
Is, then, the direct torture of prisoners by earthly govern
ments an excebence ? History answers in the negative. It
is the savage who puts his captive to death by slow tortures.
It is scarcely less than savage Roman civilization that em
ployed a mode of execution so cruel as crucifixion. It was
the civilization of the Dark Ages, in countries misnamed
Christian, that legalized the rack, the wheel, the thumb
screw, and the boot, and made prisons frightful abodes of
misery. More enlightened days have laid aside tbe torture
and reformed the prison system. And should this govern
ment, in case the rebelbon were suppressed, proceed to the
torture of its chief, the spectacle would excite the abhor
rence of Christendom.
Now it is the Reformation of the sixteenth century that
has revolutionized the mind of Christendom on this subject,
and abobshed forever the practice of torture. Of course
it is impossible to continue to view the Divine government
as it was viewed before this change, or to use colors that
might be freely employed by minds familiarized to the
usages of barbarism.
Representations of the Divine government have been
made in former times that transcend in horror all that was
ever practised or conceived on earth. All that savages
ever invented at the stake, all that inquisitors ever perpe
trated in their gloomy adyta, ab that the brutal legislation
of a midnight world ever sanctioned, is as nothing to that
which the Divine government has been described as prac
tising uporiJbe persons of its criminals, omnipotently and
forever. But that same risen Redeemer, who by his word and
spirit and providence has rendered it impossible for us to
aUow our government to torment the worst rebel that ever

284 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
breathed, renders it impossible to conceive of the Divine
government, which is ours as no earthly government can
be, doing the same.
The Divine government will use all force necessary to
break the power of rebelbon utterly and forever, and
will express fully its just abhorrence of the conduct of
Satan and all identified with him, and will place the repro
bate under due restraint, where they can do the state no
harm, and may yield coerced service as convicts in the
penitentiary. But to the infliction of direct, positive, abso
lute torture for its own sake, the Divine government will
not proceed.
The just indignation of God against the ineffable atrocity
of the rebelbon will be expressed, because to express it is
right and consistent with the highest benevolence, not for
the sake of inflicting pain. All the inflictions of future
retribution will be perfectly consistent with benevolence.
They will have not the slightest tinge of malevolence..
The Divine government will eternally conform to its
own revealed precept, " Love your enemies." God will
never to all eternity do anything to his enemies which is
not, all things considered, for the best good of the universe,
themselves included. It is no paradox to say that it is for
the supreme good of spirits fixed in pride, fraud, and cru
elty, for God to abhor them, and express his abhorrence.
It would be worse for them, continuing what they are, for
God not to abhor them and not to manifest his abhorrence.
And if the Divine treatment does not in fact make them
happy, it is not because God is not willing they should be
happy provided they would submit, but because he sees
-that they will not submit, and because they see that he
justly abhors their conduct; in short, it is because truth
can never please a liar, meekness never satisfy pride, dis
interestedness never make selfishness happy.
6. The doctrine is not that the race as a race will

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 285
¦be finally lost, and that only a small remnant will be
saved. As in Adam all die a natural death, so in Christ shall all
be made alive with spiritual and eternal life. But in Adam
all do not die a natural death with no exceptions. Enoch
was an exception. The whole generation of believers bving
at the second advent will be exceptions, as Paul impbes by
saying, " We shab not all sleep," that is, we shall not all
die. Now as there are exceptions under the first clause,
so there are exceptions under the second. As, with some
exceptions, all die in Adam, so with some exceptions shall
all be made alive in Christ.
Half the race die in infancy, and are saved, and these,
with such adults as find the narrow road, make a majority
in the darkest ages, even on the assumption that ab adult
heathen are lost. But is this assumption capable of proof ?
That they will not be saved by mere natural rebgion with
out Christ is, of course, certain. But is it certain that the
judgment-day wiU not show every human being to have
had Christ offered to him, and his eternal destiny to have
been fixed by his accepting or rejecting Christ ? On what
does the " Come ye blessed " and " Depart ye cursed " of
the judgment-seat depend, but upon " Ye did it," or " Ye
did it not, — to me"?
Can it be that " Him hath God set forth a propitiation,
not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world,"
and yet the immense majority for six thousand years have
no opportunity to avail themselves of his propitiation ? If
" God so loved the world as to give his Son to die, that
whosoever bebeve th in bun shaU not perish," and if
Christ came " not to condemn tbe world, but that the
world through him might be saved," does it seem likely
that the almost entire world for sixty centuries must per
ish eternally, without any opportunity to believe and be
saved ?

286 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
No. It cannot be. Christ, who " tasted death for every
man," Christ, who said, " I, if I be lifted up, will draw all
men unto me," will not be found at the judgment to have
been withheld from the immense majority of mankind from
the beginning of the world to the millennium.
The offer of Christ to the adult heathen is as probable
as to heathen infants dying in infancy. The acceptance
of the offer in the one case is as probable as in the other.
The salvation of the latter, according to the creeds, de
pends entirely on the assumption of their being elect, and
so comprised in the declaration, " Elect infants dying in
infancy are regenerated and saved by the Holy Spirit, who
worketh when and how and where he pleaseth." x But is
there not as much evidence that some adult heathen are
elect, as that all dying in infancy are ? By what logic can
it be proved that in heathen countries all elect persons die
in infancy, and only the non-elect live to grow up ? If that
could be proved, would it not diminish somewhat the horror
with which the practice of infanticide in past ages has usu
ally been regarded?
If we are at liberty, without any special evidence, and
chiefly because we like to think so, to consider all heathen
infants elect, may we not with equal propriety for the same
reason consider some heathen adults elect, and apply to
them the words of the Confession, " So also are all other
elect persons, who are outwardly incapable of being called
by the Word." There is no more difficulty in regard to
time, place, and manner, in the case of the adult heathen,
than in that of the infant. The " when, how, and where
he pleaseth," which avails for the latter, avails equally for
the former.
Hence, however small in any particular age thus far the
number of adults who find the narrow road, there is no
evidence that, when we reach the end of the millennium,
* Confession of Faith, Chap. X. Sec. 3.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 287
in which generation after generation have been marching
in unbroken ranks into the kingdom, we shall find the ma
jority of the race ready to say of Christ with the Jews of
old, " Not this man, but Barabbas." The Arch-apostate
no doubt likes to have it generally supposed that at the
very last he will carry the race against Christ by a hand
some majority. Let us be careful how we concede to the
rebellion all it is pleased to claim.
The Scriptures countenance no such boastful pretence.
On the contrary, the vote of the overwhelming majority
of the race is to put the crown on the brow of the Re
deemer, and those who do not say amen are so insignificant
a minority, that they are nowhere and nothing in the final
outburst of hosannas. The wicked shall be as though they
bad not been. They shall wake to shame and everlast
ing contempt. Nor can we find better language in which
to sum up our conceptions on this subject than the follow
ing, uttered years before we were born, and received by
Christians generally with unanimous approval : —
" How vast soever the kingdom of darkness may be, in
itself considered, it is certainly nothing but the prison of
the universe, and smaU compared with the realms of light
and glory. The misery of that unholy community whose
exile from heaven is as voluntary as it is just, when the
eye is fixed upon that only, fills the soul with trembling ;
but when .... we raise the adoring eye to God, reigning
throughout his boundless dominions and rejoicing in their
joy, the world of misery shrinks to a point, and the wail-
ings of the miserable die away and are lost in the song of
praise." 1
Neither of these is the true doctrine of eternal judgment
which the Holy Spirit sets side by side with repentance
and faith. They constitute no part or portion of it. They
are all more or less of the nature of rebel lies, imposed on
1 Works of Lyman Beecher, D. D., Vol. II. p. 18.

288 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the credulous loyal mind by sleight and cunning craftiness,
to excite odium against God, manufacture sympathy for the
rebebion, and prevent true conviction of sin.
They all hide the true issue, and misrepresent tbe na
ture of the controversy, and tend to keep the revolted will
from returning to its allegiance. What, then, is the true
doctrme? It is this: —
Some now in rebellion against God will never sub
mit, AND THEREFORE WILL NEVER BE PARDONED, BUT WILL
EXIST FOREVER TO EXPERIENCE THE LEGITIMATE CONSE
QUENCES OE THEIR OWN EVIL PASSIONS, AND OE THE FULLY
REVEALED ABHORRENCE OF GOD AND OF THE HOLY UNI
VERSE. To this exhibition of tbe subject two classes may per
haps object, — those who think we concede nothing, and
those who think we concede everything.
The former will probably say that, if one single soul is to
suffer eternally, it vitiates for tbem the bliss of heaven, and
eclipses the glory of God.
Of such we would respectfully ask, would you have us
deny the evidence of the senses whicb testify the existence
of lies and murder ? Would you have us concede that
lying and murder are normal, are divine ? Would you have
us hold God accountable for the existence of all lying and
murder, and therefore for their removal ? And is it your
opinion that because lies and murder have existed six thou
sand years consistently with the Divine perfections, there
fore they cannot exist another six thousand, and another,
and so on ad infinitum? Is it your idea of an intuitive
truth, that what has been cannot be ?
Is it possible that there is no foundation whatever for
the tremendous belief of Christendom for so many ages ?
Is truth aU on one side, error all on the other ? Or would
vou desire us to present- the cause of the Divine govern
ment, at issue with rebellion, in such a light as to make it
either odious or contemptible?

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 289
To such as think too great concessions have been made,
we beg leave to submit, that it is the most honorable as
web as the most expedient method in controversy, to
concede all that a fair-minded opponent can reasonably
claim. Christianity is thoroughly reasonable, — intensely
so. The voice of God in the whole mediatorial economy
is, " Come, let us reason together." God needs no false
premises nor sophistical and fabacious methods. He is not
obliged to us if we volunteer to defend him by unsound
arguments. "Will ye lie for God?" he says. It is a
first principle in theology, as in war, to abandon indefen
sible positions, and fortify those which are defensible.
And why should we not concede all that has now been
indicated? Can any desire to think that God created
some on purpose to rebel forever; that He enjoys the
sufferings of the wicked; that He will exert omnipotence
for the direct, excruciating torture of state prisoners ? Can
any one feel sorry that so many are to be saved, or regret
that more will not be lost ? Can any Christian heart be
pained at the idea that the race, by an overwhelming vote,
will put the crown on the brow of the Redeemer ?
And is it not our true wisdom. to concede to the spirit
of the age ab it can with any show of reason claim, and
join issue only on points so simple, so clearly defensible,
that our opponents must feel that they are fighting against
reason, which is fighting against God?

13

CHAPTER XXII.
ETERNAL JUDGMENT.
" Of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment." —
Heb. vi. 2.
THE doctrine of eternal judgment, we have shown, is
not, that God created a part of mankind on purpose
to be miserable forever; nor that the sufferings of the
lost wib, in themselves considered, enhance the enjoy
ment of the saved ; nor that any will be eternally rejected
who would gladly submit ; nor that there will be a place
of physical torment by literal fire and brimstone ; nor
that the Divine government will put state prisoners to the
torture for the sake of torture ; nor that the great major
ity of the race will be lost.
The trae statement of the doctrine, as held by the
majority of Christians at the present day, and as we pro
pose to prove it, is as follows. Some now in rebellion
against tbe Divine government will never submit, and
therefore will never be pardoned, but will exist forever
to experience the legitimate consequences of their Own
evil passions, and of the fully revealed abhorrence of God,
and of the holy universe.
1. Rebellion exists.
The advocates of universal salvation often, if not al
ways, deny this. To deny it, however, one must, appar
ently, suppose God's government over mind to be just
bke bis government over matter. But this is a mistake.
They are widely different. The former is moral, over
accountable agents, by motive ; the latter natural, over
inert atoms, by necessary causation.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 291
Under the latter rebellion is impossible. Stones, streams,
stars, and storms cannot resist his will. If moral govern
ment were equally absolute, minds could not. But the
foundation of moral government is laid in the free consent
of the governed. God has, indeed, the power to force his
measures through without the intelligent approval of his
subjects, but he has no taste for the method of absolutism.
He is lovely, and desires to be loved with free, spontaneous
love. He is wise and just, and desires to be obeyed with
intelligent appreciation. A coerced love, a mechanical and
slavish obedience, he plainly shows, are his abomination.
But love that is free is love that can be withheld. If it
cannot be withheld it is compulsory, and not free ; and
love that is withheld is rebellion. Hence we might almost
venture to assign as the definition of moral government, a
government under which rebellion is possible. To deny,
then, the possibibty of rebellion, is to deny the existence
of moral government, and consign the universe to unmiti
gated absolutism.
But observation suffices to show that rebellion is not
only possible, but actual. Lies and murder exist. Yet lies
and murder are not normal products, or evolutions of a
Divinely given constitution. To affirm it would be to
make God the father of lies, and murderer from the begin
nmg. Lies and murder are unconstitutional and abnormal,
and therefore just to the extent that they exist rebellion
exists. The existence of rebellion is confirmed also by the exist
ence of wide-spread conflict. Only rebellion against a
wise and benevolent government can account for the dis
turbance universally existing under that government.
The analogies of nature are suggestive of war : darkness
perpetually pursued by the blazing shield and glancing
spear of day, winter annually subdued by ab-conquering
summer, the earth reclaimed from briers and thorns to

292 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
fruitful increase, carnivorous races, in earth, air, and sea,
warring against the defenceless species, and warred upon
by man, their defender and king.
Science points at the same conclusion, by telbng us
that this " has never been such a world as perfect benev
olence would have prepared for perfectly holy and happy
beings." * From the earliest geological epochs it has been
a battle-field between life and death, propagation and de
struction. History confirms the argument. Almost the earliest,
certainly the chief occupation of mankind, has been war.
JJ&e drama of tbe ages is one long campaign between
civibzation and barbarism, liberty and despotism, truth
and falsehood. Read " The Fifteen Great Battles of the
World," and see how every one of them has been, with
increasing clearness as we come down the cours^of ages,
a battle of ideas, a step in human progress.
If then we open the Bible, we find it the most bellige
rent book that ever was written. It opens with the an
nunciation of a war of races ; it closes with the battle of
the great day of God Almighty, and the crushing of the
bead of one race by the head of the other.
The Old Testament, with its alpine chain of miracles, is
the natural evolution of a plot so sublime. Intimations
of a wide, outlying conflict repeatedly appear. Our
eyes are dazzled with the blaze of angelic myrmidons.
We hear the rush of cherubic wings as the noise of many
waters. The New Testament is stiff more martial than the Old,
nor can there be found in tbe whole compass of human
literature a development of military destructiveness so
awful as that disclosed in the emblems of the Apocalypse.
A rebellion prostrated and punished after age-long war is
the one idea of the Bible.
1 Hitchcock's Geology, p. 288.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 293
2. Rebelbon has no tendency to self-recovery.
It seems to be self-evident that the practice of sin does
not tend to the establishment of a boly character. The
habit of lying has no tendency to produce veracity. The
perpetration of murder does not in tbe least favor the
development of true benevolence.
All tbe analogies of nature shadow out the possibility of
irremediable ruin. Disease, curable to a certain point,
becomes incurable beyond that pomt. All violations of
natural law tend to a stage at wliich they become remedi
less. If we enter the realm of will, the same analogies
meet us. Men form habits of sinful indulgence which they
know will wreck them temporally and their families ; and
those habits do become incurable. Men commit them
selves to courses of conduct wicked and unprincipled,
against the clearest light and the convictions of their
better judgment, and become unchangeably fixed in them.
Everywhere we are met by the startling phenomenon of
what may be called a tyrannical free-agency. A free
choice in a wrong direction, — so free that there is in it
no element of self-reversal.
This is the tendency of rebellion, as we see it in our
country before our eyes. Mercy and justice alike enrage
it. Its inveteracy is equally enhanced by success and by
defeat. So with rebellion against God. Sin has no ten
dency whatever to reformation. Such is the testimony of
experience and observation. The testimony of the Bible
is only a repetition of that of nature. Sinners are deaf,
blind, palsy-stricken, mad, possessed, dead, in Scripture
parlance, not because they cannot submit to God, but
because their will is all expended in the direction of
revolt, and has no tendency to flow back.
Sacred history illustrates this mournful truth. The
flood was God's verdict "incurable" on tbe antediluvian
empire of the Titans. The overthrow of Sodom pro-

294 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
claimed a corruption beyond the reach of motive. Nations
have uniformly degenerated, never risen in the scale,
except in consequence of Divine intervention ; and then,
only after desperate resistance.
The Jews are a case in point. They were stiff-necked
and rebellious from the first. The impetuous tide of
revolt, dammed up by the law, rose, overflowed, burst
through, undermined, and foamed on its turbid way'.
Stopped here, it broke out there. Checked there, it un
dermined elsewhere. The whole Mosaic dike and mound
was full of jets, and seemed every instant about to dis
solve and sink and be swept away. They worshipped a
calf at Sinai's foot. They burned children to Moloch.
God repeatedly declares them worse than the heathen.
They broke every statute. Each generation surpassed in
guilt the preceding. Nothing stood for two generations
as God placed it. They stoned the prophets, and when
Christ came they crucified him. Christianity was, indeed,
given to tbe world through the Jews, but it was in spite
of them.
Among Gentiles, revelation has fared no better. Man
has done little but corrupt the Gospel. It has never ele
vated a single heart, till a bvely resistance has been over
come by the special influences of the Holy Spirit. Hence
all experience and revelation render it certain that there is
in rebellion itself no tendency to self-recovery ; and that,
if God do not reclaim rebels, they never will be reclaimed.
3. If God do not reclaim rebels by that system he has
contrived and adapted to the, purpose^ he certainly will
not without that system, or where its appliances and adap
tations do not exist. If a man is to build a ship, he must
have certain conveniences and tools. If he cannot build
one with all his appliances, it is certain he cannot without.
.Now the mediatorial system, comprehensively consid
ered* including all its parts, is the highest embodiment

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 295
of Divine contrivance for two joint objects, namely, the
detaching from rebellion, and restoration to loyalty, of as
many as possible, and the total suppression and punish
ment of the rebellion itself. The Gospel is the wisdom of
God and power of God for both of these objects, not for
either singly. It is expressly declared to be, even under
inspired ministrations, "a savor of life unto bfe and of
death unto death." In this world God has instituted the
highest form of attack infinite wisdom could devise, upon
a long-established, deeply rooted, and thoroughly organized
rebellion, side by side with the highest known agencies for
detaching rebels from the revolt, and restoring them to
loyalty. There are many, indeed, who seem to regard this world
as a sin-producing contrivance. They imagine that it is so
powerfuUy adapted to produce sin that it is useless to try
to be holy. The soul is pure, but this world defiles.it;
the spirit is honest, but the world makes it deceitful ; the
heart is benevolent and godly, but this world forces selfish
ness and ungodliness upon it. The man himself would be
holy, if he had a fair chance, but circumstances will not
let him. God has contrived the body so as to fasten sin
upon the innocent spirit against its will ; he has contrived
the whole material and social system with wonderful power
to drag down, deprave, and pollute the soul, and frustrate
all its laudable endeavors after righteousness. To have
a fair chance for virtue, one must die and get out of this
world into one better adapted to its cultivation.
But what evidence is there that other worlds will be less
depraving than this ? If God can contrive one world to
produce sin, he can another. If he has done it once,, he
may again. If there was nothing in his character to
prevent his establishing a vast sin-manufactory, there is
nothing to prevent him from establishing any number of
them and keeping them agoing forever. Is it, indeed,

296 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
reasonable to infer that, because God has made tbe uni
verse, so far as known, with admirable adaptations to
corrupt and deprave, therefore he has made it, so far as
not known, to purify and reform ?
If this world is divinely adapted to produce sin, it is
illogical, in tbe highest degree to infer that therefore other
worlds are adapted to produce holiness,. On the other
hand, if (this world is divinely adapted not to produce :sin,
but to detach as many as possible from rebellion while
prostrating the power of revolt, then what need is there
of a better ? Why ask for better than best ? Why argue
that, because here God has lavished all the resources of
omniscience, therefore elsewhere he has surpassed them ?
- Now God declares that all things were made by Christ
and for Christ. The material universe was built for
redemptive ends. Nature exists in its present form sub
serviently to mediatorial designs. The material system is
.not of itself defibng, but auxiliary to cure. The body is
not corrupting to the soul. " There is nothing from with
out a man that, entering into him, can defile him, ....
that which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness,
wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy,
pride, foolishness. All these things' come from within,
and defile the man."
AU the corrupting influences there are in the world are
from within, not from without; exerted by depraved
spirits upon the system, not by the system upon sinless
spirits. The guilty spirit abuses the body, degrades the
family, perverts society, corrupts business, and poUutes
civil and ecclesiastical institutions. There is nothirig in
the body, the family, society, business, church, or state,
that tends to corrupt the soul, but the reverse. The
motives to good behavior, drawn from these sources, are

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 297
mighty, and no one becomes reprobate without a terrible
battle with and victory over them.
In this world, too, it is possible for the loyal and the
disloyal to live together as husband and wife, parent and
chUd, neighbor and friend, without distinctly perceiving
the profound antagonism existing between them. Salu
tary influences are thus exerted of incalculable force by
the former on the latter. Eternity only can reveal the
amazing aggregate of motive necessary to be resisted in
order to become reprobate. In other worlds, however, no
such mixing of opposite characters by artificial relation
ships is possible. The moment souls pass behind the veU,
they find the chasm between the holy and the sinful, the
loyal and those in rebellion, a great gulf, fixed, and inca
pable of being passed over. _
Here, then, in this life on earth, is the only place in the
wide universe where things are contrived and adapted
with reference to recovery. And here they not only are
so contrived, but, in Christ's atoning death and mediation,
and the gracious influences of the Spirit, carried to the
highest point possible under tbe circumstances.
If, now, the restorationist denies that reformatory influ
ences are in the ascendant, and affirms that temptation
amounts to a fatality, we ask him what sort of being it is
who could make such a world, and send unfallen innocent
spirits into it to be corrupted ? The supposition enthrones
an infinite DevU over the universe. It is therefore false.
The world is remedial. Temptation is not fatality. Re
formatory influences are vastly preponderant. And the
reason souls are not reformed is, that they bring with
them into life a strength of sinful habit, and a power of
resistance that neutralizes the remedial agencies employes,
and preads contagion and death on every side.
What hospital is not defiled by the malignant diseases
that are healed therein? What school of reform is not
13*

298 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
impregnated with the effluvia of the degraded classes
undergoing the process of reform ? What country is not
desolated by the war necessary to prostrate rebellion ?
And how is it conceivable a proud, false, and cruel apos
tasy could be dealt with, both for destruction and for resto
ration, in a world that would not be wrecked and racked
and desecrated and defiled during the process?
The remedial powers of God's moral system cannot be
justly estimated till after the battle of the great day of
God Almighty, when the power of rebelbon is broken, its
chief confined, its organization dissolved, and the efficacy
of mediatorial remedies developed in a pacified world in
full miUennial omnipotence.
If, then, rebelbon have in itself no recuperative ten
dencies ; if only God can conquer it, or redeem from it ;
if God can do so only by the mediatorial system he has
instituted for that express purpose ; then those not re
deemed by that never will be redeemed, but remain eter
nally fixed in rebelbon.
4. There are some who wiU never be cured by this sys
tem, because they were already incurable before it was
made, and it was not designed to attempt impossibilities.
There is one rebel known to Scripture under various
titles, among which one of the most significant is the Ad
versary, a term appropriate to the head of a great rebellion,
just as Captain of Salvation, and Lord of Hosts, are titles
appropriate to the head of the movement for the suppression
of rebeUion and restoration of the penitent to favor.
There are those who would regard the Devil as a mere
abstraction, an allegory, a fable. But they might as reason
ably call Mr. Davis an abstraction or slavery an allegory.
Rebellion and despotism are not such abstractions in human
experience as to justify the turning of tbe originator of all
.rebellion and all despotism into a myth. The existence of
Jehovah is no more clearly revealed in the Bible and in

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 299
nature than the existence of Satan. The bemg of God can
be as rationally turned into an abstraction, a fable, as the
being of the DevU. And the denial of the latter, as all
experience shows, is the logical prelude to tbe denial of the
former. For if the DevU be not the father of bes, tbe
inevitable conclusion is that Jehovah must be. But this
is so shocking that tbe mind reacts into pantheism, which
is virtual atheism. If, then, the being of a personal God
be certain, the being of the Arch-rebel against God, liar,
and father of it, murderer from the beginning, is no less
certain. Now, is there any reason to bebeve the atonement was
intended for Satan? Does the Bible say Christ partook
flesh and blood, "that through death he might save him
that had the power of death, that is, the Devil ",? Was the
Son of God manifested for this cause, " that he might save
the works of the DevU " ? Scripture often speaks of salva
tion from the DevU, but where is there a hint of such a
thing as salvation for him ? The sUence of the Bible on that
head is awfully significant. Its express declarations are
more awful. Christ himself implies that from the founda
tion of the world everlasting fire was prepared for the
DevU and his angels. For that the world was founded, to
destroy bis power, to cast him down, to make him the
object of the fully revealed abhorrence of God, and the
abhorrence of the holy xiniverse. And at the close of the
Bible we see it done.
Here, then, is one rebel who never wUl submit, and
never wiU be pardoned. And one well-authenticated in
stance is enough to settle the principle. Make eternal
judgment certain m a single mstance, and there is nothing
left to contend about. But it is not a single case. With
the DevU are included his angels. They are cast out with
him; they share his fate. So that eternal judgment is
estabbshed, not forv a unit, but for a class.

300 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
But it may be said, Why will not the Devil be annihi
lated ? And strong pleadings have been recently put forth
in behalf of this conception. We reply, The language of the
Bible, according to any principles of interpretation yet
known, is against the idea. The solemn language of Scrip
ture is, " He shall be tormented day and night, for ever and
ever." Nor is there any valid reason why the plain import
Of these words should be overruled.
Why should the author of rebellion and the guiltiest of
rebels be permitted to escape from the duty of submission ?
Is it not his duty to submit ? Has the law of God ceased
to be binding on him? Has not the Divine government
made issue with him on that point from the beginning?
Has not Lucifer denied the right of government to hold
him to his allegiance, and manifest displeasure at his re
fusal ? And must the government, at last, recede virtually
from its position, and cease to insist upon submission as both
possible and reasonable ?
To annihilate the rebel would be, on the part of the
government, equivalent to a surrender of the whole point
in controversy from the beginning. It would be to say to
the arch-conspirator, Your refusal to submit is so far reason
able, that further prosecution of the claims of government
would be too severe ; lie down, therefore, in oblivion, and
rest day and night forever.
5. There are some rebels who wiU wilfully resist all the
influences of the remedial .system, and become in so domg
eternaUy hardened in rebellion.
It wUl be admitted that Christ was a perfect teacher.
The father openly declared himself weU pleased with his
ministry, saying, " Hear ye him ! " Even his enemies con
fessed, " Never man spake bke this man." Nor was the ef
fect of his teaching neutralized by any inconsistency or sin in
the teacher. In his mouth was no guile. He was a lamb with
out spot, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 301
Now, Christ could read the heart. He could see when
truth had its proper contact with the mind, and when it was
decisively rejected. Did Christ meet any such eases ? He
d"d. There was a class of men, most intelbgent and highly
cultivated, who often beard, and with whose minds the evi
dence of his mission bad full contact, who yet rejected him.
Between Christ and this class an antagonism develops
itself even more decided than that between him and the
unclean spirits who cry out on his approach, " What have
I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high ? Art
thou come hither to torment us before the time ? " For
wbUe demons thus bebeve and tremble, there are mortal
men who dare to say, " This feUow doth not cast out demons
but by Beelzebub, the prince of demons."
He on his part unhesitatingly accepts the issue. "Ye
are of your father the DevU, and the lusts of your father
ye wUl do  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how
can ye escape the damnation of hell ? . . . . Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! Ye compass sea and land
to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him
twofold more the child of hell than yourselves ! " Nor is
this antagonism a phenomenon pecubar to that age. It is
present through aU history from dawn till eve, recognizable
even by the semi-prophetic instinct of the popular nomen
clature. The apostolic conception of the interval between Christ
and the miUennium was that of a period in which a great
apostasy should run its course, under tbe auspices of a class
described as " speaking bes in hypocrisy, having their con
sciences seared as with a hot iron." Of this class, Paul
says, " Because they received not the love of the truth that
they might be saved, therefore God shaU send them strong
delusions that they should bebeve a be, that they might aU
be damned who bebeved not tbe truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness." »¦

302 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
The ripe embodiment of this apostasy in tbe man of sin,
he says, " The Lord shall consume with the spirit of his
mouth, and destroy with the brightness of bis coming."
Peter also speaks of a class of minds, corrupt and fixed in
sin under the very focus of Gospel rays, as " sporting them
selves with their own deceivings whUe they feast with you,
having eyes fuU of adultery, that cannot cease from sin, an
heart exercised with covetous practices, cursed children,
weUs without water, clouds carried with a tempest, to whom
is reserved the mist of darkness forever ! "
In the Apocalypse, that grand and solemn panorama of
things temporal and eternal, this class is denoted by a harlot
drunk with blood riding upon a wild beast, and those led
and governed by them are characterized as worshipping a
beast, and receiving his mark in their forehead and in their
hand. The symbolization includes aU civU and ecclesiastical
despots, and their wUling slaves. For next to the wicked
ness of being a tyrant is that of submitting to despotism for
the sake of ease, wealth, and carnal prosperity. The beast
and harlot, and aU who receive the mark, are described as
not written in the Lamb's book of bfe, or as having had-
their names blotted out. They are spoken of as deceived
by the Devil, with whom they are finaUy cast into the lake
of fire, which is the second death.
Here the curtain falls upon them. .Here the Bible leaves
them, saying, " He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ;
and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is
righteous, let him be righteous stiU ; and he that is holy, let
him be holy stiU " ; and, " Without are dogs, and sorcerers,
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whatso
ever loveth and maketh a be."
Thus God declares most solemnly that there will be those
who wiU reject the Gospel, on whom it wUl make no salu
tary impression, who wiU become fixed in sin. They have
no tendency to reform themselves. He has done for them

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. , 303
aU he can consistently do. He wUl not violate their free
agency. He will let them alone. They wUl treasure up
wrath agamst the day of wrath. They will go out into
eternity incorrigible in sin. Yet it wUl be just as consistent
with benevolence to prolong their existence then as it is
now. The consequence wUl be, the law wUl execute itself
in them and upon them forevermore. They will be a mi
nority, a number never receiving accession. But the holy
universe wUl go on, eternaUy increasing and expanding,
untU the disproportion wiU be inconceivably vast. They
wiU be a fraction so small, so infinitesimally minute, that
then* existence wUl cease to affect seriously the sensibUity
of the stupendous whole.
This is the argument. Is it sound ? Is it fair ? It may
not convince you. But can you meet it ? Can you seri
ously object to one of its positions ? I appeal to >your
honest judgment. Do you think I have misinterpreted the
word of God ? There may be plausible objections, cavUs,
sophistries. Passages may be tampered with in detaU, —
one by one forced by great ingenuity from their too obvious
sense, — but what of that ?
There is one thing I have never seen attempted, namely,
to show how so many detaUs happened to be ; how they hap
pened to need such exceeding dexterity to parry their
meaning, how they happen to combine and cohere, pointing
with tremendous circumstantial evidence to one, and only
one conclusion. It is this that gives to circumstantial evi
dence its terrible power with a jury. And to this I appeal
as unanswerable in tbe Bible. For if eternal judgment be
not plainly the doctrine of the Bible, I see not how it can
be shown to be the doctrine of any uninspired book or
creed, or the bebef of any man or body of men on the ace
of the earth. Thus the denial of eternal judgment subverts
tbe foundations of aU reasoning, and plunges us into unbm-
ited scepticism.

304 „ REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Let us now glance for a moment at some of those objec
tions that are most commonly employed' to break the force
of evidence, and shut out tbe fearful looking for of judg
ment and fiery indignation that shaU devour tfie adversary.
1. What have I done that is so very bad ? What that
can merit endless torments?
You have done enough to need forgiveness, have you
not ? Or do you propose to rob God of all chance of show
ing mercy by bringing him in debt to you ? If you need
to be forgiven, and wUl not submit and ask pardon, you
deserve His displeasure moment by moment tUl you" do1, ff
it is forever.
2. But I bebeve men are punished as they go along as
much as they deserve^ and therefore aU WiU finally be Saved.
If so, there is rio such thing as forgiveness. The state
cannot forgive a convict who has served out his time in the
state-prison. The Divine government cannot both punish
rebels to the last far thing, and yet forgive them. Therefore
ab that is said in the Bible about mercy, pardon, forgive
ness, free grace, according to this, is a mere delusion.
3. But if God wanted me good, why did he not make
me so?
He did. Why have you marred his work ?
4. But why did God permit me to rebel ?
Permit? — permit what he forbids? A government
permit rebeUion against itself? Is, then, permission and
prohibition the same in your opinion?
5. But God is omnipotent. He had tbe power. Why
did he not exert it to fender my rebellion impossible ?
And what is this but to teU God that nothing but omnip
otence could make you love him ? All he asked was your
love. You refused it and rebelled. And you now virtually
assign as a reason, that he did not make it impossible. How
much would your love be worth to God on such terms ?
" I shall not love you if I can help it. You can make me.

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 305
because you are omnipotent, and can do anything. But so
long as you leave me free, nothing shall persuade me not to
hate you."
6. But it is unaccountable to me how a perfectly holy
being could sin.
If you could account for it, it would not be sin. To
account for a thing is to assign some cause or reason for its
existence. But a cause or reason is an excuse, and an
excuse is a justification. But a justifiable sin is no sin.
Sin that is excusable is a contradiction. It is of the very
essence of sin that it is unjustifiable, inexcusable, and
therefore, absolutely unaccountable. Sin is anomalous and
mysterious by its very nature. It is portentous and irra
tional from its very birth. To say sin is unaccountable,
therefore, is nothing but to say, sin is sin.
7. But, after aU, though this seems specious, I cannot
conceive how it is possible a perfectly upright being should
fall. Can you conceive of any but an upright being falling ?
Must not a thing stand upright before it can possibly fall
down ? Must not a thing be on the right side of the bne
of rectitude before it can cross over that line, that is, trans
gress to the wrong side ?
8. But you never can make me see how a perfectly
truthful being could become the father of bes.
Hold. Let us try and see. Lies do, in fact, exist. Men
do not always speak the truth. You cannot say that God
is the father of lies. You do not suppose lies existed from
eternity. There must have been a first lie, and a first liar.
Moreover, a being must first exist before he can be. Now
what was the first bar, before he told the first lie ? Do you
not see he was not a liar, and could not be, before he told
the first lie, for that would be to say there was a lie before
the first lie. Either, then, God created him in the act of
telling a lie, or else he existed in the truth, before he told

306 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the first lie, as Christ says : " He abode not in the truth.
He is a liar, and the father of it."
9. But, if there is a rebelbon, it seems to have the upper
hand. The DevU seems to have it pretty much his own
way, so far, in this world. And though eighteen centuries
have rolled away since Calvary, things seem worse than
ever. But remember that, though a thousand years to us
seem long, to God, who inhabits eternity, and measures
on the scale of infinity, a thousand years are as one day.
God can afford to bear the insults of rebellion, and sup
press the tokens of his just displeasure for a thousand years,
more easily than this government can afford to exercise
forbearance towards rebellion a single day. Now have not
the clemency and the severity of the government of this
land alike exasperated rebeUion ? And in proportion as we
have driven it in from the frontiers and seaboard on its
riiain centres, has it not fortified those centres, and become
relatively stronger and more intensely malignant? And
if rebellion should be crushed, would not its greatest rage,
and its highest concentration of strength, be at the very
time and place of the last decisive attack ?
Enough, then. You know why it is that things are as
they are in this world. Shut off from all other worlds, —
hemmed in, — the Devil has come down in great wrath,
knowing he hath but a short time ; and the intensity of his
rage, the malignity of the forms of sin, the concentration
of all elements of resistance to Christ, proclaim unmistak
ably that we are just on the eve of the decisive battle, the
battle ofthe great day of God Almighty. But, think you,
the righteous displeasure of God will be any the less dread
ful for this patience of centuries and cycles ? — and is the
Divine forbearance a motive to go on treasuring up wrath
against the day of wrath ?
10. But if God knew rebelbon would break out, and

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. r 307
some persist forever, why did he create those ? How can
he let them suffer forever, when he need not have created'
them ?
And what is this but to hold the government virtually
accountable for tbe rebellion, and liable for its debts?
God might have prevented tbe rebeUion, and did not.
Therefore he is responsible for it; and therefore he can
not punish it, but is bound to secure the restoration of
every one implicated. WUl that style of logic bear exami
nation ? Does it not virtually put rebellion on the judg
ment-seat, and summon the Divine government to the
bar ? Does it not make the chief conspirator say to the
Supreme Executive, " Why hast thou suffered thyself to
be rebelled against? " Can the absurdity of this be paral
leled by anythmg save its effrontery, its guilt ?
AU these objections are nothing but reasons offered by
rebelbon why it should not submit, and why tbe govern
ment should surrender at discretion. Lay them aside.
Bring tbe doctrine to a practical test. In what does the
actual condition of your mind, if impenitent, differ from
what it would be in eternity as a lost soul?
There, the simple fact would be, you would voluntarily
choose wrong and suffer. Is not that what you are doing
now ? Does not God bring motives to bear on you, and
do you not resist them ? Are you not every day accustom
ing yourself to resist all the motives God does bring ; and
is it not probable you will thus acquire the habit so as to
resist all motive be ever will bring?
Why do you not now exert the power of your free
agency? God is now bringing motives to bear. This
argument is a motive. A present spmt is a motive. Your
own conscience is a motive. Your Saviour and his bleed
ing wounds are motives. Heaven's glories are motives.
The angels that wait to rejoice over you are motives.
The hatefubiess of selfishness and rebelbon is a motive.

308 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
The loveliness of obedience and benevolence is a motive.
God's honor and glory, and your sonship to him are mo
tives. The woe and despair of endless banishment are
motives. The horror of society with Satan and reprobate
spirits is a motive. And all these motives are now present.
It is the time for their use. God is employing them. It
is their legitimate purpose to secure now, if ever, by the
preached Gospel, the right exercise of your free agency.
Left to yourself, you will never exercise it aright. There
fore God does not leave you to yourself. He follows you.
He thrusts tbe subject on you. It is disagreeable to you,
but that only shows how certain it is you never would
reclaim yourself if left alone. You want to be let alone,
but he will not let you alone. He gathers aU these mo
tives and thrusts them on you. He robs the responsibUity
upon you. He threatens. He invites. Your conscience
is troubled. Your peace is disturbed. You cannot evade
the subject. God's motives throng in about your soul, so
that now, — in this day of salvation, — you may choose
right and so be reclaimed forever. Do you now resist ?
Do you fight off the subject ? Can you, now, with despe
rate opposition, break away from God and rush on in sin ?
How can you expect ever to be reached by motives, if
you so resist them now ? WUl God's love touch your heart
a million years hence, when it falls like a sunbeam on a
rock now? Will Christ seem lovely to your soul when
ages older in sin ? Christ is near you now. You see him.
His cross stands before you. You hear his expiring groans.
You see the blood flowing for your sins. He turns his lan
guid eye on you ! But your hard heart feels no impression.
You care not. You laugh, you trifle. You care more for
a song, a jest, a piece of gold, a cup of wine, some toy of
earth, than for him. Will a million years' added ingratitude
make that heart tender ? Will ages of implacable rejection
and scorn make you more impressible ?

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 30*9
The very motives God employs now are the highest,
most perfect, to which an inteUigent being can be subject, —
a being with a heart. Eternity could only repeat them. K
you triumph over them when you are young and they fresh,
how can you expect to yield when you are far on in eter
nity and they have lost the charm of novelty ? You shrink
from Christ now ; wUl you not recoU then ? If now the
advancing shadow of Christ's presence makes your hardened
soul almost cry out, " Let me alone ; what have I to do
with thee ? " wUl ages of hardening hi sin diminish that
conscious antagonism ?
And yet aU your hope for eternity rests on the mad idea
that motives which utterly faU here, where the advantages
are greater, — where you are more impressible, and they
more fresh, — wiU then succeed where the chances are all
against them, the gloss of novelty gone, your susceptibility
deadened, and conscience seared as with a hot iron. If
this be not the very acme of insanity, at least to the clear-
seeing eye of God, what can be?
And even if your anticipation were not preposterous, it
would be base and dishonorable. If it were true that God
would make you love hmi a milbon years hence, is that a
reason for bating him now ? If he wiU brmg you to repent
and bebeve in Christ in eternity, wUl you therefore mock
Christ in time ? If, after death, he wiU purify and forgive
you, is that an argument with you to be as vUe and disobe
dient as you please in bfe ?
O chUd ! child ! what logic is this, what desperate wicked
ness, what midnight darkness of soul ! My mother has
patiently toUed for me from morning to night, therefore I
wUl let her slave as long as she lives ! She always has for
given me ; I am sure of her forgiveness, no matter how I
treat her, therefore I 'U fiU her house with riot, insult her
gray hairs, and inherit her property after she has pardoned
me with her dying breath.

310 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Is this your plea ? God has been long-suffering toward
you. AU your guilt he has seen, but refrained from fully
punishing. Christ has loved you, and poured out his blood
for you. The spirit has striven to reclaim you to honorable
affection and filial duty. Patiently God has waited and
borne with your strange manners, your waywardness, and
insult. And because you think he wiU bear it, and will
contrive finally to make you decent, therefore you give
way to temptation, throw the reins on the neck of passion,
cast off fear, restrain prayer, and say to God, " Depart
from me, for I desire not the knowledge of thy ways."
O man ! How can this be ! How can a mortal act thus,
and maintain his self-complacency? How can a rational
being follow such courses, flattering himself till his iniquity
becomes hateful?
0 sinner ! Your sins are high as mountains ! They are
black as ink. The dimensions of your guilt are incalculable.
Tbe depth of the abyss of guile and depravity in which you
are sunk is unfathomable. You are in tbe horrible pit and
the miry clay. Your heart is deceitful above aU things and
desperately wicked. You are undone* If God should flash
full conviction on you, it would shrivel you like the blast of
a furnace ! If anything can merit the description " lost,"
it is a soul so abandoned to dishonor and ungodliness as
yours. Dead in trespasses and sins, covered from head to
foot with the foul leprosy. UnwiUing to be clean, because
expecting to be cleansed in some unknown vague hereafter !
Reluctant to be made whole, because anticipating a miracu-
lous transformation after death! Incorrigible, because of
expected correction; inexorable, because to be persuaded
by and by. Leagued and banded with Christ's foes, because
to be enrolled his friend at the judgment. Under bonds of
Satan here, because expecting to servo Christ hereafter.
Living in sin to die in the Lord. Friend of the world and
enemy of God below, because heir of God and joint-heir

ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 311
with Christ above. Paradox of guUt, climax of absurdity !
Rushing on ruin ! Making haste to perdition ! Touching
the very threshold of everlasting downfaU ! Your plea is
false, your theory delusive, your expectation vain, your hope
a spider's-web. Without apology for your sin, bearing the
wrath of God, bound to the judgment !
O sinner, pause ! Stop before it is too late. You cannot
strive with your Maker. You cannot contend with him.
You cannot endure his calm, yet just and infinite displeasure.
O repent, and fly from tbe wrath to come !

CHAPTER XXIII.

CONDITION OF THE LOST.

" For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, anb
LOSE HIMSELF, or BE CAST AWAY ? " — Luke ix. 25.
IN these words we have a question whose solution out
runs the rules of arithmetic, and bids defiance to the
ordinary processes of numerical calculation. It is a ques
tion of profit and loss in the business of eternity, the
merchandise of unending ages. He who died for the soul
summons us to estimate its value, to strike the balance be
tween earthly gain and heavenly loss; between temporal
success and everlasting failure.
I shall not, at this time, dwell particularly on the value
of this world, its brevity, uncertainty, the difficult attain
ment and unsatisfying nature of its joys. You all know
that no man ever does gain the whole world, and that, if he
did, it would not make him happy. Leaving this part of
the subject to the mind of each and all, I propose to dweU
awhile on the other alternative, and what may be involved
in losing one's self, or being cast away.
One element of loss will be the forfeiture of self-respect.
In this world men contrive to be on good terms with
themselves. They invent excuses, self-justifications ; they
are naked, but not ashamed. But in eternity each mind
will have its own condition fully revealed to it. And
when a man is ashamed of himself, without excuse in his
own sight, yet without contrition, then the charm of self-
society is at an end forever.
With no intention of amendment, with a will of iron

CONDITION OF THE LOST. 313
and a brow of brass, hating the throne of God, as rebel
lion always hates good government, he will, nevertheless,
know perfectly that he is in the wrong utterly, from begin
ning to end, and the throne of God spotless.
He has lost, secondly, that respect of all creatures which
is the foundation of social enjoyment.
From tbe society of the good the bad wUl be forever
voluntarily separate. The loyal and the disloyal, when
the truth concerning the rebellion is fully known, will go
apart with infinite antagonism. The enemies of Christ
could no more breathe the same air with his friends, than
traitors to this government can live in friendship with
those loyal to the government. Yet the society of heaven,
with its purity, its refinement, its sympathy, its lofty intel
ligence and radiant affection, wiU appear to those who
never more can enjoy it desirable beyond description.
But it is lost. They have lost the society of the kmd,
reasonable, sympathetic, arid holy, for that of the cruel,
unreasonable, heartless, and vile.
Another element of loss will be the failure of every
source of intellectual enjoyment and progress.
This arises from the fact that all the universe, being
created by God, manifests his wisdom and his character.
And all truth being an unfolding of his thoughts, is con
nected with him, and suggests him. It is possible for a
man in this world to pursue various branches of study,
and contrive not to see God in them, although he is there ;
although in the most abstruse sciences — geometry, astron
omy, mathematics — God is present, although he pervades
all nature and all history, yet it is the peculiarity of the
present material economy that it is left optional with men
whether they will see him or not.
But in eternity this will not be so. It will not be op
tional to see or not to see God's presence and character in
all truth. There wUl be no part of the universe, and no
14

314 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
branch of science, in which he will not be brought up, and
stand, as it were, in his true character, face to face with
the' mind.
Now if the mind does not love him, this revelation of
his being and character wiU be painful, and wUl make all
possible branches of science and knowledge painful. The
soul will be thrown off from knowledge and intellectual
progress forever by its antipathy to God, the sun and scien
tific centre of the universe. At the same time it will know
what knowledge is. It will realize what its career might
have been. It will see what the redeemed are doing.
From its own self-imposed darkness and stagnation it will
look out upon a universe growing and developing in
knowledge forever, and will see that it might have kept
pace with the foremost, — might have shone like a star of
the firmament; but all that is lost, and, mstead, it is be
come " a wandering star, to whom is reserved the blackness
of darkness forever."
Another element of loss is that of the manifested appro
bation of God.
The power of God to bless his creatures by signifying
bis approbation is infinite. Instances are seen in the death
of martyrs, where the pains of the body have seemed an-
nihUated by the joys of the soul. Now in heaven God
wiU exert that power to the full. The redeemed wUl be
made as fuUy conscious, not only of his affection, his love,
but of his approbation, as their finite faculties admit. And
it will be the highest element of their joy and strength.
Now all beings wUl be aware of this. It will by no means
be hid from the wicked. Lucifer will eternally see that
those he tried to blast are not only safe, but recipients of
God's infinite approval ; and lost men wiU see it, and real
ize that they might be enjoying the same, but are not.
They have lost it, and lost it forever.
Another element of loss wUl be that of exalted station.

CONDITION OF THE LOST. 315
AU that is denoted by the crown of glory, and joint-
heirship with Christ, and reigning with him forever; all
that is indicated by being kings and priests unto God, asso
ciated with Christ in the judgment of tbe world and of
angels ; all that wliich is caUed " a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory," wUl be lost. A sense of its worth
wUl be realized by seeing it in actual exercise by the re
deemed. They wUl be seen shinmg above the brightness
of the firmament, exalted far above angels, principahties,
and powers; intensely luminous and glorious, nearest to
Christ of all orders and ranks of being ; and all this, the
soul will say, was appointed to me, redeemed for me, by
blood divine, — might have been mine, but for my own
inexcusable fbHy and guilt.
O, what must be the feelings of him who was once a
bright archangel, son of tbe morning, now fallen and
degraded, when he thinks of his original exaltation, and
reflects that it might have been his forever ! What emo
tions must fill the hearts of those angelic hosts he led
away, when they see their seats occupied by others ; even
by those they so long tempted, oppressed, enslaved, and
held in gloomy and disgraceful bondage !
Still more poignant will be the sense of loss, of ruined
men, who, instead of being crowned above the unfallen,
will be degraded beneath the faUen angels, their victims
and their slaves. " I have exchanged," the castaway wiU
exclaim, " the highest place in the universe for the lowest ;
lordship for bondage, supremacy for slavery. I have lost
endless dominion over holy myriads, and have become the
servant of convicts and outcasts forever.
In the present world men do not believe this. They
will bebeve neither the one extreme of possible exaltation
nor the other of possible degradation. Not because it is
not plainly revealed ; — it is not in the power of words to
reveal it more plainly;. — but because words have lost

316 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
their power, — because they will not hear, will not believe,
will not understand. But in eternity the reality will arrest
fhem. The accomplished reality of the exalted glory of
the faithful will nevermore be hid from them ; the consum
mate reality of their own dishonor and extreme degradation
will forever realize itself to their minds. It will no longer
be possible to deny it, or misunderstand it, or forget it.
Should the chiefs of the rebellion in this land be finally
seized, and condemned to hard labor among felons, we can
imagine how they would look back on the time before the
rebellion, when they were loyal, when they trod the floors
of Congress, and when their eloquence shook the Senate,
and their wisdom contributed to shape the legislation of a
vast continental empire ! But now that the rebellion is
crushed and they are convicts, eloquence is not for them,
statesmanship and jurisprudence, the lofty and ennobling
aims of legislation and government, the exhilarating excite
ments of public affairs, ¦ — aU are theirs no more. They
move with the chain-gang, and break stones on the road.
They see men, once their inferiors, thunder along in state,
engrossed in those high affairs that they so well remember,
casting a glance of mingled pity and abhorrence as they
pass ; and, stung to the soul, they continue their degrading
toil till night remands them to their cell.
But all these things smk into nothing, compared with
the wrath of God.
Infinite love, truth, and rectitude is offended with ob
stinate rebels moment by moment, because they do not
submit. All their rebellion they repeat each successive
moment. The whole malignity of their guilty career is
gathered up and concentrated, as it were, in every instant
of refusal to bow.
God sees it there. They see it. They see that it is
wicked as plainly as God sees it, but they will not give
up ; and that obstinacy excites God's intense displeasure.

CONDITION OF THE LOST. 317
It is not that they cannot yield, but that they can and
will not. It is not that they have been guUty and deserv
ing of wrath, but that they voluntarily continue to be.
The entire rebellion is taken up and carried on fresh and
immortal in every moment of refusal to repent, and the
displeasure of God is eternally fresh as towards a present
offence. It is not wrath for sins long past, merely ; it is wrath
for a state of mind that virtually repeats all the sins of
ages in each successive moment. Against that, the wrath
of God will justly burn forever as a consuming fire.
They ought to submit ; they can submit ; they would be
pardoned if they would: they do not submit, and show
God that they never intend to yield, and he shows them
fully what he thinks and feels of such incorrigible wicked
ness. The universe which is pervaded with God is filled with
his thoughts and emotions as pure, spiritual, immortal fire.
Omnipresence is a boundless deep of consuming intensity,
a fire to goodness, meekness, and truth, innocuous, and
genial as the summer sunshine. But in it the remorse
and hatred of their defeated malice and detected villany
kindle and burn with sulphurous flames forever. The fire
is the fire of the Divine holiness. The brimstone is the
brimstone of their malignant passions.
And what, then, has it profited them to gain what they
did gain of earth for a few fleeting years, and lose all
these things for ever and ever?
They have realized that final extinction of spiritual life,
and possibility of amendment, which is called death, the
second death, eternal death. They are dead to goodness
and to God forever.
They have gained the lively and undying abhorrence
of the ever-growing universe. Their bistory will be ever
new. The scenes of the rebellion wUl be ever vivid in

318 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
the view of all ages. The smoke of that final storm of
wrath by which its organized power was finally crushed
shall forever ascend up before the eyes of back-looking
generations. And as race after race rises into being, and
of the increase of God's government there is no end, so the
tide" of public abhorrence against ingratitude so monstrous,
falsehood so black, cruelty so unnatural, rebellion so unrea-
' sonable, and persisted in so freely and gratuitously forever,
will be ever deep and fresh and strong.
How foolish, then, how wrong, how needless, to live an
impenitent life, and die eternally ! There is nothing to
prevent a man's repenting of sin now, believing in Christ
now, embracing his service now, loving him now, being.
taught and cared for by him now. On the contrary, mo
tives are strong, and the strivings of the Spirit powerful.
Men have to resist. They have to do violence to them
selves, and despite to the Spirit of grace.
If a man develops now a power of resisting truth and
motive, and the Spirit of God, and nullifying the whole
redemptive economy, and forms the habit of it, he can keep
on so to all eternity. Men think it improbable they will.
But why ? Is it not probable they will do what they are
doing ? Does it seem incredible you should hold out for
ever and be miserable forever ? Why, then, do you hold
out now? If you can hold out against God in the focus of
a redemptive system, you can much Hiore in a system not
) redemptive. When you pass from this world, you pass from
Ia redemptive to a non-redemptive system. If you now
habitually resist God, you will much more resist him then.
You are sealing your own destiny. You are deciding your
own fate. You are selling your birthright. You are not
gaining the whole world, and you are losing yourself.
O, answer me the question, or answer it to the Spirit that
strives with you, What shall it profit you, if you gain the
whole world and lose yourself, or be cast away ?

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE WORLD CONVINCED.

" HE SHALL CONVINCE THE WORLD OF JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF
THIS WORLD IS JUDGED." — John Xvi. 11.
FROM these words, it is plain that there is to be a day
when the world wUl be convinced of judgment, and-
when the pubbc sentiment of the world will be on the side
of the Dhine government in tbe controversy with rebelbon,
so as to sustain it in inflicting the penalties of treason.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring in that day, by
disclosing the truth with regard to the chief of tbe revolt,
author and mainspring of rebellion from first to last, so that
the public sentiment of this world shaU entertain a correct
judgment of him, and of the rebelbon in him.
That day will usher in the mUlennium. /Whenever the
world is convinced of judgment because the prince of this
world is judged, Satan is logicaUy bound as with a great;
chain, and shut up as in a deep abyss, and a seal set upon
him to deceive the nations no more.
As that day approaches, we may expect that the question
of eternal judgment wiU be more and more interesting. It
wUl be more and more prominently discussed. All that
can be said on both sides of the question wUl be said. And
. after a thorough examination the mind of the world will be
convinced and at rest.
It is not strange, then, that there should be, at the
present day, a strong reaction against the doctrme. It is
natural there should be. It is the inevitable accompani
ment of tbe Spirit's work.

320 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
The reaction is not caused merely by constitutional or
experimental peculiarities.
It is not the naturally benevolent and compassionate, nor
yet the irreligious exclusively, who reject eternal judgment,
and the selfish and unfeeling, or the devout, who maintain
itt The reaction is felt more or less by all of all classes
and temperaments. It is not a mere matter of experience
or of disposition. It lies deeper. It is more universal. It
is a characteristic of the_agj£ ' It springs out of causes too
profound to be traced' to individual peculiarities.
Nor is the cause to be sought in denominational pecu-
barities, Calvinistic or Arminian, old school or new, evan
gelical or unevangebcal.
The causes, so far as they pertain to doctrine, are com
mon to all. They lie in the common belief of Christendom,
evangelical and unevangebcal alike.
Romish masses are dead, and do not think .enough to be
lieve or disbelieve intelligently on this or any other subject.
But wherever Protestantism has awakened the intellect of
the nations to life, there, under all forms of church govern
ment, under all creeds, this tendency develops itself with
about equal force. The history of New England furnishes
a striking illustration of this. Here the theology of the
Reformers in its strictest form had the ground in advance,
and laid the foundations of society to suit itself, and reigned
supreme for more than a century.
But it did not escape the tendencies of which we are
speaking. The first Universalists in New England were
Calvinists. Their arguments were all drawn from the Cal
vinistic system. . To meet them arose the New Divinity.
Universalism and New Divinity are twins. But though
they struggled together in the womb, Jacob has never been
able to drive out Esau. «
The New Divinity met the arguments from Old Calvin
ism, but the Universalists found others in the common sys-

THE WORLD CONVINCED. 321
tem of Christendom as good, and went on increasing in
numbers and strength.
The demonstration from history is perfect, that the ten
dencies to deny eternal judgment are not peculiar to any
of the denominations of Christendom, but spring out of
elements common to them all, — elements of unsuspected
power, on which Catholic and Protestant, Calvinist and
Arminian, evangebcal and unevangebcal, stand together,
and make common cause. Our text shows us where to
look for these elements, namely, in connection with the
character and history of the prince of this world.
The first element is, the idea that the origin of evil is
a subject that cannot be ^understood and ought not to be
discussed. Now the origin of evU is simply the rebelbon of v Lucifer,
and to say that the origin of evil is to be let alone is to say
that the origin of Lucifer's rebellion is to be let alone, and
that the real issue between the government and the rebel
bon cannot be understood. But if the issue between the
government and the rebeUion cannot be understood, how
can it be inteUigently perceived which is right? And
without being intelligently convinced that the government
is in the right, how can the government be sustained in the
execution of penalty?
What would be the effect in our country if all parties
should agree that the origin of secession and rebeUion was
an inscrutable mystery ? Would not that cut the nerves of
war, and paralyze government in dealing with rebels ? Is
not the origin of secession the precise thing, above all others,
that it is important there should be no doubt about ? Do
not the enemies of the administration always try to cover
it up in a fog, and the friends of the administration try
to^pour sunlight upon it? And is it not the same in the
Divine campaign against rebelbon ? If the origin of revolt
be covered up, wiU it not render it impossible for minds to
14* u

322 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
sympathize with the Divine government in the executiori
of the penalties of treason ?
Eternal penalties for what? Eternal penalties for an
utterly unintelligible thing ? Eternal penalties for an issue
we must not attempt to understand ? Eternal penalties for
that which must be to our minds a virtual nonentity, so far
as any intelligent appreciation of guilt is concerned ? Yet
this is the logical result of the principle that the origin of
,«*yU is to be carefully ignored. The denial of eternal pen
alty is the natural consequence. And are not all parties,
evangebcal and unevangebcal, a unit here ? And does not
this account for the tendencies of the age ?
Tbe next element is a kind of duabstic conception of
Satan as a being essentially and necessarUy evil. '
It was anciently believed that there were two self-..
existent and eternal natures, one good, the other evU, and
that from the conflict between these aU the mixture of good
and evil now apparent has arisen. This bebef appears iri
ancient Egypt, Chaldea, Persia, and the East, and in the
Gnostic and Manichean heresies of the ' early ¦ centuries.
Outside of Christendom it stiU may be reckoned among
the active elements of human speculation. ¦ And even in
side, though nominally condemned, it doubtless exercises an
indirect and unsuspected influence. ' Probably- multitudes
unconsciously conceive of the evil one as essentially' and ne
cessarily, and not voluntarily evU,'in a manner but' slightly
differing from the ancient notion of an eternal evil principle;
Now, in so far as such ideas. or any approaching them
lurk in the mind of man, they logically weaken conviction
of Lucifer's guilt and exposure. to .just punishment. If he
has a necessarUy evU nature, it is difficult to blame him for
acting according to it. It is impossible to blame him as we
should if his nature was originally pure. It is the idea* of
his having violated his own naturej and corrupted it, that
alone can make us feel that he is really to blame. •

THE WORLD CONVINCED. 323
The very nature of sin, its definition, impbes change, pas
sage from good to evil, transgression, crossing over, violation
of previous right relations. A pure nature must first exist,
or a smful nature cannot exist. Holiness must be first, or
sin cannot be. That which is called sin is not blameworthy
unless it was preceded by holiness.
It is often said that perfectly holy creatures cannot sin.
The exact opposite is true. Only holy creatures can sin.
For if a creature sin, with an original nature that way,
sin is no longer sinful, that is, there is no blame in it.
Blame always implies a violation of one's nature, and that
nature good. Hence if the prince of this world was evil
from eternity, or created evU, he does not deserve to be
blamed or punished. It is the fact that he was created
pure, and was first positively holy, that clothes all his sub
sequent conduct with blameworthiness, and makes him
really deserving of death.
The next cause of the tendencies in question, common
to aU, is either a denial of the existence of Satan, or such a
representation of him as amounts nearly to the same thing.
AU unevangebcal denominations deny the existence of the
DevU. Rome describes him in such a gross, material way
as tends to utter contempt and scepticism. Protestant
conceptions are but bttle better. , The ideas associated with
him in the popular mind are, for tbe most part, material,
magical, and absurd. The conception of him as the leader
of a vast rebellion, a being of profound knowledge and con
summate abilities, whose power is logical and phUosopbical,
presiding "over the. civU and ecclesiastical systems ofthe
world, is rarely entertained. His position as the great
adversary of Christ, and master, spirit of the pobtical and
religious campaigns of time, is bttle thought of. His his
tory, character, organizing power, the principles of his
kingdom, and his relations to Christ, and the mode by
which he is to be bound, are bttle studied.

324 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Practically, evangelical theology ignores him about as
much as unevangebcal. Thus, in the Confession of Faith
and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, if you turn
to the index of subjects, you do not find his name men
tioned at all. If you search the book through, you wUl find
some ten or twelve instances where his name occurs, or
where he is alluded to, but in the most cursory manner.
His history is nowhere given in full. His relations to Christ
and Christ's to him, as leaders of the opposite armies of
loyalty and of rebelbon, are nowhere stated. So that
practically it is not far from the truth to say, that be is a
mere cipher in the book.
Now, suppose the history of the United States from
1776 to 1876 to be writteri by some future historian, and
in the general index of subjects the word slavery should
not be found, and in the body of the work the existence
of that institution should be only a few times casually and
incidentally alluded to. Could such a work give to future
readers any"*adequate impression of the government policy
during this tremendous war, and enable them to sympathize
with our struggles to suppress rebeUion?
How, then, is it possible that a system of theology that
writes the history of the universe from eternity to eternity,
as the Confession of Faith does, with the name of Satan
left out of the table of contents, can possibly initiate us
into the councils of the Divme administration in the war
of ages ? How can it possibly make us sympathize in the
final execution of the penalties of treason, when the Devil
is cast mto the lake of fire forever ? And how can there
but be a reaction from eternal penalties of a treason the
whole history of which, in tbe prime contriver and master
mind throughout, is practically concealed?
In ignoring the true history of Satan, and thrusting him
into the background, tbe evang^Jical denominations are
pearly a unit with the unevangebcal, and but bttle less

THE WORLD CONVINCED. 325
responsible than they for the reaction from eternal judg
ment. A fourth element of tbe popular belief, inconsistent with
a conviction of eternal judgment, is the idea that Lucifer
is infernal.
The imagination of Christendom locates the head-quar
ters of the prince of this world in the world below, the
world of punishment. There he is popularly regarded as
occupied in tormenting the lost, in various ways, and sally
ing forth upon earth in quest of new victims. The
bearing of such a conception on the question of future
retribution is easUy illustrated.
Let it be supposed that the existing rebelbon in our land
were suppressed, and its chief tried, convicted, and sen
tenced to imprisonment for life in some government fortress
or place of strength. Let it then be imagined that the
government should allow him to correspond with friends in
all parts of tbe country ; to go and come at pleasure ; to
levy war, organize armies, and carry on military operations
against the government, still using the government fortress
as his bead-quarters ; — conceding to him the title of Pres
ident of the Confederacy, allowing him a free pass within
the lines, to go out and come "m at pleasure, whUe at the
same time making war against him in all the revolted States.
Is it possible that the inhabitants of those States, and the
soldiers of those rebel armies, could, under those circum
stances, be made to feel that their disloyalty to government
was either criminal or dangerous? "We can carry on
war," they might say, " with perfect safety. If we over-
tbro/v the government, weU and good. If we are de
feated, the government wiU provide us a fortress, and give
us unlimited range, as it does our chief.
So the world may reason and does reason in regard to
the government of God. The great majority feel that
the Divine government is responsible for the existence of

326 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
rebellion here on earth, and is bound in honor to pardon
all concerned. And why do they feel so ? Because they
are taught to believe that, one rebellion being crushed,
and its leader punished, God allowed him to go out of
his prison and get up another. A condemned and incar
cerated traitor was allowed free passage from his prison to
this world, with full knowledge that he would organize a
revolt of ages.
The argument from such a conception against eternal
punishment is direct, pointed, and of almost infinite
power. The human mind so feels it, and acts accord
ingly. ¦ A fifth element, antagonistic to conviction of eternal
judgment, is the belief that the fall of Lucifer was neces
sitated by Divine decree.
The impression has been made on the popular mind
quite extensively that God intended that Lucifer should
fall, arranged causes with reference to it, and decreed
it unchangeably from all eternity. However Lucifer
might be a free agent, the circumstances, it is commonly
thought, were so contrived that it was morally neces
sary that he should choose wrong. The motives were so
arranged on purpose. They were so strong, that, though
there might be a bare natural possibility of his standing,
there was a moral impossibility.
__^ Now this impression, that sin entered the universe by
Divine decree, or designed permission, is directly in the
way of convincing the world of judgment. It is so logi
cally, and it is so used in fact. Logically it follows, that,
if the Divine government wanted to have a rebellion,
planned it, adapted motives with infinite skUl to produce
it, then it is responsible for it. The government is the
real getter up of the rebellion, and Lucifer is but the
instrument of the governmental policy.
But if so, — the inference is fair, — the government

THE WORLD CONVINCED. 327
ought, sooner or later, to restore all rebels to loyalty. As
it planned and contrived their fall, adapting motives to
that end, which they could not, or certainly would not,
resist, so it is bound as a benevolent government ulti
mately to adapt motives the other way, and extricate all
unfortunate creatures from the predicament in which it
contrived to place them.
This reasoning is sound. It will stand the test of the
judgment-day. And the human mind actuaUy so accepts
it, and makes it one ground of its delusive belief of
universal salvation.
But tbe premises are false. God decrees the existence
of moral agents, foreknows their actions, and decrees his
own. He does not foreknow their actions because he first
determines them and makes them inevitable. He fore
knows because he is omniscient, and can pass over, as it
were, all chains of causes, and alight anywhere, on any
particular fact or act, and see it independently of its
causes. He is not dependent for his knowledge of the
future on a chain of reasoning. All things are open and
naked. He sees the things that are not as if they were.
If God really decreed, and by his will determined the
acts of creatures, those creatures would be capable of
neither praise nor blame. Their actions would not be
thefrs, but his, and to him would belong the praise or
blame of them. The idea that God predetermines the
actions of his creatures, differs but bttle from Pantheism,
by making the will of God the only active will in the
universe. Now that God bad a plan is certain. That his plan in
some sense was comprehensive of all events is certain ;
and that be decreed all events which could be decreed
without destroying responsibility, and making himself re
sponsible for sin, is also plain, and is all that the Confession
of Faith by strict construction teaches. After saying that

328 • REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
God did ordain whatsoever comes to pass, it adds, " Yet
so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is
violence offered to the wiU of the creatures, nor is the
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but
rather established." That means, that God did not in any
proper sense decree sin. He decreed all things except sin,
in all its forms. That is Calvinism, and that is common
sense. When God created Lucifer and the angels, he created
them on the best possible model. There is such a thing,
abstractly considered, as the best way of making a mind.
God knew what that ideal way was, and chose it because
it was best. It was essentially right to create minds on
the best conceivable pattern, as the Confession says he did.
" God created all angels spirits, immortal, holy, excelling
'in knowledge, mighty in power, to execute his command
ments, and to praise his name, yet subject to change."
He did not make them to sin, not one of them, but " to
execute his commandments and to praise his name."
Moreover, as in individual minds, so in a public mind,
or society or body politic. There are certain forms of
social order which are intrinsically best. God chose those
because they were best, independently of whether they
would be abused or not. He chose them because it was
right to organize society on the best possible principles and
in the best possible forms and systems, and throw the
responsibility of maintaining them on the community so
Constituted. Hence, as sin has entered in fact, it entered as a thing
foreseen, but not directly decreed. God decreed the best
system, with that possibUity in it, because without that pos
sibility it would not be the best, because not free. He
decreed the system with the foresight of the fact of sin,
but in spite of that foresight, not on account of it. He de
creed the best possible scheme of powers and organization,

THE WORLD CONVINCED. 329
in spite of the painful foresight of sin, because it was right
to do what was intrinsically the best.
To say, then, that God permitted sm, is* like saying that
a machinist permits friction in his steam-engine. To say
God decreed the fall of Lucifer, is like saying that the/
founders of this repubbc decreed the revolt of the South ;
a scarcely paraUel case, for though their system was a noble
one, it had great faults out of which the secession grew,
whUe the system God adopted had no faults, and the revolt
of Lucifer grew out of nothing, but was a self-born monster.
The doctrine of decrees, then, is simply the doctrine of
divine self-denial. God determined to do what he saw to
be right and best in itself, though he saw that he should
in fact be rebeUed against, unthanbfully treated, abused,
slandered, and subjected to profound moral suffering for
ages. He determined to do right, notwithstanding. And
that is simple self-denial. The decrees of God are nothing
but his determination from all eternity to do exactly right,
and suffer for it aU he has suffered, and is suffering, by
the uncaused, unprovoked, ungrateful, unutterably wicked
rebellion of the objects of his love.
Another element closely connected with the last is the
belief that Lucifer was unmercifully treated.
We refer to the common impression, that when he sinned
he was immediately punished, without any chance for
repentance. The common impression with respect to Lu
cifer appears to be that he was fated to fall, and subjected
to temptation practically irresistible, and that his punish
ment was immediate upon the first offence, without the
chance of repentance.
Now if these things are true, they constitute what may
properly be called unmerciful treatment. What mind can
help feeling it? Hence, just so far as this conception is
entertained, the doctrine of eternal judgment is felt to be
an unmerciful doctrine from the very foundation. For if

330 REDEEMER " AND REDEEMED.
the doom of the Son of the Morning is felt to be unmer
ciful at the very outset, then for mankind to be involved
in that doom will also be felt to be unmerciful, and the
tendency to deny eternal judgment is inevitable as gravi
tation. /
A further . element of the general belief inimical to
conviction of judgment to come is the conception in which
all sects agree, that this material system is, on the whole,
defiling to the soul. This idea is less manifestly con
nected with the character and history of the prince of this
world, bnt no less really.
However evangelical and unevangebcal systems differ in
details, they all agree substantially in this, that the mate
rial system, including the laws of hereditary descent, is
adapted to produce sin. That evangelical theories imply
this need not be proved ; it is not denied. Will it be said
that unevangebcal theories do not ? Why, then, the idea
held by some, that sin dies with the body, and the soul goes
out free ? All the sin there is is from the body, according
to that class of thinkers. And why do another class place
their hopes of restoration in progressive spheres after
death ? Why not be holy here ? Is it not evident that
they feel, whatever their theory may be, that this world
is depraving, — that immaculate spirits come here to be
soiled and spotted ; that it is in vain here to sigh for purity ;
that we must die and get into a less defiling system ?
The idea, then, that this material system is defiling is
the common belief of Christendom. In that belief evan
gelical and unevangebcal denominations are a unit. They
think alike and reason alike. They make common cause
against the Scripture doctrine that the material system is
not defiling but purifying, mediatorial, remedial.
And what is the logical effect of this state of things ? Is it
not to create the impression that sin is our misfortune, not
our crime, — that tbe Divine government brought it upon

THE WORLD CONVINCED.

331

us, and is therefore bound to remove it ? Can that feeling
be resisted ? Is it not a just and proper feeling, provided
the theory on which it rests be true in fact ? If this is
a divinely contrived sin-producing machine, of irresistible
contaminating power, the Divine government is respon
sible. It must remove that which it has itself occasioned.
The reaction from eternal judgment, from this source, is
resistless and universal as the attraction of gravity or the
motion of the spheres.
Still another element is the idea that sin occasions no
feeling in the Divine mind of a painful cast, none that is
disagreeable, none that partakes of the nature of suffering.
God is incapable of any feeling which is in the leas$
.egree painful or disagreeable, or the opposite of pleasura
ble. He cannot feel any real sorrow ; he cannot feel any
real grief, at least, not so far as sorrow and grief are painful
emotions. He can feel sorrow and grief that have not the
least degree of pain in them, but no other.
Now what is the logical result of this philosophy ? What
bearing must it have on the question of the treatment
due to sin, — the final treatment of rebels by the Divine
government ?
Was the revolt of Lucifer at all unpleasant to God ? No,
it was as pleasant — he was just as free from pain, just as
happy in it, as he would have been had Lucifer remained
loyal. And when myriads of bright angels followed Luci
fer, and organized a kingdom of lies and murder, was not
that disquieting to God ? Did it not awaken some emo
tions of regret, — something that might be said to be of a
painful cast of feeling ? No ; not in the least. The organ
ization of a vast and deadly rebellion, that was for ages to
fill the universe with groans and blood, excited in the
Divine breast emotions as free from pain of any kind as
their continued loyalty would have done. True, he is
nominaUy displeased and offended and angry ; but it is an

332 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
anger and a displeasure that is in no sense painful or differ
ent from pleasurable.
And when man fell, and human history unrolled, as it has,
a history of sin, sorrow, unutterable guUt, and unutterable
affliction, age after age, did God contemplate that with
out any emotion of the nature of sorrow and grief? Does
all the combined sin and sorrow of aU rebel angels and men
come up before his mind, and does he not in any painful
sense grieve over it?
No, we are told. He uses such language for effect, but it
means nothing. He is as really free from, the least element
of a painful cast, as absolutely undisturbed in his enjoyment
of the spectacle, as he would have been if aU angels and
all men were adoring and praising together round his
throne !
How can the intelligent mind but revolt from the idea of
eternal judgment, — eternal judgment upon a thing in no
degree disagreeable to God, eternal judgment upon a rebel
bon in which, from beginning to end, the government took
as much pleasure as it would have taken in loyalty ?
Does it tend to produce sympathy with the Divine gov
ernment on the part of its subjects to teU them it makes no
difference in God's feelings of pleasure or pain whether
you love or hate, obey or disobey ; — it never has made any
difference, and it never will ; — God will feel as much joy
in the endless sin and sorrow of incorrigible rebels as in the
purity and glory of the redeemed?
The tendency of this is almost infinite to prevent the
possibibty of conviction of sin, to cast odium on the Divine
government, and to cause a universal reaction against the
doctrine of eternal judgment in all its forms.
To these causes of reaction must be added the instinctive
working of rebel mind in a rebel world.
A rebeUion exists, and aU mankind are involved in it.
Christians are indeed extricated from it, and restored to

THE WORLD CONVINCED. 333
loyalty, essentially, but they are surrounded by it, and not
yet wholly divested of habits of thought, feeling, and action
formed under it, and are more or less susceptible to its pub
bc sentiment. Now, when was a rebellion ever known to
cherish feelings favorable to the strict execution of law upon
treason? The instinctive workings of rebel mind, deep,
latent, unconscious, incessant, mighty, are all toward self-
exculpation, the crimination of the Divine government, and
tbe denial of his right to doom traitors to the second death.
But aU these causes are enhanced and skilfully wielded
by the presiding intellect of the rebellion.
As the rebeUion in this land has a presiding intellect of
great power, that wields all the resources of the revolted
States with consummate abihty, so in the great rebeUion
against God there is a presiding mtelbgence of great power
that wields all the resources of visible and mvisible revolted
orders, accordmg to a connected plan, with astonishmg
power. He knows full well that the next step in the Divine cam
paign is to be his dislodgement from control of pubbc senti
ment in this world for a thousand years, — a development
entirely distinct from bis final and eternal doom, a develop
ment to be brought about by the Holy Spirit, convincing
the world of judgment. Against that result he energizes
with aU his power, taking advantage of all such elements
of the common bebef of Christendom as serve his purpose,
and using them to form a deceived pubbc sentiment, and
set it flowing in wrong channels.
It is this cause in which aU other causes combine and
reach their height. It is the rebeUion in its chiefs, in its
master minds, in its presiding intelligence, energizing to
prevent the Holy Spirit fi-om convincing the world of sin, of
justification through Christ alone, and of eternal judgment.
From aU these causes combined, it is not surprising that
there is a wide-spread antipathy against eternal judgment,

334 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
and a growing hostibty to the inspiration of that book that
teaches it. The wonder is, that, with the rebel version of
the controversy generally conceded on the part of tbe loyal,
Christianity has been able to survive even in name, and the
Bible to retain its hold on the public mind as the Word of
God. So long as the chiefs of the Conspiracy of Ages can
palm off then* fictions for facts, their outrageous impostures
for authentic history, so long they •will deceive the whole
race into alliance with its hereditary foes and oppressors,
and into desperate resistance to its hereditary King and
i Redeemer. But let the Holy 4 Spirit disclose the Divine version
of the facts from the beginning, — let Lucifer's history,
character, principles, and aims be correctly revealed and
appreciated by mankind, — and the public sentiment of the
world will veer round. The war will thenceforth be a
war of races as well as of principles, with a more definite
knowledge of both. The exiled race of man, under Christ
its legitimate Head and Redeemer, wUl become a unit
against their hereditary tyrants and oppressors, the original
angelic dynasty of the universe under Lucifer their chief.
And when the moral sense of the race is sufficiently en
lightened to sustain the Divine government in the execution
of the penalties of treason upon Satan and the fallen angels,
much more will it be enabled to sustain it. in executing
those penalties upon such of the human race as have de
serted from their own ¦ standard, gone over to their heredi
tary tyrant, and made war against their own Redeemer.
When the Sphit of God shall have finaUy convinced the
world of judgment because the prince of this world is
judged, when those who have become identified with him
shall wake from the grave, they will wake to shame and
everlasting contempt. Nor will one chord of sympathy
vibrate in their favor, when the voice of Christ is heard say
ing unto .them, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire
prepared for the DevU and bis angels ! "

CHAPTER XXV.
THE VIAL ON THE AIR.
" It is done." — Rev. xvi. 17.
THESE are the words John hears bursting forth from
the throne of God, when the seventh vial is poured
out. • Let us endeavor to bring before our minds the scene as
described. Previous vials have affected parts of the
visible system, — earth, sea, river, sun, throne of beast,
Euphrates, — this strikes what ' is more universal, the
atmosphere. ¦ From our heavenly stand-point, we look down on the
earth through the crystal depths of an aerial sea. - One
moment this sea is transparent and serene, bathing the
wide landscape in amber and gold ; the next, clear round
the world, it is blazing with lightning, reverberating with
thunders and mysterious voices, and at the same time the
entire surface of the globe is seen heaving with earth
quake. The ground opens under Babylon, dividing it in
three parts, which reel and tumble into tbe yawning chasm.
AU over the expanse cities are seen falling, mountain
chains everywhere are sinking down, and islands en
gulfed in the raging ocean ; and from above, all over the
world, a great hail-storm is seen descending, every stone
one hundred pounds weight, crashing through and shatter
ing to pieces whatever is exposed to their fury. Those
who have received the mark of the beast are seen perish
ing in great numbers, and in imminent peril, yet impeni
tent still,' and blaspheming God because of the hail. x

336 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
Such is the vision. What, then, is the import? In
general, the analogy is as follows. As a change in the
air such as to shatter the crust of tbe globe would be to
all works of man on the surface, so an analogous change
shall pass upon the atmosphere of human thought, revolu
tionizing society from its foundations, and demolishing all
existing civil and ecclesiastical despotisms.
Thus viewed, it is the climax of the vials, just after a
hush of expectation, such as precedes the earthquake.
Under previous vials, we have seen the age of revolution
ary tendencies, popular soreness, revenge, sanguinary
views, a gradual approach of God raising the moral tem
perature to equatorial heat, the reaction of the fundamental
principles of selfish society to shut off his beams, the drying
up of sources of spiritual despotism, and a final rally of
the mind of the race to meet the coming shock.
And now the voice from the throne says, " It is done."
The effect, whatever it is, on human thought takes place,
¦and the result is a revolution, not of one nation or country,
but substantially universal, coextensive with the race. It
is the final crisis in the world's thought. It is the decisive
stroke in the grand moral war. It ends the campaign.
God sajps, " It is done." It is quick, vivid, and accom
panies by all the indications of intensely excited and
explosive emotion, of the highest grade, voices, and thun
ders, and lightnings.
It is, moreover, not a conservative revolution, but a
destructive one. That is, the crisis is presented, not in
its conservative aspects, though it has them, but exclusively
in its destructive. It is ecclesiastical and civil despotism
that is to be dealt with. It is the cup of the wine of the
fierceness of God's wrath that is administered.
Twice before, once under the sixth seal, and again
under the seventh trumpet, have the visions conducted us
onward to this same crisis, described with symbols of sub-

THE VIAL ON THE AIR. 337
stantially similar import; and' yet, again, in succeeding
chapters, with more ample detail is the same crisis held
up. Four times, in separate and independent series, we
are brought down to this grand crisis, the end of one age,
the beginning of a new. Or if by the term the world
we denote all that is selfish and corrupt in society, the
total of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, then it is the
end of the world, and introduction of millennial day.
Thus far all is general and probably undisputed.
Let us, then, endeavor to attain a somewhat more
specific conception of this crisis. And we remark, first,
that there are social structures which cannot be reformed.
There is in them so much that is false and selfish, that to
reform would be to destroy them.
When the Israelites went into Canaan, they found a^
species of leprosy that infected even houses of brick and
stone. And when, after due cleansing, that plague in the
waUs, with its greenish or reddish streaks, was pronounced
by the priest incurable, the house had to be torn down,
and tbe stones, timber, and mortar carried out of the city
to an unclean place. So there are houses built by vio
lence, and cemented by blood, in whose very stones and
mortar lurks the plague of falsehood and selfishness so
deeply that there is no cure but demolition and disinte
gration. This principle was illustrated in some degree at the
deluo-e, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and
siege of Jerusalem, which are all used by the Spirit as
specimens or types of this last crisis under the seventh
vial. How can the caste system of India ever be reformed ?
How can pagan civil and religious society ever be reor-%
ganized without first being taken wholly to pieces ? The
plague is in the very walls, and in every stone, and the.
cement is saturated. So with such a system as the Papacy,
15 v

338 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
What reform is even conceivable which must not amount
to a total disintegration ? So with the immense civil des
potisms of Europe. Reform them, according to the Divine
idea of truth and goodness, what would be left?
So with commerce. Suppose business, suddenly re
formed on the basis of tbe golden rule, would not the
property of the globe change hands? Would not some
lucrative branches utterly disappear? Would not what
was left unmodified be a part here, a part there ? In
short, would not the great commercial Vanity Fair be laid
in heaps ?
It needs no particular keenness of vision to see that
the world is built over with structures that cannot be
reformed but by a previous process of dissolution and
disorganization. And it is this, on the great scale, that is
pictured in the vision. Babylon can never be patched up
and mended into the New Jerusalem. It must be de
molished, and the New Jerusalem take its place.
Now the atmosphere of thought of these systems is the
same in all ages and countries, just as the natural air is
the same to all nations, in all parts of the earth. These
systems stand in the atmosphere of selfish and corrupt
human thought, as spires and turrets in the air of heaven.
And in this thought-atmosphere Lucifer finds his con
genial home, his intrenched fortress. Hence, Eph. ii. 2,
he is called the prince of the power of the air, energizing in
the hearts of the children of disobedience, and the course
of this world, or this age, is said to flow according to him.
All who commit sin are of him, his servants, his goods, his
subjects, in his kingdom. Paul calls him "the god of
this world," and names him, with his confederates, cosmoc-
racy, or world-government.
Now it is Lucifer and his associates, thus at home in the
atmosphere of human thought, who are the real architects
of those structures of which we have just spoken, that can-

THE VIAL ON THE AIR. 339
not be reformed without being destroyed, — such as the
papacy and civil despotisms. No one mind or generation
builds them. They are the slow growth of centuries, and
yet they exhibit marks of design and contrivance, as much
as a watch or a world. And the designer was one who lived
on while generations rose and fell, worked by a plan of
his own, subtly philosophical, but evil, seizing hold of all
advantages as they rose, and using men as his materials.
This is shadowed by the Dragon giving throne and
power and authority to the Beast. ' That is, unseen
satanic agents giving intellectual and moral sway to civil
despotism. They speak through the false prophet, that is,
make worldly ministers their special mouth-piece in found
ing ecclesiastical despotisms. By means of these organ
izations Lucifer fortifies himself in the control of society,
and intrenches himself against all attempts to dislodge
him. This of course implies that he knows a movement is on
foot to dislodge him. He knows it, although he does his best
to conceal it from public attention. He knows that, since
Eden, God has threatened to bruise the serpent's head. He
knows, since Christ's resurrection, the terrible power of his
attack, which has already hemmed him in upon this Water
loo world. And, as the emblems evidently show, he fore
sees the decisive battle, and makes desperate efforts to rally
his forces and hold his ground in the intellectual, scientific,
political, and religious atmosphere of the world.
It is easy, then, to see what change in the atmosphere of
human thought is meant, in consequence of which all selfish
structures are demobshed.
It is, that God should reveal fully in the sphere of human
thought the facts in regard to Satan, and tbe Divine judg
ment, and emotions on those facts. This involves certainty
as to the existence and agency of Satan. There is to be a
revelation of Satan, as weU as a revelation of God, and one

340 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
in order to the other. God cannot reveal his righteous
judgment concerning the whole kingdom of Satan without
first reveabng the fact of Satan's existence, and the main
facts of bis history.
" Then," says Paul, " shall that lawless one be revealed."
And so vivid is that revelation to be, that some have even
taken the impression that it was to be an actual incarnation.
At least, Satan wiU stand forth to human thought with
as great a reality as incarnation could give him, and the
main facts of his career will be correctly revealed to hurnan
intelligence, and the emotions of God on the same brought
home to human consciousness.
This revelation of tbe righteous judgment of God could
not be made till the preparations for it were complete. It
was necessary that multitudes should be redeemed against
majorities. It was necessary Christ should prove the gen
uineness of his people's repentance by securing it under
circumstances the most disadvantageous. It was necessary
Lucifer should be unable to say he had not had a fair
chance to test the sincerity of their return to loyalty. It
was necessary that he should have time and scope and
majorities, and that he should fortify and entrench himself
by organizations to the utmost. It was necessary that there
should be a long-continued and most wonderful forbearance
on the part of God, a suspension of the full expression of
bis infinite ideas and emotions, as he says in the fiftieth
Psalm, " These things hast thou done, and I kept silence."
Nevertheless, from the beginning of the world there have
been intimations of a day when this reserve would end.
The prophets all look forward to it in connection with vari
ous crises of providential judgments, e. g. on Sodom, Baby
lon, and Jerusalem, which they use as specimens or types.
It is called " that day," " tbe day of the Lord," " the day
of God," " the day," " day of the revelation of the right
eous judgment of God," " day of his redeemed," " day of
vengeance," " day of wrath," and tbe like.

THE VIAL ON THE AIR. '341
Then great Babylon comes in remembrance before Godi,
to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of
his wrath. Before, it seemed as if God had forgotten.
He acted, to human view, as if he had. He gave no fuU
and unequivocal utterance to his emotions. Now such
self-restraint ceases; now he acts as if he had just re
membered, that is, he gives full expression, in the sphere
of human thought, to his views and feelings concerning
Babylon. Let us endeavor, then, to conceive of this revelation and
its effects. Let us suppose each individual of the human
race to have no more doubt of Lucifer's existence than of
his own. Let us suppose aU rebel bes swept away, and
the Divine version of his history seen by each eye as clear
as day.
God made Lucifer noble and nobly endowed. He gave
him a high and responsible position. He asked of him
nothing unreasonable. AU be wished was, that he should
administer the trust confided to him in a spirit of meekness
and devotion to the general welfare and the glory of God.
But Lucifer abode not in the truth. In the exercise of his
own autocracy of free wUl he created a new kingdom of
bes and selfishness, which is virtual murder.
When aberration first commenced, God was not abrupt
and impatient. He exhibited tbe same forbearance and
long-suffering that he now exhibits to aU sinners. He used
aU means consistent with self-respect to prevent a final rup
ture, and those results of disorganization and conflict which
must ensue. It was in vain. Lucifer persisted in his un
reasonable course, and changed the empire intrusted to
him into a despotism.
It became necessary to displace him, and those who sym
pathized with him, and appoint others to succeed in their
stead after a due season of probation and preparation for the
change. That season of preparation Lucifer employed in

342 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
corrupting and betraying in the most perfidious manner
those thus anointed in his room, and securing their expul
sion from heaven.
At this point the mediatorial system arose. A sacrifice
was appointed, and a Redeemer provided for the banished
race, and the mighty drama of redemption began to unfold.
Then come the campaigns of earthly history summed up
in one sentence, " Enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed." Lucifer takes pos
session of the atmosphere of human thought from the first.
He founds collossal empires, Titanic, Egyptian, Assyrian,
Persian, Roman, Germanic. He arrays these hke wild
beasts against private judgment and hberty of conscience.
At the same time he corrupts the Church by flattery and
worldly joys. Thus, by alternate intimidation and seduc
tion, he reduces to extremities the few who remain loyal.
Among these appears the Son of God, a sacrifice for the
royal order. Lucifer crucifies him, and is himself cast
down the first stage of descent in consequence. His sway
over public sentiment of other worlds than this terminated.
Here his power is intensified. He builds tbe papacy. He
intrenches himself by all those organizations to which we
have referred, in his possession of the atmosphere of human
thought. He perpetrates the most unheard-of atrocities and
enormities. He parodies the history of the universe, traves
ties the fall, burlesques the atonement, slanders God, throws
ths blame of the revolt and of sin on him, paints him in
diabolic colors, puts his own false and malignant character
'into the theological temple and calls it God, dresses up a
filthy harlot, drunk with blood, and calls her bride of God,
object of his special affection.
Thus, for centuries, he exhausts the possibUities of lan
guage and action to express his hatred, contempt, and loath
ing. He alternately intimidates and debauches the objects
of his vengeance, because the heirs of glory. In every

THE VIAL ON THE AIR. 343
way he tries to cajole and deceive them, put them in false
and ridiculous positions, commit them to the most abomina
ble errors, intoxicate them with flatteries, and madden them
with carnal ebxirs, or rend and tear them, and trample
them mangled in the mire.
These things be has done, and God has kept silence.
But be has seen it aU. He has felt it aU. He has not for
gotten one iota of it. And when the proper moment
comes, he knows how to blaze it out before human thought
as it is before his own, and reveal to human consciousness
tbe fuU sense of bis bving indignation.
And what, then, must be the effect ? It is the instant
drawing of the bnes, — the good, and those who mean to
be good, on one side, and those who do not mean to repent
on tbe other. And this is equivalent to instant disorganiza
tion to all mixed systems composed of good and bad.
Tbe chief strength of Lucifer has lain in the art with
which he could involve partially sanctified men in corrupt
movements, and identify them with selfish institutions.
That is the way the papacy gained and keeps its great
power. That is the secret of the longevity of slavery.
That is why civU despotisms bear such a charmed life. It
is because no human mind possesses adequate discriminative
power to make bead agamst Lucifer's blending of good and
evU. It is his amazing skill in employing the conservative
element of good men in evU systems, that those systems
are so invulnerable.
But the instant effect of the full revelation of God's view
of facts concerning Lucifer would be to draw all good men
to his side. And this would be bke drawing the naUs and
pins and braces out of a vast edifice. It would coU^pse.
Or, bke suddenly extracting tbe keystone from every arch
supporting an immense temple, it would crush down in
ruins. Let this take place, and the lines are drawn, the good all

344 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
on one side, and the bad on the other, and there is instant
-shock of battle. There can then be a fair fight, with noth
ing to break the force of Divine logic. There wUl be no
bad men on the good side to nbreak the force of example.
There wUl be no good men on the bad side to lend respect-
abibty to evU.
"Christians will no more be sundered by mistakes and
misconceptions, and turn their arms against each other ; no
more time and strength will be wasted in terrible fratricidal
combats ; for tbe Christian fights with desperation when he
does fight, — he never gives up, never knows when he is
beaten ; and hence, when Christians turn their weapons
against each other, the shock of battle is dreadful and tbe
conflict inveterate.
In the mistakes and divisions of Christians in their feuds
¦and dire conflicts with each other, one great secret of
Satan's safety and strength has lain. The moment that
ceases to be possible, — the moment God's righteous judg
ment is so revealed that aU who are of God are a unit, —
that moment the Waterloo battle is joined, the battle of
tbe great day of God Almighty.
Then, indeed, earth quakes. Then there are voices and
thunders and lightnings. Then logical arguments go crash
ing through the gloomy structures of despotism, and the
baU-stones of Divine wrath sweep away the refuges of lies.
Then the voice from the throne proclaims, " It is done ! "
The campaign is closed. The hosts have been fairly raL-
lied in battle array. The shock of conflict has come.
The enemy's centre has been broken. The army is annihi
lated. The war of ages is over.
WeU is the t>ook whence our subject is chosen called
Revelation, for it reveals. It casts a revealing radiance,
clear and strong, on life and all that it contains.
Not that our interpretation is infallible, or that of any
man. Mistake must, doubtless, be largely mixed with it,

THE VIAL ON THE AIR. 345
as with everything human. But that, in spite of mistakes,
there is such an approximation to the Divine idea as to
throw a flood of bght over an otherwise gloomy and chaotic
world. There are many that treat this book as if its name Were
concealment. There are those that ridicule every attempt
to understand it. One would imagine they thought it
God's book of puzzles. One would suppose they read the
benediction at the opening, Blessed be be that despises, and
they that scorn to hear the words of the prophecy of this
book. We cannot thank such people. We cannot accept
their offices as friendly, however well meant. We can
conceive of nothing more dark and gloomy than this world
would be without prophecy shining as a light in a dark
place. A world full of dungeons and bastiles, a world of
wars and fightings, plagues and pestUences, a Golgotha, a
vaUey of the shadow of death !
Without the Bible, and especially without the prophetic
portions, what omens are ours! To what could we think
ourselves coming ? And before us what could we discover
but wars and rumors of wars, and trouble such as was not
since God cijeated man on earth, distress of nations, the sea
and waves roaring, and men's hearts failing them for fear,
and for looking for those things that are coming on the
earth. But the Bible, and especially the Book of Revelation,
pours a flood of bght all oyer the near future.
It forbids us to expect tbe final peace without intervening
revolution and commotion. It puts us on our guard, fore
warns and forearms us. It makes us know that there
is to be an evU day, defends us against delusive expecta
tions, and enables us to stand in the evil day, and then
opens before us an end.
There is an end. There is a denouement. There is a
climax. Houses buUt by iniquity and cemented in blood
15*

346 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
are to be all torn down, and the beams, mortar, and tim
bers carried out to an unclean place. Society is to be
" rebuilt, and the New Jerusalem is the ideal. There is to
be a decisive battle, not eternal guerilla skirmishing. There
is to be, and that soon, a battle of the great day of God
Almighty. Then the forces of civil and ecclesiastical despotism are
utterly defeated, routed, crushed, destroyed. The DevU is
chained, and, for the first time, incarcerated to deceive the
nations no more for a thousand years. Earth is purified by
the same logical and moral developments by which heaven
was purified at the resurrection of Christ. The cosmocracy
of hostile spirits — - the original angelic dynasty — has passed
away, the air is purged of their baleful and corrupting
presence. The principles and ideas of Christ are in the
ascendant, and the influences of his remedial system for
the first time developed in ideal perfection without being
alloyed, corrupted, or neutrabzed. Generation after gen
eration of beauteous and healthful children arise under
institutions wisely and benevolently organized and spirit
ually administered. Health, vigor, purity, prevail. Sick
ness and death cease to reign. Want is unknown. Science
is immensely stimulated, and art perfected. The spiritual
and ideal in man becomes predominant over the material
and sensuous. Men at length breathe the air of freedom.
CivU and rebgious liberty proves a sweet and exalted reality.
All the more debcate aspirations and sensitive yearnings
of the soul expand without fear. The roses of the heart
bloom in a summer that fears no frost. Mortals, grown
heavenly, welcome to their society bright visitants of higher
spheres, and the mountain-tops are often flashing with the
radiance of celestial wings. The kingdoms of this world
are then become the kingdoms of Christ. Nations are no
longer bestial and brutal. They learn war no more. They
are what we have never seen, — humane, just, generous,

THE VIAL ON THE AIR. 347
spiritual. And in that thousand years, the race, as a race
sitting clothed and in its right mind at Jesus' feet, shall
be healed of its wounds, purged from its stains, and tri
umphantly qualified to resume, under better auspices, and
carry out to final accomplishment, the interrupted and
long-suspended plan of union to Christ in the headship of
universal empire.

CHAPTER XXVI.
UNIVERSAL PRAISE.
" All nations shall come and worship before thee, for tht judg
ments ARE MADE MANIFEST." — ReV. XV. 4.
A TIME is here, brought to view when the thoughts
of mankind shall have undergone a great change.
Their attention will be absorbed in God. In Him they
will perceive qualities more enrapturing than all they had
ever known. Praise will be tbe natural result. Even in
the moment of his fiercest wrath, a sense of holy beauty
and divine comeliness will take possession of their breast.
And in the intensity of the general feeling, a spontaneous
burst of wonder, admiration, and love will fill the sky. In
reflecting on that worship, we observe, —
1. It is an intelligent worship, based upon a full knowl
edge of the character of God, as revealed in his actions,
not merely of one side, namely, as of pity revealed in acts
of mercy, but equally of the other side, of wrath revealed
¦in acts of judgment. Indeed, it is the outpouring of those
vials in which is filled up the wrath of God that constitutes
the immediate occasion ofthe outburst. " Great and mar
vellous are thy works ! Just and true are thy ways ! Thou
only art holy ! Thy judgments are made manifest ! " It
is because of this stupendous vindication or* himself that
all nations are represented as coming and worshipping be
fore him.
Previous to that crisis the Divine indignation has been
withheld, while ' His works have been maligned, his ways
questioned as neither just nor true, his very character

UNIVERSAL PRAISE.

349

irnpeached as not absolutely holy. Usurping powers have
assumed His place, and mankind have been portrayed, in
the vivid emblems of the visionary scene, as worshipping a
wUd beast, and receiving the mark of that blasphemous ser
vice upon their forehead and their hand, while the few who
have clung to his true worship have been represented as the
objects of the fury of the destroyer. As regards the ma
jority of the race, the public mind has been obscured and
the public judgment bewUdered by Satanic deceptions.
As a consequence, worship would become formal. Praise
would consist in the ascription to God of qualities he ought,
rather than those he seemed, to possess. Truth, justice,
and love would of course be nominally ascribed to him,
while his deeds would appear to the shuddering worshipper
at variance with those traits. Such, all history shows, has
been the case with the vast majority of men. Shut up
under false representations of God, they havevbeen forbid
den even to think of calling those representations in ques
tion. The very intuitions of their souls have been set
aside, the eternal principles of right and wrong summarily
repealed, and they prohibited from judging of the alleged
courses of the Divine procedure. Supposing them to be
in reabty facts in the Divine administration, and feeling
a shuddering consciousness of their real injustice, cruelty,
and falsehood, men have rebuked their own minds. Let
me not dare, they have said, to question. My reason is
fallacious. My conscience is invalid. My standard of
right and wrong is deceptive. The intuitions of my mind,
however deep, however sacred, however universal to all
ages, climes, and kindred, are not correct when applied to
the Infinite.' Therefore let me veil the eye, nor dare
examine my Maker's conduct ; let me bow and adore in
bbnd acquiescence.
Thus, too generally, praise has been obliged to take for
granted a goodness it could not see, to celebrate as genuine

350 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
a truth and honor it could not identify. Praise under such
circumstances, of necessity, became formal and hypocritical.
The suitor who compliments the rich heiress with charms
she does not possess flatters, but does not truly praise. The
inferior who seeks emolument and influence by attribut
ing to his superiors unreal virtues, is a sycophantic slave.
Praise means what it says. Adulation laughs while it in
sidiously flatters. Such is the distinction men draw in
their treatment of each other. Such in principle is the
distinction God has drawn in their worship of him. Just
in proportion as God's truth and justice are not seen by
the mind, just in that proportion does the ascription of
them to him in solemn words become a lying mockery,
exciting his deepest displeasure.
On the other hand, in proportion as his real character is
discerned, whether in the world of nature or of grace, and
intelligently adored, just in that proportion is praise a de
light, a fragrant incense, before his throne. The husband
man in the field, who learns to trace the surpassing skill and-7
beauty of an ever-present God, can praise him at the plough.
The student of history, who sees him benevolently presiding
over the changes of nations, can adore him in his literary
toils. Especially as the scheme of redemption is opened,
and the deep things of God are revealed to us by his spirit,
may we even now say, " I wUl praise Thee with joyful lips ;
I will sing praise unto Thee whUe I have any being ! "
How much more, tben, in that day of the full revelation
of his righteous judgment ! No more then shall the blind
lead the blind, and both fall into the ditch. No more shall
bars with consciences seared as with a hot iron deceive the
world. No more shall destroyers destroy, tread down, and
lay waste the fair heritage of God. On such the vials of his
wrath will be poured, and that wrath will give rest to the
mind and heart of his saints. Then when the haU beats
down the refuges of lies; then when omnipotent ven-

UNIVERSAL PRAISE. 351
geance shows who is to blame, and what God really thinks
of the despotisms of ages ; then when there is nothing hid
that is not revealed, nothing covered that does not come
abroad, when all Satan's lies are detected, and every act of
•God's administration vindicated from aspersion ; then it is
that the nations, astonished, lift up their souls to God, and
say, " Thy judgments are made manifest." Then, in a
manner wholly unprecedented, shaU praise become a pub
lic institution. Then nations shall be regenerated, a nation
in a day. Then tbe whole family of man, of every kindred,
people, and tongue, shall say, " Thou only art holy ! "
2. Another characteristic of true praise is joyful fervor.
This is the natural result of sincerity and intelligent con
viction. Insincerity is cold. Sycophantic praise is bke
frost to the heart. The atmosphere of society, where men
falsely praise each other for interested ends, is wintry and
bleak. And if from man they transfer the same habits
to God, — if they address to him what must appear to him
bttle better than heartless flattery and unmeaning com
pliment, — their praise becomes joyless. An air of cold
restraint palls their assemblies with gloom. But a meet
ing of Christians ought to be, of all places on earth, lively
and cheerful. A circle of redeemed pilgrims, forgiven,
bound for heaven, met to speak of the love that ransomed
them, ought to be a burning focus of light and heat ; and
so, in proportion as worship becomes genuine, it will be.
The emotions we are capacitated to feel toward God are
the deepest in our nature. Where fully developed and
kindled towards their object, they burn with a vehement
flame. Nor is the object of those feelings inaccessible. In
Christ they find their object. He is Emmanuel, God with
us. Those sentiments which would be diffused and lost, if
we went out after Infinite Spirit, are concentred and con
densed upon Jesus. About God, thus winningly embodied,

352 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
every attraction clusters. Our fears are disarmed, our mis
conceptions corrected, our alienation and distrust reconciled
and obliterated. All Satanic slanders of the blessed God
are seen to be false ; for if this be He, — if this Jesus be
very God, — then not one of those hard things he has
alleged can be true. We look at His whole life : it is a
chain of benefactions. We regard his teachings : they are
simple, intelligible, and adapted to the plainest comprehen
sions. If these are God's thoughts, then we see how and
why God's thoughts are not as our thoughts, because they
are so pure and clear and transparent, while ours are so
confused and darkened. We contemplate His Spirit : there
is not a trace of superciliousness ; no pride offends us, no
haughtiness bears us down ; we detect not the slightest
flavor of arrogance ; there is no stiffness, no reserve, noth
ing said or done for effect ; all is natural, easy, gentle, open,
affectionate. If this be very God, — if from this flower
the very aroma of heaven exhales, — then we know with
absolute certainty that the very different character of God
which Satanic philosophy has set forth is not true. No
matter whether we can philosophize about it or not, —
whether we can in words demonstrate its falsehood, — we
know it, as we know a counterfeit by the side of a genuine
work of beauty ; as we know a real fruit of autumn from
a waxen imitation ; as we know a living, breathing: body
of a dear friend from a ghastly corpse, from whence every
trace of life's glory is fled.
Above all, we look at Christ's whole Career of temptation
and resistance ; of subjection to law and obedience ; of trial
and endurance ; of atoning sufferings and resurrection ; and
we say, If this be very GoA, then we know that all the
specious impeachments of his goodness are fabrications.
We know that all acts of fraud ascribed to him are lies ;
that all acts of injustice represented as his are unreal,
never done by him ; that all courses of policy, all plans,

UNIVERSAL PRAISE. 353
arrangements, providences, constitutions, dispensations, vio
lative of simple fairness and affection, are utterly forged and
fabricated by the Father of lies. We know it as certainly
as we know the sun when it rises, — as certainly as chil
dren know their father when he enters the room, or their
mother, as she kneels by their bedside to teach them their
infant prayers.
And in proportion as the stupendous forgeries and frauds
of Satan roll off, and drift like the mists of morning before
the rising sun, in that proportion do our deep fountains of
honorable feeling begin to be unsealed. If this be God,
we say, then I am a sinner ; there can be no mistaking that.
There is no object in concealment, no dishonor in the
avowal. Nay, if this be the holiness of my God, this
which I see in Jesus, this most lovely sight my eyes ever
beheld, — if this be the quality of infinite goodness, why,
then, it is what I want ; this is the kind of holiness I can
worship ; and I can with entire freedom and sweet self-
abandonment say it is something far purer than I possess.
0 yes ! If this be the holiness of the bving God, I can
fall at bis feet, and confess that I have been dead in tres
passes and sins ; for such a life of exalted goodness I have
not led ; such matchless magnanimity was never mine, or,
if it was, I have lost it, and the very memory of it is per
ished within me.
And while thus rejoicing to become as nothing in my
own esteem, deep fountains of emotion towards this new,
this wondrous, this blessed Being astonish me by bursting
forth within. These deep, soft, sweet, yet mysteriously
strong emotions, — whence come they ? Have I ever felt
them before ? Nothing earthly that I can remember is
like them ; and yet they have a strange, indescribable
fainUiarity of bliss, as if now, at last, I had come to myself
again, — now attained a second spiritual childhood, — now
faUen once more upon the bosom of my earliest friend.

354 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
When such emotions are dominant in the soul, praise
is as natural as breathing. Out of the abundance of the
heart the mouth speaketh. Childhood is loquacious of its
little toys, youth of its pleasures, manhood of its sterner
interests. But, ah ! when all idols are discarded for the
one new-found object of beauty ; when lighter flames are
quenched in the brightness of this consuming fire, and the
whole being is surrendered to Him who is chiefest among
ten thousand and altogether lovely, — then the tongue is
loosed indeed, and praise becomes the absorbing impulse
of existence. New forces reveal themselves within ; new
energies force their way out of deep, imprisoned recesses.
Men are no longer barren, coarse, brutal, destitute of ideas,
bound down, and base. The fountains of the great deep
are broken up ; floods rise from below. They discover
the greatness of their own being, the grandeur of their
own powers ; God, who made them great, has made them
great again ; God, who placed in them powers and ener
gies, in comparison with which a world is dust, has un
locked those energies, broken down the prison doors, and
brought them forth from thraldom ; and they find them
selves able to praise God after another sort from what they
ever supposed. One man fully redeemed of God develops
the moral energy of a thousand sunk in sin. One shall
chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.
And when, not in one here and another there, such work
is wrought, but when in each and all ; when the fathers
and the mothers, the sons and the daughters, when churches
and communities, shall be seized with the glad surprise, —
shall feel the august rushing of the mighty wind, — then
indeed will praise to God be developed on a scale unknown
before on earth. The world shall be filled with the knowl
edge of God as the waters cover the deep. As the mighty
tides of the emerald sea fib the vast valleys of the Atlantic,
and bathe the submerged mountains, with all their marine

UNIVERSAL PRAISE. 355
forests and secret hiding-places of strange things, so, like
another ocean, shall the knowledge of God overleap the
mountain-tops of society, fill every vale and dark recess,
submerge the mountains, with all their waving pride, and
dash with sparkling crests of fire against the sky. Of all
the millions that people the globe, not one will hide from
the face of God in Christ, not one wish to be excused, but
all, from least to greatest, unite in saying, " Great and mar
vellous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty ! just and
true are thy ways, thou King of saints ! Thou only art
holy ! thy judgments are made manifest ! "
In the light of this discussion we may discover why our
worship of God is so faint and low. The real character of
God, his real acts, are so glorious, that, if we do not tend
strongly to praise, it is certain that they are hid from us.
Either sin hides them, — a fixed, inveterate indulgence in
known sin, by which we shut our eye on God, and will not
see him, — or else some mistake of our own, or some contri
vance of the enemy, has shut him out from the view. One
or both, usually both, are true, when praise is not spontane
ous and vital. Whatever in our life indisposes us to praise
God, is sin. Whatever in our belief chills our worship, is
false. Have you either a practice or a creed which dulls
the edge of devotion, which you suppose to be true, but
which yet always depresses you, and fills you with apa
thetic gloom, then such practice is sinful and such creed a
delusion ! By their fruits ye shall know them. It is not
the life of God nor the truth of God. It is part of that
dark cloud of forgery and lies with which Satan has de
ceived the nations.
We discover, moreover, the true method of perfecting
praise. We are to perfect knowledge. We are to grow in
the knowledge of God. Taking Jesus as the beginning
and end, we are to found the whole system of our thoughts
upon him. If we would study nature, and the chain of

356 REDEEMER AND REDEEMED.
arts and sciences, we are to study them in the light of the
Cross. In proportion as we investigate the. laws of the
material system, in this light will every part grow clearer.
And as one mystery after another is unfolded, — as one dis
closure after another of hidden wisdom is effected, — we
rise to increasing heights of praise.
So we are to study human history and the great princi
ples of revealed religion.- So the first principles and the
higher truths of Christianity. Theology will thus be to us
an ever advancing path of light. And while we leave the
things behind, and press on to new discoveries, it will be
our stimulus, not our discouragement, that we can never
find out the Almighty unto perfection ; that, while contin
ually finding him out in stage after stage of knowledge,
degree above degree in attainment, we know for our con
solation that there is an infinite store of riches beyond,
which all eternity cannot impoverish nor exhaust.
Suffer me, then, to incite you betimes to engage in the
true worship of God. If sin hide him from you, forsake
sin by repentance and turning to God. If mistake hide
him, abandon mistake. Cast aside every weight, every
easily besetting sin. Look unto Jesus, author and finisher
of faith. Have you unsettled and vague notions in refer
ence to the Bible ? Let them speedily become settled.
Have you sceptical doubts and difficulties ? Let them be
resolved. Do parts of the Christian scheme appear repug
nant to reason and right ? Discover your mistake, for you
have not rightly apprehended that scheme. There are no
parts which are not easily reconcilable with the simplest
principles of common sense. Of course you will not un
derstand me to say, that the scope of the system does not
reach out into the unknown, and take in future consequen
ces which we cannot measure. You will not suppose me
to imply, that much of past history is not concealed from
us; Far be it from us to affect infaUibility or omniscience

UNIVERSAL PRAISE. 357
in regard to things unrevealed ; but it is in reference to
things revealed that you will understand me to say, that
they contain no part or portion repugnant to right reason,
and that cannot be reconciled to the common sense of a
child. Seek, then, for settled and satisfactory views of the
Word of God and the Christian economy, and be sure that
you never have found them so long as praise is a stranger
to your heart.
And while cherishing the outward means of worship,
endeavor to complete and crown the whole by a bfe of
praise. Tbe highest praise you can render to a man is to
embrace his views, yield to his requests, imitate his exam
ple, and promote his interests. So it is the highest form
of praise to God when we yield our bodies and spirits
bving sacrifices to Christ, when we learn of him what to
believe, when we imbibe bis spirit and principles, when we
strive to promote his interests. This is unspoken worship ;
but O bow eloquent ! It speaks louder than words. It
reflects on men the glory of the Saviour when his image
is formed in us. When we breathe his spirit, men take
knowledge of us that we have been with Jesus. S<^let us
worship him, and soon the day wib come when all the earth
wUl join and own him Lord. \

THE END.

Cambridge : Stereotyped and Printed by "Welch, Bigelow, & Co.

7526

%

I

¦;¦
:¦;:¦
'¦'.
;->k